That last statement is extremely patronizing towards airline pilots, and also self-defeating: the more Boeing says telling pilots would have added "significantly more technical data", the less defensible is its position that no additional training was needed. The alternative to telling pilots in advance was to blindside them with unexpected and inexplicable aircraft behavior when the system failed.
Boeing’s position was: if there is uncommanded Stab trim movement, use the stab trim runaway checklist, just as before. No need to know why the issue occurred in the first place.
Now, clearly that didn’t work very well, and there are many other problems, but I wouldn’t call Boeing’s initial attitude there “lies” or “extremely patronising”.
My "extremely patronising" comment was explicitly in response to one specific statement from Boeing. Personally, I would not call Boeing's response "lies"; rather, it seems to me, it is probably being careful to not make any objectively false statements that could come back at them in an inquiry or court of law, while also attempting to imply that its actions always put safety first, and that training cost avoidance was never an overriding concern. My main point here is that, in doing so, Boeing appears to contradict itself in a way that weakens their position on the latter issue.
