Boeing to pay $2.5bn to settle criminal charges stemming from 737 MAX crisis

Jan. 7, 2021, © Leeham News: Boeing today agreed to pay $2.5bn to settle criminal charges with the US Department of Justice over the 737 MAX investigation.

The settlement comes in the form of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA).

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing synopsized the agreement:

The DPA contemplates that the Company will: (1) make payments totaling $2,513.6 million, which consist of (a) a $243.6 million criminal monetary penalty; (b) $500 million in additional compensation to the heirs and/or beneficiaries of those who died in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accidents; and (c) $1.77 billion to the Company’s airline customers for harm incurred as a result of the grounding of the 737 MAX, offset in part by payments already made and the remainder satisfied through payments to be made prior to the termination of the DPA; (2) review its compliance program for implementation of continuous improvement efforts; and (3) implement enhanced compliance reporting and internal controls mechanisms. Under the terms of the DPA, the criminal information will be dismissed after three years, provided that the Company fully complies with its obligations under the DPA. Of the payments described above, $1.77 billion has been included in amounts reserved in prior quarters for 737 MAX customer considerations. The Company expects to incur earnings charges equal to the remaining $743.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2020.

However, Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times points out that “Only $243.6 million, less than 10%, is a fine for the criminal conduct. And Boeing must pay an additional $500 million compensation to the MAX crash victim families. However, 70% of the $2.5 billion cited is compensation to airline customers that Boeing has already agreed to pay.”

Justice Department statement

The Justice Department’s full statement is here. In part, the DOJ said:

Boeing has entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve a criminal charge related to a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA AEG) in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane.

The criminal information charges the company with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

“The misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions communicated by Boeing employees to the FAA impeded the government’s ability to ensure the safety of the flying public,” said U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox for the Northern District of Texas. “This case sends a clear message: The Department of Justice will hold manufacturers like Boeing accountable for defrauding regulators – especially in industries where the stakes are this high.”

Complaint and DPA

The criminal complaint is here: boeing_criminal_information

The DPA is here: boeing_deferred_prosecution_agreement

184 Comments on “Boeing to pay $2.5bn to settle criminal charges stemming from 737 MAX crisis

  1. It appears the DoJ has decided who the main culprit was. It never rains when it pours in Seattle

  2. So Boeing has implicitly admitted to fraud and other related charges.
    2021 is off to a good start!

    • Bryce:

      You clearly misunderstand it.

      It really was the pilots fault, Boeing is just being generous. Its enough to put a lump in your throat. New Boeing slogan.

      Boeing management, we do it right because we do it twice!

      • @Transworld

        You hit the nail on the head – tractor man is free

        But maybe victims’ lawsuits will turn up more heat

      • Also interesting: when I raised the Forkner fraud here a few days ago, the local Boeing rep. retorted with the usual response of “consipracy theories, all of which have been disproved”.
        And, yet, just a few days later, we have a clear admission by Boeing.

        The good news is that the families of the victims are continuing their legal action — a nightmare for Boeing because of the all the filth that will be dredged up in court submissions and during trial, providing a constant stream of negative PR for months and months to come.

        • My remarks were true, Forkner recanted his statements as exaggerations and blowing off steam. And thus avoided prosecution.

          The DoJ did not substantiate those statements, they found that his request to remove MCAS from training materials constituted fraud, since he withheld information that was known to him in making that request. His employer was Boeing and they are responsible for his actions, whether known to them or not.

        • Forkner didn’t really make a mistake. His decison to leave MCAS out was with the 0.6 deg MCAS version. Only later when Boeing increased to 2.5 deg MCAS he recognized the big change but didn’t inform the FAA.
          The FAA could have asked Forkner too if the 2.5 deg MCAS version needs to be mentioned, but the FAA was disappointed that Boeing didn’t mention MCAS, so the FAA never certified the MAX without mentioning MCAS.
          Forkner’s actions didn’t matter, only the DoJ is playing it. Must be Trump’s soldiers too.

          • The DPA makes clear that the technical details of the MCAS change were communicated to the FAA flight test group. The fraud occurred when Forkner did not report the change to the FAA training group.

            His job was to evaluate the MAX in the simulator and make training recommendations to the FSB. He texted in November 2016 that MCAS had changed, and that he had unknowingly lied to the FAA. But then he continued with the request to remove MCAS from the training materials, two months later in 2017, with no further disclosure.

            The charges almost exactly follow the reporting on this from a year ago:


          • @Leon

            This is from Dominic Gates’ article cited above

            « However, the court document notes that the agreement protects only the company, not individuals, from prosecution. It further notes that evidence arising from the DOJ investigation may be used to bring charges of perjury, obstruction of justice or making a false statement. »

            I do not see why this does not apply to Forkner, as of course to others

          • Using the DPA as the authoritative source, the passages referenced by Dominic are limiting conditions of the DPA. They don’t pertain to Forkner.

            It’s unusual to prosecute individuals for corporate crimes, or for the same crime as the corporation. In this case they wanted Boeing. That was attempted in the Deepwater Horizon case, two employees were tried and acquitted.

            Here is the relevant passage:

            “The Fraud Section may use any information related to the conduct described in the attached Statement of Facts against the Company:

            (a) in a prosecution for perjury or obstruction of justice;
            (b) in a prosecution for making a false statement;
            (c) in a prosecution or other proceeding relating to any crime of violence;
            (d) in a prosecution or other proceeding
            relating to a violation of any provision of Title 26 of the United States Code. (IRS)

            This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution for any future conduct by the Company. In addition, this Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution of any individuals, regardless of their affiliation with the Company.”

          • “Must be Trump’s soldiers too.”

            What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like an attempt at a smear, a phoney claim – not appropriate for aviation.

          • “Forkner didn’t really make a mistake. His decison to leave MCAS out was with the 0.6 deg MCAS version. Only later when Boeing increased to 2.5 deg MCAS he recognized the big change but didn’t inform the FAA.”

            Huh? Sure sounds like a mistake to me.
            (Whatever the motivation.)

          • “”Huh? Sure sounds like a mistake to me.””

            For 0.6 deg MCAS Forkner wrote to FAA that MCAS doesn’t need to be mentioned.
            That was his opinion, he didn’t certify it.
            Why is this a mistake?
            It’s FAA’s decision if MCAS needs to be mentioned or not.
            Forkner never wrote that 2.5 deg MCAS doesn’t need to be mentioned and he never certified it too.
            FAA should have asked Forkner about 2.5 deg MCAS to get their documents complete, but it is known that FAA never checked all documents.
            Sure it’s Boeing’s job to send complete documents, but it’s FAA’s job to check if documents are complete. How can something be certified without complete documents.
            DoJ = kindergarten
            The whole Forkner story might have been staged in April 2019 and is now used as a cover up. Blame the Boeing pilots LOL
            Maybe it was even Forkner’s idea … hey Muilenburg, I want to leave Boeing anyway, pay me some $$$ and we can stage some emails.

            The job of the DoJ should have been to check which documents were certified and by whom (sometimes in the past Boeing let documents sign from people who don’t exist). Then the DoJ would get an idea what was certified and what was not. This is important because I’m sure there never was a complete certification for the MAX, that’s why Boeing was hiding documents and Dickson never checked all documents. In Feb 2020 Boeing was still using undue pressure and threatened people.

          • “”Huh? Sure sounds like a mistake to me.””

            And Forkner was doing his job on a sim which had fake software.
            For Boeing it makes sense to be in the sim business.
            It’s remarkable that Dickson re-certified the MAX on the grounds of a sim software and never checked special flight behavior on a MAX live.

  3. Hope, that the “Boeing Employees” referred to in this article also contemplates ex-CEO and Boeing’s Board members, who were perfectly aware of the A737 MAX issues before their deliveries to its clients.
    Should Boeing also be sued by its Suppliers for the Consequential Losses incurred, due to stoppage of pre-agreed delivery of the aircraft Parts and Equipment, which have been idle for almost 2 years?

    • > Hope, that the “Boeing Employees” referred to in this article also contemplates ex-CEO and Boeing’s Board members

      Nah! “Employees” = the little peeps, always; those above them in the C-suites are never responsible: “We were out of the loop!”

      I will say again that AB and China, maybe even RU- are going to have too-big-to-fail Boing for lunch. I noticed today too, that Ryanair are going to first inflict the MAX 2.0 on UK passengers:
      they would, now wouldn’t they?

      “Like it, Proles!”

  4. Obviously for Boeing, the life of travellers is not as important as their client.
    The is really shameless, disgusting.

  5. So a wrist-slap and a Strongly Worded Letter for the criminally-culpable Boing, eh?

    Color me unsurprised. Same-ol same-ol..

    • Whats 2.5 billion when you have lost 40 billion or so on your last two aircraft programs? (stay tuned on 777X)

      The new standard is we are surprised if they have a successful program (and stay tuned on that one)

      • Who cares about the loss of 40 billions on programs.
        It’s all about the billions management can make.

    • After the Enron situation where criminal investigations led to the collapse of Enron and then of Arthur Andersen there have been a series of court rulings and statue changes that make it essentially impossible to charge and try an incorporated entity for a crime as if it were a person. The rulers of our (US) society decided, for good or ill, that it was too disruptive to the economy for corporations to face the possibility of being dissolved and people who thought themselves working behind the corporate veil to be exposed to personal liability. So if an individual can be shown to have broken a specific law they may be charged, but the most that will ever happen to a corporate entity is a consent decree and a fine.

      You may agree or disagree with those theories, but it is way it has been in the US since 2005 and doesn’t look to be changing.

      • “After the Enron situation where criminal investigations led to the collapse of Enron and then of Arthur Andersen there have been a series of court rulings ….”

        You do know that the pitbull Andrew Weissmann, who ran the ‘ investigation’ of Enron and Anderson was so sleazy and withheld evidence such that SCOTUS overturned the convictions in both cases. But in the process he put tens of thousands of people out of work. He then wound up as top guru in the Mueller trump Russia investigation, and we all know how that came out.

        • “He then wound up as top guru in the Mueller trump Russia investigation, and we all know how that came out.”

          Yup, effectively exonerated Trump, yet neo-Marxists continue to peddle their conspiracy claim.

      • You don’t make sense.

        Do recognize that potential customers of an accounting company deeply involved with a fraudulent operation are likely to be shunned by potential customers and dropped by existing customers. The free market does work.

        I’ve blathered about the Bre-X gold deposit scam in this forum, the more I read the more amazed I am at the utter incompetence in the company and financial outfits and media.

        No one, including a well-established engineering/geoscience company in Canada, dug in the dirt themselves. When an experienced US mining company and a different Canadian engineering/geoscience company actually did, they didn’t find any gold worth talking about. The difference was they drilled for themselves and followed the cores through to assay. (The scam was perpetrated between drilling and assaying. There were odd things along the way that might have raised questions, though the esteemed Stephen McIntyre seems to think not.)

        I presume good financial auditors decide on some figures/transactions to follow to root, somehow deciding on which to sample. (Including I guess unusual ones, large ones, etc.)

        Good policy for FAA as well, I’d expect new things to be at top of list to crawl through.

  6. The cherry on the parfait…

    Now brace for civil suits from:

    Customers and/or their receivers and bankruptcy courts,
    Passenger estates.

    The sky is the limit!

    • > No Perp Walk Then.

      Kidding, right? we’re talking über-financialized Boing, here!

      777-X 787 tail/FOD 737MCAS KC-46 (heh!) Charleston QC™

      paid to fail

  7. So no criminal charges against any individuals? I think its quite easy to point some fingers here so the old “everyone is to blame, no one is to blame” nonsense is a pretty weak excuse.

  8. Ethically what has happened here is far far worse then the Iranians shooting down an airliner. FAR worse.

    • I thought the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, presumably because it was an Airbus

      • I think he’s referring to the “oopsie” tehran shootdown shortly after they retaliated for suleimani

      • More recently there was the Ukraine Airlines shot down while climbing out of Tehran. Essentially the same root cause as the Vincennes incident: nervous trigger fingers in an ambiguous semi-combat zone.

        • Nobody knows if this was not egged on by some electronic warfare activity from the US side.

          The smug silence was imho rather telling.

      • That’s a silly remark.

        The US ship shot down an Iranian airline flight because it was not following normal communications, did not respond on the international emergency frequency, and was flying out of an airport that also had Iranian military aircraft that could shoot missiles from a distance – in an environment of attacks being made on the ship by Iranian military boats.

        The Iranian military shot down one of several scheduled airline flights that took off from that airport around the same time. FDR data has yet to be made available to agencies outside Iran, last I heard, that data might confirm flight path of it and if it was turning back to the airport.

        • Canadian authorities just reported that Iran has not provided information requested by Canada, though may have provided information to the countries of manufacture of the airplane and engines (US and France, the first priority of international protocols for crashes, I didn’t see the Ukraine mentioned in the Canadian news article.).

          (Many of the victims were of Persian background, some studying in Canada, others naturalized citizens, who had gone to Iran around Christmas to visit friends and relatives. The flight through the Ukraine was cheap and/or convenient.

          As this forum is interested in airlines, I’ll tell of PW’s experience. Checking into why the flight from Victoria BC to Vancouver BC was often late, it was realized that immigration clearance was taking a long time because of passengers from India. The PW flight originated in Seattle where it was a convenient connection to Vancouver BC, avoiding another overnight stay. Canadian authorities would not allow the flight to depart until all pax had been dealt with to the point of clearing them or formally detaining them for further action.)

  9. “”said U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox for the Northern District of Texas. “This case sends a clear message: The Department of Justice will hold manufacturers like Boeing accountable …” “”

    $244m for crimes. That was cheap, in no way reasonable for the gains Boeing achieved.
    Why was Texas chosen? Was it the easiest way out? Under Trump?
    All other countries should follow with more reasonable fines.

    “”the criminal information will be dismissed after three years””

    Unbelievable. It’s easy to kill and get away with it.

    And the FAA, calculating 15 more crashes and were not touched.

    This is garbage.

    Billy the kid.
    Boeing the killer.

    • @Leon: Texas is a key FAA facility. All the FAA statements came out of the Texas office. This may be why Texas. But I don’t know for sure.

      • FAA Regional offices divide up the US into sectors eg theres a Northwest FAA office in Des Moines WA, south of the Sea-Tac airport as well.
        The largest FAA office outside of Washington DC is the Monroney Aeronautical Centre in Oklahoma City. It seems to include top level legal actions.
        Its not clear why the US Attorneys Office in Washington DC, Oklahoma City or Chicago didnt handle this case instead of Dallas/Fort Worth

        • Recently a NY court ruled against an agency, which support fire-arms sales, because how the agency used money (corruption) and the court closed the agency.
          Then Trump kind of said, sorry, this agency should start up again in Texas and there will be no problems.
          All federal agencies should be in Texas because there might be the weakest law.

        • Just a SWAG guess as to why Texas Agency chosen lead

          1) Seattle office too close to ‘perps’ and easy to argue for recusal
          2) Ditto for chicago
          3) Ditto for wash DC

          Which then leaves a choice of Oaklahoma ( maybe too busy ? )
          And of Course Texas with reasonable independence ??

          • This wasnt a case bought by the FAA- that may yet come- but by the US Attorney for Northern Texas , Erin Cox. She doesnt seem to have any particular aviation expertise. Maybe theres one of senior lawyers who handled the case who has the right airline/pilot background.
            I presume the people at the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Division who were misled by Boeings technical pilots were in the Seattle office, but I can imagine the executives in Boeing who were obstructing this criminal investigation may yet come out.

      • There is some parsing out of responsibilities, such as airman licensing and aircraft registration.

        (Bell civil activities are now out of Canada, though IIRC much flight testing new designs is done in TX, perhaps as weather is better.

        My experience with a big STC on a helicopter was that the New York office handled FAA’s validation of the Canadian STC, and did a good job – asked good questions rather than trying to redo Ottawa’s work, we had covered them already except for one or two concerns we handled in manuals.

        Legal and PR might well come out of TX.

        In my day the Aircraft Certification Office nearest the manufacturer handled the job, in this case the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office. Though for big jobs perhaps with oversight from HQ, certainly using experts there. Often a big or unusual new project needs policy decisions from HQ.)

        However, after the 737MAX crashes HQ may have become more involved, or had a different region get involved. (Police normally do that when there is an incident involving an officer, as is the case with the shooting of a woman trying to break into Congress. The officer was with the Capital Police, investigation is being overseen or perhaps even handled by either Metro police or a detachment further away. In the Victoria BC area a force from the mainland is often used.)

        • Someone has pointed out that this is not an FAA action, it is ad Deportment of Justice action.

          Recall that DoJ began an investigation of the 737MAX development process including certification, in case there had been criminal conduct.

          (‘Deferred Prosecution’ is a process in the law of some countries by which charges against an organization or individual are not proceeded with provided that:
          – they have voluntarily disclosed illegal conduct
          – they repay
          They are in effect on probation for some years.

          A case in the US that I am aware of was the founder of a charity that built schools for girls. He was charged with using some donations for his personal gain. Apparently he had admitted gross mismanagement of funds, incompetence but with some going into his pocket. The DPA was organized by the state he was living in at the time (ID or MT IIRC), it included paying money back and [probation] for a few years.

          OTOH SNC-Lavalin was not eligible for the Canadian version of deferred prosecution because:
          – it had not self-disclosed
          – the law excluded persons violating a different law (about bribing foreign officials).

          Note that in criminal matters offenders are often put on probation after or instead of their prison sentence, if they violate conditions of the probation they are deep doo. (Common conditions include not going near a victim, not associating with certain persons, and staying out of an area.)

    • FAA is tasked with dual mandate, on the one hand to regulate and on the other hand to “encourage” aviation.

      Nothing to see here.

    • “And the FAA, calculating 15 more crashes and were not touched.”

      Umm, I think the FAA assumed there wouldn’t be another crash so soon – a common problem with using statistical probability.

    • 15 more crash?!? As long as no American lives are involved.

      Lockerbie bombing: Barr unveils charges against Libyan

  10. The charge was fraud related to the Boeing simulator pilots (Forkner et al), regarding misrepresentations made to the FAA in the request to remove MCAS from the FSB documents for the MAX differences training. Included in that was the removal of simulator training requirements. Those FSB documents were then provided to all customer airlines, which extended the fraud.

    The deferment agreement mentions that other technical aspects of MCAS were reported to the FAA, and that management was not directly involved in, or aware of, the fraud. Although of course still responsible.

    The incriminating e-mails were not included in the initial round of discovery documents provided to the DoJ, although provided later when found by Boeing. The delay associated with that was a contributing factor in the criminal penalty.

    The criminal penalty is $243M

    The family compensation fund is $500M, on top of the $100M fund already established, and is separate from any civil damages.

    The airline compensation is $1.77B, including compensation already paid for the grounding.

    This seems like a fair resolution. The lack of simulator training was always wrong, so I’m glad they focused on the training and FSB documents.

    • What do you think the civil damages will be? 500m spread over 346 lives I think provides some sense of justice.
      Although I believe in a sense of proportion. A life should be worth at least the compensation of the CEO for one year, at minimum. IMO, that keeps people honest.

      • The rumor is that the Lion Air families received on average of $1M – $5M each, by settlement. Rumored also that the Ethiopian families rejected settlements in the neighborhood of $10M each, in favor of a jury trial.

        No telling what they might get at trial, as they are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory might be in the $5M – $10M average range, punitive is unlimited.

      • Should also mention that the Lion Air families got only about $100k from the airline, as Indonesian law limits the maximum payout.

        Not sure about Ethiopian Airlines payouts as there were some efforts to consolidate cases with Boeing, due to a common insurer. That is all being sorted out in the courts.

        The first ET302 case was settled on behalf of several families in December:

        In Kenya, the amount was reported to be 335M in local currency (about $3M dollars US).

    • > The charge was fraud related to the Boeing simulator pilots

      It was the pilots’ fault [who were certainly, certainly, not doing
      just what the uber-financialized Boing management were asking
      of them..]

      Amazing that Mr. Rob can say this stuff with a straight face;
      but I’m guessing that’s what he’s well-paid to do.

      it’s not workin’

      “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his Salary depends on his not understanding it.”
      -Upton Sinclair

      • @Bill7

        “Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”

        Jonathan Swift

      • I was reading directly from the DoJ charging document, which is only two pages and consists of one charge with two counts.

        The theories presented here require the DoJ to be incompetent and have totally missed very serious crimes. After a very lengthy investigation. Just like the FAA, right?

        I said here that the investigation would focus on instances of not being truthful with the FAA. And that is exactly what happened. I did not know what instances they might find. As it turned out, it was one we already knew. Just as with the MAX remediation being what we already knew. In neither case have the theories been upheld.

        At least you are consistent, you follow the theorist rules perfectly. Repeat the allegations and when they are found to be unsubstantiated, insist that the relevant authorities are wrong, and that you are right, and ridicule anyone who says otherwise.

        Wait, doesn’t that remind me of someone and something that happened over just the last two months? Coming to a head just yesterday? Concerning a certain election?

        Problem is that as Trump found out, the theories don’t hold up in the real world. You can be mad and sulk about it as he does, and remain immersed in your own reality. But the rest of the world will not.

        • @Rob

          As nearly all commentors here and elsewhere it is of regret that the DoJ did not inflict heavier penalties on BA

          But that they did not was to be expected

          I have suggested that Congress may be waiting out the final resolution of victim law suits, which is very wise if not necessary, before enacting legislation in line with their report findings

          It is also possible that the remaining law suits will properly punish Boeing, and on behalf of those who have most suffered

          I have also suggested that it is possible to enquire as how such instances of corporate negligence and corruption may be better administered by the Judicial systems

          Please moderate your language, restrict your comments to matters in hand, and do not divert attention with calling out politicians in unrelated business which is far off topic

          • Gerrard, the analogies to method and purpose are too close not to point out. They are obvious and excellent examples, as they illustrate the tactics used by conspiracy theorists everywhere. Thus pertinent to the conspiracy theories posted here as well.

            We now have results from all of the major non-political MAX investigations. None of them have supported the theories. It’s understandable that this generates upset among the theorists, as well as criticism of the findings. But the lawful results stand, and are authoritative.

            The DoJ applied the law to determine penalties and compensation in accordance with the findings. They are fair and just, and consistent with the findings of fact from the investigation. But also a source of upset for the theorists.

            Note that the DPA for the Airbus bribery scandal was likewise fair and just. In that case the penalties were all criminal and none were compensatory, as is the case for Boeing. So we have a $4B vs $250M criminal penalty.

            Notably in that case, the theorist claim was the opposite, that the penalty was too high and unjustified. That is an indicator of the bias involved. But in fact both outcomes are valid.

          • @Rob

            Keep on topic, do not bring your civil unrest problems or attitudes to this site

            Your language is vague and lacks precision – you continue to talk of theories and conspiracy theories when dismissing commentor or public opinion or dissent from CC

            In fact it’s the commentors, here as elsewhere, reactions of disgust and disappointment to the DoJ deal which is pertinent – to dismiss these as theories let alone conspiracies is irrational and is foolish – emotional reactions precede reasoned response and actions but should not direct such

            Else all you perform is a squabble

            DoJ result was predictable – what is less so is victim law suit outcome and potential Congress legislation subsequently

          • @ Gerrard
            I agree with you: it is repulsive that Rob feels a continual need to bring politics into the discussion here, contrary to the rules. It seems that he’s using this site to propagate some sort of political agenda. Moreover, anyone who disagrees with his narrative is labeled a “conspiracy theorist”! Very disturbing!
            But, as the saying goes: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, and, thus, his own words can be slightly edited to show the other size of the coin, which he conveniently overlooks:
            “They are obvious and excellent examples, as they illustrate the tactics used by denialists everywhere. Thus pertinent to the denialist theories posted here as well.”
            After all, denialism is also a hot topic in DC.

          • Gerrard, my statements are truthful and in accordance with the investigative findings. The claims made here are not, and have never been.

            This has resulted in another collision with reality, which has occurred regularly here, with regard to Boeing and the MAX. And as with those cases, there is outrage with the governing authorities, irrespective of the truthful findings and reporting.

            You can label that as you will. My label is a theory that has not been substantiated in reality. I’ll leave it at that.

          • Except my position is based on fact and is consistent with, and substantiated by, the investigative findings.

            The theories have not been substantiated, which is the basic problem. There is no evidentiary equivalence between the two positions. Which is why the latter positions must put be forward as theories.

            It’s also why saying this openly, or even simply reciting the facts, invites immediate attack here. The facts don’t support the theory narrative. But so be it, the truth is not altered and I am not deterred by the attacks.

          • @ Rob
            “…there is outrage with the governing authorities, irrespective of the truthful findings and reporting”:

            So this personal “outrage” explains your constant need to make disparaging and demeaning (and potentially seditious) verbal attacks on both houses of the United States Legislature…all because “irrespective of their truthful findings and reporting” you don’t agree with their narrative on Boeing?

            Well, at least we have that clarified.

          • @Bryce

            There does seem to be a class or type in the US which indulges in strident emotional/idealist argumentation, coupled with immediate dismissal of any disapproved expression as ‘conspiracy’ or ‘theory’ or both

            With A concept of the facts or the science as an immutable coherent and self justifying block of which only they are apprised and with such as slogan they will castigate

            Discussion even Struggle over what are the facts and how to interpret them is Reason itself (as per Socrates) and is the very basis of democratic and communal life, but is a threat to such classbound monogroupthink

            It is this group or management class so isolated from facts and reality that they can make and push the Max in the first place, lie and deny responsibility for the crashes in the second, and now proclaim, in the midst of the worst times ever for the OEM, that all is now fine

            Instead – what are the avenues left open for Boeing, to realise new projects ? What is the likelihood of re cert in China, and their future in the China market in general

            What will happen in the civil law suits in your objective opinion ? Will Congress statute as per their report ?

            There’s a mention in Dominic Gates’ report that the DoJ might proceed to further prosecutions
            « However, the court document notes that the agreement protects only the company, not individuals, from prosecution. It further notes that evidence arising from the DOJ investigation may be used to bring charges of perjury, obstruction of justice or making a false statement. »

            And this which is not clear – or is it to you – how much has been agreed, has it or any of it been paid ?

            « However, 70% of the $2.5 billion cited in the settlement, or $1.77 billion, is compensation to Boeing’s airline customers that the company has already agreed to pay. (Indeed, that’s just a fraction of what it has agreed to pay them.) »

            PS In other news Lockdown in New Year Beijing -

          • @Bryce

            I do not have the slightest idea of what the conspiracy theories are that once again are evoked

            I read comments that are angry at BA, and at DoJ and FAA, but conspiracy ?

            There’s a suggestion that corporations are always let off lightly, especially US as opposed to foreign, and a lot of anger that management individuals are never troubled let alone prosecuted

            There’s an element of class warfare even perhaps, although not really, yet to call class consciousness a conspiracy seems irrational

            Anger is a theory ? Not a reality ? Is that what is being said ?

          • @ Gerrard
            Thanks for the very interesting link.
            Per your queries on the civil action against Boeing: the only outcome that is certain at this stage is that it will be a protracted PR nightmare for Boeing, with nasty details regularly coming to light in court submissions/proceedings for a a long time.
            Then, when a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs comes, Boeing is put into a new corner:
            – If the ruling is very harsh and Boeing accepts it, it implicitly accepts guilt;
            – If Boeing appeals the outcome and/or if the plaintiffs appeal, it protracts the PR nightmare for Boeing even further.
            – Who knows, China might even say that it’s going to defer MAX re-cert until all legal actions against Boeing have been brought to a conclusion.


          • [Edited at violation of Reader Comment rules.] The cause of the anger is the theory that Boeing is criminally responsible for the deaths of the accident victims, but is not being held responsible.

            That belief is persisting here in spite of not having been substantiated in the investigation or the charges brought against Boeing.

            So people have a choice, they can continue to believe in the theory and be angry, or they can accept that it was investigated and found not to be true. In which case there is no need for anger.

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for reply as per civil law suits, this makes sense

            That China and Congress both might wait also makes sense, China for re cert, and Congress for any additional statute making or FAA re authorisation

            WS is not very sensitive to public opinion, but given the times a jury as irate at corporate malfeasance as most commentors here might impose very high punitive damages, in turn would re ignite public opinion, and stimulate Congressional action

            BA looks cornered – PR wise, production wise, client wise, legal wise, market wise, foreign market wise, cash wise especially

        • @Rob: Dial it back. Drop the motive-attacks and politics.


          • Scott, the motive and political examples are given in an attempt to stop the personal attacks on me. They hold up a mirror to what the person is really attempting with the attack. The idea being that if they understand, they’ll stop on their own, not wanting to emulate those behaviors. As most people would.

            If you want me to not respond to those attacks, you can say so and I will comply. Otherwise, I will defend. The attacks are not a one-off or isolated event, they are more or less continuous from Bryce and Gerrard, also any interaction with Bill. All of whom are way over the line of conduct here.

          • Seems rather rich given your latest article of totally one-sided bashing. Are politics allowed, or are they not?

            I get it, it’s your site, your rules. But if you want people to follow them, some consistency from the top wouldn’t go amiss.

          • Scott, please reread posts I refer to herein, and others:

            Bill7 said on January 7, 2021 “Amazing that Mr. Rob can say this stuff with a straight face;
            but I’m guessing that’s what he’s well-paid to do.”
            That is a smear, and IMJ defamatory.

            Gerrard White’s ability to grasp facts is variable, for example his claim that Boeing will use stimulus money to pay the agreement.

            Grubbie posted what sounds like a conspiracy theory, which Rob rebutted but Bryce then piled on Rob.

            And ‘keesje’ is complicit in the games against Rob.

            Rob has patiently explained facts of the case, and the law. But Scott, you criticize the victim.

          • @Keith: I don’t see all the comments because I don’t spend all my time monitoring them. I try to catch what I can. I’ve been dealing with Gerrard via email.

            @Bill7: Your comment about pay is supposition and without basis in fact. Please retract this. If you do not, you will be suspended for seven days.

            @Grubbie and @keesje: watch how you phrase things.


          • @Keith Sketchley

            « Gerrard White’s ability to grasp facts is variable, for example his claim that Boeing will use stimulus money to pay the agreement. »

            I did not say this : I said that the Fed had created a basically free money economy for corporations which allowed even a low credit rated and with such poor sales outlook company like Boeing to raise easy money (past tense)

            I noted that, even so, any further bond issue such as being contemplated would probably result in junk bond status : you know what would happen to these bonds if so, ergo it’ll not happen

            WS has turned down the idea floated by BA to issue new stock

            Given high cash burn and poor sales prospects this put BA in a hole, especially when it looks very likely that current sales, MAX and 787, are at a loss, or on hold, in the 787 case with repairs costing probably large amounts are undertaken for most if not all 2021

            This let’s say misunderstanding regarding corporate finance has nothing to do with the rest of your post concerning Rob

        • Good point about the epistemology of conspiracy theorists.

          John Ridpath explained why people whose method of knowledge and ethics is emotions double down then get violent when they are not succeeding in persuading others. (In his lectures ‘Faith, Force, and the Mind’.)

          I’ll just briefly comment that Donald Trump’s problem is that he does not think things through often enough, and has a habit of opening his mouth before putting brain in gear. But he tries to defend people against initiation of force, unlike neo-Marxist mayors of places like Portland OR and Seattle WA (yet Trump was negligent if he did not call out the National Guard to help the overwhelmed police in the Capitol and Washington DC).

      • “Amazing that Mr. Rob can say this stuff with a straight face;
        but I’m guessing that’s what he’s well-paid to do.”

        That sounds like a tr__hy smear attempt, likely defamatory. Not good for aviation.

    • “The delay associated with that was a contributing factor in the criminal penalty.”

      Ah, one factor in at least some jurisdictions is self-disclosure. That was a factor in Canadian government legal officials rejecting the desire of SNC_Lavalin to obtain ‘deferred prosecution – which is called something else in Canada – but I read that they weren’t eligible anyway because Canadian law excludes companies charged with bribing foreign officials. Yet the Prime Minister of Canada pushed his own officials hard, I suspect to gain votes in Quebec (the old ‘jobs’ fallacy – better to have the company fail so others can pickup and use good pieces for better work).

  11. Boing, to the Very Many: we’re a very large entity, and we’ll
    do what What the f*ck we want- with a rubber-stamp for
    the nominal judicial powers of course.. of course.

    like it, proles

    What’s that term for corporate and governmental powers
    being deeply entwined? – starts with ‘F’, I think..

  12. Is it more me or am I wrong in saying…”it was management and BOD” who are the criminals?

    At the VERY LEAST, Boeing Management and BOD have to go…end of story.

    I’m disgusted and disturbed by the lack of action against Management and the BOD.

  13. See if this [short version] still fits the facts:

    Elites fail *upwards*.

    for now..

  14. Next up, the FAA Would anyone have got on a MAX if they had told anyone that they had calculated the likely number of extra crashes?

    • The FAA has government immunity. The calculation was for the case where nothing was done, but they did act to mitigate the causes they knew at the time.

      The people running the FAA at that time are now gone. Elwell resigned last month. Chao resigned today over Trump’s incitement of violence and failure to respond. So we will see who Biden brings in.

    • @Grubbie

      Exactly – as per Congress reports, which Congress has yet to put into legislation

      It is for sure that Congress was waiting on this result, and must also be waiting on resolutions to victim law suits

      CC got off lightly, after it’s not even ‘their’ money, and execs never go to jail

      But maybe, just maybe, the victim lawsuits will shake real reform out of Congress

  15. VW paid 14.7 bill for emission gate where 0 people died

    Boeing pays 2.5 bill for this disaster.

    not sure what helped more.
    the large amount of lobby money or being an american company as opposed to a foreign one
    I also wonder how they would have fleeced airbus if they had decieved the FSA like that and a jet crash on american soil were among the disasters
    doubt it would have been 2.5b

    this is essentially a slap on the wrist, nothing more

    • > Boeing pays 2.5 bill for this disaster.

      And only a *tiny, tiny fraction of that money* actually going to the families of the 346 persons who are dead due to Boing’s financialized, safety-last malfeasance.

      • 20% to be exact, or $500M. On top of another $100M of voluntary compensation. And independent of civil litigation compensation.

        • > 20% to be exact, or $500M.

          No lawyers’ fees at all to subtract from that amount, Rob?

          Call me skeptical; or you a bullshitter..


          • Administration fees are laid out in the DPA, to be paid by Boeing as a separate expense, and not to come out of the $500M family fund.

            The DPA requires an independent fund administrator to be appointed by Boeing, and work under the supervision of the DoJ.

    • Government knows that if they chased, charged Boeing like foreign VW or Huawei, the company would probably not survive, it is on oxygen already. Terminating Boeing is not the intention.

  16. Why even make airline compensation part of this? Boeing has already agreed to far more than $1.77 billion in compensation to airlines, so presumably the bottom line impact of that part is zero – but I guess it makes the overall number look bigger.

    • Because the fraud committed with the FAA in developing the FSB documents, was extended to the airlines with distribution of the FSB documents to airlines by Boeing.

      Thus making airlines affected parties to the fraud, requiring compensation. Boeing had already been paying that compensation, so that was included in the total.

  17. Outpouring against Boeing, justly reviled, and only very slightly to suffer any much from this judgement

    A quick count of comments here reveals 99% very much disappointed, rightly so

    Execs never get charged – and the money in no way comes out of anyone Boeing pockets, neither managements nor even the company, it comes from the tax payer via the Fed via stimulus

    Maybe the victims class action, I think they are in class action, will make more pain via punitive damages

    Given developing class/civil war maybe a jury will want to show how angry the people are with CC

    • Boeing hasnt taken any Fed stimulus money, they declined to take up the Federal loans that were written around their requirements.
      What has happened is that $25 bill of bonds were issued to the market and as well as institutions the Federal Reserve has bought a portion.
      Bonds as you know have to be repaid

      • @DoU

        Thanks for this, I am aware that, with regards to BA, the Fed actions are indirect only

        Nonetheless the free money stimulus into the banking and the markets allows BA to raise easy cash, in spite of their particular poor performance and prospects

        The Fed stimulus is not free, someone will pay, it will be the tax payers

        We can only be thankful that although BA has had a more or less free ride until now, it looks increasingly unlikely they will be able to raise the money for one or two plane programs that Scott say they must do in order to survive

        Do you have any ideas as to how BA may raise $40B or $50B?

        • Maybe you missed the bit where the bonds are repaid, ergo doesnt cost the taxpayers at all, and then there is how the Fed gets ‘its money’ , which is by fiat. No money down by the taxpayers either
          It creates it out of thin air. At least Boeings planes need thrust to ‘fly in thin air’.

          • @DoU

            I am sure you are familiar with corporate tactics concerning bond repayments : it is not entirely free money for BA, they’ll pay some interest, but bond yields are at historic ? lowlow , and this is down to Fed stimulus free money

            CC endlessly re schedule or re package such offerings, as they are contemplating doing right now with another offer, which threatens further to skid their rating, until the debt is junked, and/or the company declares bankruptcy

            With cash burn at $5B a quarter, likely to continue for the foreseeable, all the downsizing and all the lays offs, the real estate sales, they’ll need this money and more just to last out the year

            Let’s Be practical – Boeing raised some money, yet are still way in the hole: what can BA do to raise $40B ? or ? $50B required for the plane plans as per Scott’s post the other day

            Fed may think it creates money with a fairy wand, and it may sell this idea, but someone always pays for this magic thinking, and it’s always the tax payer, to whom none of this free money is ever given, well only a minute %

          • You can’t repay a debt if you have no money with which to repay it.
            It’s called debt default…and, ultimately, insolvency.

          • @Bryce

            In current conditions BA is fighting for survival – who or what would ante up all the billions necessary to finance a plane project, given:

            :very shaky ROI, shakier chances of survival, shakiest engineering and management, not to mention market shot to hell, lawsuits, China re cert doubts, what have I forgotten

            I do not know when the civil lawsuits get to court, do you ?

            Please give your New Year prediction

          • @ Gerrard
            In reply to your query, you forgot:
            – Shaky programs-in-development (777x).
            – Shaky yard sale of unloved whitetail MAXs (Any takers yet? Essentially zero margin for Boeing).
            – Shaky PR (ongoing embarrassment of law suits by crash families).
            – Shaky market share (Airbus is leader in NB, king in large-capacity NB, and undisputed master in ULR-NB).

            Anything else?

          • @Bryce

            Thanks! I did forget a lot

            I’d add 787 – as per Dhierin Bechai sales are now at below cost, even tho’ calculating cost is exceptionally complex, especially the cost of the repair work

            A new report by Dheirin Bechai underlines quite how nasty this is :


            « What remains, however, is that Boeing has once again cash locked in aircraft that it cannot deliver for the time being, and we want to know how big that total is. Currently, there are around 70-75 aircraft that Boeing hasn’t been able to deliver and on those aircraft, the final delivery payments were due. »

            « Boeing is facing some cash headwind in 2020 as the company failed to deliver on its promise to have a big end of the year in terms of inventory unwind for the Boeing 787, and given that Boeing had some debt maturing by the end of the fourth quarter 2020 totaling $2.25B according to the company’s filings, the cash could have come in handy. However, with deliveries still happening in 2021 that cash will still come in. What becomes more problematic, however, is that we have no insights in the costs of the rework required and the costs of the overall quality assessment, all while the inventory accumulation now stretches into the billions of dollars.

            Overall, we will see that as a result of lower production rates, there will be an additional headwind of $2.5B in final delivery payments and $5.1B in progress payments, both of these numbers are with a production rate of 10 aircraft per month as a reference point. Painful indeed, but these are the numbers you can expect when wide body programs are seeing production being slashed by 50%. »

            I would also add what Dominic Gates mentioned in his article linked to above

            « However, 70% of the $2.5 billion cited in the settlement, or $1.77 billion, is compensation to Boeing’s airline customers that the company has already agreed to pay. (Indeed, that’s just a fraction of what it has agreed to pay them.) »

            Did anything get missed, I am sure it has been, perhaps you have already thought of other cash headwinds as DB politely calls them

        • The true competitve edge of U.S. is the Fed’s unrestrained power to issue fiat money and the military power to protect it at all costs. WS borrows from the Fed and flips bond to pension funds. And Boeing will not fully repay the 25 billion *until 2060*. Whether the co. still exist by then is any body’s guess. In the mean time, WS pension managers enjoy the benefit of higher return from investing in Boeing, which is rated one step junk.

          By the way, with recent slow down of 787 production below 6 aircraft a month (one factor that Moody’s closely watches) and questionable delivery of many MAX in next few quarters, Boeing is one step closer to junk.

          @Gerrard: Forget about investing in two new aircraft development, corporate Boeing is fighting for its survival.

          • @Pedro

            Thanks for raising the $ issue, I had not done so in the context of BA, but you are quite right : $ + guns keeps the rest of world cowered, for the while

            Both China and Russia are building, very slowly it is true, an alternative : the recent China/Iran investment plan calls for payments in soft currencies, and is a small step, even if the plan is said to be for $450B

            China is building, slowly again, an alternative in Africa, Alibaba style app banking in yuan, and the yuan gaining ground as an African central bank currency

            RCEP also a step : EU China CAI another : as increasing amounts dollarised investments in China, opening up of China financial system

            The % of these transactions is so far I think around 6% of all international transactions, but if it builds at anything like the speed of the China economy it will reach a position is relatively short order to offer an widely viable alternative to the $

            In the end the quasi monopoly of the $ rests on economic foundations, as the US slides the inevitable will occur, military wise too

            I too have pointed out that BA is bankrupt

          • Caution about launching new aircraft programs is wise at this point, given uncertainty of the market due to the obsessive shotgun political policies about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and impact of climate catastrophists.

            Hopefully Boing is doing homework in back rooms, as I know they have done in the past, to explore new things and scope parameters.

            Fabrication/assembly cost is often discussed in this forum. Boeing, some days with union help, made strides in Renton and Everett to streamline and reduce floor space needed, and IIRC tried to speed assembly. (The assembly line is full of the capital requirement of ‘work in progress.) Recall if you read this forum that one assembly speed/cost reduction effort failed – automated fastener installation in 777 fuselages, apparently the semi-robot stuff was not flexible/smart/capable enough for fuselages.

  18. Instead of – in addition to- vilification for Boeing, or for DoJ, or for FAA, is it not possible to suggest means by which neither Boeing nor others may perpetrate and sell such failed planes, and then escape what here at least and in many other forums is held to be just penalty

    Congress does appear to be aware of the aberrant illegal nature of FAA and BA conduct and action, as outlined in courteous language in their report

    But have not enacted into statute, yet

    Further action to contain and control may be gained, but how

    Market pressure may impose some change, given that US market is small and outside market dominant, with China pre dominant

  19. Scott is right(I don’t this is what he really meant!) , this amounts to a presidential pardon.
    Boeing were never going to be really punished, they are going to receive massive help from from uncle Sam whatever happens. What concerns me more is that we’ll never find out what really happened.

    • Grubbie, this is a conspiracy theory. You have the authoritative documents for what happened, you just don’t accept them, you reject the facts and evidence that are presented. Instead you believe the US government has conspired to protect Boeing, without any proof or evidence of that occurring. Surely you can see this?

      • No, Rob, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” (your new catchphrase for everything that you dislike): it’s just an opinion in the comments section of an aviation website. Grubbie has every right to opine on the background and motivations underlying any news item. LNA has similarly opined, for example, that the 777X has a shaky future…and yet, that was opined without any concrete evidence of what the future will hold. Applying your new “definition”, that too constitutes a “conspiracy theory”.
        Seeing everything as a “conspiracy theory” amounts to paranoia!

        • Bryce, we all have the right to express opinions here. Including to identify unsubstantiated opinions of others for what they are. Those people are free to present their facts and reasoning in response, as Grubbie has done below.

          • I’m not aware of any rule here on LNA that requires commentators to “substantiate” their opinions.

            An “opinion” never has to be “substantiated”: it is, by definition, entirely subjective. For example, if I opine that two longhaul A380 flights via a hub more comfortable option than a direct ULR flight, I do not need to “substantiate” that point of view to anyone, under any circumstances: as an “opinion”, it does not have to be backed up by “facts and reasoning”.

            This forum is not an Inquisition!

      • Just how green are you? Any nation would do the same for their nation champion and Boeing is all over Trump like a cheap suit.

  20. It’s a joke. 2.5 bn – what does VW for Dieselgate or BP for deepwater Horizon say to this?

    As a European: If you have the USA as a friend, there’s really no need for enemies. You are off bad enough.
    See their behavior in terms of tariffs, Nord Stream 2 or any other random thing.

    It’s a joke. But why would the Americans treat their own company as bad as others?

    • Both BP and VW were prosecuted in the US under EPA pollution laws. In addition, VW was prosecuted for fraud by the US government, vehicle owners, the SEC, and the FTC. VW also faced similar actions from 20 other countries around the world.

    • Also with regard to BP, there wasn’t a direct analogy to Boeing in the prosecution. BP employees acted as ship’s captain at the time of the incident. So in that sense were analogous to the airline.

      Transocean owned the rig, and their employees were also present and participated in the incident. So in that sense were also analogous to the airlines.

      The Deepwater Horizon rig was built by Hyundai in Korea, but there was no defect in manufacturing as with Boeing, so they were not involved.

  21. Too much “colonel klink” amongst management, “I know nothing”
    Corporate behaviour will never change until they know beforehand they stand to go to jail for this sort of behaviour.

  22. Too big to fail ?

    You also need to look at the consequences as far as national security goes. If Boeing was to effectively be put out of business it would have huge impact on USA defence.

    I do wonder if it would be in the best interests of the USA to split Boeing defence from Boeing commercial ?

    • It could easily be split up.
      The defense division could, for example, be sold to Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin.
      Space might be sold to Musk…if he has any interest.
      The inventory at Commercial could be sold to a boneyard / scrap metal dealer; the buildings are already being sold off.

      • stripping down assets could be a prelude to a sale

        • Exactly.
          The Commercial division is already technically insolvent.

          • How is “moving assets aside” seen in conjunction with insolvency/bankruptcy ?

    • JakDak, you need evidence to prosecute, no matter how large or small the company is. The size is not relevant, nor the association with defense. The evidence simply wasn’t found, because it didn’t exist. It’s like WMD in Iraq.

      The theory of Boeing being criminally responsible for the deaths of the accident victims, was assumed from the start. Even I thought it was possible at first, because we had no information, and just didn’t know.

      That theory has now been strung out over 2 years. As each investigation and report has been released, the assumption has become weaker and weaker, as no evidence was presented to suggest it was true. But there was always another investigation forthcoming, so still a possibility, and the theory kept alive.

      Now we have the final criminal investigation results, and again, no evidence for the theory, but evidence that Boeing misled the FAA on the FSB training materials and regimen. Which was a contributing factor in the accidents. And so there is a deferred prosecution with penalties and compensation.

      It’s ironic that the “too big to fail” argument is raised here, because it was acknowledged in the similar DPA with Airbus. The agreement cited the losses that would occur from prosecution, due to the prominence & importance of Airbus to the economy, and loss of defense contracts due to the corruption charges.

      That is not the case with Boeing, there was no threat of loss of defense activity, due to prosecution of criminal negligence on the commercial side. Had the evidence of criminality existed, it would have been pursued. I don’t think DoJ is intimidated by Boeing, or the grand jury that reviewed and approved the charges.

      • Denialism: a person who denies the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid.

        • Keesje, the problem with this is that everyone must be in denial for your viewpoint to be true. IG, FAA, EASA, airlines, now DoJ too. And of course, me.

          Or the alternative, that these agencies have developed a consensus of valid viewpoints, and your own view is not quite accurate. It’s up to you to decide.

          • Well said.

            But conspiracy theorists and tr__h cannot be persuaded, that’s why a free market with a justice system works – people can be shunned.

            Bankers and the like might crawl through for a like this one to see who cannot be trusted.

      • Rob,

        I’m not addressing the court case at all, sorry if that was not clear.

        All I’m pointing out is a risk to US defence, what if Boeing were to fail for whatever reason in the future ?

        In any business you look at business critical components, and weigh the risks to the continuity of your business.

        I just think it might be wise to have some kind of plan prepared should something happen to Boeing in future. Does that make more sense ?

        • JakDak, no need for you to defend yourself: your post was perfectly clear.
          At the moment, he’s filleting everything and everyone that doesn’t suit his narrative.

        • I don’t think the demise of the commercial side, if it should happen, would take out the defense / space side. Or vice-versa.

          I think the commercial side helped fund the other sides for many years, now that flow is reversed in the current crisis. That’s a diversity that is one strength of the company. It’s up to the board to decide where the decision points are, as far as the risk one side presents to the other.

          I also don’t think they are at those decision points yet, despite the many predictions here. In fact I’ve stopped responding to those posts, because they are mostly people expressing their hopes that Boeing will collapse.

          As most analysts have said, a lot depends on the next year. If the commercial side can begin moving the MAX and 787, that will restore needed cash flow. If the downturn improves, prospects for the 777x will as well. Both events are needed for Boeing to start development of future commercial products.

          In the meantime the other sides are still strong, they can weather losses on the commercial side for awhile yet. But not forever.

          • A few years ago it would have been unthinkable that Boeing would be in the position they’re in now, COVID has added another dimension to everything.

            I don’t necessarily mean for Boeing to be broken up into a number of separate companies, maybe more to have a group that is Boeing with various legal entities that can be quickly, and easily spun off (even take over by the Govt.) if something completely unforeseen were to happen.

            The 1st priority of any Govt. is to protect it’s citizens. At the moment marine patrol / sub hunting is a bit mixed, the future looks like P-8, tanking at the moment also is mixed, I suspect the future is all KC-46.

            I’d expect Govts. to have this kind of thing strategised, and planned for, I expected the UK Govt. to have a ready baked plan for a pandemic, it seems like pretty much all Govts. were caught off guard.

      • “Documents in the case reveal that for the first six months of the investigation, Boeing failed to cooperate with the grand jury probe and frustrated efforts by prosecutors delving into the matter. The filings also indicate that following the first MAX crash, one of the Boeing employees at the time misled FAA training experts, as well as some of the company’s own officials, about why certain safety details were withheld from the FAA and MAX pilots before the agency’s approval to carry passengers.

        The FAA, which is conducting a civil investigation of Boeing’s activities related to the MAX, could levy additional fines and penalties. The agency didn’t have an immediate comment. …

        “The criminal probe focused on the actions of two now-former Boeing pilots who were key liaisons with the Federal Aviation Administration on technical questions related to pilot-training requirements.
        … The settlement agreement and other documents filed Thursday don’t identify the two individuals, but The Wall Street Journal has previously reported they are Mark Forkner and Patrik Gustavsson.[Chief Technical Pilots]

        Neither Mr. Forkner nor Mr. Gustavsson was charged Thursday. An attorney for Mr. Forkner declined to comment.

  23. Were any of Boeing’s immoral CEOs or corrupt board members mentioned in the fine? Or do these criminals just get their bonuses and are allowed to fade into a lavish standard of living filled with honorary PHDs from respected Business Schools?

  24. “The theory of Boeing being criminally responsible for the deaths of the accident victims, was assumed from the start. Even I thought it was possible at first, because we had no information, and just didn’t know.”

    all spun around “plausible deniability” . never state in writing your true intent. As long as the front of perpetrators is closed it is nigh impossible to bring some light into it.
    Things will be made to look like a run of less than competent decisions but not bound to some master plan.
    Mob structures.

  25. Scott, since there is no commentary enabled for your piece on President Ford’s words, I just wanted to say thanks, and I agree 100%. I too remember that era, and the pride that was felt when a president learned that the power of his office came from the governed, not from himself.

    One might hope that many members of the Trump constituency are now rethinking, but it’s vital to reach them somehow, and try to repair the divisions.

    As events unfolded, I saw that even on OANN, there was shock and dismay, and for awhile at least, the defense stopped. So we do still have some common values.

    • Ya, nice commentary Scott. Who breaks into police stations or capitols? I assume if I walk onto Whidbey naval station, there will be a dog chewing on my leg pretty quickly, and if I walked onto Bangor sub base, I would be shot. What classified information was in the capitol? The fact that these people got as close to our nation’s brain trust without losing life or limb, is that something for relief or concern, I don’t know which.

  26. “The fact that these people got as close to our nation’s brain trust :

    well the real perps came prepared. Planted bombs for distraction, showed up in hard hats, gas masxks, vests, shin guards, climbing ropes, baseball bats, clubs, semi auto weapons, false flag clothes, and other normal things for peaceful ‘protests– Agent provacter-but enough here of off topic stuff

    • Whoever they are, be better prepared next time and have the hot oil ready on the roof.

      • Chain of command for this seems to have gone through GOP officials. ( some interesting trail round one Ali Alexander.)

    • Yes, the ones who incite, don’t pay the price of their incitement, someone else always does. That’s part of what makes conspiracy theories so dangerous.

      The reality of crowds is that a small militant group (whether conservative or liberal) can incite many of the others. Once started, it’s hard to stop without someone getting hurt. You frequently see police show up in numbers and in riot gear. Images of that seem oppressive when the crowd is peaceful. But you can see from this event what the purpose of that is, to stop things from getting started.

      The thing that haunts me is the look on the face of the young woman that was shot, as she hit the floor. Like what the hell just happened. I thought of the people who have died from COVID after believing it was a hoax. This woman believed she was defending democracy. Someone always pays the price, a police officer and others died too.

      I also thought of the final scene of “Bridge Over the River Kwai”, where the doctor says “Madness … madness.”

  27. Comments about the Jan. 6 insurrection in the US are not pertinent to this post. Any further such postings will result in closing comments.


    • That’s fair Scott, but for people like me who are flight enthusiasts don’t really appreciate the back biting that is almost continuous with Gerrard White and Bryce. I don’t like throttling conversations, but, if you can throttle TW, please do so with these two. Just my input, thanks.

      • Ravioli ollie Kaye,

        I’m a flight enthusiast too,
        but those two and many others including me do it because
        here is ONE Troll

      • Seeing as everyone else is weighing in, why shouldn’t I say something?
        I’m also an aviation enthusiast. If I place a comment on other (aviation) fora — even if it is a contrarian view — I’m not continually pounced upon by a “Troll” (Leon’s term) who seems to treat the forum as some sort of weird Inquisition or Crusade in which everyone must comply with his particular viewpoint. This includes:
        – Sweeping condemnations of people’s comments as “crap” — even when those comments are backed up by multiple links from reputable news sites.
        – Labeling of proponents of a different viewpoint as “conspiracy theorists”, who allegedly have some sort of covert agenda to sow unrest.
        – Repeated demeaning of the United States Legislature because its Boeing reports are unpalatable.
        – Making constant political analogies to Mr. Trump.
        – Use of double standards: his own speculation is always allowed, but speculation by others is pounced upon — unless it suits his narrative.
        – Self-portrayal of oneself as some sort of beacon of truth and fact.
        – Most recently: use of inappropriate language, which had to be removed by the moderator for violation of reader comments.

        It’s as if this site has some sort of demonic gatekeeper who sees himself as divine moderator and censor (not intended as an insult, but as an attempt to accurately describe the experience here).
        If people here are “ganging up” on one particular person, it’s because they’re sick and tired of being constantly pounced upon and lectured to by that person, and have resorted to “fighting fire with fire”.

        I can imagine that this is an unwelcome irritant for Scott, who has other matters on his mind. In the interests of maintaining the quality of his site, it might be better to suspend all commenting altogether rather than have the comments continually “hijacked”.

        • @Bryce

          With respect – the difficulties of discussion are well described, and rather too common for comfort, yet the solution you propose, self censorship, no commenting allowed, is not appropriate

          For one, in the face of what is thought of as un reason and unfettered emotion, reason is the only response : to prefer no discussion to even unwelcome is not reasonable

          The beginning of what is conceived as (Western) modern thought found first worked expression in Socrates, and was conveyed as dialogue : if I am not wrong this is the paradigm for all subsequent notions and expressions of elaborated thought and subsequent process, including the branch which is now called science

          And was, not to belabour the point, the founding stone of those who drew up the US Constitution, by which freedom of speech…..

    • @ Gerrard
      Thanks for those very informative links.
      The language contrasts strongly with one (usual) commentator’s proclamation here that the the settlement was “just and fair”.

      “Representative Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who oversaw a lengthy probe into the crashes, said the “settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist and is an insult to the 346 victims who died as a result of corporate greed.”
      He added: “Not only is the dollar amount of the settlement a mere fraction of Boeing’s annual revenue, the settlement sidesteps any real accountability in terms of criminal charges.”

      Business as usual at The Old Boys’ Club!

      • Reading the article, Scott has disagreed with the board for a long time now, and called for their replacement. That animosity long predates the MAX crisis. But there was never going to be any action on the board from DoJ. They have no power to act in that way.

        They could perhaps fine the company so heavily that the shareholders act against the board, or so that the company is effectively destroyed and restructured. Or identify a specific crime tied to a board member or executive that would force their resignation.

        To do those things requires evidence. It’s not surprising that the board would have played no role in the errors committed with MCAS. It would be difficult to even tie that to even one person.

        The only instance I can think of where an executive was removed without cause, was at GM after the 2008 financial collapse. There the government had leverage because they were bailing out GM. In that case Wagoner was accused of not making the cuts needed to make GM viable again, or pursuing the bankruptcy option, and using government money instead.

        If you look at the broad terms of the new FAA legislation, and the full terms of the DPA, and the full terms of the 2015 agreement on quality control, it seems clear that the government is going to have an internal shaping hand in Boeing for some time to come. That won’t be subject to the board, they have already agreed to all those terms.

        As Duke noted above, the FAA still has leverage over their own investigation of the MAX and 787 issues. That won’t take the form of criminal assessment, but it will help Boeing to make the needed changes. So Boeing will have enhanced scrutiny, and new monitoring systems and an eye on their work.

        Lastly I know Scott doesn’t like Calhoun, but the DPA noted that the discovery delays ended after the first 6 months, and that corresponds roughly to the transition from Mullenberg to Calhoun. The Air Force also noted a shift in cooperation on the KC-46 program at that time.

        Ironically Mullenburg was an engineer, Calhoun is not. I agree with Scott’s recommended improvements to the board. There would need to be an organized movement in the shareholders to do that. This might be a good time to pursue that, if there are prominent voices among the brokers or large shareholders who could push it forward.

        You also need good nominees. So a good place to start would be to identify candidates. They have to be proposed well in advance and vetted. The procedures for this are in Boeing’s bylaws. The shareholders have the power to nominate and elect directors. They just have to be organized to do so.

        • These fines(tiny, most of it is actually compensation) are for not disclosing (hiding) evidence.

          • The charge of fraud concerns an employee continuing with the request to remove MCAS from training materials, without disclosing a previously texted acknowledgement that he had unknowingly lied about changes in MCAS to the FAA.

            The delay in producing the e-mail evidence of the acknowledgment, which had been copied from private text messages, was a factor in the penalty determination. The delay was due to Boeing’s attempts to interview the employee, who had already left the company, and did not initially cooperate with Boeing or the DoJ.

        • translation- name a current and most past board members who does not have ‘ plausible denialability.

          Used to be and I have had specific dealings with a Board member decades ago who was a no BS type, and if a similar issue ( malfeasance- duck and cover ) was brought to their attention, would ‘ quietly work the problem’ and either make sure it stopped or would ensure that perp was gone.

          Had a program manager who actually enjoyed getting a random group of workers from several areas together for a free breakfast, then asking each one what needed fixing or improvement or did they have any complaints about any issue. About one out of 3 times as he told me and I can verify someone would literally stand up and reasonably politely read said manager rocks and shoals. about some issue that manager had dropped the ball, etc.
          That essentially broke the ice, and he got very valuable info and definitely worked to fix, correct, resolve, etc. And made sure said ‘ rebel ” was fully informed, maybe had a chance to participate,and sometimes had to ‘ protect’ rebel from supervisors, etc.

          Not too many of those around nowdays

        • AS to shareholders being able to nominate and elect.

          Nomination is easy- sort of Election is near impossbile.

          True it is defined in procedures, and thus appears to be possible. But it is very rare to find any company of similar size in which such has been accomplished absent a well financed campaign and getting well over 50 percent votes.

          Thus it is for all practical purposes theoretical.

          It is possible for an individual to get a non board member issue/proposal to the annual meetting. I have done it more than once and gotten more than 10 percent of votes. But dealing with Perkins Coie ( same group that stonewalled POTUS vote complaints and helped push the ‘ Dossier ‘ ) is a real education in itself. Then one must get ‘ approval ‘ ( actually not but a complete explanation is not appropriate here so just leave it at that which is why the quotes) from the SEC. And sometimes The SEC does equally enforce the hoops on both sides, and sometimes not .

          So replacing aBoard member absent a major criminal issues is virtually impossible .

        • Definition of animosity – Bitter hostility or open enmity; active hatred.

          Why does “animosity” have to to be invoked to explain Scott’s remarks?
          When a corporate officer is incompetent and/or miscreant, it is customary for people to call for that officer’s replacement. This is basic corporate governance — it happens all the time in boardrooms, shareholder meetings, parliaments and newspapers.

          On the basis of Calhoun’s track record, he shouldn’t be in his current position. No need to invoke “animosity” to try to explain such sentiment — all that’s needed is elementary knowledge of how the world works.

          • Animosity is a synonym for hostility. Fair to say Scott is hostile toward the Boeing board, he said in the article they should be gone or fired. Has said the same here many times. The word is not a judgement of correctness, just a statement of reality.

          • For the record, I have no problem with this characterization. The obsession with shareholder and cost cutting value over engineering, begun under Harry Stonecipher and the McDonnell influence on the Boeing board, continued through the Muilenburg era. This culture contributed to the MAX crisis and absolutely allowed Airbus to overtake Boeing. The emphasis on cheap derivatives that didn’t land well in the marketplace (737-900 standard, 757-300, 767-400, 737-600) and a massively flawed 787 production model speak for themselves.

            Boeing and the board dithered on launching a new NMA airplane program since 2012. Now, it’s too late.

          • @Bryce

            With respect there are few here, and few not here, who are not animated by deep feelings of dislike animosity hostility and more towards Boeing

            ‘Boeing’ By which is meant current for the last quarter century at least management

            You too and me too

            In memoriam of the respect admiration and affection we all had, perhaps not for the management, but for the planes and above all for what they represented by way of well made

            Of course Calhoun is a clown , a low level WS lackey, a liar and a fool, an insider plant who had the gall to say he was not a BA insider after, ten ? years on the BoD : but as generally is the case you’ll not find his fingers on any document enough to take him to trial – hence the hatred, born of frustration more than anything else

          • @ Gerrard
            Each to his own. I like to choose my words carefully, and I make a distinction between the corporation Boeing and the various clowns on its board.
            – Where the corporation is concerned, then the term “animosity” is entirely fitting. This is because most people here fly regularly on Boeings, and it’s disgusting to think that their flying experience has been degraded and endangered by endemic corner-cutting, cost-cutting and shoddy engineering / QC. In other words: it’s personal.
            – Same where Muilenburg was concerned, because the world was treated to his straight-faced insincerity, indifference, posturing and smoke-screening after the two MAX crashes. He basically brushed aside the feelings of the crash families.
            – Where Calhoun is concerned — for me at least — “disdain” is a better descriptor (for now), because I haven’t seen enough of his actions to justify upgrading to “animosity”. I know that he has “unclean hands”, but I haven’t seen enough of them yet to upgrade. However, I’ll willingly concede that Scott may have much more experience in this regard.

          • @Bryce

            I agree with you, although I feel rather more than disdain for the Calhouns : it is because of this particular class of clown that there is no sense or purpose to corporate responsibility, either in a judicial sense, or in a financial sense, or in any other sense

            He’s there, as his clones are here there and everywhere, to divert all possible funds back to WS

            The rest, the real life of the company, labour, engineering, and production is only of concern as they serve this goal

            Once done they will throw the companycarcass away : these people are scavengers

  28. It is not possible to leave comments for the following article:

    “Our long national nightmare is over.”–President Gerald R. Ford

    But what did this the first ever none elected president of the US do.
    He granted a presidential pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. As if this wasn’t a scandal of its own. His contribution to the Warren report is not good either.

    • I think Scott was referring to the peaceful transition of presidential power, and the ultimate rule of law. As contrasted to the events of the current era.

      It wasn’t so much an endorsement of any one person, as an endorsement of the system of government that requires consent of the governed. I remember it that way too. It was quite unprecedented and striking at the time. Arguably the most powerful person on earth, could be asked to leave by his country, and comply.

  29. Sriwijaya air crash. I don’t know what happened.

    • A dive into the sea during takeoff climb at 10,000ft has too many parallels even if it was an older 737-500 model
      Lets hope its not the 737s perennial problem the fuselage ‘rip/break/burst’ which has appeared more recently in NG models as well as the Classic

      • It also appears to have made a very sharp turn to the right shortly before it disappeared from radar. The state of the recovered pieces of wreckage suggests a high-speed impact with the water and/or a mid-air disintegration event. A fuselage rip (as you’ve discussed before) was the first thing that came to mind when I heard the news.

  30. 10,000 ft in 20 sec.? Holy cow. Another black eye for Boeing’s claims that 737 is the safest aircraftever!?!

    Prepare for the onslaught of Corp. propaganda to share/shift blame: the aircraft is 26 yr old; it’s a third world airline; those pilots are not as experienced as those in U.S.!!!

    • I agree.
      As regards age, it should be noted that U.S. carriers have many airframes that are even older…including 767s/757s that are over 30 years old! But the pilots and/or maintenance staff will be an easy blame target.

      • @Bryce

        The timing could not be worser, on the tail of the limp DoJ deal, with nonetheless prospects of possible prosecution of some so far unnamed individuals

        Coupled with upcoming victims law suits – if any blame whatsoever can be attached to Boeing in this latest crash, the victims will have an open and shut case and doubtless will influence a jury more than inclined to punitive damages

        This might be the final curtain, perhaps : either break up the company, or get….er…a takeover from seriously capable investors and management team and …. and $100B csh injection.. er ? ….well maybe you have an idea ? Or offload to China in WS techswap ?

        Well maybe there’s an alternative to closing down these clowns

        I know that you were writing with irony, but BA has busted the racist pilot/victim blaming gag, they would not be brazen enough to try this on again, er…., serves them right, they cried wolf once too often, now are easy prey

        Three strikes is the usual rule

        (Whenever in doubt) to follow Swift is to settle on the path of reason

        • @ Gerrard
          Since it’s likely that the commenting possibilities on this site will soon be restricted (either across the board or individually), here’s a recent update on some vaccine-related issues…which, as we all know, are crucially important to a resumption of aviation. I’ve been working in the field of medical diagnostic techniques for almost 20 years, and I don’t feel that my comments fall into the category of “crap”, despite what The Gatekeeper says.

          (1) When I raised the issue (in November) of the potential risks of mRNA vaccines to autoimmune patients, they were dismissed by The Gatekeeper as “anti-vaxxer propaganda”. However, the CDC recently placed a separate warning on its site in which it said that:
          “People with autoimmune conditions may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware that no data are currently available on the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for them.”
          Although this issue may not personally affect The Gatekeeper, it is a cause of severe concern to many millions of autoimmune patients and their GPs, and thereby affects the uptake and success of any vaccination campaign. You should realize that the potential effects on autoimmune patients are not immediate, and may take time to manifest themselves.

          (2) Despite The Gatekeeper telling us that the side effects of mRNA vaccines were no different to those of flu shots, the CDC is now reporting that the incidence of severe allergic reactions among recipients of mRNA vaccines is almost *10 times higher* than with flu shots. Since 1 in 7 Americans has allergy issues — resulting in hundreds of thousands of hospital treatments per year — this is, once again, a concern as regards uptake — even if it doesn’t affect The Gatekeeper personally.

          I would remind you that the GSK Pandemrix H1N1 vaccine was eventually pulled from the market on the basis of a 1-in-100,000 effect: so small effects can have a major impact when it comes to medicaments. Since some of the more serious side effects of vaccines only start to manifest themselves 6-12 weeks after inoculation, we’re entering a crucial period where that’s concerned.

          Hopefully, none of these issues will become big enough to delay a resumption of normal aviation. However, nothing is certain, and it’s a pity that they can’t be discussed here normally without constant harassment and censure.

          • @Bryce

            I do not think censorship will occur : I think all parties will observe the need for more reasoned discussions and tones

            As for take up of airtravel this is going to take time a lot of time ; US domestic is still low, international will await patient protocol consensus building from likeminded and capable governments, rather than private apps


            Institutions like RCEP can help formulate the kind of business traveller plans we have already seen to be introduced in Asia at least, and perhaps by those most China manufacture dependent multinationals such as Apple

            Maybe even the EU will get their act together ?

            I know you are not crossing your fingers, but

          • Bryce:
            While I’d want fact-checking of your gate-keeper claim, especially given your history herein, it is correct from my reading and integrating that vaccines have some risk. That does not mean vaccines are inherently bad, it means people should think rationally – which is not always common even in this supposedly professional forum.

            Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 virus are new and rushed into production.

            Problem I see was that some customers and their doctors/pharmacists did not pay attention to cautions for people with a history of severe allergies. Cautions are standard with vaccination against INFLUENZA, they need to vary with type of vaccine and non-active substances in the mix such as stabilizers and anti-coagulants, but severe allergies are a red flag to me. Potential customers need to carefully weigh risk against benefit.

            People in general but especially medical appliers should be monitoring closely in case there is a bad batch, as happened with Salk vaccine against polio (one batch from one plant but it harmed many recipients before being realized).

            Dosing is now being experimented with, yes I mean experimented. The history of measles vaccination should be a warning – age was reduced to six months IIRC but that resulted in some children not getting much protection. (I know a person who had a fever of 105 at age 9, her mother put her into an ice bath.)

            For conspiracy theorists, yes, there was a problem in India with a new type of oral polio vaccine fomenting mutant versions of polio virus which other children contracted from unsanitary conditions involving excrement. But anti-vaccination zealots are faking photographs and generally lying. Such as the researcher in the UK who faked data. Widely exposed yet types like a certain Hollywood starlot keep peddling nonsense.

          • A brief rebuttal from the Gatekeeper:

            1. Immunocompromised people (whether or not as the result of autoimmune disorders) were excluded from the Phase 3 trials, as were pregnant women. Now that the vaccines have proven safe, both groups are in new trials, and are also receiving the public vaccine. The truthful CDC disclaimer is for the lesser data that is available for those groups. But the official advice is that the vaccines are safe, and people should both inform their vaccine caregiver of their condition, and consult with their physicians about any concerns they may have.

            2. The allergic reaction rate for the flu vaccine is about 1 per million doses. For the COVID vaccines, about 11 per million doses. So while the 10 to 1 figure is true, the overall rate is still very small. About 0.001%, or 99.999% with no reaction.

            Further the rate of adverse reaction (not allergic as above) in the GSK vaccine was 76 per million doses. Adverse means the onset of systemic illness (narcolepsy in the case of GSK), whereas allergic reactions are more immediate and temporary. Allergic reactions can be severe (shock) so treatments always should be on hand. Most reactions to vaccines are local (injection site redness and soreness). But as with the other groups above, people with a history of allergic reactions should both inform their vaccine caregiver, and consult with their physician about any concerns.

          • The “11 per million” acute allergic reaction figure applies to the group who are actually receiving the vaccine, but excludes the group who have have been warned not to receive the vaccine because of pre-existing allergy issues. In other words, it comprises people who are having unexpected allergic reactions, as well as the odd person (e.g. medical professional) who know that they have an acute allergy but still have to take the vaccine on a “balance of risks” argument. The people with known allergic histories are waiting in the sidelines for further guidance: they’re not part of your statistics.

            As regards these “new trials” using autoimmune patients and pregnant women, got any link for that? I assume not.

      • 737-500: 389 built, 10 fatal crashes

        Safest aircraft ever? I fear not!!

        • Actually there were 9 incidents, 5 fatal crashes:

          2 – Controlled flight into terrain
          1 – Wind shear on landing (no injuries)
          1 – Ground fatality, ingested into engine
          1 – Spatial disorientation/loss of control
          2 – Runway excursion (no injuries)
          1 – Aborted landing/go-around/loss of control
          1 – Not yet determined

          The last is the accident yesterday, so not yet determined, but the others were not found to be caused by a fault in the aircraft.

  31. I think we best wait for the data to draw any conclusions. Right now we only know that during a flight level change from 10,000 to 13,000 feet, the aircraft did an unexpected turn, lost airspeed, and lost altitude at a high but varying rate, while still turning.

    And that the crew did not respond after the turn began, but the transponder continued to function. And that the weather was poor enough that the fishermen could not see the aircraft, but heard it hit the water near their boat, and were showered with flying debris. At least those are the preliminary reports, no telling how accurate they are.

    Indonesian authorities are saying the weather was a factor, but I’m sure this was more than bad weather. We just have to wait and see. But another tragedy for sure.

  32. Scott:

    Thankyou for now dealing with persons who are dishonest toward ‘Rob’ who presents facts logically. (Maybe he is a good lawyer.)

    I should tip you off about troubled individuals when I spot them.

  33. Gerrard White:
    “I did not say this ..”

    In fact on January 7, 2021 you said: “the money in no way comes out of anyone Boeing pockets, neither managements nor even the company, it comes from the tax payer via the Fed via stimulus…”

    If you meant something else you should communicate clearly, but that would require reform as you often do not.

    • @Keith Sketchley

      The DoJ money does not come out of Boeing’s pockets, they borrowed it : BA is basically bankrupt : only the DoD business currently viable

      Please find quotes from relevant posts

      ‘..I am aware that, with regards to BA, the Fed actions are indirect only

      Nonetheless the free money stimulus into the banking and the markets allows BA to raise easy cash, in spite of their particular poor performance and prospects
      The Fed stimulus is not free, someone will pay, it will be the tax payers

      « I am sure you are familiar with corporate tactics concerning bond repayments : it is not entirely free money for BA, they’ll pay some interest, but bond yields are at historic ? lowlow , and this is down to Fed stimulus free money

      CC endlessly re schedule or re package such offerings, as they are contemplating doing right now with another offer, which threatens further to skid their rating, until the debt is junked, and/or the company declares bankruptcy

      Corporate finance is a complex issue: Boeing accounting very complex: Fed stimulus maybe impossible to understand until the consequences become apparent, that is to say apart from the immediate and massive benefits to many major corporations and stock market

  34. After almost two years, MCAS may not have been needed?
    Based on intuition, or based on actual data and the specifics of the regulations? If the head of EASA and the FAA have spoke in error, that would be problematic.

  35. This post is not about the vaccines or COVID. Comments are now closed.