No, I didn't. That's what Boeing claims by attempting to extrapolate the safety record of a plane built under previous Boeing management who had safety as priority one to the safety record of the current plane built under Boeing/McDonnell management that prioritized money over safety.
The problem is that the previous wiring might be safe given that all the surrounding systems are also built to the same safety standard as the previous 737. Unfortunately, we have plenty of evidence that the surrounding systems probably are not built to the same standard.
In addition, the airplanes responsible for this rule coming into being didn't have a safety problem either--until they suddenly did.
It's not that the planes developed a safety problem - it's that we learned that the wires being that close is a bad idea and that all planes built after we realized that should not make the same mistake.
How much risk, I don't know. But slavishley following rules without bothering to understand them isn't a good idea.
Either those wires are safe, so leave them, or they are not, so rewire 6,000 grandfathered planes.
Doing some sort of hybrid where you rewire these planes, but not those, just based on the name, isn't logical.
The MAXes where built after the regulation came into place therefore you better build it in. The same way you can't sell a new car without safety belts.
Even if the FAA cuts Boeing some slack here (which they shouldn't - these are safety rules that exist because hundreds of people had horrific deaths), the EASA will certainly not.
If the FAA accepts Boeing's excuse, they both would be liable in case the wiring causes an accident in the future, since both would have been negligent and knew fully well the wiring was not up to current standards.
You missed the point. It's not about the money, it's that rewiring might actually be less safe.