[bumby]

>It’s not about prioritizing short term results

Boeing was forced by courts bolster safety, compliance, and quality programs as well as admitting to conspiracy to thwart FAA oversight. I don’t know about you, but my experience is that when companies undermine those types of oversight, it’s almost always due to schedule and price pressure (ie short term results). (Not to mention, the whole impetus for MCAS was to rush the design to market so they wouldn’t lose out on AA as a customer).

[WalterBright]

Again, the vast bulk of Boeing's history was before that.

> the whole impetus for MCAS was to rush the design to market so they wouldn’t lose out on AA as a customer

The impetus for MCAS was to make the MAX behave like the previous 737 model to reduce the expense of retraining the pilots.

In general, flying is safer when pilots do not need to "code switch" when switching airplane models. Many crashes result from a pilot reflexively doing the right thing for the previous airplane they flew, rather than the one they are flying at the moment.

[bumby]

>Again, the vast bulk of Boeing's history was before that.

I’m not sure what you intend to convey with this statement. If price reflects reality, the current price should reflect the current reality, no? Whether the White Sox were the best team 100 years ago has little bearing on my prediction about their chances this year. I fail to see how Boeing’s prior culture prevents them from succumbing to short term incentives. I know your point is the downfall is a bureaucratic one, but the evidence does not point to that (they actually cut corners on bureaucratic requirements).

>The impetus for MCAS was to make the MAX behave like the previous 737 model to reduce the expense of retraining the pilots.

Go deeper. Why was this considered necessary?

(Hint: it’s because they wanted to rush the design to market with a less expensive (and lower quality) product. Ie cost and schedule pressure. You stopped at the proximate cause.)