Fraud guilty plea flies from Boeing to swerve courtroom over 737 Max crashes Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to criminal fraud charges related to deadly 737 Max crashes, according to a Sunday night court filing from the US Department of Justice (DoJ). The plea deal amounts to Boeing accepting one felony count, a move that will in exchange allow it to skip a trial. "We can confirm that we have …
Indeed so - the 737 Max was a cheap rush job to compete with the A320neo.
Ironically, the A320neo has had its own "made in the USA" quality problems thanks to major quality control failings by Pratt & Whitney with the PW1100G engine fitted to about 40% of A320neos. Thankfully the PW1100G hasn't resulted in any fatalities, but has grounded aircraft and cost P&W about $5bn.
Boeing didn't 'game the regulatory system', though people clearly fucked up the implementation. The idea was sound: there should be (and were) fewer incidents with a plane that flies like an old one than there would be when pilots have to learn and qualify on a whole new plane.
It should be noted that the stuff Boeing is being fined for had no impact on the crashes. Those were down to inexperienced, overworked pilots at corner-cutting regional airlines in parts of the world with a non-Western approach to safety standards. None of the other MCAS incidents led to crashes. Unfortunately in all the Boeing-bashing, that is being overlooked, and it's by far the bigger safety issue here. There have been several more crashes (of all kinds of planes) since due to the same practices.
Sadly I have only one downvote to gift you.
You clearly haven't read any decent news or analysis of the MCAS investigations. Boeing specifically did game the regulatory system, and your "inexperienced, overworked pilots at corner-cutting regional airlines in parts of the world with a non-Western approach to safety standards" is the most red necked comment I've read in a good long time.
There were crew issues that contributed, but ultimately these aircraft crashed specifically because MCAS was undocumented and without pilot knowledge it was inherently unsafe. The implication that the West (and US in particular) are somehow guardians of higher standards is not supported - take a look at the embarrassingly long list of ATC errors at US airports recently as an example of the high standards the US doesn't in fact operate to.
On the contrary, I have read the reports, and you won't find any respectable source saying anything else.
The simple fact is there were many MCAS incidents for every one that led to a crash. The linking factor between the crashes was that the pilots were inexperienced and overworked. Experienced pilots managed to deal with MCAS problems even without any specific training. Those are the actual facts here.
Experienced pilots managed to deal with MCAS problems even without any specific training
Oh yes, when the study was sponsored by people with a vested interest in keeping the stock price high enough so they could sell without too much pain. The reality, however, was actually quite different.
"there were many MCAS incidents for every one that led to a crash"
Yes, that's typically how accidents happen - there are a number of close calls (near misses/near hits) for each actual accident. The fact that there were a number of them is a huge red flag that MCAS is the problem, not the pilots. Especially with Boeing pleading guilty to willfully withholding information from the aviation industry and thus the pilots on MCAS.
The statement that you, @Davewhatever, disagreed with was that Boeing gamed the regulatory system,
That's undeniable. They did.
You can argue, if you like, that the games Boeing played did not cause the accidents... good luck with that.
But Boeing concealed information from the FAA overseers and relied on the internal certification process using Boeing personnel to craft a certification story that the FAA, and the customers, accepted. It happened.
Fundamentally, Boeing wanted to tell Southwest Airlines that the 737 Max required no additional simulator training, and in order to achieve that goal, they suppressed information about MCAS. With the additional training, the 737 Max is a perfectly adequate airplane (assuming Boeing remembers how to build them, and installs the door plugs properly, etc), but the criminality lay in concealing the need to train pilots properly rather than simply read an iPad guide.
In order to maintain this fiction, Boeing allowed airlines to buy and operate aircraft with only one airspeed sensor. When that sensor failed, no-one (maintenance crew, flight crew, operations) knew that MCAS could (and did) make tragic decisions. But with redundant sensors, and the knowledge that both should be operational to dispatch a 737 Max flight, the things fly just fine.
The sad factor on the Max design is that it what fitted with both a) a redundant MCAS sensor, and b) a safety light to inform the pilot of a sensor malfunction
One is the more hilarious (darkly so) problems is that the Boeing team did not inform the pilots that MCAS existed (nor how to switch to the 2nd sensor) and that the safety light to inform them of an MCAS failure was a PAID FOR and optional safety light.
How does one recognise a new problem, that is not documented as a change, nor informed how to react to such changes?
I can see the issue in hindsight. Your competitor has a new shiny thing that is dominating you in the market. You rush something to market in an aircraft design that does not fundamentally work within the constraints you have (pilot re-training, airport use, larger engine changing the plane dynamics etc.).
Airbus have their own issues. But fundamentally the NEO engine was a new plane design and it worked. It wasn't strapped together with sellotape and they didn't omit the warning lights to say the plane was about to enter 'kamikaze drone' mode without warning.
You must have Boeing shares to willfully ignore the documented facts and the data many, many whistleblowers have brought to light.
What I find particularly offensive is that you seek to blame the pilots, just as Boeing did. A pilot who was not been informed of the aberrant behaviour of MCAS would stand no chance, a fact that was proven many times over later in simulators, and the fact they didn't know was because Boeing kept it from them.
> One of the nation's best known airline pilots is speaking out on the problems with Boeing's 737 Max jetliner. Retired Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger told a congressional subcommittee Wednesday that an automated flight control system on the 737 Max "was fatally flawed and should never have been approved."
> ...
> Sullenberger says he recently experienced scenarios similar to those facing the pilots of the doomed Ethiopian and Lion Air jetliners in a simulator and says he understands the difficulties they had trying to maintain control of the planes. "Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems," he said.
> ...
> He and Carey dismissed suggestions that the crashes could not have happened in the U.S., where pilots are required to have a lot of experience and more rigorous training before flying commercial airliners.
>
> "Some (U.S.) crews would have recognized it in time to recover, but some would not have," Carey testified. Sullenberger agreed, saying it's unlikely that more experienced pilots would have had different outcomes, adding, "we shouldn't have to expect pilots to compensate for flawed designs."
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-boeing-saying-737-max-should-never-have-been-approved
Do you know more about flying passenger jets than Retired Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger or the president of the Allied Pilots Association?
I wonder how many of Boeing's current board level Directors are qualified pilots? I will accept CPL, PPL, Military Pilot flying anything from powered multi-engine aircraft to single engine, either fixed wing or helicopter.
Oh, just the one*.
Now lets put the rest of them in the left-hand seat of a 737-Max simulator ...
Troll icon, because I know I should not be prejudiced against non-pilots running an aerospace company, but come on guys! At least have a go at flying something and understanding what being pilot actually means**. On those salaries they should be able to afford lessons.
* https://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/corporate-governance#board see (Stayce D Harris, there is also one submariner and a whole load of accountants.)
** I confess to getting my glider pilot A and B certificates some time last century, three very shot solo flights in a Slingsby T31b IIRC demonstrating turns to the left and right and landing the craft in such a way that it was still airworthy.
The motivation to pare costs to the bone and further is ingrained.
The sacrifice of all integrity on the alter of profits, the promotion of management whose only job is to suppress inconvenient facts, the pursuit of financial engineering feats over product engineering, these would manifest in every decison and every product. Notice the 787 stories ? Those would have repeated again on a future max 11.
They would have found the same game somewhere else. They probably HAVE found it somewhere else.
Is the Boeing 737MAX Really Unstable?! The 737 Engine Saga (23:24)
Boeing 737MAX, LionAir Update!! - MCAS? (13:45)
Boeing 737 Stall Escape manoeuvre, why MAX needs MCAS!! (20:21)
If it's the actual Boeing Corporation directors, then the victim's families will just meet a bunch of boring old farts who are the CEOs or equivalents from other US companies - in the US the directors are not the same as the officers of the company. The board does include the current Boeing CEO, Calhoun, but he's the only one with any operational accountability, and as far as I can tell was not an officer or executive of Boeing prior to Jan 2020. Which means he wasn't calling the shots when the whole 737Max crime was being planned and executed, in the years prior to 2019.
What the DoJ should have required was that the victims families could meet with any senior executives they requested of Boeing, who had operational responsibilities in the period circa 2014 to 2019. And compel those managers to turn up or face jail for contempt charges.
https://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/corporate-governance#board
(it has been said that to ensure no Y2K issues, all directors of Chinese companies building planes were required to be in flight at that time)
While a nice story (and even believable with regards to the attitude of the CCP), I don't believe it as it would be a bit harsh on cabin crew and pilots, the latter always being in rather short supply, which avoidable accidents of this kind would make worse.
For those of you with Netflix, there is a documentary on there right now about the Boeing saga.
If you weren't enraged by what you've read, seen, and heard to date, by the end of that documentary you most definitely will be. The sheer arrogance of those at the top is astounding. That some of them got massive pay-outs instead of jail terms will make you seethe. It will also make you realise that a lot of businesses today operate the same way - rather than be happy with turning a profit, they will sacrifice whatever they can in the name of chasing insane profit margins. In Boeing's case, that cost lives.
Are you stupid? Boeing specifically created MCAS because they'd early made the decision not to build a 737 replacement, and with modern engines the aircraft needed MCAS to intervene between pilot and plane. To avoid the commercial impact of additional retraining costs that might impact sales decisions, Boeing told airlines their pilots didn't need a conversion course, and they persuaded the FAA that this was all above board.
This was all about money.
The whole point about MCAS was that new larger engines couldn't be fit under the wings of the 737 without a massive rebuild of the complete airframe, turning into a new plane that required a new training.
So the MCAS was added and the engines moved parially in front of the wings to avoid desiging a new plane and retraining the pilots.... thus reducing massively costs... Because the A320Neo was just an old A320 with new larger engines ( the A320 sits higher than the 737 so fitting new larger engines there didn't change anything, and pilots qualified on the A320 could fly the A320Neo as soon they they were delivered. )
The MCAS was added between the pilots and the plane to make the MAX fly like an old 737 from the pilots point of view.
" The sheer arrogance of those at the top is astounding. That some of them got massive pay-outs instead of jail terms will make you seethe."
was that Boeing, or Thames Water you meant?
"Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Reading Borough Council, James Moore said:
“Our local waterways are being pumped full of disgusting raw sewage, we are encountering water shortages here in Reading, all whilst the water firm hands themselves massive pay-outs. The whole thing stinks. These salaries and perks have reached eye-watering levels, yet Conservative Ministers refuse to act. "
https://www.readinglibdems.org.uk/news/article/thames-water-slammed-as-execs-rake-in-almost-pound25-million-in-pay-perks#:~:text=Thames%20Water%20has%20rewarded%20their,million%20in%20pay%20and%20perks.
No, Boeing captured the FAA and convinced them that "What's good for Boeing is good for the USA"
This is bu***hit.
Charles Sullenberger tried flying the profile of one of the crashed aircraft.
A man good enough to land a plan with all engines out due to simultaneous bird strikes failed to land the MAX simulator.
And then there's the fu**wit that installed a control system that cannot be overridden and depends on a non-redundant control sensor.
Are you f**king kidding me? What a bunch of cheap ba***ds.
I'm not sure if you're a troll or have skin in the game or a True Believer in American exceptionalism.
But you're deluded. It's said Boeing was fu**ed by it's takeover of MD and became infected with their provid-above-all culture. IDK. Could be.
They ain't the company they used to be by a very long way.
I might be slightly wrong, but I believe it actually had a 2nd backup sensor you could switch to.
Problem was, if you don't inform the pilots of its existence then even if you have RTFM you will struggle to diagnose and fix the problem.
If I recall correctly, during the 1st crash, they actually managed to disable the MCAS accidentally in the correct manner - but not knowing what they had done, they simply reactivated it minutes later without enough ground clearance to repeat the effort.
I've even seen a Boeing exec claim that the PILOT is the backup MCAS system.......which is a wild claim for something they were never told about.
I might be slightly wrong, but I believe it actually had a 2nd backup sensor you could switch to.Wrong. MCAS would switch between sensors every flight, so one flight would have issues, the next one wouldn't, the one after that would again.
That goes counter to aviation doctrine of having an unequal number (greater than 1) of AOA sensors in which the majority would win the data input.
The solution suggested was using the two AOA sensors and synthetic data to simulate a third sensor (in the form that the 787 uses), but Boeing is resisting this (because it would mean work that could threaten its ability to grandfather in the design and not require recertification.
And yes, Boeing claiming that the pilot would be a backup is insane.
This from Sullenberger is rather straight, to the point.
"In 2019 Sullenberger said that Boeing 737 MAX crashes "are demonstrable evidence that our current system of aircraft design and certification has failed us. These accidents should never have happened."[80] He sharply criticized Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, saying that the overly "cozy relationship" between the aviation industry and government was evident in March 2019 when Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg lobbied President Donald Trump to prevent the 737 MAX 8 from being grounded.".
One could also add that it all took place on a low altitude after starting giving less time for the pilots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_Sullenberger
To be fair, Sullenberger was an A320 pilot, not a 737 one.
And a very good one at that while also being a very experienced sailplane flyer.
Off-topic: The way he handled the situation made Airbus re-order some items on the checklist for a double engine failure (starting the APU went from last to first position).
I wouldn't agree with that. Boeing has a solid 767F and 777 business (not including the new 777-X currently being certified). The 737 business is the one in shambles, the 787 business is... well... better than the 737 business, but worse than the 767/777 one.
As for the non-commercial business (i.e. military & space), that all relies on big pork barrel contracts from the Pentagon and NASA. They are losing lots of money on the tanker contract they have with the USAF because that was a fixed cost deal.
Not sure what your not agreeing with! But as you note, Boeing's 30-odd year old designs are doing fine, while the new stuff is either still a cash sink (777X: current entry-into-service is end of 2025, with the cargo variant two years after that which the A350F will enjoy!), a shambles (737 Max) or a delivery mess (787)... and Boeing has a huge gap where the A321XLR sits.
But if you're opining that Boeing won't spin-off the commercial operation... err, maybe, but there are already some signs that the government isn't thrilled with giving contracts to a company in such a legal and public relations quagmire. No one in Congress wants to stand up for Boeing at the moment, which is of course great news for Lockheed/NGC/SNC/GA/SpaceX...
I don't agree with the statement that it's only Airbus's lengthy waiting list is what prevents Boeing from imploding. And no, I don't think Boeing will spin off the commercial division either anytime soon. It does, barring the repeated 737 mess, bring in profit. Like I say, the 777 series is healthy, and the 767F business is also good. The fact they parked the 777-X for a bit to deal with the plug pop incident leads me to believe they are actually starting to do what Boeing used to do (put all attention where it's needed most).
But ultimately, they need to clear out the C-Suite and boot anyone who thinks that speaking in platitudes will absolve them of responsibility.
As for the 321XLR, there's a long-standing joke that someone at Boeing will eventually blow the dust off the 757 designs, draw on some modern wings and engines and call that the new design for the 'NMA' (the mythical mid-market airplane)...
Just a correction: Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA) brings in _revenue_, not profit. For the year ending Dec 31, 2023, BCA lost $1.64B (significantly better than in 2022, when they lost $2.34B). But revenue was nearly $34B, so that's nice. Nicer is that they have a backlog of nearly half a trillion dollars!
Of course, Boeing Defense and Space is actually worse (higher losses on lower revenue).
Where Boeing makes money is on "global services", which is "soft" business like logistics, service, support, etc for things that Boeing may or may not actually manufacture!
See https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/2023/q4/BOEING-10Q-Q42023-013124.pdf
When this American company is tried in American courts, the total cost to Boeing seems to be ending up at around $3 billion.
Compare this to what the British domiciled BP paid for the Deepwater Horizon disaster... $60 billion
Or the German domiciled VW paid out for Diesegate.. $20 billion
It seems justice is somewhat relative these days doesn't it?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
