Boeing to be arraigned on a felony charge

Daleandee

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
6,878
Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Does this void the settlement? Does Boeing get the settlement money back? ;)
 
SkyChaser said:
Maybe they'll just build the jail around Boeing. ;)
Click to expand...

"You'll never take me alive, copper!"

Palmpilot said:
Does this void the settlement? Does Boeing get the settlement money back? ;)
Click to expand...

Oooh, good point. Seems like Boeing should get its $2.5B back...with interest...until this is settled.

Ron Wanttaja
 
How can a business entity be charged with a crime?
 
Sac Arrow said:
How can a business entity be charged with a crime?
Click to expand...
Arthur Andersen was in the wake of the Enron scandal. A lot of people who had nothing to do with it lost all of their equity in the firm when the "conviction" happened. Still annoys me, there were specific people that did questionable stuff and should have had consequences as a result. The other 95% of the Partners and employees did not deserve what happened to them.
 
Domenick said:
Boeing lost its way when in 1997 it merged with McDonnell Douglas and in time MD's Stonecipher took over. Not a fan of the Seattle Times, but historically they've done a pretty good job on aviation. Some may see this as a "excuse piece."

https://www.seattletimes.com/pacifi...eadership-landscape-and-its-profound-effects/
Click to expand...



True, but it wasn't just Stonecipher. Many of the incoming MD management team were disciples or even protoges of Jack Welch. Their Welchian myopic focus on stock price wrecked MD and eventually Boeing. If you want the detailed story, read the book Flying Blind.

Beyond that, I think the engineering organization, particularly engineering management, shares some of the blame. The engineers saw themselves as labor, not as learned professionals, and let themselves be run over by program managers focused on cost. The engineers shirked their professional obligation to protect the public and violated engineering codes of ethics. They failed to demand and act with the necessary professional autonomy which should have served as the safety net for bad decisions made by non-engineer managers.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but it wasn't just Stonecipher. Many of the incoming MD management team were disciples or even protoges of Jack Welch. Their Welchian myopic focus on stock price wrecked MD and eventually Boeing. If you want the detailed story, read the book Flying Blind.

Beyond that, I think the engineering organization, particularly engineering management, shares some of the blame. The engineers saw themselves as labor, not as learned professionals, and let themselves be run over by program managers focused on cost. The engineers shirked their professional obligation to protect the public and violated engineering codes of ethics. They failed to demand and act with the necessary professional autonomy which should have served as the safety net for bad decisions made by non-engineer managers.
Click to expand...

Meh.

I've always thought the "Seattle/Boeing Good, St Louis/MD Bad" story line was oversimplified. Phil Condit, the guy whose decisions started this sad story, was an old-head Seattle Boeing guy, and, in my view (I'm a Seattle guy) should get about 90% of the blame for Boeing's current state. Further, in my career I was able to work with a lot of former McD engineers and managers (on the defense side) - and found them generally to be as solid as the Heritage Boeing staff: I worked closely with a few of the former McD and former Heritage Boeing leaders, and found some from each pool to be excellent managers and leaders who were firmly grounded in engineering principles (and could out-engineer most of the staff), and others to be buzz-word spouting morons. But it was about equal on each side.

The one thing I did see in the aftermath of the merger was a difference in the culture of ethical behavior. For those that were around in the first "oh, we got caught so we should impose ethics training on our staff", you'll remember that in all the case studies, it was the heritage Boeing folks that did things right, and the heritage Rockwell or heritage McD folks that went off the reservation. From that point on, it seemed like the more the company was talking about ethics, the worse its ethics were.

Regardless of how they got there, the emphasis on "shareholder value" or "RoI" or "RoNA" over technical excellence led to the current Boeing. Somewhere along the line, the folks in charge also decided that engineers were a commodity and were interchangeable. That's led to such a huge loss in institutional knowledge that I don't know if they'll be able to recover.

My .02

--TonyG
 
TonyG said:
it seemed like the more the company was talking about _______, the worse its _______ were.
Click to expand...
Fill in the blanks…
“We’re like family”
“Employees are are number one priority”
“Quality of life is important to us”
 
TonyG said:
....

Regardless of how they got there, the emphasis on "shareholder value" or "RoI" or "RoNA" over technical excellence led to the current Boeing. Somewhere along the line, the folks in charge also decided that engineers were a commodity and were interchangeable. That's led to such a huge loss in institutional knowledge that I don't know if they'll be able to recover.

--TonyG
Click to expand...

I think the same can be said for a lot of companies, current and past. If you're a car company, your job is to build cars. When companies lose sight of that they fail, or, they end up being the only company left so they think that they'll never fail.

I'll take heat for this probably, but in my opinion one of the best things we ever did was forcibly split up at&t. I believe that's one of the reasons we're the leader in telecommunications technology in the world. At the time, I thought we'd end up losing an advantage, because at the time at&t bell labs had invented a lot of modern tech...but it worked out OK.

Letting companies grow until the point that their aren't any domestic competitors puts us in a position where we prop them up when we shouldn't. All just for short term gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPM
Albany Tom said:
I think the same can be said for a lot of companies, current and past. If you're a car company, your job is to build cars. When companies lose sight of that they fail, or, they end up being the only company left so they think that they'll never fail.

I'll take heat for this probably, but in my opinion one of the best things we ever did was forcibly split up at&t. I believe that's one of the reasons we're the leader in telecommunications technology in the world. At the time, I thought we'd end up losing an advantage, because at the time at&t bell labs had invented a lot of modern tech...but it worked out OK.

Letting companies grow until the point that their aren't any domestic competitors puts us in a position where we prop them up when we shouldn't. All just for short term gain.
Click to expand...
Good thing we don't let companies grow like that anymore. Like Amazon getting a waiver from regulations on drone flights that everyone else has to abide by, or creating a situation where a company can sell an STC that doesn't supplement the type in any way, for something you can't even buy now, but will be forced to buy later.
 
Salty said:
Good thing we don't let companies grow like that anymore. Like Amazon getting a waiver from regulations on drone flights that everyone else has to abide by,
Click to expand...
I don't understand your beef with Amazon.
Anyone can get a waiver- even you. The waiver process is built into the rules.
This explains how: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers

Here are other other companies that received waivers:
https://www.107waivers.com/blog/waiver-watch-ep24 (old link, but several companies listed)
https://cei.org/blog/regulatory-wai...ivate-partnership-innovation-and-competition/
https://www.swlaw.com/blog/environm...-allowing-drone-delivery-of-medical-supplies/ (overlaps the link above, different information)
https://www.suasnews.com/2022/06/as...-waivers-for-automated-security-drone-system/
https://interdrone.com/news/faa-grants-droneup-first-ever-waiver-for-flight-over-people/
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I don't understand your beef with Amazon.
Anyone can get a waiver- even you. The waiver process is built into the rules.
This explains how: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers

Here are other other companies that received waivers:
https://www.107waivers.com/blog/waiver-watch-ep24 (old link, but several companies listed)
https://cei.org/blog/regulatory-wai...ivate-partnership-innovation-and-competition/
https://www.swlaw.com/blog/environm...-allowing-drone-delivery-of-medical-supplies/ (overlaps the link above, different information)
https://www.suasnews.com/2022/06/as...-waivers-for-automated-security-drone-system/
https://interdrone.com/news/faa-grants-droneup-first-ever-waiver-for-flight-over-people/
Click to expand...
It's a lot like the LOA's for training in experimental. If everyone can truly get a waiver, then why is the reg there in the first place? It's a bad way to do business. It doesn't make anyone safer. It's Normalization of deviation, and it's always bad. It's like having only part 91 and then giving waivers to Delta and Southwest to do air carrier operations. Stupidity.

If everyone cannot get a waiver easily (which I believe to be more accurate) then it is unfair business practice.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
It's a lot like the LOA's for training in experimental. If everyone can truly get a waiver, then why is the reg there in the first place?...If everyone cannot get a waiver easily (which I believe to be more accurate) then it is unfair business practice.
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read anything about the process? Anyone who can justify the need and show adequate risk mitigation for specific sections of part 107 can get a waiver for those sections. It's nothing like LOAs for training in experimentals.

Nauga,
and ready, fire, aim
 
nauga said:
Did you bother to read anything about the process? Anyone who can justify the need and show adequate risk mitigation for specific sections of part 107 can get a waiver for those sections. It's nothing like LOAs for training in experimentals.

Nauga,
and ready, fire, aim
Click to expand...
I disagree that you addressed my points or even understand my comparison.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
If everyone cannot get a waiver easily (which I believe to be more accurate) then it is unfair business practice.
Click to expand...
Why is it unfair? I cited where a number of companies got various waivers. As @nauga said, anyone who can justify the need and demonstrate adequate risk mitigation can get the waiver.
 
Will they have to declare the charge when Boeing fills out their medicalExpress?
 
Q. What type of punishment is imposed on corporations?

A. A convicted corporation may be subject to stiff fines. It may also face the imposition of a
court-appointed monitor to oversee certain aspects of its affairs as well as other
limitations on its conduct through a term of probation. Restitution is a necessary
component of any sentence. A convicted corporation may also face debarment from
service as a government contractor and may suffer other negative collateral consequences
if it operates in a regulated industry.

Q. Can a company and its employees be prosecuted for the same conduct?

A. Yes. A corporation, as an artificial entity, can only operate through the acts of its agents.
Those agents may be prosecuted along with the company if their conduct and state of
mind individually are sufficient to create criminal liability

https://www.mololamken.com/assets/htmldocuments/FAQs - Corporate Criminal Liability.pdf
 
An early bets on who, if any, the fall guy(s) person(s) will be? o_O

BTW, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ordered Boeing to send a representative to his courtroom in Fort Worth Jan. 26 for arraignment. That bees tomorrow ...
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Q. What type of punishment is imposed on corporations?

A. A convicted corporation may be subject to stiff fines. It may also face the imposition of a
court-appointed monitor to oversee certain aspects of its affairs as well as other
limitations on its conduct through a term of probation. Restitution is a necessary
component of any sentence. A convicted corporation may also face debarment from
service as a government contractor and may suffer other negative collateral consequences
if it operates in a regulated industry.

Q. Can a company and its employees be prosecuted for the same conduct?

A. Yes. A corporation, as an artificial entity, can only operate through the acts of its agents.
Those agents may be prosecuted along with the company if their conduct and state of
mind individually are sufficient to create criminal liability

https://www.mololamken.com/assets/htmldocuments/FAQs - Corporate Criminal Liability.pdf
Click to expand...


Which often in turn leads to stockholder actions and lawsuits.

But that's all so boring.

It'd be much more entertaining to strap 'em all into the electric chair, one at a time. Or better yet, use a guillotine. Start with the BoD.

Perhaps we could learn something from our aviation pioneers:
"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well.
That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."
Igor Sikorsky​
 
Matthew said:
Early money is on Dave from the mailroom.
Click to expand...

An earlier House report blames Boeing and also names the FAA for their horrible oversight. So is this Dave you speak of in the mail room of Boeing or the FAA?

Spoiler: In reality it's a trick question as all of this goes away as soon as Boeing coughs up a few more $$$$$$ ....
 
I heard Boeing has retained the legal services of Vinny Gambin, and Mona Lisa Vito is an expert witness.

my-cousin-vinny-1492005860.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top