I don't understand why I see people persist in stating there is a problem with Boeing's having engines mounted below the wings being different in creating a pitch up vs a similar Airbus. Newtonian physics has not changed. An engine providing thrust below the CG is going to produce pitch up. Sum of the forces around the centroid creates a moment. To create stability it must be countered by another force, in this case the horizontal stabilizer pitch down. Classic example is the DC-10 and Bryce McCormick realizing the engineering of the engine placement gave him ability to control his plane when the cargo door blew off, the floor collapsed. Mr McCormick could pitch up by increasing thrust on the wing engines, pitch down using the high mounted tail engine. Mr McCormick save a plane, crew and passengers using his time evaluating how he could use thrust vectors to his benefit. On PPRUNE is still read of pitch up being a 737 problem first instituted when the CFM56 was introduced. Got news for you. The JT8D had a pitch up vector although not s large. Installation of the CMF56 introduced a pitch up similar to that of the A320 - lay a profile of the planes against each other. The implementation of the LEAP modified how the pitch up changed with the design of the nacelle and MCAS was implemented to in theory, make it handle like the Classic and NG. If you want something better - the Comet had engines in the wing but they were still slightly below the CG - but define the CG. CG with full fuel, full cargo, full passengers? That's why you have trim. Both Boeing and Airbus have had pitch up events that resulted in crashes. How it can be blamed here with no evidence is beyond human understanding. Even thought my degree was mechanical engineering and my studies were in the time when the B-707 and DC-8 were in their prime, I still remember a lab in which we verified the technology.