Customer to me, working at auto parts store:

One of the wholly owned regional airline subsidiaries AA (and prior to merger US) has is Piedmont Airlines. Other than the name (which was solely chosen to keep old Piedmont Airline’s trademarks current) there is no connection between the original airline you mentioned and the regional airline.

It’s hard to tell if the author of this article deliberately wrote it to be sensationalist and misleading, or just simply doesn’t understand the issue. There is absolutely no talk of grounding the 737 MAX. Not certifying a variant of a plane is not a grounding!

Unbelievable how inaccurate this headline, and even the article itself, are to begin with.  Regardless of how you feel about Boeing, making no distinction between the various MAX models is basic journalistic ineptitude or incompetence.  Stop writing articles until you learn to even halfway look into shit before…

I don’t think “there’s a way to fly out of the trap” is a good enough explanation for why the plane’s software was determined to put it into the ground. They did not design for a sensor failure state, despite other verification signals being available, on a system that could crash the plane. That’s on Boeing.

misleading headline or what?

This wouldn’t result in a new grounding of the 737 Max. The Max 7 and Max 10 are new aircraft with none delivered yet. The 737 Max 8 and Max 9 are the ones that were grounded due to the earlier crashes and aren’t the subject of this extension.