Originally Posted by
PaxBritannica
I wonder too about the sales process. It does seem a little odd that carriers in the domestic market opted for an extra element there was no obvious reason to buy (if they didn't know there was a software feature for which it was a single point of failure), while third-world airlines did not. Was it just cost-saving, or did Boeing push a little harder / offer discounts where failures were less likely to be written off as down to poor maintenance / airmanship?
if all 737 Max have the second sensor, why should using it cost more, when the only purpose is _safety_ and avoiding a design fault ?
Come to think, why wasn’t MCAS documented properly in some foreign sales but documented in domestic ones?
i don’t get it.
Edmund