3 ms·
This is disgusting misdirection and frankly feels fraudulent to me. The definition of fraud is as follows: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result i
by hodder 7y ago
This is disgusting misdirection and frankly feels fraudulent to me.
The definition of fraud is as follows:
Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
What Boeing is doing meets that definition of fraud if you ask me.
- Panino 7y agoIf there is fraud here then I think it would be committed by Ryanair. There are essentially 2 transactions to consider here: 1. Boeing-Ryanair: both parties know this plane has been rebadged and have agreed to it. There is no deception. 2. Ryanair-customer: one party has rebadged a known faulty product, claiming it to be something else. There is deception on the part of Ryanair, the entity financially benefiting from the transaction. Maybe consider that everything the 737 MAX 8 touches dies. Airlines, flyers, shareholders. Boeing made this dumpster fire and now they should sleep in it. I'm with other posters here who will now avoid any 737. Lots of fish in the sea, lots of planes in the sky.
- hodder 7y agoTrue enough. Both parties seem to know that they are trying to deceive passengers though. Both are at fault if you ask me.
- notahacker 7y agoIt's not fraud to drop a toxic brand name. It's been designated the 737-8200 internally and in regulator documents for years.
- hnarn 7y agoSurely the context within which alleged fraud happens is exactly what makes it so?
- imglorp 7y agoThe mattress and consumer electronics industries do the same thing with model names, specifically so consumers can't comparison shop. Very shady.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoThe "deception" part is crucial. If I call water dihydrogen monoxide, is it deception? 737-8200 is and has for years been another name for that craft.
- perl4ever 7y agoThat's context dependent. If you know that people will be deceived by it, and you use the terminology for that purpose, then it is deception.