4 ms·

This sounds damning: >At the climax of the hearing, however, he had trouble explaining what was done about an internal FAA study showing that there would be ov

This sounds damning: >At the climax of the hearing, however, he had trouble explaining what was done about an internal FAA study showing that there would be over 15 crashes of 737 Max aircraft with 2,920 likely fatalities if the MCAS system was not fixed. That study was completed over three months before the Ethiopian airliner crashed. >In his appearances before Congress, then-Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg couldn't explain other internal documents that showed the company was aware long before either crash of the flaws in the MCAS system that lead to the tragedies. >One engineering study showed that pilots would have only four seconds to recognize a problem with the flight-control system, and only 10 seconds to respond to it, otherwise there would be a "catastrophic" crash. Where are the criminal charges, and if this is not a crime, why it is not?

shoulderfake 7y ago
How on earth is that not a criminal charge????
PedroBatista 7y ago
Even when the cat is out of the bag, national/political agendas are stronger than any criminal charges. Hundreds if not thousands knew damn well what was/is going on, and just like before the crashes they are "sorry" for the whole situation but they are also just trying to cover their ass which in turn will not solve any problem and the cycle continues.
praptak 7y ago
Because CEOs decide who gets campaign donations?
- pmlnr 7y ago
  Bribing is bad. Lobbying, that is completely ok, because that's a lot of money.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    Lobbying isn't bad; you're lobbying if you call or write your congresspeople. Even paid lobbying isn't so clear cute: are you part of any organization you donate to or just pay dues to that sends anyone to DC to talk to congresspeople about the issue the organization care about? There is a problem, but blanket statements like your comment only work to stir the pot without offering any real critique or alternative. There are many, many problems with our current system of political communication, but many of the calls to "remove money from politics" and "stop lobbying" completely overlook that those are the means by which the average citizen also participates in political discourse. Moreover, since every citizen cannot possibly talk to their congresspeople people about the details of every possible subject relating to issues they care about, groups of people need to be able to effect change as well as the individual.
    - mtgx 7y ago
      Even if all of that were true, the limits on political donations need to be limited much more drastically, because otherwise this system skews in favor of the rich and this "money vote" acts as a parallel system alongside the "universal vote" that greatly favors the rich, and going by how most candidates treat their electorate, it's often considered more important then the regular vote. If votes are supposed to be "equal" whether you're white, black, poor, or rich, then so should the "money vote" be as "equal" as possible - in other words, the cap on political donations should be pretty low, into the hundreds of dollars a year. The vast majority of people will not donate more than that to a candidate in an election. But rich people donate way more, and candidates are also incentivized to hold cocktail fundraisers, where basically the real campaign promises are made.
- api 7y ago
  This but also something else: Boeing and its suppliers are huge employers and a major part of America's industrial base. It's the same rationale behind bailing out the banks and letting their bad behavior slide: "national security." It's believed by many that it's better to let our own failures slide than to potentially lose dominance in a sector.
  - nugget 7y ago
    I understand the logic behind wanting to preserve Boeing as a company due to it's economic importance. But I don't understand the need to preserve any ownership by the current stock or bond holders. When the CEO has such negligent disregard for human life on an industrial scale, as may have occurred in this case, it seems that the stock holders at the very least should be exposed to more serious losses.
    - api 7y ago
      Expertise is power. The people who own, control, and operate Boeing are... well... the ones who run Boeing. It's extremely difficult to clean house at the top without losing the entire structure. It's like how it's hard to fire the one IT guy who knows how everything is configured. Look for example at what happened to Venezuela's oil industry when the Chavez regime tried to eliminate its current heads and nationalize it. Oil production crashed. The new people running the system didn't know how to run it, and there is a substantial learning curve. This was part of what set the stage for Venezuela's current economic and political disaster. Corruption aside (and I do think corruption is a factor) this is the most likely rational explanation for this behavior.
bonestamp2 7y ago
> Where are the criminal charges, and if this is not a crime, why it is not? My dad used to be a executive at a large company and I remember he was occasionally called to court and he (and all the other executives) had to carry massive personal liability policies incase they were ever personally sued for their decisions. I suspect there will at least be some personal lawsuits if there are no criminal charges. I think there will be criminal charges but I believe it's probably very early in the investigation as the evidence is still coming out and it's going to take a lot of time to see how wide and how deep this goes.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > he (and all the other executives) had to carry massive personal liability policies incase they were ever personally sued for their decisions If it's anything like the large companies I've had experiences with, the company covered the cost of these personal liability insurance policies entirely.
bobthepanda 7y ago
The wheels of justice don't move at the speed of the internet. Prosecutors generally like knowing they're going to secure a conviction before they actually prosecute. Congressional hearings are not a court of law. So I would imagine some prosecutor somewhere is actually working on it, but talking about how you're working on a case publicly is a great way to let defendants know that it's CYA time.

shoulderfake 7y ago

How on earth is that not a criminal charge????

PedroBatista 7y ago

Even when the cat is out of the bag, national/political agendas are stronger than any criminal charges. Hundreds if not thousands knew damn well what was/is going on, and just like before the crashes they are "sorry" for the whole situation but they are also just trying to cover their ass which in turn will not solve any problem and the cycle continues.

praptak 7y ago

Because CEOs decide who gets campaign donations?

pmlnr 7y ago
Bribing is bad. Lobbying, that is completely ok, because that's a lot of money.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  Lobbying isn't bad; you're lobbying if you call or write your congresspeople. Even paid lobbying isn't so clear cute: are you part of any organization you donate to or just pay dues to that sends anyone to DC to talk to congresspeople about the issue the organization care about? There is a problem, but blanket statements like your comment only work to stir the pot without offering any real critique or alternative. There are many, many problems with our current system of political communication, but many of the calls to "remove money from politics" and "stop lobbying" completely overlook that those are the means by which the average citizen also participates in political discourse. Moreover, since every citizen cannot possibly talk to their congresspeople people about the details of every possible subject relating to issues they care about, groups of people need to be able to effect change as well as the individual.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    Even if all of that were true, the limits on political donations need to be limited much more drastically, because otherwise this system skews in favor of the rich and this "money vote" acts as a parallel system alongside the "universal vote" that greatly favors the rich, and going by how most candidates treat their electorate, it's often considered more important then the regular vote. If votes are supposed to be "equal" whether you're white, black, poor, or rich, then so should the "money vote" be as "equal" as possible - in other words, the cap on political donations should be pretty low, into the hundreds of dollars a year. The vast majority of people will not donate more than that to a candidate in an election. But rich people donate way more, and candidates are also incentivized to hold cocktail fundraisers, where basically the real campaign promises are made.
api 7y ago
This but also something else: Boeing and its suppliers are huge employers and a major part of America's industrial base. It's the same rationale behind bailing out the banks and letting their bad behavior slide: "national security." It's believed by many that it's better to let our own failures slide than to potentially lose dominance in a sector.
- nugget 7y ago
  I understand the logic behind wanting to preserve Boeing as a company due to it's economic importance. But I don't understand the need to preserve any ownership by the current stock or bond holders. When the CEO has such negligent disregard for human life on an industrial scale, as may have occurred in this case, it seems that the stock holders at the very least should be exposed to more serious losses.
  - api 7y ago
    Expertise is power. The people who own, control, and operate Boeing are... well... the ones who run Boeing. It's extremely difficult to clean house at the top without losing the entire structure. It's like how it's hard to fire the one IT guy who knows how everything is configured. Look for example at what happened to Venezuela's oil industry when the Chavez regime tried to eliminate its current heads and nationalize it. Oil production crashed. The new people running the system didn't know how to run it, and there is a substantial learning curve. This was part of what set the stage for Venezuela's current economic and political disaster. Corruption aside (and I do think corruption is a factor) this is the most likely rational explanation for this behavior.

bonestamp2 7y ago

> Where are the criminal charges, and if this is not a crime, why it is not? My dad used to be a executive at a large company and I remember he was occasionally called to court and he (and all the other executives) had to carry massive personal liability policies incase they were ever personally sued for their decisions. I suspect there will at least be some personal lawsuits if there are no criminal charges. I think there will be criminal charges but I believe it's probably very early in the investigation as the evidence is still coming out and it's going to take a lot of time to see how wide and how deep this goes.

FireBeyond 7y ago
> he (and all the other executives) had to carry massive personal liability policies incase they were ever personally sued for their decisions If it's anything like the large companies I've had experiences with, the company covered the cost of these personal liability insurance policies entirely.

bobthepanda 7y ago

The wheels of justice don't move at the speed of the internet. Prosecutors generally like knowing they're going to secure a conviction before they actually prosecute. Congressional hearings are not a court of law. So I would imagine some prosecutor somewhere is actually working on it, but talking about how you're working on a case publicly is a great way to let defendants know that it's CYA time.