Boeing 737 Max again, it would be nice if the windows [door plugs] stayed in!

[SiliconWizard]

The US government will never allow Boeing to actually go bankrupt.  They are a strategic industry supplier.   Just like Airbus will never go bankrupt, EU countries would step in.

Indeed. But as I noted earlier, unless Boeing was fined a monumental amount next time, I don't see how it would go bankrupt, as it's actually (a bit to my surprise again) showing an healthy growth in spite of all the problems.

[floobydust]

Punishment includes "negative reinforcement" or some pain/discomfort to a criminal with the incentive to change such behaviour.
Since there is no pain to Boeing, this latest clown show of US justice ensures nothing will change within the company.
Stock didn't flinch, 35 of 737's out the door last month, let the profit flow.

[AndysSoncal]

I've been following the Boeing 737 Max saga closely. It's frustrating to see that there seem to be no real consequences for Boeing. I agree with you—without significant penalties, what's going to motivate them to make serious changes? The lack of accountability is pretty disheartening.

[CatalinaWOW]

Does the widespread sentiment shown on this thread to not fly on Boeing aircraft not give an incentive?  The purchasers of these aircraft care about these issues?  Haven't there been orders cancelled and sales lost because of this?  How big a fine is required to provide more incentive than this?

I have quite some sympathy for those who want a penalty focused on those who made bad decisions.  But have seen no practical way of determining this.  And no evidence that any size fine associated with the criminal conviction would achieve that end.  With the possible exception of an economic death penalty, a fine so large that it would force Boeing out of the business of making commercial aircraft (assuming the US government would keep the military side alive).  And as I have stated before driving Boeing out of business reduces the incentive for Airbus to focus on quality.  I doubt that there would be any stomach for giving the last vendor of large commercial aircraft in the western economic arena an economic death penalty because of a perceived loss of safety culture.

[coppercone2]

I think grounding the bad planes costs Boeing more money then just a penalty. They built all that crap and then they can't fly. I think it means the buyers have the option of sueing boeing because they sold them something flight ready but its clearly not.

Scrapping them just make Boeing money. But if air ports sue them, that can be a real kick in the ass to get things fixed

that way the money is going to the customers to keep airports running locally. if the money goes to the government that's like a worm hole, it can end up in another quadrant of the galaxy. I mean enough should go to government to cover their extra crispy inspection, but penalties are likely to be squandered. Like its going to end up going to the forest service or something lol

[floobydust]

Financial penalties to a corporation punishes no executive or leader. No ass gets kicked. Maybe toss a token engineer under the bus as the fall guy, kill a few whistleblowers.
Still eating caviar on the golf course, my multi-million $ paycheque and bonus coming in. It's how it is.

[tggzzz]

Does the widespread sentiment shown on this thread to not fly on Boeing aircraft not give an incentive?

Only if translated into action.

Pro-active action would require not only advance knowledge of the aircraft that will be used, but also an alternative.

[themadhippy]

Financial penalties to a corporation punishes no executive or leader.

That could be changing in the uk for the water company  executives,although no doubt  loopholes will be found.

[coppercone2]

if the customers get favorable lawsuit then you throw your sales guys under the bus? IMO thats major damage

It won't help them if they fire someone. Its literally them having to refund defective planes and pay for damages caused

i.e. favorable rulings about customers refusing to buy tickets because the planes had such a shit reputation, the cost of the aircraft, therapy for the pilots that learn their flying death traps, etc. I doubt the pilots, stewardess are not effected if they think the thing might 'con air' them. And the projected damages from the bad publicity the airports got for supporting those planes

[CatalinaWOW]

Does the widespread sentiment shown on this thread to not fly on Boeing aircraft not give an incentive?

Only if translated into action.

Pro-active action would require not only advance knowledge of the aircraft that will be used, but also an alternative.

In every case that I have ever booked an airline flight the equipment is identified.  It does sometimes change after booking, but for the most part you know what you will be flying on.  And I know a lot of people who avoid specific aircraft types for a variety of reasons.  The most common are perceived safety issues and comfort issues. 

Of course there isn't always an alternative.  Even when there is it sometimes involves more stops, longer layovers or less appealing travel times.  But it is a real way to vote with your feet that a given aircraft or brand is not safe enough.

The downside to this "incentive" is that the public perception of safety has almost no relation to reality.  Whether it is COVID, lightning strikes, being attacked by wild animals,, bitten by sharks, being involved in car crashes or being involved in airplane incidents the public perception of the actual risk is usually off by several orders of magnitude.  Closing a loop with a really bad metric is seldom a good idea.

[tom66]

Does the widespread sentiment shown on this thread to not fly on Boeing aircraft not give an incentive?  The purchasers of these aircraft care about these issues?  Haven't there been orders cancelled and sales lost because of this?  How big a fine is required to provide more incentive than this?

I suspect the majority of passengers don't even know the difference between a 737 and A320 and therefore the decision doesn't come into play for them.  They just want a flight to their destination and select the most competitive, luxurious, fastest, etc. route.

[tggzzz]

Does the widespread sentiment shown on this thread to not fly on Boeing aircraft not give an incentive?

Only if translated into action.

Pro-active action would require not only advance knowledge of the aircraft that will be used, but also an alternative.

In every case that I have ever booked an airline flight the equipment is identified.  It does sometimes change after booking, but for the most part you know what you will be flying on.  And I know a lot of people who avoid specific aircraft types for a variety of reasons.  The most common are perceived safety issues and comfort issues. 

Of course there isn't always an alternative.  Even when there is it sometimes involves more stops, longer layovers or less appealing travel times.  But it is a real way to vote with your feet that a given aircraft or brand is not safe enough.

The downside to this "incentive" is that the public perception of safety has almost no relation to reality.  Whether it is COVID, lightning strikes, being attacked by wild animals,, bitten by sharks, being involved in car crashes or being involved in airplane incidents the public perception of the actual risk is usually off by several orders of magnitude.  Closing a loop with a really bad metric is seldom a good idea.

Your last paragraph is significant.

Not having an alternative to flying in an X is significant. I once had to fly on a BAe146, for that reason. I tried to hold my breath for the entire flight, but failed.

The only way airlines will be able to determine if someone is actively avoiding an aircraft manufacturer is if there is a choice while searching for a flight, and punters select "don't fly on Lockheed" etc. If they merely observe bookings are slightly down, they could easily (and probably accurately) attribute that to some other parameter.