What is the downside for Boeing to just say "let's put the plane back in the sky"?
I think you scrap the plane, then start over with a wholly compliant design. This whole ordeal is a great example of regulatory capture. You have a plane with a ton of new flaws, and all the flaws of the old design, and business decided it was cheaper to pressure the regulator to be okay with these flaws and to kill a few hundred people than to build a proper plane, but let's give them one more chance to kill a few hundred more people, so they're not financially inconvenienced over a problem of their own making.
"Got to hit those quarterly sales figures." An aircraft that crashes is pretty detrimental to achieving this goal. Achieving sales figures doesn't preclude safety
Eventually, the company pays for it, but it can take a while.
The culture at Boeing has changed, and it seems to me that the quarterly numbers are more important now than previously.
No, obviously it didn't, since the redesign changed the fundamental flight dynamics of the plane. It was not improving the design, it was piggybacking off the good record and past training of the old design to push out a fundamentally different product as quickly and cheaply as possible.
>Achieving sales figures doesn't preclude safety.
Then how did these fatal 737 MAXs ever get released in the first place?