I'll downvote you for a poor grasp of statistics. Today a few thousand flights on Boeing equipment took off and landed safely around the world. One crash, without any news whether it's Boeing's fault, and you make up rules for the rest of your life.
To draw an equivalence, do you still breathe air with an airborne virus running amok?
You can pick and choose. As different airlines have different
track records for maintenance quality that is also likely
to be as important, or more important.
I'm not sure the article captures the danger of forward risk well given the argument that Boeing and cost management practices have hijacked the approval process and design strategy, respectively, and the current inventory includes planes recent models with poor track records.
In the next few years I think we will see if process failure has been a momentary blip or if this article is viewed as having fallen into the same trap as judging 1960 aviation on averages of entire period of flight instead of on rate of improvement.
Put a different way, I wont be estimating the safety of the 787 on the safety of a 737-MAX because most of the systems of the MAX were designed in an earlier Boeing/FAA system that bears little resemblance to the modern Boeing process, yet I am still comfortable flying in a 737-MAX.
Is it? I fly in Europe often enough (usually the cheapest flight I can find) and I almost always end up on a 737. Ryanair for example has 249 737-800s out of a 258 planes fleet.
What's the point in making a generalization based on such a narrow experience? If you're often choosing Ryanair or Norwegian, of course you'll often fly on a Boeing aircraft.
Edit: I know the statistics, I just get horrible fears in planes and Boeing is all over the news, hence me avoiding them. To each its own, I guess.