9 ms·

Lion: "we'd like to practice using this plane so we don't crash it". Boeing: "no". Lion: crashes it. Hundreds die. Boeing: "not our fault, their pilots were unt

Lion: "we'd like to practice using this plane so we don't crash it". Boeing: "no". Lion: crashes it. Hundreds die. Boeing: "not our fault, their pilots were untrained". How is no one is prison again?

mattacular 7y ago
The Boeing CEO exited the company with just 60 million dollars, which is a lot like being sent to prison.
- close04 7y ago
  It's because in the US it takes much more than knowingly allowing such issues to directly kill hundreds to go to prison. We're not talking about "calculated" deaths like the ones VW's CEO hopefully goes to prison for. Rather directly attributable ones like the 737MAX or GM's faulty ignition switch scandals.
  - sseveran 7y ago
    VW's former CEO isn't being charged with killing anyone one. He has been charged with committing fraud by knowingly lying to regulators.
    - close04 7y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that either VW's, GM's, or Boeing's CEOs actually go to prison for "killing" anyone but rather for "knowingly allowing such issues to directly kill". And as the GM example stands to show, it's not particularly hard to get away with this in the US if you are the CEO of a powerful company.
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        Can you provide examples of CEOs of less powerful companies not getting away with this? Your comment seems to necessitate examples of such.
        close04 7y ago
        A gogle helped me here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-ceos-in-prison-whyd-they-do-it/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-ceos-in-prison-whyd-they... Given that Boeing and GM are/were some of the most powerful in the US stands to reason that most companies will fall under the "less powerful" characterization. But I think my point was clear already: the more powerful the company, the more clout they have when it comes to keeping their CEOs out of prison. whether or not this is doable for smaller players is irrelevant when talking about a heavyweight like Boeing.
        Aaargh20318 7y ago
        I can't help but notice that all these are examples of CEO's going to prison for making rich people less rich. None a single one for making poor people dead.
        close04 7y ago
        > I can't help but notice Then I'm sure you also noticed none of this makes my point* less valid. Despite the wave of downvotes (which are probably aimed at me explicitly mentioning the US) I can't see any rebuttal of something I actually said: *Given the precedents (like the GM scandal), CEOs of big/powerful companies (Boeing) in the US (where Boeing "lives") will pretty much get away with anything, including knowingly allowing hundreds to die (which Boeing/CEO did). Later edit: > simply trying to lockup CEOs I don't think is the right way to go. Indeed, it's just a good first step. The very same companies and CEOs will always fight any legal changes that would further a culture of safety first because that usually hurts the bottom line.
        ryanlol 7y ago
        > Then I'm sure you also noticed none of this makes my point* less valid But you don’t have a single example of less powerful executives going to prison in situations comparable to the one we’re discussing, right?
- lowdose 7y ago
  Sounds like a Bob Rubin trade to me.
- sorokod 7y ago
  Yea, in the game of monopoly
- andbberger 7y ago
  Wow poor guy hope he's okay...
- Aloha 7y ago
  In fairness to the guy, he came from the Military side of the house, the program was basically ready for flight by the time he took over the CEO slot. Basically all of the fatal design decisions were made before he became CEO. The 737 MAX was a failure of process, not by specific choices made by a leader - he was fired however for his poor response to the crashes, he committed many tactical and PR errors, which made the restoration process longer than it should have been. If still you want to lay blame at any single persons feet, lay the blame at the feet of James McNerney, the CEO who ran Boeing while the bulk of the development of the MAX was done, he's the one who kicked the MAX program off.
  - stefan_ 7y ago
    What do you mean? The policy set here was literally set at the highest level, a specific choice - "no training, no certification" was the precise goal for the 737 MAX. How can you claim that is a failure of process.
    - Aloha 7y ago
      I'll argue that making the MAX behave the same as a non MAX 737 is a reachable and reasonable engineering goal, the process failed because it didnt do it safely. Airbus absolutely uses its fly-by-wire system to change the handling characteristics of its airplanes, to make them fly the same - I see no reason why Boeing couldn't do the same thing.
      - acqq 7y ago
        > I'll argue that making the MAX behave the same as a non MAX 737 is a reachable and reasonable engineering goal And I argue the opposite: it can‘t be made to behave exactly the same as soon as the failure scenarios are considered. In computer speak, you just look from the point of view of a “most common” run, not all the special cases, exceptions etc. There are other impossibilities too, directly related to the certification requirements, already documented in the news articles before.
        7y ago
- Animats 7y ago
  Perhaps Indonesia will ask the US to extradite him for trial in Indonesia.
CPLX 7y ago
It’s a cliche, but I think the concept is well summed up here: https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE
ryanlol 7y ago
Whats up with this weird obsession with putting people in prison? Is it just an American thing? Why not just put the executives against a wall while we’re at it? That’ll teach them!
- BurnGpuBurn 7y ago
  Some may even find it fair to kill them off, given how many deaths they've caused.
  - buran77 7y ago
    It's definitely not fair to kill them off because you're cutting off the nose to spite the face and mostly hurting people that have no share of the guilt here, the whole ecosystem that relies on that company. "The company" did nothing wrong, the leaders, for encouraging the type of culture that lead to this, and specific other employees, etc. are the ones who did this. It's like a bad tooth. You don't kill the patient for it.
- tw04 7y ago
  Generally speaking, when you murder someone you are punished for it. I'm not entirely sure why this would confuse you. If we didn't punish them, there would be no deterrent for the next person to kill people when it's convenient to do so. It's part of what makes us civilized. Did the CEO PERSONALLY kill them? No, but the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Every time the responsibility bird comes calling, they seem to claim they should have none. Cake and eating and such.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    > the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Seems like it might be better not to pay them such ridiculous amounts of money in the first place.
    - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
_pmf_ 7y ago
Did Boeing actively prevent Lion from buying training sessions? Or did Lion think "safety is not so important to us that we're paying the training out of our own pocket?"

Lion: "we'd like to practice using this plane so we don't crash it". Boeing: "no". Lion: crashes it. Hundreds die. Boeing: "not our fault, their pilots were untrained". How is no one is prison again?

mattacular 7y ago

The Boeing CEO exited the company with just 60 million dollars, which is a lot like being sent to prison.

close04 7y ago
It's because in the US it takes much more than knowingly allowing such issues to directly kill hundreds to go to prison. We're not talking about "calculated" deaths like the ones VW's CEO hopefully goes to prison for. Rather directly attributable ones like the 737MAX or GM's faulty ignition switch scandals.
- sseveran 7y ago
  VW's former CEO isn't being charged with killing anyone one. He has been charged with committing fraud by knowingly lying to regulators.
  - close04 7y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that either VW's, GM's, or Boeing's CEOs actually go to prison for "killing" anyone but rather for "knowingly allowing such issues to directly kill". And as the GM example stands to show, it's not particularly hard to get away with this in the US if you are the CEO of a powerful company.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Can you provide examples of CEOs of less powerful companies not getting away with this? Your comment seems to necessitate examples of such.
      - close04 7y ago
        A gogle helped me here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-ceos-in-prison-whyd-they-do-it/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-ceos-in-prison-whyd-they... Given that Boeing and GM are/were some of the most powerful in the US stands to reason that most companies will fall under the "less powerful" characterization. But I think my point was clear already: the more powerful the company, the more clout they have when it comes to keeping their CEOs out of prison. whether or not this is doable for smaller players is irrelevant when talking about a heavyweight like Boeing.
        Aaargh20318 7y ago
        I can't help but notice that all these are examples of CEO's going to prison for making rich people less rich. None a single one for making poor people dead.
        close04 7y ago
        > I can't help but notice Then I'm sure you also noticed none of this makes my point* less valid. Despite the wave of downvotes (which are probably aimed at me explicitly mentioning the US) I can't see any rebuttal of something I actually said: *Given the precedents (like the GM scandal), CEOs of big/powerful companies (Boeing) in the US (where Boeing "lives") will pretty much get away with anything, including knowingly allowing hundreds to die (which Boeing/CEO did). Later edit: > simply trying to lockup CEOs I don't think is the right way to go. Indeed, it's just a good first step. The very same companies and CEOs will always fight any legal changes that would further a culture of safety first because that usually hurts the bottom line.
        ryanlol 7y ago
        > Then I'm sure you also noticed none of this makes my point* less valid But you don’t have a single example of less powerful executives going to prison in situations comparable to the one we’re discussing, right?
lowdose 7y ago
Sounds like a Bob Rubin trade to me.
sorokod 7y ago
Yea, in the game of monopoly
andbberger 7y ago
Wow poor guy hope he's okay...
Aloha 7y ago
In fairness to the guy, he came from the Military side of the house, the program was basically ready for flight by the time he took over the CEO slot. Basically all of the fatal design decisions were made before he became CEO. The 737 MAX was a failure of process, not by specific choices made by a leader - he was fired however for his poor response to the crashes, he committed many tactical and PR errors, which made the restoration process longer than it should have been. If still you want to lay blame at any single persons feet, lay the blame at the feet of James McNerney, the CEO who ran Boeing while the bulk of the development of the MAX was done, he's the one who kicked the MAX program off.
- stefan_ 7y ago
  What do you mean? The policy set here was literally set at the highest level, a specific choice - "no training, no certification" was the precise goal for the 737 MAX. How can you claim that is a failure of process.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    I'll argue that making the MAX behave the same as a non MAX 737 is a reachable and reasonable engineering goal, the process failed because it didnt do it safely. Airbus absolutely uses its fly-by-wire system to change the handling characteristics of its airplanes, to make them fly the same - I see no reason why Boeing couldn't do the same thing.
    - acqq 7y ago
      > I'll argue that making the MAX behave the same as a non MAX 737 is a reachable and reasonable engineering goal And I argue the opposite: it can‘t be made to behave exactly the same as soon as the failure scenarios are considered. In computer speak, you just look from the point of view of a “most common” run, not all the special cases, exceptions etc. There are other impossibilities too, directly related to the certification requirements, already documented in the news articles before.
      - 7y ago
Animats 7y ago
Perhaps Indonesia will ask the US to extradite him for trial in Indonesia.

CPLX 7y ago

It’s a cliche, but I think the concept is well summed up here: https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE

ryanlol 7y ago

Whats up with this weird obsession with putting people in prison? Is it just an American thing? Why not just put the executives against a wall while we’re at it? That’ll teach them!

BurnGpuBurn 7y ago
Some may even find it fair to kill them off, given how many deaths they've caused.
- buran77 7y ago
  It's definitely not fair to kill them off because you're cutting off the nose to spite the face and mostly hurting people that have no share of the guilt here, the whole ecosystem that relies on that company. "The company" did nothing wrong, the leaders, for encouraging the type of culture that lead to this, and specific other employees, etc. are the ones who did this. It's like a bad tooth. You don't kill the patient for it.
tw04 7y ago
Generally speaking, when you murder someone you are punished for it. I'm not entirely sure why this would confuse you. If we didn't punish them, there would be no deterrent for the next person to kill people when it's convenient to do so. It's part of what makes us civilized. Did the CEO PERSONALLY kill them? No, but the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Every time the responsibility bird comes calling, they seem to claim they should have none. Cake and eating and such.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  > the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Seems like it might be better not to pay them such ridiculous amounts of money in the first place.
  - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

_pmf_ 7y ago

Did Boeing actively prevent Lion from buying training sessions? Or did Lion think "safety is not so important to us that we're paying the training out of our own pocket?"