zlacker

The difference is Boeing was negligence and carelesness, while that plane crash was intentional.

>>hef198+(OP)
Some may argue that when negligence and carelessness are systematic, as they tend to be in corporations, it becomes intentional.

>>nathan+13
And sometimes there are courts judging which it was.

Some may even be able to see those subtle, but important, differences by themselves.

>>hef198+(OP)
You might even go so far as to call it "criminal negligence"

>>hef198+(OP)
Boeing (with the collusion of the FAA) deliberately withheld information about the capabilities of MCAS, even after it was discovered that the original concept was insufficiently powerful to achieve the intended purpose. There was no intention to cause harm, but all reasonable and expected prudence was completely subordinated to maintaining profit margins. Something similar could, of course, be said of this joker.

>>hef198+(OP)
Technically it's not the difference, the possible 20 years is actually from deliberately obstructing a federal investigation.

Incidentally, I don't know if deliberately crashing a plane is a criminal act in and of itself, because planes occasionally get crashed as part of safety studies. So it seems that the offense in the actual plane crash is that he traded others' safety for his own profit, rather than the crash per se. But that is very similar to Boeing.

>>nirimd+P5
There is nothing similar between this guy and Boeing. Boeing hid development issues and cheated (oversimplified) with certification. They tried to blame other parties, pilots and airlines, for those life losses. That is despicable. But they did not intentionally crash a plane, and try to hide it. They did not intentionally build an unsafe aircraft with the goal of killing people.

That guy planned a plane crash for social media likes, and tried to cover it up. Actively.

Those two cases are nothing a like, not even remotely.

>>mannyk+T4
Not going into details of aircraft certification, I am only loosly involved there, but the FAA and the EASA actually allow certifies manufacturers to do a lot of the certification work on aithorities behalf. Calling that collusion is plain ignorant.

>>nathan+13
Why? Intentional is completely different. People are careless all the time.

>>hef198+k8
A privilege which was thoroughly abused here, becoming de-facto collusion.

>>mannyk+Ca
Oh man, collusion requires two parties, not one abusing trust of the other. Kind of pointless so to discuss any further so, it seems.

>>hef198+rn
The way Boeing and the FAA worked together in this case abused the trust put in them (and especially the latter) by the general public.

Your attempt to portray me as clueless is backfiring rather spectacularly.

>>hef198+(OP)
I thought it was way beyond that with perfectly knowing there were problems, covering them up, no disclosures, etc…?