Why No Boeing 737Max Prosecutions For Criminal Negligence?

[morrobay]

Summary:: Safety was disregarded in allowing the 737MAX to be in service and about 500 people lost lives in two crashes. Why no prosecutions for those responsible ?

The Boeing personnel resposible for disregarding public saefty should be prosecuted and sent to prison. It is not necessary to list all the information here that can be accessed in the Engineering forum (aerospace/aeronautics) In post #526 @Gatekeeper1958 said about Boeing: WAKE THEM UP.
The only way to do that is in prison. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/04/pers-a04.html

* I read the guidlines here and although the link is from a socialist website the content is valid and applies to this topic.

 

[phinds]

Summary:: Safety was disregarded in allowing the 737MAX to be in service and about 500 people lost lives in two crashes. Why no prosecutions for those responsible ?

I think that's an excellent question and it's not clear that that will never happen, although at this late in the game it does seem unlikely.

 

[trurle]

Summary:: Safety was disregarded in allowing the 737MAX to be in service and about 500 people lost lives in two crashes. Why no prosecutions for those responsible ?

Because you consider "retributive justice" while decision makers, especially in the US, recently prefer to act according to "preventive justice".

For decision makers, main reason for no (criminal) prosecutions is because prosecutions will actually degrade the future airliners safety, potentially killing thousands where now hundreds are dying. Overall, most effective way to save lives is to put relatively mild additional pressure on culprit airlines.

In reductio ad absurdum, forcing Boeing out of business by fines or mass jailing will open room for new entrants like Mitsubishi Aircraft whom new airliner design is marred by much worse safety issues. Also, state-owned airline companies are not guaranteed to be safe - see for example Soviet Union``'s Aeroflot meager safety record. Or Air Mail Scandal. Therefore nationalization is also not a viable solution.

 

[morrobay]

Because you consider "retributive justice" while decision makers, especially in the US, recently prefer to act according to "preventive justice".

For decision makers, main reason for no (criminal) prosecutions is because prosecutions will actually degrade the future airliners safety, potentially killing thousands where now hundreds are dying. Overall, most effective way to save lives is to put relatively mild additional pressure on culprit airlines.

In reductio ad absurdum, forcing Boeing out of business by fines or mass jailing will open room for new entrants like Mitsubishi Aircraft whom new airliner design is marred by much worse safety issues. Also, state-owned airline companies are not guaranteed to be safe - see for example Soviet Union``'s Aeroflot meager safety record. Or Air Mail Scandal. Therefore nationalization is also not a viable solution.

I have no idea whatsoever what you are "trying" to say. Have you read the technical thread on this subject ?

 

[trurle]

I have no idea whatsoever what you are "trying" to say. Have you read the technical thread on this subject ?

Basic links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

You basically trying to apply a justice model which is currently not in force. Therefore the confusion.
And yes, i read the technical details.

 

[russ_watters]

The Boeing personnel resposible for disregarding public saefty should be prosecuted and sent to prison. It is not necessary to list all the information here that can be accessed in the Engineering forum (aerospace/aeronautics) In post #526 @Gatekeeper1958 said about Boeing: WAKE THEM UP.
The only way to do that is in prison. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/04/pers-a04.html

Because a successful prosecution requires proving a person committed a crime. It still may happen, but so far I've seen nothing to imply that a crime has been committed.

 

[DaveE]

This is the kind of "Lock them up" cry that is so common in social media today, nearly always without any real knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. Certainly bad things were done, and I sympathize with the frustration expressed, but it takes more than that to get a conviction.
It is not a crime to be greedy, inattentive, ignorant, or stupid. Criminal negligence isn't the same thing as negligence. Furthermore, there are multiple parties involved, who exactly is guilty of what. After all, the FAA approved the design of this aircraft.
I believe that the first thing you do when you are promoted to senior management of a large corporation is to figure out how to limit your personal liability for what your company does, even if you are the one calling the shots.
Also, everyone that has worked in the corporate world knows that there are some things that you don't write down, that you only say in a private conversation. Lots of things are said behind closed office doors that will never be available to the courts.
I fully support the judicious application of the law, but that doesn't mean that people should be jailed because the public thinks they ought to be; or even that they in fact ought to be. You need to be able to bring a case in court.

 

[phinds]

I must have misunderstood the news reports I read, or possibly they were mistaken or exaggerated, but I got the impression that it is clear that executives knew with certainty that there was a serious danger involved and they chose to do nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

I must have misunderstood the news reports I read, or possibly they were mistaken or exaggerated, but I got the impression that it is clear that executives knew with certainty that there was a serious danger involved and they chose to do nothing.

Yes, I'd like to see a citation of that, because I haven't seen such a suggestion, and I've been trying to pay close attention to this situation.

My main issue with such positions is that while they are vague enough to be hard to pin down, they are at least clear enough to be self-contradictory. The allegation is that Boeing put profits before safety, knowingly putting lives at risk so they could sell planes and make money. Well clearly that hasn't worked out for them. Major plane crashes are extremely rare and when they happen even once are big news, and a potentially big problem for the manufacturer. This is going to cost Boeing tens of billions of dollars and it cost the CEO his job. So it isn't possible that Boeing execs simultaneously believed the Max was a dangerous plane and still believed that they could profit from selling it. They must have believed it was safer than it really was and therefore that the cost of the fallout would be lower than it is.

And contrary to popular belief, product manufacturers are not legally or morally required to zero-out all known risks irrespective of the cost.

 

[phinds]

Yes, I'd like to see a citation of that, because I haven't seen such a suggestion, and I've been trying to pay close attention to this situation.

I'll see if I can find anything but it was likely in a hardcopy magazine that I've already tossed.

So it isn't possible that Boeing execs simultaneously believed the Max was a dangerous plane and still believed that they could profit from selling it. They must have believed it was safer than it really was and therefore that the cost of the fallout would be lower than it is.

You are possibly being more dispassionately logical on this than was actually the case. I can easily envision a situation where none of the execs who knew of the issue wanted to be the one to blow the whistle and they each just decided to keep their head down and hope for the best. It wasn't necessarily very many of them who knew (and this is assuming my recollection of the news stories is correct)

And contrary to popular belief, product manufacturers are not legally or morally required to zero-out all known risks irrespective of the cost.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

You are possibly being more dispassionately logical on this than was actually the case. I can easily envision a situation where none of the execs who knew of the issue wanted to be the one to blow the whistle and they each just decided to keep their head down and hope for the best. It wasn't necessarily very many of them who knew (and this is assuming my recollection of the news stories is correct)

Maybe, but that doesn't actually contradict what I said in the results. "Hope for the best" means they hoped planes wouldn't crash/people wouldn't die. It's not compatible with a claim that they didn't care if people died.

 

[phinds]

Maybe, but that doesn't actually contradict what I said in the results. "Hope for the best" means they hoped planes wouldn't crash/people wouldn't die. It's not compatible with a claim that they didn't care if people died.

Oh, I would never claim that they didn't care if people died but I can believe that there are execs who would bury their head in the sand and convince themselves that that would not actually happen regardless of what the engineers and pilots said.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Because a successful prosecution requires proving a person committed a crime.

the link is from a socialist website

You show me the man, and I will show you the crime! - Comrade Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria

There seems to be a desire to convict based on "what everybody knows" rather than actual evidence. Are we sure it is a good idea? (I'm sure our socialist friends think it is, but they also think Venezuela, Cambodia and North Korea are models to be emulated.)

 

[morrobay]

For a science and engineering based forum I sure did not expect so many replies to be in defense and denying the reckless attitudes of management and executives at Boeing. While disregarding the engineers and pilots facts and experience. And I also did
not expect to have to repeat what has been presented in the technical thread. That even seems to be common knowledge: This new design /engine position created essentially a new aircraft - with a tendency to pitch up. So the software engineers jury rigged the system. Boeing did not give the pilots adequate retraining in order to save money /time. Consequently the pilots in the two crashes were fighting the software for control of the plane . And the above is not meant to be in a legal statement. Again I'm actually baffled at the replies here.

 

[phinds]

For a science and engineering based forum I sure did not expect so many replies to be in defense and denying the reckless attitudes of management and executives at Boeing. While disregarding the engineers and pilots facts and experience. And I also did
not expect to have to repeat what has been presented in the technical thread. That even seems to be common knowledge: This new design /engine position created essentially a new aircraft - with a tendency to pitch up. So the software engineers jury rigged the system. Boeing did not give the pilots adequate retraining in order to save money /time. Consequently the pilots in the two crashes were fighting the software for control of the plane . And the above is not meant to be in a legal statement. Again I'm actually baffled at the replies here.

What you have said, as Russ has already pointed out, is "public knowledge" of the sort that is pure conjecture as far as a court of law is concerned. It will be necessary to prove knowledge and intent of Boeing's execs to put anybody in jail. It looks to me as though that might be doable, but not from newspaper reports. I agree w/ your point of view but I think you have a distorted view of the criminal justice system.

 

[DaveE]

with a tendency to pitch up

All aircraft with engines mounted below the wings do this. The 737 Max issue was that if the crew put the aircraft in a stalled configuration, then recovery required more nose down trim than the pilots would expect compared to the other 737 variants. The 737 Max is not significantly more likely to stall.
Boeing and the airlines didn't want to require pilots to get a new type rating to fly this version, so they added software to make it act more like the others when stalled. It's not a bad airplane, and the SW augmented controls concept isn't bad. The actual implementation and approval was astoundingly poorly done.
It's not an aircraft problem, it's a corporate and regulatory problem. It could have been done correctly.

 

[anorlunda]

All it takes is an executive with too much personal power. Picture this:
"Don't tell me what you can't do. I don't want to hear problems. Bring me solutions. Where are the engineers who say 'can do' instead of the ones who can't?"

The prosecutor can argue that kind of bullying is a veiled command to ignore the safety rules.

The defense can argue that it simply urges the employees to do their best.

It does not make a good kind of case to put in front of a jury.

 

[Rive]

I'm actually baffled at the replies here.

What I'm baffled at is the common urgency to find a crime every time, at any cost when stuff happens.
Life does not work like that. I can understand why is the illusion of control so important, but...
... but life is not always works like that. Sometimes small slip-ups just adds up to cause a BIG trouble.
Then what will you charge people for: The slip-ups? Or for the big one?

Just mind you, if anybody ever tries to chain up the responsibility all the way down then ... then all the plane ticket buyers will go to jail, and you will never, ever get a new phone in your life because engineers will just refuse to make any on basis that some did exploded.

The most you can ask for is a thorough investigation.

"Don't tell me what you can't do. I don't want to hear problems. Bring me solutions. Where are the engineers who say 'can do' instead of the ones who can't?"

Lol.
Just got new 'scilloscope probes and a new bench PSU recently over refusing to bend against that.
A close call, it was...

And I don't think that it'll always work...

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, I would never claim that they didn't care if people died but I can believe that there are execs who would bury their head in the sand and convince themselves that that would not actually happen regardless of what the engineers and pilots said.

Right. So if they cared about safety and they believed that the planes were safe, then that's basically the opposite of "disregarding public safety".

 

[russ_watters]

For a science and engineering based forum I sure did not expect so many replies to be in defense and denying the reckless attitudes of management and executives at Boeing. While disregarding the engineers and pilots facts and experience...Again I'm actually baffled at the replies here.

Use this as a sign that you need to re-examine your approach, because the problem here is that you aren't taking the issue seriously enough. You provided a source you know is bad, didn't provide the name of any law, criteria for violating it, evidence that it was violated or precedent from other similar crimes. Heck, you and your source basically say that Boeing execs should be put in jail based on public outcry. That's pretty much the opposite of what our legal system is after when it comes to justice.

It is extremely rare for engineers, construction workers, etc. to be jailed in the US for making mistakes, because the level of negligence required is very tough to prove.

And I also did not expect to have to repeat what has been presented in the technical thread.

No, this thread is about the legal ramifications, so you should be presenting a legal case. But not for nothing, the way you summarize the technical issue isn't very accurate/complete:

That even seems to be common knowledge: This new design /engine position created essentially a new aircraft - with a tendency to pitch up. So the software engineers jury rigged the system. Boeing did not give the pilots adequate retraining in order to save money /time. Consequently the pilots in the two crashes were fighting the software for control of the plane.

In that description, you didn't make any mention of the malfunctions that happened, which is kind of a big omission. Saying the system was "jury rigged" implies that the entire system was fundamentally flawed to begin with and the band-aid itself should never have even been applied, and that the band-aid itself is what caused the crashes. That's nonsense. The plane flew fine when everything was working. The engineering issue here is primarily about how the systems (including the pilots) dealt with a broken part. There were three issues:
1. The part that broke (the angle of attack indicator) didn't have a robust backup and hadn't for many years because it wasn't considered important enough to back up. This had never presented a problem before. That's a failure to recognize a changing risk.
2. With the AOA indicator broken, the MCAS software did a bad job of dealing with the bad input. That's poor software design and testing.
3. It was expected that pilots would easily recognize such an issue as being very similar to something they were already trained for, and fix it. That's insufficient training (and recognition of it).

If *any* of these three parts of the system had been designed better, these planes would not have crashed. The primary issue that led to this was overconfidence/complacency. That's not criminal negligence.

 

[russ_watters]

The prosecutor can argue that kind of bullying is a veiled command to ignore the safety rules.

The defense can argue that it simply urges the employees to do their best.

It does not make a good kind of case to put in front of a jury.

If the engineers or test pilots believed there was a problem and told management and management ignored them or worse told them to lie, that could be sufficient to prove criminal negligence. This would likely be during the window of time between the two crashes when the systems were being re-evaluated. If an expert in a subject tells you there is a problem, that is supposed to eliminate room for belief/self-delusion. You are duty-bound to trust your experts; that's what they are for. There was a case in Philly where this happened and conviction wasn't the outcome, but I believe it should have been.

Pier 34 was a pier on which an old warehouse was converted to a nightclub, and had a covered patio at the end. It collapsed into the Delaware river in 2001 and killed 3 people. The pier had structural problems known for weeks, months and years before, and the owners of the club had structural engineers look at it the day of the collapse. The engineers told the owners that the pier was in the process of collapsing. The owners opened the club that night anyway.

They were charged with 3rd degree murder, but there was a hung jury. They pleaded guilty to lesser crimes in lieu of another trial and nobody went to jail. That's the kind of bar we're talking about.

https://billypenn.com/2015/05/22/pier-34-15-years-ago-a-nightclub-plunged-into-the-delaware-river/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/06/phil-j01.html

 

[morrobay]

Then let's have a jury trial based on what management "expected" , "believed" ," hoped for" . but not enough to take any prventative action. With reports from the engineers and pilots. I posted a link that I knew was bad ?. Jailed on public outcry ? Certainely a lot of assumptions and projections here. So again a trial is in order for criminal negligence and a civil liabilaty trail also.

 

[russ_watters]

So again a trial is in order for criminal negligence and a civil liabilaty trail also.

Before there's a trial there has to be an investigation where evidence is collected and prosecutors decide if crimes have been committed and if they can be proven. It's a complicated case and it is going to take a long time. You don't just haul people into court based on public outcry.

I posted a link that I knew was bad ?. Jailed on public outcry ?

It isn't that hard to find better sources. Here's a good one written by a lawyer, using analysis from an aviation lawyer:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...ome-to-light-with-expert-report/#238b94c149a1

It contains the names and descriptions of real laws that may have been broken, criteria for their application and historical precedent. It doesn't contain actual evidence (only hypothetical descriptions of what the evidence might look like) because it's early and most of the potential evidence hasn't been uncovered and analyzed yet. And you certainly won't find anything about public outcry in it, because that's just not relevant at all to the question. Note, the article was written in late August (yours in early April) and we've learned more since then, though what we have learned on the criminal front is still somewhat vague and thin; most of what we have learned is technical.

Also, the article you posted uses this incident to argue that there is an unredeamable systemic flaw in the US airplane manufacturing and airline industries and they should be scrapped as a result. That's just laughably silly. The FAA and the commercial aviation industries in the US are one of the rare great government-industry success stories. Commercial aviation in the US is magnificently safe because industry and government have collaborated to make it so. Yes, this incident is due to a failure of that system. But perfection isn't possible, and failures will happen. It is just bad analysis to focus on one failure while ignoring the entire history of successes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Hey, they're all plutocrats and industrialists and warmongers - they should be jailed on that alone! Who needs a charge when you have all that?

It may be helpful to put this in perspective: the 737-max has statistically saved about 1400 lives compared to driving. The outrage is that 1400 is not 1750.

 

[morrobay]

Before there's a trial there has to be an investigation where evidence is collected and prosecutors decide if crimes have been committed and if they can be proven. It's a complicated case and it is going to take a long time. You don't just haul people into court based on public outcry.

It isn't that hard to find better sources. Here's a good one written by a lawyer, using analysis from an aviation lawyer:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...ome-to-light-with-expert-report/#238b94c149a1

It contains the names and descriptions of real laws that may have been broken, criteria for their application and historical precedent. It doesn't contain actual evidence (only hypothetical descriptions of what the evidence might look like) because it's early and most of the potential evidence hasn't been uncovered and analyzed yet. And you certainly won't find anything about public outcry in it, because that's just not relevant at all to the question. Note, the article was written in late August (yours in early April) and we've learned more since then, though what we have learned on the criminal front is still somewhat vague and thin; most of what we have learned is technical.

Also, the article you posted uses this incident to argue that there is an unredeamable systemic flaw in the US airplane manufacturing and airline industries and they should be scrapped as a result. That's just laughably silly. The FAA and the commercial aviation industries in the US are one of the rare great government-industry success stories. Commercial aviation in the US is magnificently safe because industry and government have collaborated to make it so. Yes, this incident is due to a failure of that system. But perfection isn't possible, and failures will happen. It is just bad analysis to focus on one failure while ignoring the entire history of successes.

Excellent aviation/legal link above. However maybe the relationships (revolving doors) between govt/big business in some areas needs to be investigated too. Yes it was two failures. And not focusing on them would
be like : Outside of that Mrs Kennedy how did you like Dallas ?
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...he-faa-is-too-close-to-the-aviation-industry/

 

[Tom.G]

Many years ago I was doing QC (Quality Control) at a large aerospace company (I don't even remember which one now). One day I was testing and inspecting PC boards used in the Fuel Control Computers of passenger jets. I rejected three boards for bad solder joints.

A few days later, two personnel from Production confronted me about the rejections. Standing closely and talking loudly, with the clear intent to intimidate, it was made very clear that they were not happy about the situation. One statement they made I remember well: "We don't want the production line shut down for three boards!"

I duly wrote a report to my supervisor, however he was not present that day. I happened to see the Plant Manager in the hallway while I still had the report in my hand. I handed him the report.

The following day my supervisor asked, rather upset, why I didn't give him the report.

About a week later I asked about the investigation of the three rejected boards. One was a false inspection failure (optical illusion due to lighting and inaccessibility), one was a verified fault, and the third board? it didn't seem to exist any more.

Three weeks later I was fired.

Lots of pressure on the production department to PRODUCE!

So it's not just the executives, some have instilled those corrosive thought processes all the way down to the lowest level supervisors.

 

[Vanadium 50]

However maybe the relationships (revolving doors) between govt/big business in some areas needs to be investigated too

Two comments:
1. Just because I don't like something doesn't automatically make it a crime.
2. In the US at least we prefer to have the investigation before people are charged with a crime.

 

[Rubidium_71]

The points made here about how such businesses operate made me think of this quote from Fight Club:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

I imagine the execs at a lot of companies like Boeing think along those lines. That being said, the Boeing situation also brought this old gem to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe#23_October

Mr. Nedelin was in a hurry. Like the people described in @Tom.G s post, they didn't want to hear about any safety or engineering problems, it was push push push all the way. That never seems to work out well for anyone, but sadly that's the reality.

 

[phinds]

Mr. Nedelin was in a hurry. Like the people described in @Tom.G s post, they didn't want to hear about any safety or engineering problems, it was push push push all the way. That never seems to work out well for anyone, but sadly that's the reality.

Yes, the somewhat flippant motto in Program Management is that you can have any TWO of the three attributes of low cost, rapid development/deployment, and high quality but you cannot have all three. While that is true, what's also true is that in reality rapid development/deployment and high quality are NOT always possible regardless of how big a budget the project has budget.

And, of course, in this case they were ONLY going for rapid development/deployment with no other considerations. Almost always a recipe for disaster.

 

[Astronuc]

Safety was disregarded in allowing the 737MAX to be in service and about 500 people lost lives in two crashes. Why no prosecutions for those responsible ?

As others have indicated there are various investigations, including one by the Dept of Justice and FBI.

March 20, 2019 - FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

May 8, 2019 - Who is investigating the Boeing 737 MAX?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/who-is-looking-into-the-boeing-737-max/

Aug 28, 2019 - Criminal Prosecution Exposure In Boeing Investigation May Come To Light With Expert Report https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...ome-to-light-with-expert-report/#68f1e80249a1

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has an investigation
https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/boeing-737-max-investigation

The investigations will be used to collect evidence. From the investigations, folks like the US Attorney General or perhaps a deputy or assistant AG would determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. For criminal negligence, one would have to find intent. Such evidence might come from a record such as a falsified document (e.g., falsified certification) or an email in which one or more parties agree to disregard discoveries of unsafe conditions or violations of QA/QC requirements.

I am unaware of the status of the various investigations.

 

[Vanadium 50]

this quote from Fight Club

People are unhappy when safety is considered a variable to optimize and not just set to the maximum, but.

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents. If one could improve this by a factor of 10 by making cars 1% more expensive, everybody would say "do it!". If one could improve this by 1% by making cars 10x more expensive, very few people would react this way: cars - which would look more like tanks - would be too expensive to drive. So these decisions are being made all the time, including by us, as consumers.

(Fact: car prices have gone up ~50% in real dollars since 1970, and auto fatalities are down a little more than a factor of 2)

 

[jbriggs444]

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents

per year.

Gotta include the units.

 

[morrobay]

People are unhappy when safety is considered a variable to optimize and not just set to the maximum, but.

About 35,000 people in the US die in automobile accidents. If one could improve this by a factor of 10 by making cars 1% more expensive, everybody would say "do it!". If one could improve this by 1% by making cars 10x more expensive, very few people would react this way: cars - which would look more like tanks - would be too expensive to drive. So these decisions are being made all the time, including by us, as consumers.

You seem to be in denial here: This is nothing to do whatsoever with ex. cost of building a plane that would be crash passenger survivable- because there would only be room inside for 5 passengers. It is specifically about deception/negligence . From the much needed informative link enclosed: paragraph 6. ' And Boeing kept pilots in the dark about potential failure modes that could result in a taxing mental and physical struggle in the cockpit with just seconds to execute correct decisions and maneuvers'
Now in relation to the Seattle Times links above. It seems that if this investigation does not just fade away and there are charges/prosecution and if the jury is not full of uneducated people with an acquitted trial and if the court does not overturn a conviction, then there is a long odds chance for justice. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/0...utives-should-be-prosecuted-for-manslaughter/

 

[Vanadium 50]

You seem to be in denial here

Do you really want to go down this path? Really?

I think my position is adequately summed up by:
1. Just because I don't like something doesn't automatically make it a crime.
2. In the US at least we prefer to have the investigation before people are charged with a crime.

I understand that your socialist friends don't think this way. They can believe what they want.

 

[russ_watters]

The points made here about how such businesses operate made me think of this quote from Fight Club:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

I imagine the execs at a lot of companies like Boeing think along those lines.

The message of Fight Club was that corporations are soulless and evil and terrorism(!) is therefore justified in order to even the score. Really?

That example sounds like a fictionalization of the Ford Pinto case. It's altered to make the fault 100% on the car company as opposed to partly on the driver(s).

In the Pinto case, there was indeed a memo that went public where the company weighed the societal cost of saving lives against the cost of upgrades to improve safety in the fuel tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo

Let me put that in stark terms: Ford sold and declined to recall/upgrade a product that they KNEW and EXPECTED to kill some if their customers due to a choice of profit over safety.

The media and lawyers spin and the general public believes that this sort of cost benefit analysis is unethical/immoral. They are wrong. The practice isn't just standard, it's both necessary and right, in the absence of specific regulations. But it is also difficult to do and open to interpretation.

For the Pinto, there's every indication in hindsight that they were for the most part unfairly judged. They did pretty much everything right except in estimating the public's stomach.

It isn't any more wrong than a consumer choosing to buy a car without the latest safety features to save money. The main difference is that the corporation actually did a calculation whereas the consumer almost certainly did not.

But Boeing did get the cost benefit analysis wrong. Again: the main problem isn't that they did the cost-benefit analysis, it's that they did it wrong. And that's the part people calling for jailing management repeatedly get wrong:

You seem to be in denial here: This is nothing to do whatsoever with ex. cost of building a plane that would be crash passenger survivable- because there would only be room inside for 5 passengers.

Er - you did indeed argue in post #14 that Boeing's decision making was based on prioritizing profit over safety. The extreme example of a plane with room for only 5 passengers is Reductio ad absurdum; people who argue against putting profit above safety never draw a limit to their position, making the example a logical conclusion of the argument.

It is specifically about deception/negligence . From the much needed informative link enclosed: paragraph 6. ' And Boeing kept pilots in the dark about potential failure modes that could result in a taxing mental and physical struggle in the cockpit with just seconds to execute correct decisions and maneuvers'

What you are saying is - remains - just plain factually wrong. Everything we know to date says that Boeing didn't include the description of MCAS in the manual, not because they were trying to hide a flaw, but because they believed the system to be safe and insignificant. There's a huge factual/logical gulf between those two points, and you've repeatedly pointed to the wrong one. It's conspiracy theory at best, misinformation at worst.

Again, Boeing didn't knowingly implement and then hide a major, known to be faulty system, they implemented a system that should have been insignificant and turned out to be significant because of an unknown flaw. It's negligent engineering/management, but not criminally negligent because they didn't purposely create, much less hide the flaw. Unless something changes about what we know, there is virtually no chance of criminal prosecution coming from this.

Please, please tell me that you've learned something from this thread and tell me what elements the texting and driving example in the article you linked has that the 737 case does not, and therefore why texting and driving warrants jail time and the 737 case does not.