Congratulations, you have absolutely no comprehension of what is actually going on.
The post I am responding to is not about whether Boeing can deliver a dangerous aircraft or not, its about whether they retire the 737 design. Thats an entirely separate discussion to whether they deliver a dangerous aircraft or not.
The current 737 design isn't inherently dangerous. It can be modernised safely - but it was decisions within Boeing that made the modernisation they decided to do unsafe.
But if Boeing was to retire the 737 design, whether that be in 2011 when they decided to go with the MAX, or whether that be today, it would have serious implications for the market - stating that is neither ignorant nor malicious, its the basic facts. And ignoring those facts is ignorant.
MCAS as a concept is not inherently flawed - its basically flight envelope protection, and has been around in the Airbus product since the advent of the A320 in the 1980s. Boeing introduced it with the 777 in 1997, and its since flown on the military versions of the 737 and 767.
MCAS as Boeing decided to implement it for the MAX *is* flawed.
Could Boeing have done a safe version of MCAS for the MAX? Yes.
Would it have cost Boeing any more to do MCAS safely? Marginally yes, but not significantly.
If they had, we wouldn't be talking about the 737 being unsafe.
Could they have taken better approaches with a clean sheet design? Yes.
Would they have taken better approaches with a clean sheet design? Who knows. Boeing has had enough problems with its other recent product developments that this isn't an question that can be reasonably answered...
Now, heres the $20Billion question that absolutely blows your argument out of the water - what makes *you* think that Boeing in its current state would produce a safe 737-replacement?
At the end of the day, it would be the same engineers, the same management, the same board, the same CEO who decided to take the short cuts on the MAX - those same people who have contributed to problems with the 777X, with the KC-46, with the 787, with the MAX-10, with Starliner...
What seriously makes you think that a clean sheet design would not have come with similar problems?
What seriously makes you think that we wouldn't today be talking about a 797 crash? About the only thing that we can say would definitely be different would be that Boeing would probably have about 10% of the narrowbody market by sales rather than 40% - for the reasons I stated in my original post. If you understood it.
So, to sign off, I will just add a "fuck you" to you, for blatantly not understanding what is actually being discussed.