If one segment used AoA1/FCC1, the arcraft landed, power to the FCC was cycled, then upon power up the AoA1/FCC1 would be active, as this FCC is always the active one after a power cycling regarding computing MCAS.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.

I fully concur. A further observation is that if power is cycled after every flight, then AoA1/FCC1 would be selected for MCAS and STS every flight.

SLF.
Two questions:
1: How often is FCC power cycled?
2: If it is important to alternate AoA/FCC, why is this alternation interrupted by power cycling?

It seems to me, if power cycling can interrupt the alternation of sources/computers, then the alternation is not important at all.

would a certain European plane maker be lobbying for the 737 Max to be re-certified in Europe?

Does the convening of a grand jury in D.C. and the broad supoena issued by a federal criminal prosecutor to obtain Boeing corporate communications potentially slow down the safety process of finding out what happened and the best way to fix the issues? It cannot be helpful, IMO.

While Boeing and the FAA may eventually be found to have been negligent, the threat of criminal negligence cannot be helpful in the accident investigation process.

For as long as the 737 MAX are grounded, and assuming other models are not affected by the same issue, the slowing down of the safety process actually seems more helpful than not, especially if the planes would otherwise be sent up soon with another quick software hack.

With the current trade issues being perused across the globe, it could be more than Europe that requires recertification. With Huawei in the crosshairs, I would expect China to be playing a hard line on recertification

The aviation world might be better served in terms of transparency if the involved players were not under threat of criminal prosecution which will cause them to lawyer up more than they already have, allow them to clam up for fear of self-incrimination, and overall delay discovery that would enable a safer future. There may well have been profound negligence on the part of BA and the FAA, but short of a smoking gun email, I would doubt criminal intent.

Three hundred counts of manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder, ....do we really want to go there?

I think it would be VERY strange if this option were taken away in a circumstance which, superficially at the very least, bears the traits of corporate manslaughter.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisag.../#a6a5fcd74f4d

Interesting article about the topic

It would be interesting to know the history of these options. I would imagine that this story looks something like one of the two following flavors;

1. Did Boeing originally offered these options with some customers choosing them and others declining?

2. Or did Boeing design the 737MAX flight deck without them only to have some customers request them to which Boeing agreed provided those to customers who were willing to pay enough to cover the development costs?

In all the talk about airlines having to pay extra for these AOA displays and AOA disagree message I have not heard how much they cost. Without understanding the full history (which I don't) it seems unfair after seeing these displays only on some 737MAXs to jump to the conclusion that Boeing was using them as a way to get more out of customers willing to pay for them.

I did read somewhere, dont remeber where, that the price asked by Boeing was 60,000 US$ for the AoA indicator/display. I dont know if that could be correct, if it is, then it is not cheap at all.

That is true.
But first you have to decide how many aircraft you can sell with this option. Say you think you only can sell one aircraft. Then you must charge say 1 million for that option. Ofc you wont get any sales at that asking price.
Let say you think you can sell 50 airplanes, than the 1 million non-recurring is down to $20K per aircraft. How many will you now sell, might be hard to tell, you think you will get some sales.
What if you think you can sell 6,000 aircraft with that option? Then the non-recurring cost would be only $166 for each aircraft. I think everyone would take that option for such a low cost and you would sell it on the full production run of the aircraft family. You could just as well make it standard.
I suppose the actual recurring cost for this option would be close to zero, isnt that correct?

While the cost you use and the logic you use may be correct, (or not), I would hazard a guess and say you aren't an airline beancounter............ "Cost of everything, value of nothing", as the saying goes.

AoA
 

That's a crowbar separation. If you mean that Boeing did NOT have a meeting on a basement floor where Muilenberg said, "Let's put passengers in grieve danger to line our pockets with gold", no, that probably never happened... I hope. So the differential you pose is strictly linguistic. It wasn't a "conspiracy" but I seriously doubt nobody questioned the new system and its implementation. One of the whistleblowers is suing Boeing and Boeing's defence of "he was a bad enginner because he expenced alcoholic beverages on business dinners" is not indicative of a strong "discussion culture" in the company.