I seriously doubt anybody gets lax treatment when it comes to meeting the standard requirements of a FAA certification. Regardless of the background of the persons carrying out the certification.<p>With that said, FAA certifications aren&#x27;t completely unbiased and non-Boeing certifications may be subjected to additional scrutiny above and beyond the standards.<p>I used to work in Flight Simulation and specifically worked on a project that had to go through a baseline certification for training readiness.<p>It was an 80s era simulator, produced by a manufacturer other than Boeing, running on older hardware. We installed and updated the system to match the airlines tail number configuration, added new engine models (GE to P&amp;W), updated the visuals to match the current runway configurations, and updated the engine avionics from analog to glass displays. Subject to say, there was a lot riding on our ability to get it certified.<p>After experiencing the process first hand. There&#x27;s definitely some room for subjective bias. They came up with every reason they could think of to fail the system but in the end we met the baseline and then some so it was passed.<p>I think the bigger issue is that Boeing is closely tied to the policymakers so they have carte blanche to pass new standards that fail old-yet-reliable systems. Keep in mind that, unlike the software development world, stability trumps technological advancement. Unless the former directly contributes to the latter in a way that improves safety (ex requiring TCAS). Systems running on 20-30 year old hardware are the norm, not the exception.<p>To make matters worse the FAA regularly releases advisory circulars (ie not standards) that are sometimes leveraged by certifiers as if they are standards. They can&#x27;t really enforce a non-standard but that won&#x27;t stop some from attempting to use them as leverage.<p>A system that fails the first time can still be certified but the process to resubmit will likely delay operations for months. For a Commercial Full Flight Simulator that could add up to $750-$1500&#x2F;hour, 24 hours&#x2F;day, 7 days&#x2F;week in lost revenue. Considering simulators are a &#x27;cheap&#x27; alternative to flying actual aircraft, I could only imagine how much an airline stands to lose if an aircraft were to fail.<p>Boeing is a prime example of a government sanctioned monopoly. It&#x27;s allowed to be so because the company is vital to the US economy, the barrier of entry is too high for a competitor to enter, and Boeing has to compete on the international stage with Airbus. In simulation, the story is the same except instead of Airbus&#x2F;Boeing it&#x27;s CAE&#x2F;Alteon (ie Boeing).<p>Many of the new policies introduced are &#x27;safety theatre&#x27; designed to artificially raise the watermark drown the competition.<p>The ironic thing is, Boeing has grown so large they they&#x27;re basically running out of room for growth. Their only option going forward is relocation and&#x2F;or outsourcing. Both of which they&#x27;ve already started to do.