I'm not an aviation expert, but why should something that seems as important as an indicator of system malfunction be an optional package instead of builtin?
But, in all fairness, even without the "AoA disagree" indicator there were telltale symptoms on the Lion Air bird that something was wrong with the alpha vane (the sensor in question). The most obvious was that only one stick shaker was going off (each control column has a shaker which only takes input from the alpha vane on its side). That's a pretty obvious symptom.
However on the previous Lion Air flight there were two other symptoms written up in the maintenance log[1]: "IAS (indicated air speed) + ALT disagree shown" and "(elevator) FEEL DIFF PRESS light illuminated". On the MAX, both of those systems take angle-of-attack into account (which is new for the MAX, IIRC).
As an aside, American Airlines 191 had a similar situation. Their DC-10 had only a stick shaker on the captain's control column, a second stick shaker was a paid extra. Boeing, of course, bought McDonnell Douglas years later.
1: http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-2...
Stick shakers are noisy, but I suppose you would also ask and cross check the instruments. If only one stick shaker goes off you'll probably get various "something disagrees" lights going off, which should prompt you to check. Take this for instance:
https://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-addresses-pitot-tube-an...
In what way is it preposterous?
Seems an analogy that’d rapidly break down.
You might want to try to strengthen your argument by explaining why an analogy between cars and planes can‘t hold (one moves only in „2D“ vs. the other one moves in „3D“ for example)
a plane crash kills a lot of people
The training to drive a car vs a 737 is Hugh