US prosecutors have recommended that the Department of Justice (DoJ) brings criminal charges against Boeing.
It follows a claim by the DoJ that the plane maker had violated a settlement related to two fatal crashes involving its 737 Max aircraft which killed 346 people.
Boeing declined to comment when contacted by the BBC but previously it has denied violating the deferred prosecution agreement.
The DoJ has until 7 July to make a final decision on whether to prosecute the company. The DoJ has been contacted for comment.
The recommendation is not a final decision and the details of any potential criminal action are not known, according to CBS, the BBC’s US partner.
"This is a really critical decision that is coming up,” said Ed Pierson, who is the executive director of the Foundation for Aviation Safety and a former senior manager at Boeing.
If Boeing faces criminal charges, the potential consequences could be severe:
Financial penalties: Boeing could face substantial fines beyond the $2.5 billion settlement they previously agreed to. Victims’ families have urged prosecutors to seek a nearly $25 billion fine[1].
Business restrictions: A guilty plea could lead to additional limitations on Boeing’s operations and jeopardize its significant revenue from US government contracts, including those with the Defense Department[1].
Reputational damage: Criminal charges would further tarnish Boeing’s image, potentially affecting customer trust and market share in the highly competitive aerospace industry.
Stricter oversight: The Justice Department might impose more rigorous compliance measures, potentially including the installation of a third-party monitor to oversee Boeing’s adherence to regulations[1].
Admission of wrongdoing: Boeing might be forced to plead guilty, officially acknowledging its misconduct[1].
Leadership changes: Criminal charges could lead to pressure for further leadership changes, following the recent announcement of CEO David Calhoun’s upcoming resignation[2].
Legal vulnerability: A criminal conviction could make Boeing more susceptible to civil lawsuits from affected parties[3].
In my opinion, not good enough. There are specific executives that made the decisions we’re suffering the consequences of now. They should be spending the rest of their lives in a federal prison for their greed.
Citations: [1] US prosecutors advise criminal charges against Boeing for … https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/boeing-might-face-criminal-charges-in-us/story [2] DoJ prosecutors recommend Boeing face criminal charges, reports … https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boeing-crash-doj-charges-plane-b2567688.html [3] Boeing could face criminal charges after violating a deal … - Fortune https://fortune.com/2024/05/14/boeing-criminal-charges-violating-deal-regulators/ [4] Report: DOJ to decide if Boeing will face criminal charges … - KING 5 https://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/aerospace/boeing/boeing-may-avoid-criminal-charges-no-decision-made/281-e0e54e4d-1a1e-4d17-a04c-54940fc9834c [5] Federal prosecutors recommend to Justice Department that Boeing … https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-criminal-charges-recommendation/
I agree with all except number 3. The aerospace manufacturing industry is not competitive at all. It is a market cornered by Boeing and Airbus, with a very few small players feeding specific components to the Big 2.
This is a huge point. My wife made an off-hand comment about Boeing looking like a good take-over target for Airbus, and my response was, “never. Then there would be only one airline maker in the world.”
There are exactly two manufacturers of large passenger jet liners. It’s not even a question of too big to fail; it’s far worse than that.
Personally, I think they’re going about this the wrong way. You could prosecute executives for past decisions, but they were just doing the job they were hired for: maximize profits over every other consideration. The ones that didn’t, got replaced by ones that did.
For companies like Boeing, we need a different model of capitalism. One where engineers can be in charge, and the metrics for success are dominated by something other than sheer profitability. I don’t know; it seems as if we used to know how to do capitalism better. We had a functioning, funded, effective NASA, which operated almost entirely outside of The Market and which was a national pride; now it’s overshadowed by SpaceX. Boeing made good planes.
I don’t have a solution, but I can tell that we’ve gotten lost somewhere along the way.
The only way to make it not profits driven is probably government control. But if it really is one of two companies that make aircraft I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Maybe break it up into different companies that focus on certain sectors of aviation? Force them to compete if they won’t do it naturally.
Yeah. There are lots of areas I think government control is better than private sector, but they’re mostly infrastructure/monopoly areas. Power, internet, roads, etc. Normally I wouldn’t put Boeing in this category, but you may be right. Thinking about NASA, and what we achieved as a country, maybe there are some endeavors that are simply so expensive and important (as in, safety) that they shouldn’t be private.
I don’t know if breaking things up would help, though. Boeing re-uses liners for both cargo and passengers; and there are other companies making smaller planes for other sectors: military, private jets, etc. It’s just those big airliners where the cost of operating is so enormous, and the cost of entry so high, and the market so constrained, that I really can’t see any room for more competition. Do you?
For the breaking up thing I was thinking civilian, space, and military aircraft. SpaceX proves private companies can make changes. Given enough time they’ll probably become Boeing though.
If internet is going to be infrastructure then I’m of the frame of mind that aerospace is too. It’s tough though. I absolutely hate privatization of government branches (USPS for example), but if it’s purely government will there be that legendary “competition”? Strict regulations vs possible taking chances.
I don’t know. I have no answers. I hope anything I’ve said even makes any sense.
I think we’re of like mind on this. It’s possible to realize something is broken without knowing how to fix it.
I’m not sure why Boeing is in space, except for the “me too” factor when they noticed the successes SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin were having. I wasn’t aware they had a military division - what do they make? I mean, outside of repurposed commercial cargo jets. I don’t think spinning off a division that’s simply modifying an existing design for a specific market makes much sense; most of the work is in the original design and manufacture, right?
Thank you. I appreciate that, and I agree 100%.
Boeing already has divisions for different types of aerospace.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes builds the planes civvies fly on, and sometimes holds the doors shut on.
Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) builds military airplanes, rotorcraft, and missiles, as well as space systems for both commercial and military customers, including satellites, spacecraft, and rockets.
Then they have another division that is focused on aftermarket stuff.
They’ve been in space for a long time via satellites mainly. Admittedly I’m just skimming their records, I’m not an expert of them in the slightest. But they’ve been a government contractor longer than my old ass has been alive, starting 1916 with seaplanes and then changing ownership a large number of times.
I’m pretty sure Asianometry has done a video on them if you’re interested in watching a YouTube essay on them.
Edit. I can’t find a video from him on Boeing specifically, he tends to web in and weave everyone involved with tech advancements so that’s not really surprising. He might throw in the complete history of a company while describing something like a door hinge haha.
So I’m going to do something I hate to do, and leave the channel link for you to get lost in. My apologies. It’s worth getting lost in though.
https://m.youtube.com/@Asianometry