Boeing did do what was needed in my opinion. How can Boeing be blamed if an airline doesn't make sure their pilots are aware of the correct procedures
And there'll be yet another issue at play. The accident report states that on the penultimate flight, before takeoff the Pilot in Command had discussed the - just completed - AoA replacement with the maintenance engineer.
At takeoff, during rotation (as the aircraft left the ground) his stick shaker activated. At 'flaps up' Indicated Airspeed and Altimeter Disagree warnings, and Elevator Differential Pressure warnings appeared on the PIC's display. The (unmentioned) jumpseat pilot noticed the aircraft was automatically trimming nose down (after Speed Trim should have stopped) & recommended disabling the Trim system. PIC did that - which seemed to work. He then read some fault Checklists and none contained the instruction “Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport” so he continued with the flight, the co-pilot flying with the Pilot's stick shaker still rattling, warnings still active on the pilot's display.
There must have been a lot of pressure on this pilot to press on and avoid a costly schedule disruption. In that case they landed safely.
The pilot noted the Airspeed problem, Altimeter problem, Feel Differential Pressure problem. Maintenance serviced the Pitot tube system, cleaned a plug on the elevator pressure system, tested and found no faults (of course). Next flight the same aircraft crashed.
Sure seems (to a layman) that a series of issues like that - in a new aircraft - literally setting off alarm bells, should have required a test flight after repair?
If not, the next crew should have been informed of the 'solution' to the previous flight's problem?
If I was on an Air New Zealand flight, and there were major control problems (on the first flight after maintenance), I'd hope the Pilot in Command would make the decision to land the malfunctioning aircraft immediately.