Originally Posted by
tdracer
Not much. The MAX 8 and 9 are the mass market aircraft, which Boeing expects to sell in the thousands. The MAX 10 is expected to sell in the hundreds - it's intended to take market from the A321 NEO, but mainly for those who already have 737s.
It's pretty simple math really - it'll cost well north of a $Billion to implement an EICAS system into the 737, plus recurring costs. If Boeing sells 500 MAX 10s, then they need to make an extra $2 million plus per aircraft just to pay for EICAS. Given Boeing might make a total profit on a 737 MAX sale of between $1 million and $2 million per aircraft, it simply doesn't make economic sense to produce the MAX 10 with EICAS. Better to save the money and devote it to a proper 737 replacement somewhere down the line.
Given that the 737 NG is statistically just as safe as an A320 with ECAM (that over hundreds of millions of flight hours), and given that the MAX 8 and 9 are considered "safe enough" with the same basic flight deck as the NG, it's difficult to argue a case for spending an extra couple $billion to make it 'safer'.
Well said, this sums it up. Let us stick to the facts: If you argue this point from a safety perspective, there would have to be data that supports the notion that an EICAS provides superior safety to the legacy system (master caution etc) in the 737 NG/MAX. Of course, EICAS is more pilot-friendly but there most likely isn't any data that supports the notion that it delivers significantly superior
safety - especially when the -10 would be flown by the exact same pilots that are already highly familiar with the legacy warning system. I will also make the point here that the MAX accidents occurred - in part - because of a lack of commonality, not because of commonality.
Regulation is there to support, faciliate and enhance safety. If safety is not negatively affected, then there is nothing wrong with issuing an approval based on grandfather rights.
A note on scope: I am not arguing about "Boeing culture", the MAX crashes, whether a clean-sheet design would be better, or related topics here. I am simply making a point on the safety aspect of approving a legacy system, which has worked just fine for decades, for the -10.