Boeing Pleads Not Guilty To Fraud In Criminal Case Over Deadly 737 Max Crashes (npr.org) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Aerospace giant Boeing entered a plea of not guilty to a criminal charge at an arraignment in federal court in Texas Thursday. The company is charged with felony fraud related to the crashes of two of its 737 Max airplanes that killed a total of 346 people. About a dozen relatives of some of those who were killed in the crashes gave emotional testimony during the three-hour arraignment hearing about how they've been affected by what they call "the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history." They testified after Boeing's chief aerospace safety officer Mike Delaney entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the airplane manufacturer to the charge of conspiracy to commit fraud. The company is accused of deceiving and misleading federal regulators about the safety of a critical automated flight control system that investigators found played a major role in causing the crashes in Indonesia in 2018 and in Ethiopia in 2019.
Boeing and the Justice Department had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to settle the charge two years ago but many of the families of the crash victims objected to the agreement, saying that they were not consulted about what they called a "secret, sweetheart deal." Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing admitted to defrauding the FAA by concealing safety problems with the 737 Max, but pinned much of the blame on two technical pilots who they say misled regulators while working on the certification of the aircraft. Only one of those pilots was prosecuted and a jury acquitted him at trial last year. Boeing also agreed to pay $2.5 billion, including $1.7 billion in compensation to airlines that had purchased 737 Max planes but could not use them while the plane was grounded for 20 months after the second plane crashed. The company also agreed to pay $500 million in compensation to the families of those killed in the two Max plane crashes, and to pay a $243 million fine. The agreement also required Boeing to make significant changes to its safety policies and procedures, as well as to the corporate culture, which many insiders have said had shifted in recent years from a safety first focus to one that critics say put profits first.
After three years, if the aerospace giant and defense contractor lived up to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the criminal charge against Boeing would be dismissed and the company would be immune from further prosecution. But last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor agreed that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, the relatives' rights had been violated and they should have been consulted before the DOJ and Boeing reached the agreement. Last week, he ordered Boeing to appear Thursday to be arraigned. On Thursday, the families asked Judge O'Connor to impose certain conditions on Boeing as a condition of release, including appointing an independent monitor to oversee Boeing's compliance with the terms of the previous deferred prosecution agreement, and that the company's compliance efforts "be made public to the fullest extent possible." O'Connor did not rule on whether to impose those conditions yet, as Boeing and the Justice Department opposed the request. But he did impose a standard condition that Boeing commit no new crimes.
Boeing and the Justice Department had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to settle the charge two years ago but many of the families of the crash victims objected to the agreement, saying that they were not consulted about what they called a "secret, sweetheart deal." Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing admitted to defrauding the FAA by concealing safety problems with the 737 Max, but pinned much of the blame on two technical pilots who they say misled regulators while working on the certification of the aircraft. Only one of those pilots was prosecuted and a jury acquitted him at trial last year. Boeing also agreed to pay $2.5 billion, including $1.7 billion in compensation to airlines that had purchased 737 Max planes but could not use them while the plane was grounded for 20 months after the second plane crashed. The company also agreed to pay $500 million in compensation to the families of those killed in the two Max plane crashes, and to pay a $243 million fine. The agreement also required Boeing to make significant changes to its safety policies and procedures, as well as to the corporate culture, which many insiders have said had shifted in recent years from a safety first focus to one that critics say put profits first.
After three years, if the aerospace giant and defense contractor lived up to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the criminal charge against Boeing would be dismissed and the company would be immune from further prosecution. But last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor agreed that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, the relatives' rights had been violated and they should have been consulted before the DOJ and Boeing reached the agreement. Last week, he ordered Boeing to appear Thursday to be arraigned. On Thursday, the families asked Judge O'Connor to impose certain conditions on Boeing as a condition of release, including appointing an independent monitor to oversee Boeing's compliance with the terms of the previous deferred prosecution agreement, and that the company's compliance efforts "be made public to the fullest extent possible." O'Connor did not rule on whether to impose those conditions yet, as Boeing and the Justice Department opposed the request. But he did impose a standard condition that Boeing commit no new crimes.
the state should demand the source code and have i (Score:4, Insightful)
the state should demand the source code and have it be put in public record
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but if I understand these things, and if the case is handled properly, the source code will be demanded as investigation evidence, which makes it public.
There's a chance that Boeing could file a motion to have it sealed, but then who is qualified to review it? Someone biased? Hand-picked? Best to have a lot of people review it.
Can the pilot sue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only one of those pilots was prosecuted and a jury acquitted him at trial last year.
I haven't followed this. Is there any law that allows the pilots to sue Boeing for trying to frame them as the scapegoat? Mental anguish and whatnot.
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that those pilots in question were part of Boeing, right? The investigators had identified them as one of those employees of Boeing potentially guilty of a criminal act related to the 737MAX debacle.
There was no scapegoating going on - the entity “Boeing” didnt decide to defraud anyone, people inside Boeing did, and that was one of the resulting prosecutions. Now the entire company is on trial after the attempt to not put Boeing on trial failed.
Blame doe not have to be singular in
Re: (Score:2)
There was no scapegoating going on
From the summary:
Boeing admitted to defrauding the FAA by concealing safety problems with the 737 Max, but pinned much of the blame on two technical pilots who they say misled regulators while working on the certification of the aircraft.
Boeing literally scapegoated them.
Re: Can the pilot sue? (Score:2)
Boeing scapegoated Boeing employees, they simply pointed to the place in the org chart that dropped the ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ball is always being dropped by the management. Not the pilots
Who specifically? "Management" is a term for some of the people on the org chart. "Pilot" is a term for some other people on the org chart. Do you have something other than your personal bias for concluding that people with the title "pilot" are innocent and people with the title "management" are guilty?
Hypothetically, if a pilot had been promoted to manage a group of pilots during the 737 Max design would they have immediately become guilty? Or do you think the other managers would wait a while before invi
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have something other than your personal bias for concluding that people with the title "pilot" are innocent and people with the title "management" are guilty?
Yes. From the summary:
Only one of those pilots was prosecuted and a jury acquitted him at trial last year.
I even referenced the summary in my comment that you replied to. A comment that was THREE FUCKING SENTENCES. Try to read, disphit.
It's very telling that, without bothering to FUCKING READ, you tried to paint my simple relaying of the established facts as "personal bias". Sounds like you have some personal bias around trying to virtue signal about how you have no bias.
From the rest of your answer, it sounds like have a pro-corporatist bias.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very telling that, without bothering to FUCKING READ, you tried to paint my simple relaying of the established facts as "personal bias". Sounds like you have some personal bias around trying to virtue signal about how you have no bias.
Oh I read and comprehended your entire comment but you didn't comprehend mine. And considering your need for obscenity it isn't really surprising that your comprehension is lacking.
A jury acquitted ONE pilot, which I acknowledged in my comment, and you used that to conclude that all of "management" is guilty without trial.
An acquittal, in case you don't know what the term means, means that there was not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone committed a crime. It is in no way equivalent to proof tha
Re: (Score:2)
Union Carbide (Score:5, Informative)
About a dozen relatives of some of those who were killed in the crashes gave emotional testimony during the three-hour arraignment hearing about how they've been affected by what they call "the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history."
The residents of Bhopoal, India would like to remind you of their suffering at the hands of a U.S. Corporation...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
"the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history." (Score:2)
Union Carbide was the majority owner of Union Carbide India Limited but Union Carbide India Limited did all the management of the plant and colluded with local officials to hide problems at the Bhopoal plant knowing that Union Carbide would close
Re: (Score:2)
So the polio vaccine had nothing to do with effectively eliminating polio in those nations with effective vaccine policies?
Polio pre-existed DDT by hundreds of years, with its first clinical diagnosis in the 1840s in Germany.
The polio vaccine was developed in 1949.
DDT was used as an insecticide starting in 1939.
DDT was effectively taken off the market in the US in the 1970s, when the EPA was given regulatory control of insecticides and pesticides.
Your implication that "polio" (why did you put polio in quote
Re: (Score:2)
And by far. Over a million people are estimated to have died by lead poisoning, and a lot of that can be traced back to the Ethyl Corporation.
In the lawsuit, they even tried to argue that lead levels were "normal" because it was everywhere. They used the fact that they had poisoned the whole planet as a defence.
Compared to that, Boeing committed a minor crime. But the response is exactly the same: never admit a fault, bribe people, cut a deal, and pretend nothing happened.
clowns & monkeys in Boeing (Score:1)
Famous Boeing 737 airplane which according to one of their employees was "designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys".
I’m confused (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is charging a corporation criminally? They can’t put them in jail, all they have is money but apparently that’s enough!
No, folks, I’m sorry. You charge the officers of the company criminally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The us supreme court ruled that private corporations, being comprised of individuals, have no fewer rights that the rights held personally by the direct owners of the business. A private corporation is considered an extension of the people that control it through their direct ownership of it.
Note, the decision relates to private corporations, not publicly-traded corporations (a distinction many "forget" for political advantage).
Shocking. (Score:2)
Boeing admitted to defrauding the FAA by concealing safety problems with the 737 Max, but pinned much of the blame on two technical pilots who they say misled regulators while working on the certification of the aircraft.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Boeing would pin it on some fall guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK MCAS and its secrecy were all to increase sales and profits.(?) Without it, the MAX variant's handling would require additional pilot training, and Bowedwing (that was intentional) would lose sales to Airbus. MCAS made the 737MAX handle like a plain 737, so no additional training needed.
Please share if there's more.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks, that all fits with what I remember from following the whole MCAS issue, including at least one "60 Minutes" episode.
One thing I remember and add is that some planes had MCAS, but the airline opted to NOT include indicators for that system. Presumably it would confuse pilots who didn't know about MCAS, so just hide the whole thing.
As far as cost, MCAS costs a fixed amount per plane. However, pilot training cost is much less predictable because you don't definitively know how many pilots' training y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing pinned it on Boeing employees.
So how should we punish corporations? (Score:2)
Whilst there is a certain satisfaction in extracting large amounts of money, in practice the shareholders, who are likely to be totally innocent of anything are being punished by that means. When those shareholders are pension funds...
Targeting executives is clearly the ideal, but this isn't easy. Clearly someone somewhere made the wrong call, but was it criminal in intent? One way to consider this is to compare this with the treatment of doctors; they can be individually targeted by accreditation committee
Re: (Score:2)
You target the shareholders (indirectly, by making the corporations actually liable for what they do) because they're the ones electing the board who are selecting the CEO and thus driving the company culture and direction. Failing that, the officers of the corporation should be liable for its malfeasance.
In this case, the passengers who were killed in the crashes were the most aggrieved. Protecting the pensions (who fail to require adequate safeguards from a "safe" investment to actually be safe) shouldn't
The advantage of corporations (Score:2)
Your comment: ' the corporation gets to survive forever with all the protections of "personhood", but never with any of the downsides, which ends up being pretty destabilizing to the rest of society' is simplistic. For a local community where a corporation provides a substantial proportion of the employment, the effect of destroying the corporation is liable to be massive damage to the community. Britain's former (coal) pit villages, and the US's rust belt demonstrate this effect very clearly
Your point abou
Re: (Score:2)
You target the shareholders (indirectly, by making the corporations actually liable for what they do) because they're the ones electing the board who are selecting the CEO and thus driving the company culture and direction.
That's a great way to keep middle class and poor people from ever retiring. Do you have a job that offers a pension or a 401k? Do you have any sort of savings account at all that offers more than an interest rate that fails to keep up with inflation?
If you've got a mere $100/month that you can manage to set aside for retirement, do you have time to do all the research to investigate the officers of any company you might invest in and ensure that you have 100% confidence that they will never do anything wron
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing should plead Guilty (Score:3)
and save everyone the anguish of a court case.
They (Boeing) messed up and the world knows it. Plead it out and get a slap on the wrist. Fight is and suffer the consequences...
Oh, and btw, this is a publicists dream for Airbus but Boeing don't seem to care these days
Bullshit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
deferred prosecution is craptastic!
Boeing employees were also disparaging the plane (Score:2)
"Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," one Boeing employee said to a colleague in another exchange from 2018, before the first crash. "No," the colleague responded.
"I'll be shocked if the FAA passes this turd," an unnamed employee says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com] https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com] https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]