I get it. We're expected to be extremely competent and it's a reasonable expectation. That said, we can go through all of aviation's history and find stacks of pilot-error caused accidents. Hey, those guys (insert accident - and historically they essentially all were guys) should have known better. Hey, MCAS was fine, they should have been more competent. Who needs TCAS with see and avoid. Who needs GPWS with proper situational awareness for terrain, MOCAs, MORAS etc. Who needs a takeoff warning horn anyways... proper checklist adherence should fully address any issue.

Human factors are always a factor.

I'm not specifically disagreeing with your comment as much as saying it seems shortsighted from a design and certification perspective to not have better systems and system logic when it's reasonably possible to do so.

You’re right. Even with better warning systems, highly trained and experienced pilots make huge mistakes. The max is still just a 737 and every that comes with that. I’d much rather be on something more advanced, but the old turd still has a lot of mileage left in it. It will get certified without EICAS and we will have a ton of them. I’m all for bigger and better, but this isn’t exactly a safety hazard for properly trained crews. On the other hand, when a manufacturer sells a high workload plane with a major design flaw to anyone with a checkbook, they shouldn’t act surprised when someone balls one up.

might as well get a good chiropractor now, your back and neck will thank you

no need for the XLR. The standard 321NEO can do what a Max10 is planned to do.

An EICAS system should be mandatory because it’s much safer!!! End of discussion!!! The recall system that is currently on the Guppy dates back to the 1950s. That’s over 70 years of technological advances that have not been instituted. That BTW, is all to save some training costs!!! The Guppy has run its course and it’s now time for advances!!!

To say "End of discussion!!!" is a very immature response. Discussion on topics like aviation safety are always needed and a never-ending on going process. Simply trying to stifle and stonewall the opposing view is not productive, but counterproductive.

The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.

Boeing created this problem for themselves. Instead of creating a long overdue narrowbody from a clean sheet, they stretched the 737 yet again and are spending more time and losing more money by engineering work-arounds to get it working than it would have cost in R&D for a whole new jet.

Is that just a hunch or did you have the numbers? It is a staggering amount to create a clean sheet airplane, and obviously at the time Boeing decided it didn't make sense.

After 2 crashes and a couple hundred dead, kinda makes sense now.