scrumpyjack wrote:Dod101 wrote:scrumpyjack wrote:
The penalties seem ludicrously small compared to the seriousness of their conduct and compared to other US fines. Most of the $2.5bn is compensation to victims rather than a fine. A jury might have imposed punitive damages of ten times that.
Dare I suggest the modesty of the penalty is not unconnected with Boeing being an American company and the victims being foreigners?
I'm sure there will be lots more court cases brought privately
Insurance will cover most of the compensation for the victims and anyway they are a bunch of relatively poor foreigners in faraway countries and will not cost that much. These are not own beliefs (except for the insurance bit) but they probably cover the US thinking in the matter.
I am sure that the US Government does not want to drive Boeing out of business and the 'fine' if that is what it is needs to be no more than they can actually afford to pay.
Dod
Frankly $2.5 billion is trivial for a company the size of Boeing, and IMO the fine needs to be large enough to change behaviour. Boeing's market cap, even in these Covid depressed times for plane makers, is $122 billion. It was double that 2 years ago.
Pity they can't fine the FAA, who seem to have been deeply culpable also!
I'd like, if I may please, to express a thought or two about aircraft safety. I don't wish to start a debate about how my thoughts need to be amended or redefined due to facts I have not taken into account. Perhaps they're not my thoughts. Perhaps they are the musings of a bumbling old Fool who hasn't got a clue what he is talking about? And perhaps on that we should agree.
Many of us, including me, are not aware of the mechanisms which govern flight safety. We all board aircraft assuming that we will not become another statistic. After all, the facts are quite clear, it remains the safest form of travel. But does that mean it's as safe as it could be? I'm not convinced. And in support of this outrageous comment I wonder if a poll of the relatives of those who died in the two Boeing Max crashes would disagree with me?
Neither of the Boeing Max vehicles should have crashed. Boeing put profit before safety. The Directors put their agenda first. And I would suggest that agenda was self enrichment. I'd suggest it could even have been greed. Let's not forget that after the second crash the CEO at Boeing continued to reassure President Trump that the Boeing vehicle was safe to fly. I wonder if the fox's were put in charge of the hen house? Many of those who were on Boeings board at the time remain in post. One has even been promoted to CEO after Muilenburg was fired.
And we, the travelling public, are now reassured that this must be the safest aircraft ever. The FAA and Boeing with the support of the NTSB have been over every inch of this aircraft and are now confident it is safe to fly. And perhaps they can convince the flying public just that. After all it can't happen again can it? I'd suggest it already has. The Boeing 737 was a two engine single aisle aircraft designed on the airframe of the 727 which had three engines. The removal of the third engine at the rear of the aircraft allowed the redesign of the rudder to become a major part in controlling the aircraft. The rudder was controlled by a valve which later turned out to have design issues. However, five aircraft crashed and (iirc) another five or six were suspected of having crashed due to this problem. The NTSB eventually discovered the problem and a Boeing engineer also worked out that the valve could physically not only stop working but work in reverse. The FAA ordered all Boeings aircraft to be updated to resolve the problem. Boeing did not unilaterally make this decision immediately upon hearing from their own engineer about the problem.
The NTSB (National Transport Safety Board) has no authority to enforce modifications. It acts in an advisory role.
The FAA has on at least one occasion not issued directions in writing to improve as advised by the NTSB. The McDonnell Douglas DC10 had safety issues with a cargo door that came off in flight on two occasions. At high level the FAA made a gentleman's agreement with McDonnell for improvements to be made. They were not.
Boeing have, in my humble opinion, got away with murder. I'm sure the diplomats and other highly paid people within the US will not share such a conclusion. If they did I believe the deaths would never have occurred in the first place. Boeing and the US will fight a war of words. Passive wording will reorganise the truth and reprioritise events. Other mechanisms will ensure we perceive that safety is now back to where it should have been.
The industry is in need of improvements with regard to safety. Its not good enough to say that aircraft travel is "still the safest way to travel". Not when it could be safer.
AiY