Well, ICAO rules establish who runs the investigation, namely the civil aviation authority of the state of occurrence. Other states (state of registry, operator, manufacture) might participate, or the state of occurrence might choose to delegate to them. But the official responsibility for the investigation lies with Indonesia for now.
I didn't say the statement wasn't factually accurate. It's just a little cold, throwing "thoughts and prayers" [1] in with a statement effectively saying don't call us, call someone else.
Yeah, and I didn't mean to imply that your summary was inaccurate or tone-deaf; just trying to explain why Boeing basically says "don't call us, call them".
Your (and Jeselnik's) criticism of the "thoughts and prayers" cliché is apt, though note one big difference: some of those senators and members of the house that offer "thoughts and prayers" after yet another fatal shooting take NRA money and/or actively block anti-gun legislation, while Boeing and Airbus are genuinely doing all they can to avoid plane crashes, I'd think.
So the aircraft manufacturers are much less cynical and hypocritical in offering up that cliché than politicians (faint praise, indeed).
NRA has donated a maximum of $9,990 to any politician[1], a rather small amount considering the huge cost of running a campaign. In 2016, the total political contribution of the NRA was roughly $1.1 million[2]. In the meantime, gun control proponent Michael Bloomberg alone has contributed $20 million to Democrat senate candidates[3] in 2018 and is planning to contribute $80 million to house candidates[4] for the midterms. Even if you hate the NRA and what they stand for, claiming that they are buying up politicians with money seems far from the truth.
Sounds like Boeing all right (source: I work at an MRO and deal with them regularly).
They don't do nice and fuzzy but they will get to the bottom of the technical aspect of the investigation.
Out of cynicism, however, I'll keep my eyes peeled for "free upgrade" Service Bulletins and configuration options being offered to new customers in the near future (like they did with the Short Field Performance on 737NG).
Would you prefer the alternative, "Sorry about the crash. Allow us to run our mouths about things we are not competent to comment on given the presently available information"?
More like “We are available to answer technical questions about this model of aircraft, however specific questions about the crash itself should be directed to the appropriate authority”.
Their sales organisation is always available to answer technical questions about the model of aircraft, but nothing of that is relevant to any of the journalists who might enquire in light of the crash, unless they are trying to play armchair accident investigators.
