giosalinas

+1, found some good ideas here and there but that's it. For a "how to speak" lecture I was expecting a great speaker to present the ideas.

Well, El Al 1862 crashed anyways, isn't it? You can't compare losing 1/4 engines to 1/2 of the massive GE9X engines and center of mass will be off by a lot. There are several crashes related to weight imbalance (usually cargo bay) and there is a reason why there are several precautions regarding how to load a plane. We also have the 737-Max, that needs a counterbalance mechanism to make it work.

obviously not good if one falls off the plane????!! you are talking about major structural damage to the airplane, the center of mass will be completely off and the airplane will fall as hard as a rock.

Seems like you lack of understanding about aviation in general.

You know why Piper/Cessna airplanes look exactly the same and keep using 50 year old engines? because of safety.

You know why pilot spends 30min pre-checking the aircraft? safety

You know why getting a pilot license is magnitudes more work? safety

Everything in aviation works around safety. If you want to innovate, sure, go ahead. If you want to innovate and do it safety and reliable, oops, that's going to cost you a lot and that's the same reason why there are not many players in aviation, engineering an aircraft or new powerplant is a big up-front cost with probably little return.

This is very common, everyone is doing it, and it just for measure UX and understand pain points from users, that's all, nobody is fixated with your taps.

Aren't supersonic jets more affordable? - NO, end of story.