[dan678]

Isn't that the point? They attempted to save time and money by not designing a new aircraft (as they originally planned) and found a way to mount the new larger engines that necessitated the MCAS system. In addition, the solution they sold did not, by design, utilize both AoA sensors and did not advise pilots if the sensor disagree unless an additional package was purchased. Furthermore, all of this was in effort to sell an aircraft that would not need significant pilot re-training, resulting in pilots not being familiar enough with the failure mode that resulted in many deaths.

[aunty_helen]

'Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion'

A factor of 10 cost difference 'if they had only done x' isn't realistic.

Completely agree with your additional point though, the competition was the A320neo and the us vs them economics look better if you don't have to pay pilots to sit in a simulator and re cert.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-disputes-7...

[salawat]

Keep in mind a double failure is also possible if the AoA vanes are not treated as high priority maintenance items.