Private Jet
I try to avoid personal attacks, so I'm going to ignore the overt patronizing in your last post.
But to the point, the reason I brought up MCAS is because of this post:
lol. I'm sure it will be thought through though, with reversion and abnormal procedures in place..
The MCAS designers went through the failure modes, and had "reversion and abnormal procedures in place.." They looked good on paper, maybe even in a simulator, but in the real world they failed miserably and 300 people died. Simply having "reversion and abnormal procedures in place.." isn't always enough when things don't work...
As a designer, you don't just design for when things work - you have to design for when they don't work. If everything always worked, we wouldn't need redundant systems. But they don't always work (or don't work per design intent) and redundancy is needed.
We have two (or more) engines for redundancy. We have multiple Air Data and Inertial Reference systems for redundancy. We have multiple electrical power systems for redundancy. We have individual thrust levers for each engine for redundancy. Eliminating redundancy has to be done very, very carefully.
Many years ago I did several Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for thrust lever assemblies. One of the failures was "Lever Seizes" - effect was "Loss of Thrust Control on the affected engine, if necessary affected engine can be shutdown". So what are you going to do with that fancy smart throttle if the it seizes or jams?
I've noticed with all the smart ass replies comparing having redundant thrust levers with living in caves and crappy buses, I've yet to see
anyone mention any
advantage to having a single, non-redundant thrust lever. If you want the levers to move together, a simple link that can be readily removed seems like a far simpler and safer solution.