7 ms·
DOJ to offer Boeing "sweetheart" plea deal in pursuit of criminal charges
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- black_13 2y ago[dead]
- r00fus 2y agoThis is an insult to the whistleblowers. Especially the ones who died.
- tomoyoirl 2y agoIt’s also a pressure tactic to extract a guilty plea because there’s no negotiation and a one week deadline.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- metadat 2y agoAnd an insult to the 346 human beings who've died so far in 737 MAX (Max Profit) crashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
- jtdev 2y agoAbsolute corruption.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoI like how people are found dead, there are living whistle blowers, doors fall off planes, processes aren’t followed, complaints, and accusations of forging certifications… And their stock doesn’t even move on the 3 month timeline. Take the whole market dip away at 6 months and I’m not sure it’s moved at all.
- sottol 2y agolooks like the doj is doing just the slap (or tap?) on the wrist that the market was expecting.
- floating-io 2y agoI'm hardly an investment expert, but I wouldn't expect anything to change on the market unless people are actually cancelling orders en masse. If I'm recalling correctly, they're basically already booked solid for the next decade or so. That leaves a lot of time for them to worry about booking new sales before it becomes an issue. I couldn't find an easy answer to whether or not that's already happened, though (order cancellations out of the norm).
- bitmasher9 2y agoIt’s not that simple. Boeing could be forced to pay a settlement, or retrofit sold airplanes, or make modifications to their manufacturing process that raise their costs, or key executives could resign, or their negotiation of far future deals could suffer, etc etc. Boeings future isn’t boolean.
- floating-io 2y agoI never said it was, but in the context of this issue's specific impact, it seems pretty straightforward to me. None of the things you mentioned have been even hinted at to my knowledge beyond mere speculation. They also probably won't affect the bottom line much in the long run even if they do happen; some level of unforeseen circumstance mitigation is almost certainly already factored into their business plan. Not to mention the effects of various insurance policies they may or may not have. Possibility won't move the stock much; probability will. As it stands, it appears that the most likely outcome is that they'll skate, so no movement. The only other potential to tank it that I see is order cancellations because the aircraft ceases to be viable for the buyers. For most of them, it'll have blown over well before the delivery date anyway, and if it was going to happen, it probably would have by now. Therefore, nothing to see here... until the next mishap, anyway.
- 2y ago
- deeth_starr_v 2y agoSeems like it would be better to go to trial even if they are not convinced the jury will convict. It's in the publics interest to have all the information out there instead of swept under the rug
- ars 2y agoIf you discount the conspiracy theories, the normal reason for these types of deals is the DOJ does not feel confident they would actually win their case. The deal essentially measures how likely each party feels that they can win.
- icelancer 2y agoYeah, this is the most likely answer. The conspiracy theories are just-so and appeal to emotion, possibly even somewhat true, but it's far more likely the DOJ has very low confidence in their case and that Boeing's excuses/answers are basically legitimate (subcontractor + airline negligence accounts for many of the serious problems). I'd love for it to go to trial for discovery to benefit the American public, but just doesn't seem like enough of a reason to do it.
- cottsak 2y agoThis highlights a greater point -- This deathtrap bureaucracy is so entangled with government departments that you really have no practical hope of fighting it or keeping it accountable. It might as well be considered part of the US government now. If we adjusted our perspective like this, it makes more sense why you can't "have justice". The ego of the US military complex is so massive, there's not telling it that it's wrong.
- worik 2y ago> DOJ does not feel confident they would actually win their case Sort of. Another possibility is limited budgets incentivise settling
- pas 2y agoLikely the problem is that Boeing can point to the FAA approved 'no need for new type certification for pilots' defense, which probably has some documentation about how whatever the fuck MCAS was doing is supposedly covered by the "runaway stabilizer" procedure. http://www.b737.org.uk/runawaystab.htm http://www.b737.org.uk/runawaystab.htm (Of course it would be up to the prosecution to argue that the actual problem that MCAS produced was completelybrand-fucking-new, and thus both the FAA and Boeing should go and suck redundant bags of AoA sensors.)
- gfxxxx 2y agoThis was to be expected. Boeing is vital to national security not because of the aircraft it makes, but the supply chains it sustains. As long as the USD has any value, Boeing will be kept alive.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoIf Boeing is so vital they can nationalize it and place actual officials in charge. There's no legitimate reason not to yank the current suits out and throw them in a neglected muddy pit.
- gfxxxx 2y agoI'm not going to argue for or against nationalization; I'm just pointing out why Boeing will be shielded from reality by our government
- eftychis 2y agoIf it is vital to national security -- not disagreeing there -- it is paramount for everything and everyone to be investigated. You want the defense of NATO and the U.S. to be in the hands of people that can not deliver a plane? Time for heads to drop and roll, and FBI (or any applicable agency, including DoD) to do a cleanup. That ideally should happen via the Courts too, but placing this under the rug is like inviting known enemies to utilize this weakness.
- CoastalCoder 2y agoThis reminds me of the premise in the movie, "Law Abiding Citizen".
- buildsjets 2y agoI want to see charges levied against some specific individuals, not an amorphous corporation, in order to drive actual changes to individual’s behavior within said corporation. The Chief Project Engineer, Michael Teal, would seem to be an appropriate person to be charged. It was his responsibility as the CPE to oversee the safe design and testing of the MAX. It was his responsibility to ensure that adequate engineering processes and resources were in place to assess the safety and certification impact of design changes that occurred as the design matured, in accordance with federal law. (14 CFR §21.93 if you care. Mr. Teal apparently did not.) It was his physical signature on the FAA form 8110-12 Application for Type Certificate that affirmed that all the data provided to the FAA to support certification was true and correct, and it apparently was not. If the Federal Government was defrauded, that would the smoking gun to indicate whodunnit. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/8110-12_20240206.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/8110-12_20240... If you want a laugh, just read the transcript of his testimony before Congress. In my opinion, his answers provide clear evidence of his dereliction of duty. Insipid local media coverage: https://archive.is/fPy0p https://archive.is/fPy0p The real meat: https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL%20Michael%20Teal%20(Boeing)%20Transcript%20and%20Exhibits%20and%20Attachment%20(9.9.20).pdf https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FIN...
- ianbicking 2y agoI totally agree that individuals should be targeted, even lower-down people in my opinion. I think it actually protects those people with less authority... when you disobey orders from above in service of executing your duties responsibly it's a meaningful defense to say "people have gone to jail for doing what you are asking me to do." But I also see why it can't happen. If anyone gets charged they have a lot of rights about what information to bring to their defense. Any single individual can pull in the entirety of Boeing. Because Boeing is strategically important to the country (along several axes) that can't happen. (Just in a realpolitik sense.) I do wish at least that notable people in leadership were fired with cause. It's inadequate, but at least it's something.
- newZWhoDis 2y ago
- rsoto2 2y agoAll three of my representatives have AIPAC babysitters. I wonder how many of them have "boeing babysitters"
- black_13 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40841004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40841004
- uejfiweun 2y agoPeople should be talking more about Jim McNerney. More than anyone else, he caused the cultural changes at Boeing that led to these disasters. He was some generic MBA with no aviation experience that followed the typical Jack Welch playbook and left before the consequences became apparent.
- penguin_booze 2y agoRest of us: "Why do you earn the big bucks?" Executives: "Because we take great risks." Rest of us: "Oh, this must mean that you either resign or gets fired when you fuck up, right?" Executives: "Lolz no. We can't do that. We fire other people." Rest of us: "At least, for major fuck ups, go to jail right?" Executives: "Roflz no. Hellz naw. That's why created plea deals and pay petty fines." Rest of us: "Thank you for your service."
- tomoyoirl 2y agoDon’t be ridiculous. Plea deals were created by prosecutors so they could eliminate the right to a jury trial by overcharging and making it far too risky to exercise.