10 ms·

And how are they going to be held accountable? They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company. Maybe not everyone signed, but t

And how are they going to be held accountable? They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company. Maybe not everyone signed, but then it's about how much they can pay their lawyers.

ghevshoo 7y ago
Not sure what contacts you are talking about, but the civil lawsuits have started to roll in... https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/french-woman-sues-boeing-seeking-at-least-276-million-over-ethiopian-crash-idINKCN1SR1FY https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/fre...
StreamBright 7y ago
If they cannot be held accountable in the legal sense they might in the financial sense. Stopping 737MAX sales would hinder their operations quite a bit.
MobileVet 7y ago
By forcing them to fully certify the MAX, they will take a massive hit in sales and further losses in legal suits from the airlines that have already purchased planes they can't fly. This will also add a serious line item to the various civil lawsuits regarding the loss of life as a government level entity has now said 'this was a different plane, Boeing lied.' It will be extremely hard for Boeing defense attorneys and likely lead to triplicate damages settlements.
village-idiot 7y ago
First, recertification will not be cheap. Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old planes that use more fuel. My bet is that companies like Southwest will half all orders and see what happens. Finally, it’ll drive companies that straddle the Boeing airbus decide deeper into Airbus’ arms.
- magduf 7y ago
  The problem with Southwest is that their entire fleet is 737s. So the 737MAX was a big thing for them: they could stick with that same crappy old airframe, but get better fuel economy, and not have to retrain pilots. They don't want to switch to Airbus because that means they can't standardize on a single model and manufacturer, and they'd have to retrain so many pilots too.
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    They’re probably stuck retraining their pilots one way or the other at this point, but I agree they’re in quite the pickle now.
  - snarf21 7y ago
    I agree but isn't there enough evidence now for Southwest to sue Boeing to make them pay for all the training (after there is a real fix)?
    - vkou 7y ago
      Generally speaking: 1. These kinds of contracts don't come with provisions for compensation for every foreseeable contingency. 2. You can sue anyone for anything in America. But it's going to cost you. 3. You can also make future purchases conditional on how these contingencies were handled in the past. So, it's likely that a lot of negotiation between Southwest and Boeing will happen. Possibly even some arbitration. If the two firms ever end up in court over this, that would indicate a colossal failure in all the processes that lead up to that moment. (As litigation is incredibly expensive.)
      - magduf 7y ago
        Well I'm hoping it'll go to massive litigation between many different parties and Boeing, and Boeing goes bankrupt. They can't be trusted ever again.
  - oreo83 7y ago
wongarsu 7y ago
Even if they manage to dodge civil liability (which is unlikely), a number of nations could bring criminal charges for the deaths caused by the two crashes. In addition most major nations have the option to bring criminal charges against Boeing for endangering the lives of their citizens.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Cessna nearly went bankrupt due to liability lawsuits. The consequence was not safer planes, but fewer planes. I think the right way to go here is (proactive) regulation and certification, not (reactive) law suits.
  - coryfklein 7y ago
    I think the scale of economies between Cessna and Boeing are going to be hard to compare.
    - SilasX 7y ago
      Scale is irrelevant to the dynamic of "a good stops being provided when the assigned liability is out of proportion to what the provider can reasonably control". Cessna was hit with vindictive, overreaching lawsuits that somehow succeeded, which had the effect not of safer airplanes, but more expensive ones without meaningful changes to safety. "Boeing's bigger so I don't have to care about that dynamic" is not the right way to react to that concern.
      - Swenrekcah 7y ago
        I’m not sure what Cessna’s case was but Boeing and the FAA’s negligence is absolutely horrible here. I’d give them a begrudging pass with some fines slapped on if they’d grounded the fleet and disclosed their deception after the Lion Air crash. But after that and knowing what they knew, people need to go to prison for this.
rossdavidh 7y ago
Really, all you need is for the CEO and perhaps the board of directors to lose their jobs. Sure, they'd get golden parachutes and it wouldn't seem sufficient, but people in positions of power don't like losing their position. If you did that, it would be sufficient to make the next CEO (and board) think twice about doing something similar. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening.
- guitarbill 7y ago
  We like imagine a big conspiracy, or pressure from the top because of corporate greed. And sure, CEOs and the board called leaders for a reason, and ultimately they're responsible, not just for culture, but the whole operation. While I can't speak for the aviation industry, in my experience lower and middle management is just as much at fault, if not more. That's often where the real cowards sit, tyrannizing downwards and lying upwards. I'm not saying upper management is faultless, but presumably they aren't the only ones.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Upper management sets the cultural expectations. If they prioritize shipping over safety, the middle managers will follow the incentives. Middle managers don't have the power to drive institutional change in a hierarchical organization. Cultures flows from whomever can fire your ass.
    - guitarbill 7y ago
      I don't buy it; at the end of the day everybody has some moral responsibility when human lives are involved. Not to Godwin the argument, but I would have hoped WW2 would have taught us that much. But I'm not familiar with US work culture. Again, clearly upper management aren't blameless either, but the fact remains responsibility cannot or should not be so easily passed on.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  The way Europe handled Volkswagen is... nothing, but Vw directors are being arrested one by one when they transit through US jurisdictions, and jailed. Perhaps we’ll ser the same: Europe arresting and trialling Boeing officials one by one as they ser foot in Europe. Perhaps there are already negociations on immunity for Vw against immunity for Boeing.
peteretep 7y ago
> They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company Contracts with whom? A member country EU court with a dead passenger could presumably make life very very uncomfortable for senior Boeing management.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nocturnial 7y ago
  I wrote victim and not dead passenger as you falsely implied. The contracts are with the surviving familing members. If you don't consider them as victims then give me another word for it. edit: If you downvote me at least give me a chance to defend why I chose the word victim. The reply gizmo is there.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    The definition of victim implies the same as "dead passenger". The families of dead passengers would be stretching the definition, at the very least it's not the most obvious definition in this case >a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action "Victim's family" is how people would normally refer to them.
    - nocturnial 7y ago
      Ok fine "victim's family". I stand corrected. It's not like when we change the words to describe it, is going to change how they feel.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Losing a family member definitely qualifies as harm.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
nutjob2 7y ago
If they have made agreements with victims that means they have been held accountable. Unless they've been represented poorly, these people likely are better off to the tune of well over a million dollars each. Of course they are also dead.

ghevshoo 7y ago

Not sure what contacts you are talking about, but the civil lawsuits have started to roll in... https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/french-woman-sues-boeing-seeking-at-least-276-million-over-ethiopian-crash-idINKCN1SR1FY https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/fre...

StreamBright 7y ago

If they cannot be held accountable in the legal sense they might in the financial sense. Stopping 737MAX sales would hinder their operations quite a bit.

MobileVet 7y ago

By forcing them to fully certify the MAX, they will take a massive hit in sales and further losses in legal suits from the airlines that have already purchased planes they can't fly. This will also add a serious line item to the various civil lawsuits regarding the loss of life as a government level entity has now said 'this was a different plane, Boeing lied.' It will be extremely hard for Boeing defense attorneys and likely lead to triplicate damages settlements.

village-idiot 7y ago

First, recertification will not be cheap. Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old planes that use more fuel. My bet is that companies like Southwest will half all orders and see what happens. Finally, it’ll drive companies that straddle the Boeing airbus decide deeper into Airbus’ arms.

magduf 7y ago
The problem with Southwest is that their entire fleet is 737s. So the 737MAX was a big thing for them: they could stick with that same crappy old airframe, but get better fuel economy, and not have to retrain pilots. They don't want to switch to Airbus because that means they can't standardize on a single model and manufacturer, and they'd have to retrain so many pilots too.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  They’re probably stuck retraining their pilots one way or the other at this point, but I agree they’re in quite the pickle now.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I agree but isn't there enough evidence now for Southwest to sue Boeing to make them pay for all the training (after there is a real fix)?
  - vkou 7y ago
    Generally speaking: 1. These kinds of contracts don't come with provisions for compensation for every foreseeable contingency. 2. You can sue anyone for anything in America. But it's going to cost you. 3. You can also make future purchases conditional on how these contingencies were handled in the past. So, it's likely that a lot of negotiation between Southwest and Boeing will happen. Possibly even some arbitration. If the two firms ever end up in court over this, that would indicate a colossal failure in all the processes that lead up to that moment. (As litigation is incredibly expensive.)
    - magduf 7y ago
      Well I'm hoping it'll go to massive litigation between many different parties and Boeing, and Boeing goes bankrupt. They can't be trusted ever again.
- oreo83 7y ago

wongarsu 7y ago

Even if they manage to dodge civil liability (which is unlikely), a number of nations could bring criminal charges for the deaths caused by the two crashes. In addition most major nations have the option to bring criminal charges against Boeing for endangering the lives of their citizens.

FabHK 7y ago
Cessna nearly went bankrupt due to liability lawsuits. The consequence was not safer planes, but fewer planes. I think the right way to go here is (proactive) regulation and certification, not (reactive) law suits.
- coryfklein 7y ago
  I think the scale of economies between Cessna and Boeing are going to be hard to compare.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Scale is irrelevant to the dynamic of "a good stops being provided when the assigned liability is out of proportion to what the provider can reasonably control". Cessna was hit with vindictive, overreaching lawsuits that somehow succeeded, which had the effect not of safer airplanes, but more expensive ones without meaningful changes to safety. "Boeing's bigger so I don't have to care about that dynamic" is not the right way to react to that concern.
    - Swenrekcah 7y ago
      I’m not sure what Cessna’s case was but Boeing and the FAA’s negligence is absolutely horrible here. I’d give them a begrudging pass with some fines slapped on if they’d grounded the fleet and disclosed their deception after the Lion Air crash. But after that and knowing what they knew, people need to go to prison for this.

rossdavidh 7y ago

Really, all you need is for the CEO and perhaps the board of directors to lose their jobs. Sure, they'd get golden parachutes and it wouldn't seem sufficient, but people in positions of power don't like losing their position. If you did that, it would be sufficient to make the next CEO (and board) think twice about doing something similar. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening.

guitarbill 7y ago
We like imagine a big conspiracy, or pressure from the top because of corporate greed. And sure, CEOs and the board called leaders for a reason, and ultimately they're responsible, not just for culture, but the whole operation. While I can't speak for the aviation industry, in my experience lower and middle management is just as much at fault, if not more. That's often where the real cowards sit, tyrannizing downwards and lying upwards. I'm not saying upper management is faultless, but presumably they aren't the only ones.
- vkou 7y ago
  Upper management sets the cultural expectations. If they prioritize shipping over safety, the middle managers will follow the incentives. Middle managers don't have the power to drive institutional change in a hierarchical organization. Cultures flows from whomever can fire your ass.
  - guitarbill 7y ago
    I don't buy it; at the end of the day everybody has some moral responsibility when human lives are involved. Not to Godwin the argument, but I would have hoped WW2 would have taught us that much. But I'm not familiar with US work culture. Again, clearly upper management aren't blameless either, but the fact remains responsibility cannot or should not be so easily passed on.
alexis_fr 7y ago
The way Europe handled Volkswagen is... nothing, but Vw directors are being arrested one by one when they transit through US jurisdictions, and jailed. Perhaps we’ll ser the same: Europe arresting and trialling Boeing officials one by one as they ser foot in Europe. Perhaps there are already negociations on immunity for Vw against immunity for Boeing.

peteretep 7y ago

> They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company Contracts with whom? A member country EU court with a dead passenger could presumably make life very very uncomfortable for senior Boeing management.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nocturnial 7y ago
I wrote victim and not dead passenger as you falsely implied. The contracts are with the surviving familing members. If you don't consider them as victims then give me another word for it. edit: If you downvote me at least give me a chance to defend why I chose the word victim. The reply gizmo is there.
- freehunter 7y ago
  The definition of victim implies the same as "dead passenger". The families of dead passengers would be stretching the definition, at the very least it's not the most obvious definition in this case >a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action "Victim's family" is how people would normally refer to them.
  - nocturnial 7y ago
    Ok fine "victim's family". I stand corrected. It's not like when we change the words to describe it, is going to change how they feel.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Losing a family member definitely qualifies as harm.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago

nutjob2 7y ago

If they have made agreements with victims that means they have been held accountable. Unless they've been represented poorly, these people likely are better off to the tune of well over a million dollars each. Of course they are also dead.