5 ms·

I suspect the people charged will be low level mechanics and assembly people and maybe a first level manager for appearances sake. You really think anyone at th

I suspect the people charged will be low level mechanics and assembly people and maybe a first level manager for appearances sake. You really think anyone at the executive level is getting arrested for this?

kabes 3y ago
Sure it will be executives, since they get paid so much for all the responsibility they carry /s
jmspring 3y ago
The whole VW/Audi dieselgate thing took out a couple execs, but not the main ones. This may be the same.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  On the one hand, Germany doesn’t extradite its citizens, so there are practical issues, not to mention diplomatic with going after top execs. On the other hand, Boeing is “national security” so there will be political pressure to not fuck with it too much.
  - b112 3y ago
    Or alternatively, there will be immense pressure to do so, to ensure that national security deliverables are not impacted by such gross negligence.
    - dralley 3y ago
      We're a bit late for that. But to some extent it only proves the point. Boeing has been fucking up so badly for so long that the Feds won't give them anything that isn't a fixed price contract.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The main execs still stand trial in Germany so.
colechristensen 3y ago
>You really think anyone at the executive level is getting arrested for this? There is a current smell of Boeing not being particularly cooperative with investigation. That is the usual path that gets somewhat more important people charged for committing crimes. Various brands of lying, conspiracy, and evidence tampering where people get charge for what goes on during the investigation instead of the actual incidents.
rainsford 3y ago
What makes people so convinced the door plug problem is obviously something that should be blamed on the executives? At the risk of being accused of shilling for corporate executives, convincing yourself that low level people can't be responsible for an issue before responsibility is determined feels like the wrong approach.
- pixelfarmer 3y ago
  I have a couple books here that carry terms like DO-178C, ISO 26262, IEC 62304 and so on on their covers. All that paperwork, all these processes, all that has a single reason: To make doubly^N sure that humans, who love to do all sorts of mistakes, don't. Creating environments where these processes are kicked into the bucket in whatever way is NOT what workers do, it is coming from the very top. Do I need to continue on ... ? Maybe about what happens to workers if they try to do the right thing? Ever heard about engineers at Boeing who spoke up ... ? It is time the head honchos not just at Boeing but more generally get to see that accountability, responsibility, and all these other fancy words also have some actual meaning. We have to stop playing this stupid game of "deferred responsibility", because in the end it is not a company but humans making decisions and there are always consequences from that. Some just take a while to cause some effects and not all of them take the direct route, either. But that doesn't make the decision makers less/not responsible.
- jjk166 3y ago
  Part of being a leader is taking responsibility for the actions of those you are in charge of. Obviously it wasn't an executive who failed to properly install bolts, which is the proximate cause of the failure, but someone above the worker should have noticed the missing bolts when they were doing the documentation, someone above that should have noticed the missing documentation when they were auditing, and someone above that should have noticed the missing audit, and so on and so forth up the ladder until you get to an executive that doesn't have someone doublechecking their work. Now maybe the problem was noticed and an executive did take action but for some reason a subordinate deceived their superior into thinking they were following the directions when they weren't, but that seems at best highly unlikely. Even if that is what happened, the deception would have to be very elaborate for the executive to not be responsible for independently verifying that their orders were being properly followed. For better or worse, you don't get to take credit for the successes of those beneath you without also taking the blame for their failings.

kabes 3y ago

Sure it will be executives, since they get paid so much for all the responsibility they carry /s

jmspring 3y ago

The whole VW/Audi dieselgate thing took out a couple execs, but not the main ones. This may be the same.

zarzavat 3y ago
On the one hand, Germany doesn’t extradite its citizens, so there are practical issues, not to mention diplomatic with going after top execs. On the other hand, Boeing is “national security” so there will be political pressure to not fuck with it too much.
- b112 3y ago
  Or alternatively, there will be immense pressure to do so, to ensure that national security deliverables are not impacted by such gross negligence.
  - dralley 3y ago
    We're a bit late for that. But to some extent it only proves the point. Boeing has been fucking up so badly for so long that the Feds won't give them anything that isn't a fixed price contract.
hef19898 3y ago
The main execs still stand trial in Germany so.

colechristensen 3y ago

>You really think anyone at the executive level is getting arrested for this? There is a current smell of Boeing not being particularly cooperative with investigation. That is the usual path that gets somewhat more important people charged for committing crimes. Various brands of lying, conspiracy, and evidence tampering where people get charge for what goes on during the investigation instead of the actual incidents.

rainsford 3y ago

What makes people so convinced the door plug problem is obviously something that should be blamed on the executives? At the risk of being accused of shilling for corporate executives, convincing yourself that low level people can't be responsible for an issue before responsibility is determined feels like the wrong approach.

pixelfarmer 3y ago
I have a couple books here that carry terms like DO-178C, ISO 26262, IEC 62304 and so on on their covers. All that paperwork, all these processes, all that has a single reason: To make doubly^N sure that humans, who love to do all sorts of mistakes, don't. Creating environments where these processes are kicked into the bucket in whatever way is NOT what workers do, it is coming from the very top. Do I need to continue on ... ? Maybe about what happens to workers if they try to do the right thing? Ever heard about engineers at Boeing who spoke up ... ? It is time the head honchos not just at Boeing but more generally get to see that accountability, responsibility, and all these other fancy words also have some actual meaning. We have to stop playing this stupid game of "deferred responsibility", because in the end it is not a company but humans making decisions and there are always consequences from that. Some just take a while to cause some effects and not all of them take the direct route, either. But that doesn't make the decision makers less/not responsible.
jjk166 3y ago
Part of being a leader is taking responsibility for the actions of those you are in charge of. Obviously it wasn't an executive who failed to properly install bolts, which is the proximate cause of the failure, but someone above the worker should have noticed the missing bolts when they were doing the documentation, someone above that should have noticed the missing documentation when they were auditing, and someone above that should have noticed the missing audit, and so on and so forth up the ladder until you get to an executive that doesn't have someone doublechecking their work. Now maybe the problem was noticed and an executive did take action but for some reason a subordinate deceived their superior into thinking they were following the directions when they weren't, but that seems at best highly unlikely. Even if that is what happened, the deception would have to be very elaborate for the executive to not be responsible for independently verifying that their orders were being properly followed. For better or worse, you don't get to take credit for the successes of those beneath you without also taking the blame for their failings.