Editorial: Boeing crash, FAA delay test confidence | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Boeing crash, FAA delay test confidence

876735_web1_1135177343
Joe Raedle | Getty Images
FORT LAUDERDALE, - A Southwest Boeing 737 Max 8 enroute from Tampa prepares to land at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Monday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Boeing’s stock dropped after a second deadly crash involving the Boeing 737 Max 8, the newest version of its most popular jetliner.

Confidence is what makes transportation work.

We have confidence in painted lines on the road keeping lethally fast cars in their lanes. We have confidence that a bus will follow its route and get us where we need to go. And we have confidence in all of the dominoes that need to fall to make 70 tons or so of metal leave the ground, soar hundreds of miles and land safely again.

At least, we did. But with the United States standing behind the Boeing 737 Max 8 until every other country in the world lost faith, should we still be confident?

Two fatal crashes for a plane that has been flying less than two years is unsettling. That they came just five months apart is more alarming. At 346 victims, the death toll is higher than the 341 Max 8s in service, and that’s scary.

President Trump issued an emergency order grounding all Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft Wednesday, after Canada — the only other country still letting them fly after Sunday’s Ethiopian Airlines crash — closed its airspace to them.

The Federal Aviation Authority is known for seriousness. Plane crashes in the United States are a rarity, and when they do happen, they are more likely small craft, not large commercial vehicles.

Our confidence in the thousands of flights that come and go every day stems in large part from the meticulousness of an agency that doesn’t seem to believe in shortcuts or half-efforts. There are reasons why car travel is statistically more deadly than air travel, and diligent oversight is one of them.

And that is why America — where the Max 8 is made — should have been the first country to ground the planes, not the last. The FAA is all about abundance of caution. When flights containing up to 200 passengers are going into the air, caution is warranted. When they are flying over cities and towns and roads and schools, it is imperative.

We recall food that has nothing wrong with it just because an allergen warning isn’t listed. Why would we hesitate in keeping planes on the ground if people could die? When people have died?

Is it for bottom-line reasons? There could be nothing worse for Boeing than another crash. There could be nothing worse for Southwest, American and United airlines than passengers afraid of the planes they might board. Trump’s announcement could be the best thing for them all.

But everyone might have had more confidence if it had come earlier.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.