Boeing ought to be excluded from all government contracts until they have replaced their entire board of directors.
7
Increasingly it has become apparent that corporations have become so harden by profit goals that serve greed that their calculation of acceptable collateral damage to the public has increased at such a rate they don’t even want our government to have insight or say about how extreme it has already become; and will become in the future.
The very idea that business leaders supported by the greedy marketing of mass media, have the capacity to govern better than the citizens is now beyond hypocritical. It is actually dangerous to the planet, our environments and all life on this planet. The fact that mass media keeps faith with and economic system that the people have lost faith in, based on real life experience, also speaks to the fact that we no longer have a free press. America’s press is also, by and large, owned by large corporations dictating what is new and what is not. What is truth and what is not.
This company and its behavior are just the tip of an iceberg in full meltdown. Our problem as a people and consumers is our long standing trust of corporations like this without any justification based on real facts.
12
While regulations exist to protect consumers, workers, the environment, etc. and prevent harm to each, regulations also exist to protect companies and prevent harm to them.
By pushing for a law that undercut oversight, Boeing harmed itself. And now Boeing will be paying an enormous cost for doing so - not only in compensatory and punitive damages for the passengers and crew killed in the recent crashes involving the 737 Max, but in lost revenue from the grounding of the 737 Max.
Boeing did it to themselves - along with the assistance of gutless officeholders beholden to lobbyists and political contributions.
21
By lobbying for this law, Boeing should now face double or triple the damages already being claimed in all of the lawsuits now in progress from the two crashes, and by airlines which can't fly their planes. Their liability is now much, much greater with the revelation of this lobbying.
11
Seriously? Almost 2.8M people fly to, from or within the U.S. on roughly 30,000 commercual flights a day. I don't know what ratio of those numbers are Boeing vs their competitors but even if it's low we are still talking big numbers of lives at risk. The audacity of these law makers to sponsor such a law is dumb. Air safety has been on a high, flight delays have steadily declined - until the 737 Max things within the FAA's purvue have been going well. Even airlines are making record profits while staying hyperfocused on safety (I pray I don't regret that last line).
Boeing's recent records on new aircraft or aircraft variants (such as the 737 Max) hasn't been stellar. The 787 roll out had those battery fires and we all know about the Max. Plus they are working on the 777X & the 797. I can see why they want the FAA out of the way, they have lots of balls in the air (it's like they have ADD). Airbus has an existing line up that seems to fit most airline's needs, are only working on variants of existing aircraft rather than new aircraft and is focused on making the flight characteristics of each model the same - I'm speculating Airbus has less need for regulatory oversight.
The best thing for Boeing now would be the opposite type of law, fund more FAA inspectors and keep them independent of manufacturer influence. Without that there is nothing that Boeing can do or say to regain the flying publics trust on any new. AA, DL, UA should only schedule 737 Max aircraft to DCA.
5
@Sean Well - I occasionally fly out of DCA -- and wouldn't want to be on a MAX.
Ya think Denis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing, has earned his $30,000,000. a year? That's about $67,000.per victim of his misfeasance.
11
Soon after the Boeing crashes occurred, it was reported that Boeing put out $800,000 into campaign contributions. Again, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United has come back, not only to haunt us, but kill innocent people!! The elected officials who received those contributions should be named and forced to return that money that is nothing more than a legal bribe that endangers all of us!!!
14
This situation is not unique. It is pervasive and is due to the fact that the industries that are supposed to be regulated for the public welfare and safety are too often compromised. The regulated are in effect controlling the regulators. First they influence the appointment of the political heads of these regulatory bodies. Then they influence the funding so that there are never enough inspectors or auditors to do a truly effective job of oversight. Then they challenge the regulations in Court on grounds they are unconstitutional or too broad in scope. If they do get 'caught' they then negotiate settlement that is not commensurate with their wrongdoing and/or appeal the judgment or fine against them. Too often we have situation where the wolf is guarding the chicken house.
6
We've let the fox guard the hen-house and write the rules of engagement as well. We know from terribly painful experience that we can never let any industry self-regulate. Never.
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?
9
Regulations weren't just dreamed up to cause problems--they were made to stop problems already identified. We went from the 1930s to 1980s without as much as a blip in the financial markets. Then deregulation came in and first we lost the Savings and Loan institutions.
There are sometimes winners when regulations are eliminated, but the winners never include our average citizen. In the end, besides risking life and limb, a bunch of people will lose their jobs.
So regulation is a jobs program. And don't forget that.
9
Corporate lobbying leads to irresponsible deregulation.
Irresponsible deregulation (that is most of deregulation) invites corruption.
Corporate corruption leads to lobbying.
Bottom line: government serves business at the expense of people.
7
What the geniuses running Boeing don’t seem to have understood is that by weakening FAA oversight they weakened Boeing. Boeing’s reputation is based partly on the fact that it’s planes are approved as safe by the FAA, which up until this debacle was regarded around the world as the gold standard for aviation regulation. Well, not anymore! Not after it has been turned into Boeing’s poodle. Until the FAA has been brought back into total control of the government and free of regulatory capture, its certification will confer about as much credibility to Boeing’s claims about the safety of their airplanes as any third world agency.
11
Poorly conceived and written law passed with bipartisan support! Not very encouraging for the flying public. Hopefully our representatives back track and rewrite the rules.
We should also remember that in most disasters mistakes accumulate to lead to the end result of a tragedy. Mr. Langewiesche’s article in the NYT Magazine of September 18, 2019 should be read by any international traveler. There are other areas in the airline industry that need to be addressed as urgently as the FAA’s oversight of aircraft manufacturers.
2
Boeing's efforts will gut U.S. regulation will backfire. Air travel and aviation exports are international. Belief in the strength and thoroughness of U.S. regulation on aviation safety helped promote U.S. aviation exports. As belief in the FAA erodes because of efforts to privatize certification and safety generally, others countries will be less inclined to blindly accept FAA certification as the gold standard. One beneficiary - Airbus and EASA.
Yet another example of declining U.S. influence in the world
5
When are we going to wake up and realize that the Heritage Foundation/low tax, no regulation principles are the equivalent of Shareholder Value. A little for you and lots for the CEO and wealthy. But remember they deserve it because they are wealth creators.
This thinking has slowly seeped into mainstream consciousness and gutted this country. Just think - a tax increase of say even 10% is met with cries of Socialism when in reality they are practicing socialistic "capitalism".
It' just a matter of how the message gets framed and adopted as truth and then even a slight pushback is unthinkable.
7
Once again: the business of American government is business!
2
This was Republicans AND Democrats joining hands in the corruption. This will all end only when money in politics is eliminated/reduced.
5
This will become a classical case study for regulatory capture.
2
What the geniuses running Boeing didn’t seem to understand is that by weakening FAA oversight they weakened Boeing. Boeing’s reputation is based partly on the fact that it’s planes are approved as safe by the FAA, which up until this debacle was regarded around the world as the gold standard for aviation regulation. Well, not anymore! Not after it has been turned into Boeing’s poodle. Until the FAA has been brought back into total control of the government and free of regulatory capture, its certification will confer about as much credibility to Boeing’s claims about the safety of their airplanes as any third world agency.
4
This horrible saga that killed 346 people is a perfect example of the level and consequences of the corruption of U.S. regulatory agencies and Congress by the financial pressure of giant corporations. Note that those who fell for Boing's arguments represent both parties. We need to overturn Citizens United and regulate political contributions. And a law not mentioned here, that also needs to be changed, assigns the airline companies very limited compensation for deaths and injuries in airline crashes, regardless of the amount of negligence. Finally, consider the broader implications: this is what surrendering your democracy to the global market does to a country. Boing moved to South Carolina, and worked hard to gut regulation, in order (it claimed) to compete more effectively with foreign companies. This is the final pathology of "free trade." It leads to more corporate corruption, weaker labor and safety and environmental laws.
7
So, why aren't the families of the dead suing the government? Our legislators are complicit in the crime of greed by the industry. Why aren't they personally liable for the deaths and loss they enable?
Or, are these "public servants" shielded by laws they passed to prevent their culpability?
3
I have never understood the concept of retrofitting an old design in such a way that makes the aircraft inherently unstable, and compensating for that flaw with complex, failure-prone compensatory mechanisms. Shouldn’t an aircraft be designed to be airworthy and survive multiple system failures? Other than comments about competitive business pressures from Airbus, I have read no explanation for this counterintuitive concept. Perhaps a reader can comment.
8
@John V I'm not sure you have to look any further then the explanation you already cited. Short term profit above all!
2
If the 737 Max is ever approved to fly I will do whatever I can as a consumer to avoid flying on a deathtrap that greedy Boeing executives and spineless, amoral politicians rushed through in order to maximize "shareholder value".
Every person named in this article bears some measure of responsibility for the two deadly crashes that occurred.
It is time to stop the money driven push to deregulate and recognize that regulation is a conmon good.
8
“Early on, Ms. Gilligan, the former F.A.A. official, said industry lobbyists suggested that the law should give companies input on performance evaluations of individual F.A.A. employees overseeing the certification of their planes.”
This is exactly how Boeing controls its own employees. Any schedule delay brought by concerned engineers can be (literally) shouted down by executives whose compensation would be significantly impacted by not meeting milestones. These compensation parameters are all in writing, and will likely be revealed during the inevitable court proceedings. Examining performance reviews will expose exactly what Boeing prioritized during the MAX development.
11
And we are supposed to trust the castrated regulatory process described here to make the decision about letting the 737 Max fly again? Ha!
I repeat my previous call that NYT reporters Kitroeff and Gelles be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism. Without their work we would know only the self-serving story that Boeing and the FAA deign to tell us little people.
6
Adam Smith wrote that those who live by profit are not to be trusted. They had deceived the public many times.
2
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We are in the throes of the Republican obsession with ending those pesky job killing regulations and replacing them wil actual killing via governmental inaction.
This is the kind of country you get when the interests of the people of a country are neglected to reward the wealthy and the companies who fund most congressional campaigns. In reality your precious vote counts for almost nothing in comparison with the billions that are being spent to buy our legislatures.
4
Those pesky regulations that Republicans always deride.
3
Death is what happens when Republicans, by themselves before Democrats took back the House and, in this case with some Democrats, enact their unconscionable "too much government regulation" [translation: "every government regulation of business/capitalism is too much"].
Shame on Maria Cantwell.
2
Sorta like the tobacco industry, eh? Gotta love corporate America, wonder if the people running these corporations have people the care about? They do seem so immoral.
2
This is a perfect example of corporate corruption. Boeing let it's bean counters and profit maximizers run the company, and now it's being destroyed. Boo Hoo for them. I hope they go bankrupt for their crimes. You just can't let the fox guard the hen house.
3
When republicans run things, the rich get much richer, and...oh yeah...people die.
3
This is corporate America at work. No regs, no oversight, no trust-busting, no taxes and no morals.
22
Automatic escalation, full utilization of delegation, risk-based priorities - all euphemisms for regulatory capture at which Boeing excels. From aircraft certification to environmental cleanup to labor disputes the pressures applied to employees, regulators, suppliers and contractors has no bounds. Want to breakup a monopoly? Start with Boeing.
5
This is all in the service of returning shareholder value, the most bankrupt way of looking at capitalism. Because the managers want to maximize profits in the short term to return shareholder value, they cut corners like not wanting to redesign the plane to avoid a lengthy certification process.
We have to put the nail in the coffin of the idea that a corporation has to serve the shareholders first and only. It must serve the customer, the community, the workers, and then the shareholder.
5
For decades regulatory agencies such as the FAA , FDA and even the EPA were setting the Gold standard for safety, health and good practice. Regulatory agencies around the world, including in Europe could only aspire to respect, credibility and status of these agencies. Sadly, as these agencies lose their teeth, there is a regulatory vacuum that others in Europe and Asia are moving into. This cannot be helpful to US companies, US investors, US workers and US consumers. No doubt agencies such as FAA imposed a certain level of costs, process and bureaucracy on companies like Boeing, but it also imposed the same obligations on airframe manufactures from other countries including Europe, Canada, China, Brazil etc... It could so because standards and reputation were so high they were unquestioned. Also with a huge US market to sell into, they had little choice but to comply. Despite the direct cost to Boeing, it opened international markets to the extent that was a real asset to Boeing resulting in increased sales. The "self certification" process lessens the Boeing brand and probably opens Boeing up to scrutiny on a detailed basis by every regulatory agency in the world from the EU to China, India, Russia and Indonesia. No doubt that process would cost Boeing sales, income and jobs. It is critical for USA Inc to have a top notch regulatory structure and set the "Gold" standard for safety and innovation.
4
If you wanted to make sure a safety agency was rendered toothless I can't think of a better way than to let the regulated industry have input into the future pay of the individual regulators. Is it really the job of Congress to maximize industry profits at the expense of human life? Bribery has rendered our legislative system ineffective.
8
This is all on Boeing. They created a plane that was so unstable that it required a corrective system to prevent it from falling from the sky. But the training and operation of this system was going to be nearly impossible to pull off, giving their international clientele. They gambled their reputation, and the lives of millions of passengers, on a product that was inherently dangerous.
Now they are paying the price. Thanks, Boeing, on behalf of all business school students around the world. I'm sure they were getting tired of doing business ethics case studies of the Ford Pinto all the time.
8
Lobbyists write a good deal of the legislation in the U.S. For instance, few government regulators inspect meat packing plants, homes to animal abuse, filth and dangerous working conditions. Instead, the industry polices itself, to the detriment of Americans, packing plant workers and animals.
The same goes for pharmaceutical pricing. For example, it costs $6 to manufacture a vial of insulin. In 1996, it cost $25 per vial. Now, pharmaceutical companies charge $360 for the same vial.
Insurance companies refuse to pay for the life-saving drug until a patient's co-pays are met, as high as $10,000 per year. The unemployed can get a half-price rate from drug companies, if they're poor enough, but even $175 per vial is too expensive. But the FDA takes a "hands off" approach to price regulation, and lets patients die.
So it goes with the FAA, another "hands off", "let the lobbyists write our regulations" government body. Instead of protecting passengers, they let Boeing's fears of losing market share dictate their giving safety control responsibility to Boeing. Big mistake.
Government oversight is crucial, to food, medicines, airplanes and more. Biased lobbyists, who are also generous campaign donors, should not be writing U.S. law, and government should not be abdicating their responsibility.
10
The FAA has been irreversibly tainted. Will the rest of the world accept the moral authority of the FAA again?
3
You can't let the fox run the hen house. Period. Accountability to outsiders, independent auditing, these are the inconveniences that force companies to look beyond their immediate self-interest and that spur them to something better. This is the core of what has made us different from most of the rest, and it is vital to our continued success. Corporations are always going to want less oversight, just like presidents, but it's in no one's long-term best interests to let them have what they want.
5
Safety becomes a competitive advantage only after people die.
In aerospace speak, it called for “full utilization of available delegation,” outsourcing as much oversight as possible. It outlined six recommendations that “will result in the reduction of certification delays” and “enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry.”
Boeing won the regulation battle, and now gets to celebrate its awesome Pyrrhic victory. When it comes to safety regulation, it's really amazing how many really smart people can talk themselves into denying something that seems blindingly obvious: The global aviation industry would not exist without a high level of regulation because no one will fly on unsafe planes.
5
Now that the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry is in the toilet, does everyone still feel good about deregulation? There are some government functions that should not be privatized. Aircraft safety is one of them.
15
I do not think that more stringent government oversight is a solution to the problem of aircraft safety. Replacing Boeing inspectors with government inspectors just replaces one set of problems with a different set. Criminal penalties for inspectors or managers who have disregarded safety would help. What is bad about the 737 Max is that it needed an MCAS. The decision to proceed with the airplane with that problem was made much higher up in the Boeing organization than in the engineering departments.
3
@Cambridgian Government inspectors should concern with only safety vs Boeing inspectors concern about safety AND business requirements. You can't seriously think they are the same.
5
This is what happens when corporations own politicians and ostensibly run our government. Republicans and Corporate Dem are at fault. I hope voters can see this and vote them out in NOV 2020. Get money OUT of politics.
10
This is just the latest and most egregious turnover of authority to corporations in our country's sad drift deeper into oligarchy. Congress--you are our voice--get busy. Democrats--don't look to the Republicans who have enriched themselves at every step as they've pushed our nation to ruin. Write some legislation! Pass it.
7
And greedy Republicans push for a smaller government decrying too much oversight and interference. This, folks, is a tragic example of why we can’t live without it.
11
@Tom Berry -- Rules for YOU, NONE for us. Benefits for US, NONE for you. It's the Republican way, and for many Corporate Dems, as well. All you have to do to go to OpenSecrets.org to find out who is bribing your very own "representatives."
3
Boeing is responsible for the deaths of all of those poor trusting passengers and airline staff on the two plains that crashed and the family devastation that has ensued.
Manslaughter, murder? All for profits?
8
“This was never brought to my attention. Had I known about it, I would have tried to put the kibosh on it.”
Huh? Even if this were true, its a Senator's job to find out what's in at least the bills he's cosponsoring. He has all kinds of resources at his disposal to do so. Its not someone else's job to bring something to his attention.
12
"With a few short paragraphs tucked into 463 pages of legislation last year, Boeing scored one of its biggest lobbying wins: a law that undercuts the government’s role in approving the design of new airplanes."
Yet another reason that lobbying should be made a felony and all lobbyists, as well as all politicians who accept this legalized bribery, should be jailed.
9
What I gathered from this article is that the FAA outsourced many of the oversights procedures to allow the aerospace industry to compete with European rivals. But at the same time issued the much needed certifications to shield the Industry or maybe mitigate criminal lawsuit in the justice system in case of deadly crash caused by defects in the manufacturing of the airplanes ....but of course not financial claims!
It would of been easier for Boeing to stop further production of 737 Max
Redesign the airplane with higher landing gear and moving the new big engines to the correct position
Redesign the fuselage that to take more impact in case of emergency landing
Redesign flight Control with more friendly MCAS.
Give complete training instruction on a flight simulators for pilots NOT ON AN IPAD!!
9
The prediction that the new law would create jobs was certainly incorrect. Without question, the massive losses Boeing incurred will force the company to lay off employees or delay the hiring of any new.
And for the man at the top.....a slight demotion, still CEO but no longer Chairman of the Board. I believe I will search for an Airbus the next time I fly.
10
The article reads:
In a stark warning as the bill was being written, the Federal Aviation Administration said that it would “not be in the best interest of safety.”
With a few short paragraphs tucked into 463 pages of legislation last year, Boeing scored one of its biggest lobbying wins: a law that undercuts the government’s role in approving the design of new airplanes.
This is really a story of the abandonment by the members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, of their duty to protect the public. The fault lies principally with the joint leadership in Congress. Approximately 350 people in two Boeing 737-max crashes died as a result.
And, this same type of government ineptitude is happening in state governments as well. I know from personal experience in California regarding government protections watered down against the occurrence of foodborne illnesses. The state's Food Safety Code was written with three distinct means of protection to the Public: periodic food inspections by the local health authority; strict food safety regulations imposed upon food retailers; and mandatory reporting of foodborne disease occurrences by emergency room physicians to local health authorities.
This is not a statewide problem, but it most certainly is in the City and County of San Francisco. I suffered lifetime severe injuries to my senses of taste and smell as a result of the failure of all three legislated safety measures. I have been unable to hold anyone accountable.
4
So typical of American style capitalism. Bigger is better, government regulation is unnecessary, and profit is more important than public safety.
Just trust us, we know best. We don't need pesky low paid bureaucrats overseeing our operations. If these people knew anything, they would be working for us.
Organizations get what they reward for. It is up to the people, through their government, to insure that capitalism and the profit motive so not run rough shod over the common good.
Capitalism may well be the best way to deliver goods and services, but it is based on greed and must be tempered by societal pressures and responsible government regulations.
12
I think the United States is in the midst of a crisis of values. There are huge numbers of wonderful and principled people some of whom may be deluded by a toxic variant of free market ideology. And then there are ever increasing numbers of "winner take all" types who see any means justifying their ends. As the chaos from accelerating global warming, displaced peoples, increasing tragedies of fire, flood, famine, etc the screaming radicalization that results will not be conducive to principled reflection about errors made and the need to strike complex balances in society. I don't envy my grandchildren. The US was probably the greatest major country in history but it has fallen much below its former self. We can hope for at least a temporary uptick to come.
10
Boeing's efforts to reduce FAA oversight trace back to the engineers strike of 2000. Around 400 Boeing employees who were FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DER's) participated in the 2000 strike. DER's had to sign off on every airplane delivered which meant airplane deliveries were impossible for the duration of the strike. In the years following the strike Boeing lobbied government representatives and FAA political appointees to ensure that Boeing management and not FAA designated safety engineers were in charge of ensuring airplane safety. Given the conflicts of managers of a corporation having a fiduciary duty to maximize profit for shareholders versus the labor and material costs associated with safe designs it's not surprising how things have proceeded.
18
The first crash of the 737 was the result of incompetence and negligence. Executives should have been fired.
The second crash, from the same cause that had not been fixed, demonstrated criminal negligence. Executives should have been jailed for manslaughter.
The new legislation represents gross negligence and possible acceptance of bribery on the part of lawmakers from both parties. They should all be impeached.
What am I thinking? This is America. The public’s safety is second to Boeing’s profits and the politicians who benefit from their campaign contributions.
20
This is the delusion of market capitalism; that the merciless, purifying fires of the marketplace will, somehow, create societal value and punish malfeasance. The truth is that the goal of capital is more capital, by any means necessary. The creation of value to the commonweal is a felicitous, incidental side effect.
2
Some have posted on here they considered Dennis Muilenburg was a murderer. In the past I thought that was pushing it, even though I have over and over pled that Muilenburg be totally fired. Now, I agree with the others.
And as far as the United States government - they didn’t even replace Huerta with a permanent head of the FAA until the last 737 crash. Trump scurried then to quickly announce a new FAA leader.
We don’t count. My family airline employees don’t count. Their kids don’t count. Thousands of other airline employees don’t count. Their families don’t count. Thousands of passengers around the world don’t count. Funeral attendees and those who grieve from crashes don’t count.
What counts? Money. Explain that to kids and everyone else who lose their parents or loved ones because of Boeing’s greed and a government that plays along.
23
Years ago, on my first Safari in Africa, I found myself and my ex-companion presented with a small propeller plane, something that looked like it was left over from World War I, charted just for us, for a short flight from Zanzibar to Tanzania. While I had never been afraid to fly, the sight of this "aircraft" unnerved me, and I expressed my misgivings to my friend. He said, "What are you afraid of? It's just a 20-minute flight."
I went, "This is Africa! There's no FAA here. Who knows when this plane was last inspected?"
Was I naive to put so much trust in a Federal Agency?
You be the judge.
6
@ALLEN ROTH An agency that is defunded, overworked, and otherwise deprived of the capacity to carry out the purpose for which it was created is not going to be very effective at all and is a condition entirely due to the politicians who are responsible for making sure the agency is properly funded and has sufficient personnel with the skills to do the job right as well as the authority to do it at all.
7
@Fred W. Hill I agree completely. I was just trying to inject a little humor into a very serious issue.
3
Airbus 320 is a marvellous workhorse, that I love flying in. I'll never go Boeing again until American industries understand that making money is only important when it balances out salaries from the lowest worker to the CEO and creates the highest safety levels for the product manufactured.
8
I retired as an Air Force colonel after 22 years in the Military. I then spent 24 years as a Boeing systems, software and test engineer, all on Air Force contracts, 13 years on the B-1B bomber, and 11 years on the F-22 fighter. My son-in-law was a command pilot on the B-1B. My experience on those programs was that no engineer or supervisor would ever knowingly deliver a faulty system to the Air Force. We really didn't care whether Boeing made a profit or not since profits didn't show up in our paychecks. We took pride in delivering the best possible product. The Boeing that I knew 1981-2005 is gone, having trashed a trillion dollar reputation for excellence.
25
@JSK When Boeing moved corporate headquarters to Chicago and started finding places to manufacture that had no unions, and having parts made all over the world, it lost any vestige of the company that was once the backbone of Seattle.
14
The result of the drive for Small Government. Ayn Rand is very happy.
14
@TonyC
The downside of the Ayn Rand "philosophy": people die, because of greed.
7
There was already a problem of corporate capture of the FAA at the time the MAX was certified but this law makes the problem much worse.
The reality is a huge corporate Boeing own goal.
Not only the MAX will take far longer in re-certification but Air Safety agencies all over the world no longer trust the FAA the way they did. The 777X program is likely to suffer far more global regulatory delay as well.
5
In what world does a corporation in a regulated industry get to make recommendations on the compensation of agency employees involved in the regulation? I really had to rub my eyes when I read that. Really glad that Boeing management has kept its focus so keenly on the all-important goal of increasing shareholder value: Make sure the FAA employees who might have prevented billion dollar liabilities get docked $1 an hour in their pay. Thanks NYT for this great reporting.
26
My thanks to the NYT for continuing to shine a light on what corporate, legal, and other decisions were behind the two 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people.
Until Boeing is held to account in a meaningful way, who can have any faith in their aircraft? What else don't we know about recent Boeing planes?
9
Large Corps writing laws is common and they basically write most of the laws. Those people in the House & Senate rarely even knows what the bill contains. Just ask one of the sometime. Then comes wild man southern base Trumper and they want all regulations gone, cause Corps can run themselves better. So there you have the answer but talk radio, fox entertainment and their preachers will explain why its still great. Its all backwards now, cause if the GOP wants it then wow its the best, regardless of any law. They ignore all laws really.
Corps just buy out all competition and claim its for the consumers, which is hysterical. But the same people keep getting elected, or at least in the south they do. Therefor nothing really changes but gets worse. So this Boeing thing isn't a surprise to anyone that pays attention.
8
NYT I have a question. What were you doing when such an egregious power grab was passed?
This is not to criticize you but to shine a light on where journalism should focus IMHO. I feel resources are too diverted to quickly bringing out the latest and not enough attention is being paid to slow, systematic in-depth investigation.
If a legislation can say industry can recommend what a federal agency employee should get paid and that does not raise red flags then something is very, very wrong here.
This will by the way not serve Boeing in the end. They are now going to have to discount their sales outside of the US because every other country would by now have cottoned on to it. No one is going to respect US FAA certification as they once did.
12
It's still true that, on average, American commercial airplanes are safer per passenger mile than American driving.
However, an independent and powerful FAA, plus gadfly journalism, is part of the reason why.
If every car accident got this kind of investigation, cars wouldn't be the biggest cause of accidents. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't be allowed to pilot one.
2
@David Reinertson Honestly that statistic is a little misleading like numbers often are. The key word is "per passenger mile" - when you get into a plane you naturally do more miles so the denominator becomes larger.
If for example it was fatalities per trip I suspect cars do better than aircraft though I am really not sure.
Unfortunately, conservatives are ideologues, not empiricists. The fact that something doesn't work, like, say, tickle down economics or letting industry make up its own rules, is absolutely no impediment to trying it again, and again, and again. The reason for this is that they are not the ones who pay for the damage.
12
"With a few short paragraphs tucked into 463 pages of legislation last year, Boeing scored one of its biggest lobbying wins: a law that undercuts the government’s role in approving the design of new airplanes.
"For years, the government had been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But those paragraphs cemented the industry’s power..."
So, Congress passes "the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018, [which] makes it even more difficult for the government to review manufacturers’ work," then after two crashes "lawmakers have seized on flaws in a regulatory system that cedes control to industry."
This phenomenon is worse than Boeing's lapses: Congress's abject abdication of legislative responsibility and craven obeisance to lobbyists, and then it's, "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!"
It's disgusting.
23
@Rocky I shouldn't have restricted my comment about Congress's obeisance to lobbyists. More critically, it's obeisance to special interests. The vote to pass the bill in question was 393-13. Congress is as captive as the FAA.
10
Reagan, the best president ever. His deregulation still kills many people every year. Well done sir!
17
Reagan was best described as an amiable dunce.
5
The Reagan Restoration, the gift that keeps on giving...
9
“Mr. DeFazio, who is currently leading a congressional investigation into the crashes, said in an interview that he was reconsidering the law and might introduce legislation to restore some of the agency’s oversight authority.
“If the F.A.A. basically deferred on a safety critical system and did not provide proper oversight, then either the individuals involved are going to be at risk, or the whole system itself isn’t working properly,” he said.
Yep, it’s those “individual’s involved” or the whole “system not working properly“ if the F.A.A. basically deferred on a safety critical system. It had absolutely nothing to do with my and Senator Nelson’s changing F.A.A. operations by the bill we wrote in response to plane manufacturer’s lobbying. No sir, things like this are always someone else’s fault.
3
@FCT "And the beat goes on": A supporter of the law in question, Rep. DeFazio, is now leading the congressional investigation! How do his colleagues allow this to take place? Are all those who agreed to that corrupt? Greedy capitalists -- a tautology? -- seem to have bought them all. And this is a system that should be perpetrated -- with a "moderate" Democratic candidate for president? Democratic socialism, which also means strict control and regulation of businesses and of the government itself, is the answer -- and we all know who stands for that!
2
One of the reasons US’s FAA has been declining licenses for Chinese-manufactured planes is because the Chinese company making these planes also runs their airlines. The logic was, if a plane manufacturer also runs an airline, they have a motivation chest for the licensing, thus damaging its safety. That makes it illegal for these Chinese jets to fly in the US airspace, and the FAA’s decision was also influencing EU’s regulations and explains why Boeing and Airbus don’t have their own airlines.
When COMAC, the Chinese airplane manufacturer came out its C919 (a 737/A320 class airplane), I was skeptical about the made-in-China quality of that plane (we joke about made-in-China quality here as well). I remembered I once said, “I will only take this plane after Xi did.” But now I have to say, Boeing and the FAA are making double-standards, violating its own rules, and sacrificing passengers’ safety. When China as the very first country announce they will ground all Boeing’s problematic planes, I thought this might be a move for the trade war to give China more negotiatingng power. But then, every country followed suit, with the US being the last one. This makes the relation between Boeing and the FAA sounds more fishy to me, and I have to give a thumb up to China’s aviation regulators.
There’s a YouTube channel called Wendover Production just made a video on how China surpasses the US in setting regulations on aviation. Maybe you should go watch it.
9
The article implies that there is a link between the passage of the law and and the crashes. Both those aircraft were certified years before the law passed. So what point is the article trying to make with that link?
1
@Andrew The article makes that clear. "The Max was certified under the old rules. The new law, the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018, makes it even more difficult for the government to review manufacturers’ work."
9
I wonder how the company feels now with its reputation damaged. I know that when I have taken my three most recent long distance flights that the type of aircraft played a part in the decision. I no longer can assume that a Boring aircraft is safe.
10
@Judith Turpin It once was, "If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going." Now? Nah...
3
Good digging, good reporting. And. But. You started with the idea that to regulate a company is to "usurp" its authority. Not good framing. Acting in the public interest is not usurping.
verb: usurp
take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
"Richard usurped the throne"
h
Similar:
seize
take over
expropriate
take possession of
take
appropriate
steal
wrest
arrogate
commandeer
annex
assume
lay claim to
take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.
"the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
h
Similar:
oust
overthrow
remove
topple
unseat
depose
dethrone
eject
dispel
succeed
come after
step into the shoes of
supplant
replace
fill someone's boots
crowd out
defenestrate
deprive
2
"Usurp" is the wrong word here. The government cannot usurp a corporation's authority; corporations have no inherent authority, only that which they were granted by law. Yes, if the government takes away something from them they may have a claim for damages, but to call regulations usurpation is wrong. This is part of the problem we are having with corporations. Their lawyers are in and out of our lawmakers offices to get laws written in their favor, and they frame regulations as "usurping" their power, but no. Our government is (or should be) of, by, and for people, not amoral, anti-social, profit-making machines.
7
@Sherry The leakage started early on. The aspiration "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence was changed by the time the Constitution was enacted, to "life, liberty and property." The money got a grip on that nonsense.
2
"[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …" -Anthony Kennedy, Citizens United.
4
Typical Republican Congress and Administration - relax oversight. They brought us the great recession of 2007 by relaxing regulations and oversight. Republicans are relaxing regulations governing deep water drilling in the Gulf - that too will bring the US another disaster. The list goes on... 2020 can't get here fast enough!
2
This guy Muilenburg must be fired. By virtue of cutting corners, he must accept responsibility for the over 300 deaths from the two 737 Max crashes, and also for the destruction of shareholder value and Boeing’s reputation among the flying public. The problems are bigger than one man, but the reckoning has to start someplace.
10
@Marc My suggestion as a non-American. Start by voting out every Republican you can. Also hold the Dems feet to the fire when they do stuff like this. After all the legislation was passed 393-13.
Industry is allowed to recommend what a specific regulator's staff member is paid? That's usurpation - not where it has been used in the article.
7
Classic ‘regulatory capture’ whereby the industry being ‘regulated’ calls the shots. In this case, it appears that this deregulation costs lives...
7
Sounds like Boeing got advice from Bill Barr, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell.
7
Regulatory capture at its very finest.
The fact that the federal government is as invisible as it is to most Americans is a sign that those agencies are well funded, unimpeded by special interests, and staffed by subject matter experts who are quietly doing their jobs.
The obvious signs of broken government, and the problems associated with a lack of basic safety and accountability happen when the same levers are in the hands of people who denigrate that work as a product of the “deep state” or “bureaucrats” or “excessive” regulation. Or worse, don’t even care.
It’s stunning how little understanding the public has of how much the federal government does for them every single day.
11
It is all about profit.
The quest for more and more and more, is woven in to how our society is currently structured.
Multi Millionaires and Billionaires and greed.
Boeing is a perfect example of a company wildly overpaying executives – CEO's, COO'S, etc – and looking to cut costs and streamline in other places, so they can keep the books and share price looking good.
Greed and share-price appeasement are completely out of control.
I have said it before, this is not Boeing's only problem right now. I would not be stunned to see them enter bankruptcy protection at some point.
And of course the consumer/taxpayer will foot the bill. And the exec's and manager will likely get their bonuses...kind of like Wall Street did.
7
Back in the 90's I worked for a company that supplied ELTs (emergency locator transmitter) to the aviation industry. The FAA was never interested in seeing the actual device. What they wanted was the paperwork that was generated when performance and survival tests were performed. If your paperwork looked good then the FAA was satisfied your product was good.
4
@Lee Elliott I looked at some online pictures of emergency locator transmitters. Meant nothing to me.
Seems like we need people in the FAA with experience, talent, access, and authority.
1
So that is why many coutries do not trust the FAA or boeing and prefer Airbus
Who wouldn't?
10
Time to re-read Arthur Miller's 1947 play, "All My Sons."
Perhaps we need another Truman Committee (1941 to 1944) to investigate Boeing and other corporations who seek with their deregulatory zeal massive profits whilst undermining public safety.
This is what happens when American citizens vote for politicians whose commitment to public safety amounts to no more than rhetorical vapor. This is what happens when American voters forget to connect the dots between perilous dilution of safety policies and procedures and deregulation of profit-seeking industries such as Boeing -- whose corporate behaviors will always adhere to profit-seeking, even at the expense of the public's safety and well-being.
Expecting a corporation to change its behavior would be tantamount to expecting a lion, tiger, or bear to change its behavior by deregulating the same but expecting that these predators change not only their "spots" but also their instincts.
It ain't gonna happen!
Regulation, prudently crafted, enacted, and administered, is necessary to ensure the public safety.
10
How did this pass by the Democrats too?
What the heck?
This FAA reauthorization bill was passed by a simple majority by 97%.
176 Democrats voted for it, with only 6 against it. Republicans, fuhgeddaboudit.
Who is looking out for the flying public?
It seems like people are lulled by the years of hard work of engineers, pilots and training, and also FAA supervision to make flying as safe as it has become.
Standards need to be kept up, not loosened.
4
Foxes in charge of henhouse rules. Pesky safety regulations!
Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose.
7
To big to fail? Sorry Boeing, if weren’t for all the families counting on you, you should be fired. You should instead, be kept on a short leash.
7
This is the new approach in America it seems. The White House subscribes to it...instead of the truth it is what the President wants. Instead of solid manufacturing, and products that will perform it was "shortcuts and legislation to allow Boeing to ignore what it should have done." Both seem filled with YES people, and both are failing...unfortunately it is proving very hard because of solid Republican Yes Men to get rid of Trump.
6
"F.A.A. employees were interpreting the rules . . . slowing down the development process . . . ."
Any time some chart boy in that industry EVER utters "slowing down" anything it automatically, instantly, and invariably means getting rid of inspections or finding some lap dogs to nod their heads in unison. Too many defects? Reduce inspections. Fact.
The culture at Mother Bee is broken and probably cannot be salvaged. The chart boys (MBAs) running the show cannot make good decisions with respect to safety of flight, customer issues in service, and the good ol' marginal vs fixed cost from Macroeconomics 101.
In a former iteration, all of Mother Bee's project/program upper and executive management were engineers who were carefully and broadly trained on the way up. A stint in project management, another in liaison engineering (factory assignees who disposition production items), maybe 6 months in customer engineering, etc. They all had broad exposure to enough facets of a unique industry to make said good decisions.
No more. Most of them are now gone--retired, fired, reassigned to Outer Slobbovia, or run off.
Chart boys with MBAs cannot navigate the decision making process correctly even if they want to. Fact.
Best analogy: you have a PhD in Geology. The local medical school hires you to run things. After all, you're a "doctor," aren't you?
QED.
19
Boeing has reported serious problems with system safety and quality control. It’s customers failed to understand what they were buying and the pilots were unable to fly the plane. Even American pilots were aghast at the inclusion of the MCAS elements without adequate communication of the differences between the Max and the traditional 737. It’s clear the fox cannot guard the henhouse and the price has been paid in blood. Time to rethink the certification system. The revisions described reek of undue influence. Competing with Airbus is the least of the industry’s problems if passengers die due to unsafe aircraft. All these congresspeople and a Elaine Chao need to be kicked to the curb.
5
@Wolf All top execs must be fired to make way for a real change to how companies should behave, which probably was the way Boeing behaved before they rushed everything to completion with an eye to the bottom line, and rejected safety. The company may or may not survive. The government is also to blame. But kick them out...
3
There is so much outrage over opioid addiction, but why aren't people more angry about Boeing?
6
There is so much to be angry about
1
America voted republican majorities across the country ..Among their major promises , cutting "pesky regulations " was right up there ...You get the government you deserve . And the protections you deserve .
12
Why don't our airline companies by planes from AIR Bus.
@Dennis They do.
One is reminded of the Ford Pinto, Chevy Corvair debacles.
Better to maximize profits in the short run. If troubles arise in the future, companies are insured for big losses. Let the insurance companies worry.
An object demonstration of "moral hazard."
3
Seems like Boeing senior management and Board needs to be retired, fired and investigated for criminal acts. Regulators need to be given more say over Boeing specifically for many years as a slap to them and their indifference to safety and Congress needs to legislate more rules to prevent this from happening. There is a desire to loosen 'rules' in order to spur innovation and corporate profits. In effect the loosening in this case gave a banal group of managers with no dedication to safety an opportunity to condemn two planes to a crash and their passengers to death. Even more than senior managers in the mortgage debacle of years ago, these people must be held to account in a way that punishes them (monetary penalties, jail time and public disgrace) and threatens future banality from not happening across this industry and others.
8
@Rick Joners Absolutely spot on. Every word of your comment. But who are going to be the bearers of the standards implicated? Meaning back to safety First again. Not to be found in this government or the corrupted political cultural environment we are experiencing now.
3
It's hard to blame the new law for the 737 Max problems, since this plane had been flying for quite a while before the law was passed. (As the article notes, the first crash was only a few weeks after the law was passed.)
So the law didn't make any difference. I'm not convinced that tighter regulatory scrutiny of Boeing would have caught the problem anyway - regulators aren't omniscient.
And the 737 Max situation demonstrates that the financial consequences of being cavalier about safety are several orders of magnitude greater than the cost of regulatory oversight.
3
Senator Cantwell and the rest of Washington State’s Congressional delegation should have taken into account two things.
Firstly, Boeing’s headquarters are no longer in their state, they are in Chicago, so the company could hardly threaten to move out of Washington, since they’s done that years earlier. Only Boeing’s manufacturing facilities remain in the state, and any threat to move those would be hollow, since it would require a multi-billion-dollar commitment to build new facilities elsewhere and disrupt the company’s schedule of delivering standing orders, something Boeing simply cannot afford in its fierce competition with the European Airbus consortium.
Secondly, that every member of Congress who is not, does not want to be or appear to be in the hip pocket of Big Business interests must operate from the default position that, left to their own devices, Big Business will ask, demand and do the wrong thing, and act in their own interests to the detriment of the common good EVERY time.
12
Not to mention the fact that a major Boeing facility is now located in South Carolina, fabricating their 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
Their political threats to relocate must be assessed relative to their "switching" and "transaction" costs.
1
I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing will have to be restructured to avoid bankruptcy. I wonder which spun-off division will take the managers who came up with this rule? I am sure they will get a big bonus for leaving.
2
It's truly a shame how once great companies like Boeing, Johnson & Johnson, etc., have lost their mojos, thanks to a new generation of America's corporate CEOs who "lead" with their foot in their mouth...
11
Several hundred people lost their lives because of lax oversight. So instead of going back, the people who brought you this fiasco will get to continue to endanger the lives of their customers. What I really don't get about this is that Boeing is looking to destroy its company's credibility and possibly its entire business by loosening oversight. Is their management really that dumb?
47
@Ceilidth yes they are, but it is a cold and calculated dumbness.
check out the film "Fight Club," where the protagonist is a defect-caused-accident damage assessment officer for a major car company who applies "the formula" to a car defect.
Basically, the formula balances the cost of a recall against the cost of paying off settlements from the anticipated number of deaths.
If the cost of a recall is more than paying off claims "we don't do a recall."
Same thing here.
7
@Ceilidth When executives are compensated on a share price basis, their perspective and motivation are skewed.
9
Boeing is an example of a company out of control with hubris. We should all remember Teddy Roosevelt and the Trusts of the early 20th century. That President had the foresight to reign in the abuse. The current President is all about facilitating the corruption.
Not to mention that Boeing seems to do itself more harm than good: limit oversight and we get the MAX debacle. Kill Bombardier through tariffs, and force the company sell a whole sophisticated jet program to a competitor for $1 (now the Airbus A220, yes they got it for free, thanks Boeing).
12
More deregulation please. Let's get rid of all fairness, safety and health regulations so corporations can make lots of money and have extra to pay politicians to kill more regulations.... And that self-regulation thing always works out for consumers, right?
24
This is the beginning of the collapse of the great american airplane empire
12
Who do the regulators think they are - hindering companies from making money with their pesky rules on safety?
21
So change the law. This year. Seems obvious. Return to the pre-Bush 43 regime.
5
"The law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees". This should anger ALL federal employees, since when does this country let a company that they are supposed to oversee, decide how much a federal FAA employee makes.
This should also wake up the voter as to the outsized power that corporations are amassing. So much so, that they can lobby for, and get provisions they had inserted into a reauthorization bill. It's time that the consumer and by extention, the voter, vote these people out.
Boeing has also outsourced the coding of the MCAS system to India, as reported by the NY Times, because the engineers in India are paid $9.00 an hour as opposed to the $45.00-$50.00 an hour they make here, and rightfully so. The engineers for Boeing are responsible for the planes they build and modify like the 737, an airframe that is quite old by commercial standard.
This is how sneaky our elected representatives are, this is how little they care about us, their constituents.
86
Think of a corporation as a dog who would rather eat an entire 5lb bag of kibble in one sitting rather than have it portioned out by its owner.
The owner knows eating the whole bag at once is bad, but the dog doesn’t, and lacks the self control to do what is in its best interest.
Dogs need owners to protect them, just as corporations need regulation and oversight to protect them—and us (those who in fact charter them) from their worst impulses.
29
If Boeing wants faster design approval, they should be pushing for increasing the FAA budget, not seeking to bypass independent evaluation.
107
All the people, the executives, the lobbyists, and yes, even the Democrats who were stooges for Boeing and facilitated this legislation, have blood on their hands. How Muilenburg keeps his job remains a mystery, and although the tanking of Boeing's market will entail massive layoffs of people entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, he will make out just fine thank you.
44
@stan continople
I totally agree, ANY elected congressperson that allowed this to happen, does have blood on their hands. By the way, it seems to me that Boeing knew the MCAS system had issues, yet they ignored it. If that's true, then the CEO is guilty of over 300 counts of manslaughter, and should be put in prison...Oh wait, we don't do that in this country, in fact, CEOs can commit one million counts of fraud, and get a parting BONUS.
Which makes me wonder, how Jeff Skilling and company (of Enron fame) who went to prison, feel about how CEOs are treated today. WorldCom, same thing he went to prison too. If Skilling did today what he did at Enron, he'd probably get a bonus, for running Enron (and many employees money) into the ground.
15
Proves again, who really runs the US of A, not the voters, the lobbyists, lawyers and the loot. Lobbyists get what the and pay for. The people need lobbyists it sure isn’t who we vote into office.
How many billions does it take to get somebody elected to the presidency?
30
Is it any wonder that Democratic voters no longer feel they have anyone that represents them? Is it any wonder that voters turned to Trump?
8
@Walter Ingram
But that's true of republican voters as well. We have an unresponsive government. They've put their own personal needs above ours. Elected officials owe us a fiduciary duty. Yet gun control is a good example, a majority of both parties want some kind of gun measures passed, in the 80-90% range. Yet Congress totally ignores the will of the people.
I truly believe that term limits would go a long way to solving that issue. Jefferson believed the Constitution was a living document, it was meant to change over time to address a changing Country. Jefferson believed that the Constitution needed updating (lack of a better word) every generation.
7
@Walter Ingram This is all Democrat's fault? Who knew? Do you really believe that the big push to destroy safety regulations is a Democratic priority? Or environmental regulations? Or health regulation? Don't you think that Republicans deserve a little credit for the deregulatory trash they have been pushing for the last 50 years?
24
@Walter Ingram
Democrats are the ones who have always gotten heat from Republicans for wanting more regulation, while Republicans continually push for less and have made that a part of their platform roughly since time began. So let's not put this solely at the Democrats' feet.
And yes, actually, I and the majority of people who voted in the last presidential election see it very much as a wonder that Trump got elected, and we are still mystified as to his appeal.
4
The government "picked a winner" and let Boeing take over McDonnell-Douglas so Boeing could "compete" against AirBus.
Failure to enforce anti-monopoly laws.
I can see the government "pick a winner" (GOP hated it when Obama helped a solar company) when it is helping a start-up. The power of Boeing in this regulatory heist, however, means Boeing should be nationalized. Instead of over-paying Boeing CEOs millions, use the money saved to hire more F.A.A. staff.
Boeing also left Seattle where they had access to generations of highly skilled machinists. They wanted cheaper labor and went to a "Right to Work State". The S. Carolina labor pool was cheaper but not as good. It didn't have the sense of ownership union machinists in the Northwest had, where like some villages in Italy generation after generation produced world-class masons. Family pride, community pride and solidarity created that.
The love of money is at the root of 737MAX tragedies.
117
@Judy
Add to that the sharecropper mentality that still persists in the South, where fear of the "bossman" looms ever large. Fear of retribution has kept wages low, voices mum on poor practices, and prevented unionization at every turn.
27
@Judy
Those are the workers that fail to understand that they are in the driver's seat. That the technical knowledge needed hasn't changed because Being moved to South Carolina. Yet Boeing pays them only $21.00 an hour. Those same level of skills, cost them $35.00 an hour, in Seattle, with way better benefits than South Carolina employees.
Yet when the union asked them to vote in the union, Boeing workers were quoted as saying Boeing GAVE them a job, Boeing GAVE them their house, GAVE them their car. But Boeing didn't GIVE them anything. The contract is you come to work for us (Boeing) for the consideration of $21.00 an hour plus poultry benefits, for 8 hours a day 40 hours a week. That's the social employer employee contract, ex amount of dollars an hour for 8 hours a day, period.
Look what the auto workers union just got, any republican that tell you unions ruin companies, all they need to do is look at the gains GM employees received. That's the power of unions...anything less, is just another lie asserted by the elected representatives of corporations, meaning Congresspeople.
37
@James "Poultry benefits" is a great typo there.
5
Boeing housed the regulators right inside their own offices.
What could possibly go wrong?
What’s the GOP’s cry again? No government is good government?
60
Saint Reagan..."get government off our backs"..we did and people died.
13
A government of the people or for corporate money?
13
Is there anyone out there who would ever fly in a Boeing 737 MAX? Just asking.
52
@Mike Yes. I would fly in a Max at all stages.
@Mike If the 737 Max was just approved by the FAA then I think the world wide flying public would become very risk averse and decide that that plane to too much of a risk. But since the plane will now only fly in a country’s airspace after individual approvals from each country's regulators, I think it would be safe to say that in 12 months it will all be back to normal
@Mike, not only will I never fly on a Boeing 737 MAX, I would suggest that anyone who willingly gets on one in the future should have their head examined.
Boeing simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
23
I wonder how many new jobs all those grounded MAXes are providing? Is the MAX succeeding in making American aviation companies more competative?
Unregulated capitalism is, literally, deadly. It may make jobs in the short run, but in the long run it kills them, too--except, oif course, for the jobs of of the wealthy CEOs who put profit before people.
41
I find it hard to assume that unless government is involved, Boeing will produce a plane which is dangerous. Yet that is what happened. How can we ever trust Boeing again?
62