9 ms·

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?
        close04 7y ago
        You keep asking a question that is barely tangential to what I said but avoiding to make an actual point. But because I have a suspicion that you're attempting to disprove my point by attacking something I didn't say, I'll google that for you too: > A CEO just got 28 years in prison after 9 people died from his salmonella-tainted peanuts; Parnell had committed "conspiracy to defraud" consumers by knowingly shipping salmonella-tainted peanut products [0] > Former U.S. coal CEO gets year in prison for blast that killed 29; Blankenship was found guilty of one misdemeanor charge of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety and health standards in relation to the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion [1] So obviously they can convict CEOs of lesser companies for knowingly allowing people to die. [0] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9372519/parnell-sentencing https://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9372519/parnell-sentencing [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massey-energy-ceo/former-u-s-coal-ceo-gets-year-in-prison-for-blast-that-killed-29-idUSKCN0X324W https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massey-energy-ceo/former-...
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.

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?
        close04 7y ago
        You keep asking a question that is barely tangential to what I said but avoiding to make an actual point. But because I have a suspicion that you're attempting to disprove my point by attacking something I didn't say, I'll google that for you too: > A CEO just got 28 years in prison after 9 people died from his salmonella-tainted peanuts; Parnell had committed "conspiracy to defraud" consumers by knowingly shipping salmonella-tainted peanut products [0] > Former U.S. coal CEO gets year in prison for blast that killed 29; Blankenship was found guilty of one misdemeanor charge of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety and health standards in relation to the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion [1] So obviously they can convict CEOs of lesser companies for knowingly allowing people to die. [0] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9372519/parnell-sentencing https://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9372519/parnell-sentencing [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massey-energy-ceo/former-u-s-coal-ceo-gets-year-in-prison-for-blast-that-killed-29-idUSKCN0X324W https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massey-energy-ceo/former-...

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.