They never once mentioned the word Boeing. Every news article about the incident mentions the plane type, but not this skit.

The plane in the green screen backdrop at the terminal isn't even a 737. The side windows on the cockpit of a 737 are lower than the front, on an A320 they're in a straight line like in the skit. I'm pretty sure that's an A320.

Maybe the SNL lawyers were scared of getting sued and vetoed earlier scripts, or maybe they got paid off, or maybe my wife is right and I'm just a skeptic, but that seems suspicious.

The "safety brochure" at 0:54 is titled "Boeing 737 MAX 9".

On the other hand, the aircraft taking off with a slide deployed is a 737, so maybe they were working mostly with off-the-shelf assets to complete one skit in an entire show of same, and saved the relatively time-consuming animation work for where they had to use it.

Presumably they assumed no one would be paying all that much attention to stuff like an aircraft out a terminal window in the background, which looks nothing much like Boeing or Airbus and would not much surprise me to learn was produced by a diffusion model.

Good catch, I didn't notice that or the safety brochure title.

Imagine how much money Boeing paid for having it this way.

Well they still decided to fly that plane with the auto pressurization fail light going on several days in a row.

On these 'ole MAX planes they're used to just having to give it a Fonzarelli adjustment here and there. Ayyy!

Yes, the skit makes no sense.

It makes sense as it parodies the typical Airlines ads/videos showing the new features, services etc.

Yeah the fault is at Boeing but not like they do this kind of videos, or if they do most people wouldn't have seen them.

If a fire is lit under the right asses then that doesn't matter. Not that it's the intent, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

SNL’s intent is not to “light a fire”, it is to be funny, which shaming the wrong party makes it not funny.

And I don’t see how lighting a fire under the wrong entity’s ass helps anyone other than Boeing.

I noted the intent.

Alaska has been lax in maintenance before (critically so, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261). If this pressure flows through to Boeing than so be it.

I do agree that it would have been better to skewer Boeing directly but I can see why they chose the path they did.