GF - you seem puzzled as to why they're not doing everything you ask.
Not at all, I repeatedly said why I never expected that. This however did not stop me to ask for the safer solution.
Last I heard you didn't work for Airbus engineering, so I'm at a loss as to understanding why
.
So one has to work for Airbus to be allowed to question its design?
By the same reasoning I could say one has to be qualified to operate both systems before being allowed to participate in this discussion, what I never did.
Interconnection is not objectively better no matter how much you and others claim it to be so.
.... and by the same argument not objectively inferior, so it all runs down to personal experience. I presume you will at least have to accept that, in absecnce of your own.
Statistical comparisons of the sort you're making are fairly meaningless.
... and you are just the expert entitled to say so and validate others. Preposterous! At this very moment, the statistics speak a clear language: system 1 - no victims, system 2 more than 200. Twist it as much as you want, decry the one as much as you can, a zero is a zero.
Some professionals pretend its coincidence, others say its due to better design.
It all runs down to that. Most intelligent professionals do not very much accept coicidence as explanation when it runs down to safety.
Thats more like NG sensational air disaster journalism.