How can something as important as the ability to avoid a conflict in sensors be even remotely considered an “upgrade?” Also, it was DISABLED; meaning it was there, they just can’t use it without paying the ransom fee. WTF?
Capitalism: working as intended.
No. Sorry, but no. This is like if you bought a car that required you to pay for the “steering while braking” feature. It shouldn’t have ever been an optional add-on safety feature. As presented, I see it as nothing but greed on the part of Boeing, if not outright extortion.
“You might not need it, but if you need it and don’t have it… I’m just saying, you have some really nice passengers here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to them.”
Per the post – if it can be taken at face value – these are features that were disabled, not that ones that weren’t installed. There’s a difference. I’ve been working in automotive advertising for over 20 years. The safety upgrades in cars have always rolled out this way (unless required by the government). They are added features/conveniences. Not integral. And as time and model years roll on, the most sought features become standard.
Like trim levels on a car. But, again, when buying the car you can make the informed decision on whether those features are worth the extra cost. As a passenger boarding the plane, you have no idea if the airline you are flying skimped on “optional” safety features. I’ll bet it will be at the forefront of more passengers’ minds… until the next distraction arises.
I’m just glad I’m not required to fly on a regular basis.
