[hunterjrj]

> but the plane itself is salvageable.

You're probably right. From an engineering perspective.

Would you fly in a 737MAX post-fix? We have an engineering mindset here on HN and so I would expect many of us to answer "Yes". But ask this same question to the general public? How is Boeing going to repair the damage to both it's brand and this plane's reputation, and convince the general public to fly on this model?

[ulfw]

I wouldn't. That's because I DO have an engineering mindset. A bad platform with tons of hacks to make it work and a severe bug/wrong design hack that has been 'fixed' doesn't imply there isn't more of those we're just not aware of.

[tim333]

I probably would. I'm the kind who looks at the probabilities. I imagine by the time they've fixed this the plane will be pretty safe.

Just ripping out the MCAS and telling the pilots to push the nose down manually at high angles of attack would probably do it for me.

[jka]

It's possible Boeing would simply rename and rebrand the model, betting that many fliers wouldn't follow the change.

There seemed to be some evidence that they might take that approach based on a 737-MAX delivery to Ryanair earlier this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...

[trhway]

the insurers would probably play a significant role here - if insurance rates jump then the plane's profitability and thus airlines' usage of it may be affected.

[AlphaSite]

One one hand this is probably the most scrutinised plane of this generation, on the other hand its the wrong sort of attention... If they can convince people that the scrutiny is an asset, then maybe it will still be viable.

[CydeWeys]

More scrutiny doesn't help the fact that it's a shitty iteration on a decades out-of-date design, though. A modern airplane that's received less scrutiny is nevertheless still likely to be safer.