3 ms·

As far as I can tell, I'm just skipping over the issues which may be true, but are beside the point, but then, it is not clear to me which statement's first hal

As far as I can tell, I'm just skipping over the issues which may be true, but are beside the point, but then, it is not clear to me which statement's first half you think I am skipping over. The point I have been making all along is that, regardless of what led Boeing to the point of choosing to hide or misrepresent the situation, it is the choice to do so that turns this into a potentially criminal matter. With the same physical/technical problems but proper and timely disclosure of the issues during development, by far the most likely outcome would have been a delayed program delivering MAXes substantially similar (in both construction and operation) to the ones which are certified and flying today. After that, even in the unlikely event that the crashes had occurred, criminal prosecution would be unlikely, and certainly not on the basis of the facts for which it is currently being considered.

Retric 2y ago
> are besides the point Except they aren’t beside the point. > substantially similar (in both construction and operation) The physical aircraft would have been similar, but airlines would have spent 10’s of millions more on training which makes a real difference to them and thus sales. Boeing could have released the aircraft on exactly the same date while complying with the spirit of relevant relations though at higher costs, but the product would have been meaningfully worse from a sales perspective. Even today regulators have allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  All of these things are beside the point here because none of them form the basis on which criminal proceedings are being considered by the DOJ. Without the information hiding and misrepresentation, there is no basis, regardless of either the physics or the economics of the issue. In addition, even if it is true that regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, this is not the basis of the DOJ's investigation, either.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Criminal proceedings in the US care about motives. It would be vastly harder to bring a case like this if there weren’t incentives to ack as they did. Regulators aren’t at issue, but trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny is. Or as is often said it’s the coverup that they get you for.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      The motives were there regardless of how Boeing chose to act. It's the chosen act that is potentially criminal. The DOJ is not in any doubt as to whether or not Boeing had a motive, and it is not considering at all the question of whether regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, regardless of any parties' motives in that regard.
      - Retric 2y ago
        A and B is false if B is false, but that doesn’t make A irrelevant.
        mannykannot 2y ago
        It is not at all clear what (if anything) A and B are standing in for here, so instead of discussing them, let's go back and see what specific issue prompted our disagreement over whether it was to the point here. It was just this: "There’s a bigger difference between the MAX family and other versions of the 737 than there is between all the different crossovers a car company pumps out..." [1] (specific weight differences elided for brevity.) I won't dispute the implicit claim that this was an important factor in Boeing running into development difficulties, but running into development difficulties is not a crime. Materially misrepresenting the state of the development process (specifically (IMHO) the magnitude of the high-AofA handling problem, rather than merely weight issues) to the FAA is a crime, and it is this, not the fact that Boeing ran into technical difficulties, that is the point of DOJ's investigation, the article, and the discussion here of it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366126

Retric 2y ago

> are besides the point Except they aren’t beside the point. > substantially similar (in both construction and operation) The physical aircraft would have been similar, but airlines would have spent 10’s of millions more on training which makes a real difference to them and thus sales. Boeing could have released the aircraft on exactly the same date while complying with the spirit of relevant relations though at higher costs, but the product would have been meaningfully worse from a sales perspective. Even today regulators have allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are.

mannykannot 2y ago
All of these things are beside the point here because none of them form the basis on which criminal proceedings are being considered by the DOJ. Without the information hiding and misrepresentation, there is no basis, regardless of either the physics or the economics of the issue. In addition, even if it is true that regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, this is not the basis of the DOJ's investigation, either.
- Retric 2y ago
  Criminal proceedings in the US care about motives. It would be vastly harder to bring a case like this if there weren’t incentives to ack as they did. Regulators aren’t at issue, but trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny is. Or as is often said it’s the coverup that they get you for.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    The motives were there regardless of how Boeing chose to act. It's the chosen act that is potentially criminal. The DOJ is not in any doubt as to whether or not Boeing had a motive, and it is not considering at all the question of whether regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, regardless of any parties' motives in that regard.
    - Retric 2y ago
      A and B is false if B is false, but that doesn’t make A irrelevant.
      - mannykannot 2y ago
        It is not at all clear what (if anything) A and B are standing in for here, so instead of discussing them, let's go back and see what specific issue prompted our disagreement over whether it was to the point here. It was just this: "There’s a bigger difference between the MAX family and other versions of the 737 than there is between all the different crossovers a car company pumps out..." [1] (specific weight differences elided for brevity.) I won't dispute the implicit claim that this was an important factor in Boeing running into development difficulties, but running into development difficulties is not a crime. Materially misrepresenting the state of the development process (specifically (IMHO) the magnitude of the high-AofA handling problem, rather than merely weight issues) to the FAA is a crime, and it is this, not the fact that Boeing ran into technical difficulties, that is the point of DOJ's investigation, the article, and the discussion here of it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366126