- "We thought the 'AoA disagree' warning was functional in all jets we delivered, but turns out it works only if this other paid upgrade has been installed."

- "We planned for, and certified, an MCAS operating within certain boundaries, but then delivered a plane that exceeds these limitations multiple times."

- "To save money, we built a plane whose handling characteristics are so crappy that we could not certify it, unless we put in an extra system interfering with primary flight controls, but let's not tell anyone about it."

- "We've added this powerful system interfering with primary flight controls, and it depends crucially on AoA data, which we receive from two sensors. Well, let's just pick one of them and ignore the other one. It'll be fine."

Managerial marvel? I assume you're not sarcastic, so what do you mean?

You assumed wrong, or at least half-wrong.

It's a managerial "marvel" because they managed to certify and deliver that mutant flying turd adding billions to their bottom-line, earning their bonus while spending Boeing's good name and capitalize their decades-long "investment" on FAA.

That's top-notch management right there...

That's just typical management for American corporations these days. If you want a company you can really trust with human lives, you buy from a company that isn't run by Americans. Of course, that's no guarantee (see: VW Dieselgate), but American management these days is all about next-quarter profits over all else. Japanese-run companies are probably the most trustworthy ones; people there care more about the long term and personal honor. Too bad they don't make planes, but that's changing, as Mitsubishi is now getting back into the airplane business.

> You assumed wrong

Glad to hear :-)