> Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers.

> "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No."

If that quote was from 2018, then it’s from a year after FAA approval, not “long before” it.

I was criticising the reporting, not defending Boeing, and as you’ve kindly pointed out, the reporting is even more dubious than I had first thought.

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=Would+you+put+your+family+on... 2. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing...

I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘long before’, unless you somehow Switched what I was talking about - my point is exactly that the employees were discussing that they wouldn’t fly on it the year following the start of service. QED?

I wasn’t making any comments regarding Boeing’s culpability, I was specifically commenting on the quality of the OP article. As those quotes are presented in the NPR article, they lack sufficient context to communicate anything meaningful, and based on what you’ve posted, appear to be reported in a factually incorrect manner (they directly contradict the guardian reporting, so at least one of them must be incorrect).

Sorry for the amp reference.

At least another paper using 2018 as the source year for that same quote.

How the hell this single quote can, ‘without context’ lack enough punch to convey anything meaningful is just wrong. Your attempt at being even-handed here seems totally misguided. If I met you on the street I would immediately assume you’re massively long Boeing. What’s the point? There are no redeeming features from the whole MAX story - every month another piece of disasterous news comes out about the practices of this company and the culture that allowed this to happen