The cynics on here aren't just questioning the 'integrity' of companies such as Boeing and Rolls. For there to be any 'cover-up', those manufacturers would be forced to accept that the equipment was simply incapable of flying safely in the prevailing ambient conditions. If operated correctly, and after many millions of flight hours, I suspect that's a pretty unlikely scenario?
But then, money talks.
As for the 'old and bold' (read 'better!') versus 'magenta line' arguments. There are indeed very many traps awaiting the unwary in modern equipment. Apart from the most rudimentary of skills, there is a significant disconnect between what passed as acceptable in the 'halcyon days', and what is required of a modern airline pilot now. It's like comparing Stanley Matthews with Lionel Messi. There is no reason whatever to suggest that good and bad pilots occur in any different proportion these days, than ever they did. Modern pilots are simply the same people facing different problems. (For example ULH with perhaps less than one landing per month, and you'll be lucky if you can still fly like Chuck Yeager) Different coping strategies than simple 'practice', are required! To suggest anything else is just silly. Or pompous?
Last edited by 4468; 22nd Aug 2016 at 12:06.