zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers, and wind up killing hundreds of people and nobody gets punished and the FAA will even be on your side, like the Boeing thing.

but if you make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody you can get 20 years in prison and the FAA acts like you besmirched the stellar reputation of the aviation industry.

>>fatnec+Gt1
It's easy when it's 1 person to blame.

In an organisation which is connected to the government in many ways through partnerships and contracts, putting a face to a crime is much harder to do. There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.

It was more a collection of bad actions by actors that had their own motives but nothing that was ever explicitly mean to hurt people.

(Assuming you're referring to 737 MAX)

>>tedk-4+Ax1
There is 100% a single name and that's the CEO. If CEO's were actually held liable, they would do a lot more to ensure they didn't end up in jail.

>>jeffwa+BV1
If you punish the CEO for every illegal thing done in a corporation (often without their knowledge), then no wise person would want to be CEO. In order to function, large companies would have to make the CEO position largely ceremonial and appoint desperate risk-takers, and do the actual executive leadership somewhere else.

So a strict rule like that risks setting up a formal scapegoat situation which could then lead to the opposite effect.

>>marshr+wx2
Absolutely, the demand for 7 to 9 figure a year jobs that are contingent upon building a functional auditing and compliance org and not openly breaking law would completely evaporate.

I mean we have no lawyer or doctors for the same reason.