3 ms·

Just out of curiosity, will there actually be any punishments handed out beyond just a slap on the wrist? Or is Boeing far too large of a corp to take on?

by smaili 8y ago

geofft 8y ago
Incidentally, Boeing has received billions of dollars in illegal tax subsidies from the US (as in, anti-competitive with non-US manufacturers like Airbus): https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38131611 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38131611 So it's hard to imagine fines or market penalties actually conveying any productive sense of punishment.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  >This marks a victory for Airbus in a war without end. >Back in September the European aerospace giant, which employs 15,000 people in the UK, was on the receiving end when it was found that billions of euros in low interest loans amounted to illegal subsidies. >Boeing celebrated that moment as a comprehensive victory which would deal a mortal blow to Airbus and result in more US jobs. >The reality is that neither of these companies can exist without government subsidies. Both of these companies are strategic assets to the countries that have them. So no surprise here. I'm not even upset at it- it's realpolitik.
mgazzer 8y ago
Still too early to tell, this report is just the first step and inevitably will invoke conversation around who's to blame. Boeing's bottom line would like this is be crew or operating procedure.
AnabeeKnox 8y ago
This is an absurd comment. The rule of law works in the USA as much as it does in other developed countries. There is no such thing as "too large to take on". I note though that there is not yet any evidence of a crime having been committed.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  > There is no such thing as "too large to take on" Let me get you up to date: "The deal — four years after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers nearly brought down the financial system — was criticized at the time, raising concerns about whether some banks had grown too big to face criminal indictment." "Citing anonymous officials close to the case, the New York Times reports that federal prosecutors spent months debating whether to issue criminal indictments for money laundering. Authorities eventually ruled it out as such charges could ultimately cost HSBC its charter to operate in the US, seriously undermining the country’s fragile economic recovery." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/dealbook/hsbc-us-charges.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/dealbook/hsbc-us...
  - proctor 8y ago
    and the recent snc-lavalin case in canada[0] [...Quebec Premier François Legault said that SNC-Lavalin was one of ten publicly-traded companies headquartered in Quebec that the province considers to be "strategic" and therefore in need of protection from a takeover that would force the company to leave the province....] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#SNC-Lavalin_affair_(2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#SNC-Lavalin_affair...
Arnt 8y ago
I've read a couple of these things (strongly recommended — aviation postmortems are a model for us all) and my impression is that "too large" or "slap" are foreign terms in their debugging culture. Their priority list is, AFAICT: 1. Find out what happened. 2. Find out why. 3. Find out how to make sure it doesn't happen again. 4. See point 3. 5. See point 3.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  If "why" turns out to be "runaway corporate greed", what do you do for steps 3, 4, and 5? Not that I think that's going to be the result of step 2. It was a contributing factor, probably, but it's not the whole story by any means.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    I don't think you would say that if you had read such a report. The ones I have read do not feature three-word explanations, but rather say things like "the chain of events that led to the accident could have been stopped at any of these single points: <seven items> and would also have been stopped if both a&b had been done, or if both c&d, or both c&e" and then discuss how each of the many might be changed. They don't say "five of the links in the event chain were at a profit-hungry corporation, whose CEO should be thrown in gaol, then they'll know to do that differently in the future". "Runaway corporate greed" is fine reason for a quick and angry post on a social network, but aviation postmortems are a different kind of beast, heavy on analysis and prevention, light on anger.
    - chopin 8y ago
      As the Seattle Times reported, the MCAS system was mis-characterized by Boeing. Rules don't help if you don't go by them. This postmortem must include "runaway corporate greed" absolutely. Not sure what can be done about it as the FAA is not trustworthy anymore.
- nutjob2 8y ago
  What happened is that they hacked on an inappropriate engine onto an old airframe, then they hacked a hidden automation to fix the prior hack. The engineering fix is obvious, but management is the problem.
drstewart 8y ago
What charges do you recommend? Links to the US code here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
jhayward 8y ago
We are at the 'accident investigation' stage. Accident investigators do not hand out punishments. That comes later, during civil or criminal procedures in the various courts of jurisdiction, and by the regulators. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that there will be severe consequences, up to and including criminal charges.
zaroth 8y ago
My predictions? - Boeing will lose 10s of billions of dollars because of this in damages, lost contracts, and redesign costs. - Their CEO will resign. - The FAA will revamp many procedures to vastly increase certification costs and not allow these types of same-class-rating bullshit. - The FAA or similar EU agencies may slap some fine against Boeing - The families will sue and win a large settlement. - One or more engineers may commit suicide. (which would be itself tragic) - Middle management will pay zero or nearly zero price. - No one will be internally fired by Boeing as the problem is systemic. - No criminal charges. Many of these things will only happen with a sustains public relations compaign against Boeing, congressional hearings, persistent news articles, documentaries highlighting the harrowing crash, etc. EDIT: I’d say there’s a small chance even that a system called MCAS never flies again, even if that means the entire MAX concept has to be shelved. If the MAX can fly without MCAS but just under a new type rating, that could be the way they go. Boeing simply has not been successful introducing computer-moderated flight controls and envelopes the way that Airbus has over the last decade (and those lessons were hard learned too).

Just out of curiosity, will there actually be any punishments handed out beyond just a slap on the wrist? Or is Boeing far too large of a corp to take on?

by smaili 8y ago

Just out of curiosity, will there actually be any punishments handed out beyond just a slap on the wrist? Or is Boeing far too large of a corp to take on?

geofft 8y ago

Incidentally, Boeing has received billions of dollars in illegal tax subsidies from the US (as in, anti-competitive with non-US manufacturers like Airbus): https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38131611 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38131611 So it's hard to imagine fines or market penalties actually conveying any productive sense of punishment.

CompelTechnic 8y ago
>This marks a victory for Airbus in a war without end. >Back in September the European aerospace giant, which employs 15,000 people in the UK, was on the receiving end when it was found that billions of euros in low interest loans amounted to illegal subsidies. >Boeing celebrated that moment as a comprehensive victory which would deal a mortal blow to Airbus and result in more US jobs. >The reality is that neither of these companies can exist without government subsidies. Both of these companies are strategic assets to the countries that have them. So no surprise here. I'm not even upset at it- it's realpolitik.

mgazzer 8y ago

Still too early to tell, this report is just the first step and inevitably will invoke conversation around who's to blame. Boeing's bottom line would like this is be crew or operating procedure.

AnabeeKnox 8y ago

This is an absurd comment. The rule of law works in the USA as much as it does in other developed countries. There is no such thing as "too large to take on". I note though that there is not yet any evidence of a crime having been committed.

mpweiher 8y ago
> There is no such thing as "too large to take on" Let me get you up to date: "The deal — four years after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers nearly brought down the financial system — was criticized at the time, raising concerns about whether some banks had grown too big to face criminal indictment." "Citing anonymous officials close to the case, the New York Times reports that federal prosecutors spent months debating whether to issue criminal indictments for money laundering. Authorities eventually ruled it out as such charges could ultimately cost HSBC its charter to operate in the US, seriously undermining the country’s fragile economic recovery." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/dealbook/hsbc-us-charges.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/dealbook/hsbc-us...
- proctor 8y ago
  and the recent snc-lavalin case in canada[0] [...Quebec Premier François Legault said that SNC-Lavalin was one of ten publicly-traded companies headquartered in Quebec that the province considers to be "strategic" and therefore in need of protection from a takeover that would force the company to leave the province....] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#SNC-Lavalin_affair_(2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#SNC-Lavalin_affair...

Arnt 8y ago

I've read a couple of these things (strongly recommended — aviation postmortems are a model for us all) and my impression is that "too large" or "slap" are foreign terms in their debugging culture. Their priority list is, AFAICT: 1. Find out what happened. 2. Find out why. 3. Find out how to make sure it doesn't happen again. 4. See point 3. 5. See point 3.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
If "why" turns out to be "runaway corporate greed", what do you do for steps 3, 4, and 5? Not that I think that's going to be the result of step 2. It was a contributing factor, probably, but it's not the whole story by any means.
- Arnt 8y ago
  I don't think you would say that if you had read such a report. The ones I have read do not feature three-word explanations, but rather say things like "the chain of events that led to the accident could have been stopped at any of these single points: <seven items> and would also have been stopped if both a&b had been done, or if both c&d, or both c&e" and then discuss how each of the many might be changed. They don't say "five of the links in the event chain were at a profit-hungry corporation, whose CEO should be thrown in gaol, then they'll know to do that differently in the future". "Runaway corporate greed" is fine reason for a quick and angry post on a social network, but aviation postmortems are a different kind of beast, heavy on analysis and prevention, light on anger.
  - chopin 8y ago
    As the Seattle Times reported, the MCAS system was mis-characterized by Boeing. Rules don't help if you don't go by them. This postmortem must include "runaway corporate greed" absolutely. Not sure what can be done about it as the FAA is not trustworthy anymore.
nutjob2 8y ago
What happened is that they hacked on an inappropriate engine onto an old airframe, then they hacked a hidden automation to fix the prior hack. The engineering fix is obvious, but management is the problem.

drstewart 8y ago

What charges do you recommend? Links to the US code here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

jhayward 8y ago

We are at the 'accident investigation' stage. Accident investigators do not hand out punishments. That comes later, during civil or criminal procedures in the various courts of jurisdiction, and by the regulators. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that there will be severe consequences, up to and including criminal charges.

zaroth 8y ago

My predictions? - Boeing will lose 10s of billions of dollars because of this in damages, lost contracts, and redesign costs. - Their CEO will resign. - The FAA will revamp many procedures to vastly increase certification costs and not allow these types of same-class-rating bullshit. - The FAA or similar EU agencies may slap some fine against Boeing - The families will sue and win a large settlement. - One or more engineers may commit suicide. (which would be itself tragic) - Middle management will pay zero or nearly zero price. - No one will be internally fired by Boeing as the problem is systemic. - No criminal charges. Many of these things will only happen with a sustains public relations compaign against Boeing, congressional hearings, persistent news articles, documentaries highlighting the harrowing crash, etc. EDIT: I’d say there’s a small chance even that a system called MCAS never flies again, even if that means the entire MAX concept has to be shelved. If the MAX can fly without MCAS but just under a new type rating, that could be the way they go. Boeing simply has not been successful introducing computer-moderated flight controls and envelopes the way that Airbus has over the last decade (and those lessons were hard learned too).