Few people are accepting the fact that Boeing's sweetheart relationship with FAA is a result of the fact they are largely one of the fee only players in the game.
There's no competitive pressure for Boeing to change behaviour iwth the politicians and regulators in their pocket they have little to fear by going forward with business ss usual.
The fact they are managing to push Boeing to adopt more stringent training is good. I just hope it doesn't just add to the long list of things excluding any entrepreneur from honestly competing with him (just look at Virgin Airlines which was one of the most enjoyable flight experiences getting squeezed out).
Every major regulation in history has had unintended side-effects which frequently offset the benefits of the original plan (because of course they were designed for the entrenched mega-coprp interests of today with little thought of the wider long term effects on the industry).
Thomas Sowell wrote two good books which highlight a hundred examples how these well-intentioned regulations have contributed to the wealth inequality and consumer monopolies both  and Basic Economics .
Its not a simple as anti-regulation or pro-regulation, but getting the right kind of regulation based on data and with foresight into the unintended implications.
The public misunderstands the role between FAA and Boeing.
Boeing is the ODM, so safety is largely delegated to Boeing. That is necessary because the FAA does not have aircraft designers on staff, and won't, because aerospace keeps advancing.
What is needed is criminal penalties for what Boeing did regarding the inaccurate MCAS FAA filings.
Congressional representatives have at times pursued fraud charges against pilots for various reasons. The problem is that if they do that against campaign donors, then those briefcases of cash will disappear.
To offer something constructive:
1) In American corporate mgmt., discussion and accountability is diffused across multiple teams. Even attempting to use the word accountability is perceived as "a problem."
2) That's compounded when you have complex systems that use both hardware and software. In the case of the 737 MAX, you have external sensors subject to weather and damage, internal wiring and software. In this case it appears the software was outsourced. It would take their best Sr. Engineers to trace through that and say anything definitive. See #1 for why it's not worth it as an employee.
3) Submitting FAA aerospace compliance documents and outsourcing software development may simply be incompatible due to change management iterations and accountability.
So my summary would be that Boeing needs to be re-organized around accountability instead of penny-pinching. That would require turning a huge company inside-out. None of the founders are left. The current CEO has that mandate, but seeing is believing.
I don't understand this part. Could aerospace engineers working at the FAA not learn about advances?
If you're an American aerospace engineer, working for the FAA and specialising in airliners - where is your next job likely to be?