Sure but that’s not super interesting. Everyone’s opinion will be “Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this.”

This whole saga, including this article, has been about the tension between Boeing's business/political shortcuts and what aviation experts seem to think is prudent.

"Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this."

"Also, lawmakers, ensure the aviation experts fix this."

"Having regard to our advisors, we, the US lawmakers, have concluded that one criterion according to which aviation experts should judge their fix is that planes should have a doobywhacky in them, because aviation experts have assured us that a doobywhacky is important. But we will give them two years to get their plane certified without the doobywhacky on a legacy basis, since it seems like a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years."

"Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA would like to know some information about your planes."

"Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA need to know some information about your planes; what you have said is not good enough and you've left many questions unanswered."

"Oh, hi, US lawmaker, we, the lobbyists at Boeing thought you might like to know how bad it would be for you if the law isn't changed, yeah, we know everyone thought a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years, but you know how complicated planes can be."

And at this point, I think there are two possible replies: "Everyone believed it should have been possible, and there are clearly problems at Boeing's end, so they need to wear their mistakes; it's not like they're left with nothing and it's widely agreed that 737 MAX represents an end-of-line design so the cost is not excessive" or "The two years was written into the law to get these particular models out without conforming to the law; if they can be approved under the strictest application of the old rules, does it hurt if the approval is made just before the two year deadline, or just after it? In either case, it's flying according to the legacy certification. So we'll just extend the period a little."

I certainly think a case can be built either way, but knowledge of aviation is really only a minor part of the decision making process facing lawmakers right now.

> > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this.

"You don't share my opinion, [and you lack credentials,] so kindly don't speak" is becoming an increasingly common debate stratagem.

It would be so much gentler if it were phrased as, "Industry professionals have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I'm not sure your conclusions capture the complexities and nuances of the situation, but I understand your points".