11 ms·

I'm almost certain "expense of human lives" didn't come up as a factor on any of the merger pitch decks. Frankly its a huge leap to see that a merger of two su

I'm almost certain "expense of human lives" didn't come up as a factor on any of the merger pitch decks. Frankly its a huge leap to see that a merger of two successful and relatively safe aircraft manufacturers would be intentionally at the expense of human lives.

bashallah 7y ago
Nice of you to think facts only exist at the corporate level
buddylw 7y ago
If they aren't considering human lives in the process, that may be the real problem.
lovich 7y ago
Why would it have to be intentional? They are pursuing profit. Human lives were ended as a result of their actions in the pursuit of profit. Is that not pursuing profit at the expense of human lives?
- DuskStar 7y ago
  If I drive to the store to get milk and end up getting in a fatal accident along the way, am I pursuing milk at the expense of human lives?
  - wtallis 7y ago
    If you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then yeah, that's a fair characterization.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Yes. Driving is dangerous. Our society has just deemed its danger acceptable even though we know how many people die because we are so dependent on cars. This is the grim fact of the matter.
  - tw04 7y ago
    If you drove to the store in a car you knew had faulty brakes and killed someone: yes you would be pursuing milk at the expense of human lives. And I guarantee you if they could prove you knew your brakes were bad, the punishment would absolutely be worse than if you just had an unpreventable accident.
    - bumby 7y ago
      This assumes Boeing had a priori knowledge that the system would cause a crash. The fact that the system safety analysis didn't label it 'catastrophic' seems to indicate they didn't know this. This doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that they should have, or that they still didn't follow their design procedures stating redundant senaors
      - tw04 7y ago
        “I didn’t KNOW removing three of the four brakes on my car would cause a crash” is an argument you could make. I wouldn’t want to stake my freedom on it.
        bumby 7y ago
        That's assuming you are making a connection between brakes and a catastrophic failure. The fact the system safety analysis didn't call out an MCAS failure as catastrophic seems to indicate they misunderstood the system risk which is different than claiming a catastrophic failure is an acceptable risk
  - xnyan 7y ago
    It's like going to get milk every day for 20 years, then deciding to let your sometimes reliable brother get milk for you because it's cheaper, and after they kill people in a wreck getting milk you keep on letting them get milk for you.
    - newfangle 7y ago
      Except, going by your anology, this would be the first time Boeings brother killed someone getting milk.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bumby 7y ago
  Not trying to be a Boeing apologist, but if the bar is "zero risk" almost no business plan in industry would be implemented. They have to acknowledge at some point that lives may be at risk in their business. Whether or not that risk level is a acceptable and that they properly gauge that risk 8s another matter
evan_ 7y ago
Of course it did, but it was probably spelled differently, like “a merger would enhance our ability to fight regulation”. The regulations being things like “you have to have planes that don’t rapidly fly into the ground for no reason” etc.
- Guthur 7y ago
  There are many thousands if not millions of humans involved. Successful business affects so many even far removed from the company. Large companies like these are often heavily invested by institutional investors covering many of the populations pensions.
pytester 7y ago
It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant. You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.
    - didbdidnd 7y ago
      I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is. Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided. Could be a fiefdom for all I care. But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”. But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.
pfortuny 7y ago
“At whatever costs” easily becomes a moral stance even if nothing strictly immoral was supposed to be assumed.

bashallah 7y ago

Nice of you to think facts only exist at the corporate level

buddylw 7y ago

If they aren't considering human lives in the process, that may be the real problem.

lovich 7y ago

Why would it have to be intentional? They are pursuing profit. Human lives were ended as a result of their actions in the pursuit of profit. Is that not pursuing profit at the expense of human lives?

DuskStar 7y ago
If I drive to the store to get milk and end up getting in a fatal accident along the way, am I pursuing milk at the expense of human lives?
- wtallis 7y ago
  If you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then yeah, that's a fair characterization.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Yes. Driving is dangerous. Our society has just deemed its danger acceptable even though we know how many people die because we are so dependent on cars. This is the grim fact of the matter.
- tw04 7y ago
  If you drove to the store in a car you knew had faulty brakes and killed someone: yes you would be pursuing milk at the expense of human lives. And I guarantee you if they could prove you knew your brakes were bad, the punishment would absolutely be worse than if you just had an unpreventable accident.
  - bumby 7y ago
    This assumes Boeing had a priori knowledge that the system would cause a crash. The fact that the system safety analysis didn't label it 'catastrophic' seems to indicate they didn't know this. This doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that they should have, or that they still didn't follow their design procedures stating redundant senaors
    - tw04 7y ago
      “I didn’t KNOW removing three of the four brakes on my car would cause a crash” is an argument you could make. I wouldn’t want to stake my freedom on it.
      - bumby 7y ago
        That's assuming you are making a connection between brakes and a catastrophic failure. The fact the system safety analysis didn't call out an MCAS failure as catastrophic seems to indicate they misunderstood the system risk which is different than claiming a catastrophic failure is an acceptable risk
- xnyan 7y ago
  It's like going to get milk every day for 20 years, then deciding to let your sometimes reliable brother get milk for you because it's cheaper, and after they kill people in a wreck getting milk you keep on letting them get milk for you.
  - newfangle 7y ago
    Except, going by your anology, this would be the first time Boeings brother killed someone getting milk.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bumby 7y ago
Not trying to be a Boeing apologist, but if the bar is "zero risk" almost no business plan in industry would be implemented. They have to acknowledge at some point that lives may be at risk in their business. Whether or not that risk level is a acceptable and that they properly gauge that risk 8s another matter

evan_ 7y ago

Of course it did, but it was probably spelled differently, like “a merger would enhance our ability to fight regulation”. The regulations being things like “you have to have planes that don’t rapidly fly into the ground for no reason” etc.

Guthur 7y ago
There are many thousands if not millions of humans involved. Successful business affects so many even far removed from the company. Large companies like these are often heavily invested by institutional investors covering many of the populations pensions.

pytester 7y ago

It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant. You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...

anon1m0us 7y ago
Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.
  - didbdidnd 7y ago
    I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is. Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided. Could be a fiefdom for all I care. But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”. But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.

pfortuny 7y ago

“At whatever costs” easily becomes a moral stance even if nothing strictly immoral was supposed to be assumed.