The funny thing is that this (bad) take is correct as written -- it is heavily scrutinized.
It's incorrect in the unsaid implication, that extreme scrutiny implies extreme safety.
It's incorrect in the unsaid implication, that extreme scrutiny implies extreme safety.
Also boeing is on thin ice. They would not weather another incident like this.
So in this case, I think it does mean extreme safety.
One would think so, if normal rules applied. But it is hard to see how the US would allow Boeing to not weather this, or any other event.
For defense reasons alone it seems unlikely they would ever allow Boeing to fail.
Defense will remain a segment, but instead of 25% of revenue of the company it’ll be 50-70%, with the the commercial segment nosediving