Shows once again that incomplete testing and rushing a product to market DOES have negative consequences, once customers lose confidence it takes an awful lot of time and hard work to regain that confidence.
Opinion from "inside" the industry.
The above statement is partially true. This aircraft should have been re- type certificated, by the FAA ,
NOT from a Boeing DER (Designated Engineering Representative). It was done this way to save the
"customers" money. The customers being the MAJOR carriers buying the airplane. The fault does not lie alone at Boeings feet. The people buying the airplane negotiate what they want, it's a partnership. I watched it first hand with the 787 development. It was built the way it was ordered to save money !!! - BY THE CARRIERS -
The carriers did not want to spend money on training, and flight crew certification. They didn't want to create a separate class of crews that could only fly the 737 MAX.
The airplane also only has (had) a single AOA vane feeding the MCAS system (from what I can gather)
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ the second one to feed the system and the "disagree" light was an "option" (500K I've heard)
The airplane probably was rushed a bit to market to compete with the A220 (Bombadier-Airbus). Its about CASM - RASM ratio.. bottom line. (Cost Available Seat Mile / Revenue Available Seat Mile) The airlines can control labor costs, equipment costs, it cannot control FUEL costs. Labor and fuel being the biggest ones. It is THE only reason the 747 is not flying passengers for any US based carrier. It's got 4 BRT's (Big Round Things) hanging on it instead of 2. It is still the fastest commercial airliner flying (cruise .86-.87 mach FL420-450) and has one hell of a lift.
Jack, God Bless your Dad, he'd be welcome to ramp check one of my airplanes ANY day