[Erik Latranyi]

Yes, MCAS was a band-aid that had too much authority....and pilots were not given enough information about it.

MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.

[Zhang Fei]

[MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.]

---

I expect time to market was a bigger factor. No idea how much more, but 2 extra years would have been terrible for its competitive position vs Airbus

[ALPAPilot]

MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.

Exactly - driven by Southwest’s requirement to have bigger jets and a fleet with a single type rating.

[PapaBear3625]

MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.

Their attempt to save $millions is instead going to cost them $billions.

[OA5599]

MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.

Is this something you know, or is this something you feel? I don't know anything about type ratings, but I do know that the narrow body 757 and wide body 767 had a common type rating.

So to me, it seems odd to suggest that slightly larger engines on the same wings and air frame would require a new type rating, while two completely different aircraft only sharing a flight deck would not require different type ratings.