Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Fined $15M  
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

CHICAGO — The Boeing Co. (BA) has agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that it broke the law by selling commercial airplanes equipped with a small chip that has military applications.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191050,00.html

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Oh well, what's else is new? Everything can have "military applications" in an commercial jetliner. Boeing can get its $15 million back merely by selling one 737. The fine's nothing but a slap on the ass for Boeing. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 1):
The fine's nothing but a slap on the ass for Boeing

I know $15M is not much (though it's more than I've got), but I think it's interesting considering how much support the company is alledged to receive. Just shows that when it comes to crossing t's and dotting i's, Boeing is under a magnifying glass.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 1):
Oh well, what's else is new? Everything can have "military applications" in an commercial jetliner. Boeing can get its $15 million back merely by selling one 737. The fine's nothing but a slap on the ass for Boeing. Regards.

This was a bullshit fine in the first place. Boeing is just paying this shakedown to get it behind them.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3310 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Boeing executives had argued that a military enemy seeking the chip would have alternatives to buying a $60 million jet and taking apart the flight box.

That about sums it up.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineAirwave From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
Boeing executives had argued that a military enemy seeking the chip would have alternatives to buying a $60 million jet and taking apart the flight box.

That about sums it up.

 checkmark 

Heck, the 747 has military applications...it's called Air Force One. By this logic, Boeing owes Uncle Sam something like $3.5 billion in fines going back to airframe no. 1. It's unfortunate that there are now so many tarriffs and regulations and whatnot on the books that it becomes unwieldy to maintain 100% compliance, even for a company as large and international as Boeing.

Airwave  eyebrow 



When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
User currently offlineKorg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Good job, now the enemy will be interested in finding those 94 jets thanks to making this public....whoever the enemy is?(Osama knows what a QRS-11 gyrochip is?)


Please excuse my English!
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting Airwave (Reply 5):
Heck, the 747 has military applications...it's called Air Force One

Air Force One is a VC-25, a 747-200B modified for military use. I think the difference is the gold toilet seats.  Wink

For anyone wondering: http://www.systron.com/pro_QRS11.asp


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21588 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2031 times:

It's some kind of gyroscope on a chip, IIRC, that allows for very small applications in missiles and such. Unless it's a different part than this, but I think that was the part.

I guess Boeing since then has been forced to use a larger and heavier gyroscope device?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1941 times:

Doesn't military technology go into the private/corporate sectors before trickling down into commercial aviation, i.e. HUD's, digital flight deck, etc? Composite use didn't start in commercial aviation.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
This was a bullshit fine in the first place

Why do you regard it as such? I would figure if a technology has use in both military and commercial, then it should be advertised/manufactured as such by the company that designed it. If Boeing choose a military-targeted product, they should answer for it. Why not use a commercial version of the product? Was it not available? If that was the case, they should have made their case with the company and whoever such a product affects before ordering. I'm not saying if they have or have not, but had they followed the proper procedure for accuiring this technology, this would not have happened.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 9):
Why do you regard it as such? I would figure if a technology has use in both military and commercial, then it should be advertised/manufactured as such by the company that designed it. If Boeing choose a military-targeted product, they should answer for it.

Because Boeing was singled out for this one item. It's an item that can be readily gotten through other sources. Someone wanted to make an example of Boeing. And it's part of the same shit that is causing trouble for the F-35 and P-8.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
It's an item that can be readily gotten through other sources.

The impression I got from your reply was that Boeing either cannot make a mistake or the fine was a way to thrust authority over Boeing. If there were other sources of this technology, was there any reason Boeing couldn't have gotten it?

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
Someone wanted to make an example of Boeing.

Who? If it doesn't matter who, then why do you infer it? My point is that there isn't anyone that makes examples of companies. No person or company should be above the law.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
Because Boeing was singled out for this one item. It's an item that can be readily gotten through other sources.

Since the chip is US made, an export license trail would have to follow it no matter who the eventual exporter was, including those potential "other sources".


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Fined By FAA posted Tue Mar 26 2002 21:00:35 by Cruising
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
Aircraft Deliveries Airbus & Boeing, Bottom Line.. posted Thu Nov 23 2006 00:04:08 by Keesje
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke
Has Boeing Evened The Narrow-Body Race? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 04:12:15 by Dhefty
Boeing Orders: 32 787 UFOs posted Mon Nov 20 2006 10:52:50 by Centrair
Boeing's Orders For 11/15/06 posted Thu Nov 16 2006 17:00:24 by NYC777
Boeing Poised To Book 15 B777 Orders Today posted Thu Nov 16 2006 11:26:31 by PanAm_DC10
DL/US: Boeing, Airbus Or A Mixture posted Thu Nov 16 2006 05:14:47 by Mah584jr