Regulation is why Boeing felt the need to construct and jump through such elaborate hoops to avoid losing the 737's original certification. The better approach would have been to treat the Max as an entirety new aircraft model, and not try to fool pilots into thinking it was just another boring old 737 variant. But the regs are written to encourage the latter approach.
The regulation encouraged this how? Do you have an example?
Model doesn't matter. It's possible to have two different models with the same type rating (Airbus A320 vs A340), and it's just as possible to have a derivative that requires a different type rating.
It would have been better for whom to treat the MAX as something different, requiring its own type rating? It's pretty clear it was overwhelmingly the airlines who wanted a new 737 in the existing 737 type rating.
That doesn’t follow. The FAA allowed Boeing to self-regulate, with somewhat disastrous results. I don’t understand how the regulations forced Boeing to take the approach the did. My read is that they took advantage of loose regulations to avoid recertification, all in the name of profit.
Having said all that, I’m open to hearing how you think regulation was the real culprit here.
Nonsense. The primary reason Boeing wanted to retain the same type rating is because their buyers, the airlines, don't want to pay out to retrain all the pilots. Which as you say, is the correct thing to do - but regulations aren't preventing that, simple economic forces are.
