[acqq]

> The alternative would have been changing the height of the plane, which probably also results in other problems.

There were more alternatives but all negate the selling point “it’s the ‘same’ plane so you don’t have to pay to retrain pilots, just buy, fly and use less fuel.”

Marketing driven solution, with a bit of lie.

Remember that selling point whenever somebody claims that the “pilots didn’t follow the proper procedure” involving even initially undocumented new behavior and the new software dependency on the single point of failure sensor.