A US Federal Judge in the Northern District of Texas has ordered Boeing to appear in court on January 26 to be arraigned on the 2021 felony charge after families of those killed in two fatal crashes objected to a 2021 plea deal. For details go to:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bo ... r-AA16x52m

It will be interesting to see what happens to the deferred prosecution agreement in January 2021 as a result of this.

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

87GROUNDED wrote:

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

I see we're still trying to shift blame away from the American company largely responsible for all of this, eh?

Cdydatzigs wrote:

87GROUNDED wrote:

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

I see we're still trying to shift blame away from the American company largely responsible for all of this, eh?

You said it yourself. "Largely responsible", not totally responsible.

87GROUNDED wrote:

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

He can request, but not order.....US legal jurisdiction only applies in the 50 states. But, then again, they had no role in designing the aircraft.

johns624 wrote:

Cdydatzigs wrote:

87GROUNDED wrote:

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

I see we're still trying to shift blame away from the American company largely responsible for all of this, eh?

You said it yourself. "Largely responsible", not totally responsible.

The whole conversation misses the point. Boeing’s potential criminal liability doesn’t depend on them being solely responsible. The fact that ET in particular bears some responsibility for their crash isn’t relevant in these proceedings. (It could be different in a civil lawsuit depending on the applicable law.)

It's notable that the complaint in this case is that the DoJ simultaneously filed the Boeing indictment and resulting DPA, which is common practice since the two are negotiated together. For that circumstance, there is not a formal arraignment, since the defendant has already agreed to both the indictment and DPA. The purpose of the DPA is to defer the court process, based on the defendant's adherence to the terms of the DPA.

The DoJ also notified the accident families of the proceedings, but there was no public hearing by which their grievances could be heard. Thus the families sued under the Crime Victims Act, on the basis that their rights to be heard under that act were abridged. Judge O'Connor has presided over both cases.

Boeing and the DoJ argued that for the count of fraud negotiated in the DPA, the families interests were adequately represented by the $500M settlement, which was above and beyond their personal settlement cases, even though they were not designated as crime victims under the fraud charge.

The families counter that the fraud count was insufficient and the DPA unjustified, and that their interests as crime victims were not represented by the DoJ.

Judge O'Connor has ruled that the families are crime victims, and do have the right to be heard and challenge the DPA in a formal arraignment hearing. In that hearing, they have the opportunity to request additional charges be filed. If the judge agrees, the DPA would be overturned and the DoJ ordered to begin the process anew, with consultation by the families.

However, the families must still meet the burden of probable cause for additional charges, as with any other arraignment. The DoJ will support the fraud charge as they did earlier, but not any other charges, as their investigation did not find supporting evidence.

If the families can meet the probable cause burden, then the DoJ would need to prove those charges in court, or negotiate a new DPA with Boeing.

If the DPA is overturned, it's very likely that Boeing would appeal any new actions or charges, and that the DoJ would join Boeing in that action.

The DoJ does not object to the arraignment hearing on the basis that it gives the families a voice in the process. But does object to overturning the DPA, on multiple grounds, including the merits of the case.

This is just a guess, but I suspect the judge will give the families their day in court, but won't overturn the DPA. However we'll have to see what happens.

It’s disgraceful how Boeing leadership absolved themselves of any responsibility and simply threw Mark and Patrik under the bus.

I just signed my Boeing Code of Conduct. Too bad the Boeing leadership involved in this fiasco don’t follow it.

BoeingGuy wrote:

It’s disgraceful how Boeing leadership absolved themselves of any responsibility and simply threw Mark and Patrik under the bus.

I just signed my Boeing Code of Conduct. Too bad the Boeing leadership involved in this fiasco don’t follow it.

Frankly I think they threw themselves under the bus, with the content of their emails & text messages. You can't talk about tricking regulators and how they are fools for accepting your recommendations, without incurring some liability.

In this case it was limited to their sphere of influence, which was fraud related to the MAX documentation. They weren't accused of being responsible for the MAX accidents.

They were fortunate that US juries routinely acquit corporate workers involved in corporate liability, even if they directly contributed, so as not to make them scapegoats. Same thing happened in the Deepwater Horizon case. Vridine & Kaluza were also acquitted, although Vridine did plead to a misdemeanor charge of pollution.

Interesting ruling, especially from a very conservative judge.

Some new information emerging today from the Boeing arraignment hearing. The families made their requests known in a court filing:

The families want O'Connor to name an independent monitor to oversee Boeing's compliance; impose a standard condition that Boeing commit no new crimes; and disclose publicly as much as possible of the substance of Boeing’s corporate compliance efforts adopted since 2021.

Boeing pleaded not guilty to the felony fraud charge, which is standard procedure in an arraignment, and does not undo or contest the existing DPA, which Boeing supports. The Boeing representative, Mike Delaney who is their chief safety officer, told the court that Boeing admits the faults outlined in the DPA.

Family members have been able to address the court, Boeing, and the DoJ for the first time in open session.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/boeing-pl ... 023-01-26/

Further reporting on the assignment hearing today:

Statement from Boeing CEO:

"My reaction to the families is always the same. Just nothing but heartbreak. I think we all can imagine how tough and difficult that would be. Any and every hearing they want to express those views is ok with me,” said Calhoun. “And it's a good reminder to our whole Boeing franchise, our company, our industry, how important safety is for all of us and to continue to get ahead of it. And that's how we think about it. With respect to the legal proceeding itself that's not a subject I'm qualified to talk about."

Statement from Boeing:

"We are deeply sorry to all who lost loved ones on Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Flight 302, and greatly respect those who expressed their views at the hearing today. We will never forget the lives lost in these accidents and their memory drives us every day to uphold our responsibility to all who depend on the safety of our products. We have made broad and deep changes across our company, and made changes to the design of the 737 MAX to ensure that accidents like these never happen again. We also are committed to continuing to comply scrupulously with all of our obligations under the agreement we entered into with the Justice Department two years ago."

Family members are giving individual testimonials, which have not yet been reported.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/boein ... y/3178993/

Here is an article that covers the testimony of the families.

It also notes that Judge O'Connor ordered Boeing not to be in violation of any laws in the next year, in accordance with the DPA. But he did not rule on the appointment of an independent monitor, nor on the creation of a public reporting panel of family advocates, nor on the earlier request to remove Boeing's immunity to prosecution under the DPA.

Boeing and the DoJ opposed those actions as unnecessary, on the grounds that Boeing meets monthly with the DoJ to review compliance & progress, under the existing terms of the DPA.

https://thepublicsradio.org/article/boe ... ax-crashes

The DPA was very controversial from the beginning:
Please read this article:
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/ ... and-ellis/

Boeing and the DoJ argued that for the count of fraud negotiated in the DPA, the families interests were adequately represented by the $500M settlement, which was above and beyond their personal settlement cases, even though they were not designated as crime victims under the fraud charge.

The settlement was not above and beyond their settlement cases. You will never said that if lost your kids/loves ones in these crashes. The ex CEO was rewarded with 62 millions after these 2 crashes (62 millions vs 1.4 million for each family of a victim crashes). He and other executives related to the MAX get rewarded because they should be prosecuted because of these crashes. It is inconceivable that Boeing designed MCAS with such flaws and expect pilots to compensate Boeing mistakes. The House final committee report said it clearly. Several credible and professional pilots blamed Boeing and said these crashes were preventable if Boeing prioritized safety and integrity over profit and greed.

The 2 Boeing pilots were used as scapegoat. Boeing leadership absolved themselves from any responsibility. They knew what happened and they revealed only documents of certain persons, obviously not about themselves.

I just signed my Boeing Code of Conduct. Too bad the Boeing leadership involved in this fiasco don’t follow it

.
Here some excerpts from Boeing code of conduct according to Boeing website:
I will prioritize safety, quality, and integrity above profit, schedule, or competitive edge. If I see something that raises a safety concern, I will speak up immediately.
I will engage all regulators—including employees who act under delegated authority—and customers with candor, transparency, and respect at all times.

If Boeing leadership followed the code of conduct, the 2 crashes would never happened. The same goes for the problems of 787, the tanker, 777X...etc.

Here the link of Boeing code of conduct:
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... nglish.pdf

aerotech777 wrote:

The DPA was very controversial from the beginning:

The DoJ lead prosecutor for the Boeing investigation, some time afterwards took a job with the law firm that represented Boeing. Nothing whatever was improper about that, it happens all the time. It just means she is a good attorney.

The DPA was negotiated by a team from the FAA, FBI, and DoJ, after a thorough investigation. It was then reviewed and approved by the courts.

The settlement was not above and beyond their settlement cases.

The DPA has specific language that requires the $500M negotiated criminal settlement to have no impact on the private civil actions taken against Boeing. That is being monitored by the DoJ.

The ex CEO was rewarded with 62 millions after these 2 crashes (62 millions vs 1.4 million for each family of a victim crashes).

Muilenburg was entitled to a severance package that was negotiated when he took the position of CEO. It was not a reward, it was his benefit, and had nothing to do with the accidents. It could not be legally withheld.

It is inconceivable that Boeing designed MCAS with such flaws and expect pilots to compensate Boeing mistakes. The House final committee report said it clearly. Several credible and professional pilots blamed Boeing and said these crashes were preventable if Boeing prioritized safety and integrity over profit and greed.

Boeing admitted to the faults that existed in MCAS, that triggered the upsets that preceded the two accidents, in response to other failures. That is not disputed. But the DoJ found no evidence of intent within those errors, which is a prerequisite for criminal action.

The 2 Boeing pilots were used as scapegoat. Boeing leadership absolved themselves from any responsibility. They knew what happened and they revealed only documents of certain persons, obviously not about themselves.

The DoJ did find intent within the private text messages of the two simulator pilots, who did not disclose MCAS changes to the Flight Safety Board, prior to approval of documentation. Those messages were found in discovery, but were unknown to Boeing management prior to the accidents. Despite this, Boeing was held accountable in the DPA for the two fraud charges stemming from their actions, and admitted fault.

One of the two pilots was independently charged with fraud, based on his text messages regarding tricking the regulators and calling them fools for accepting his recommendations. He was acquitted of those charges.

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ lead prosecutor for the Boeing investigation, some time afterwards took a job with the law firm that represented Boeing. Nothing whatever was improper about that, it happens all the time. It just means she is a good attorney.

I'd say it's totally improper. Did you mean nothing illegal ?

Aesma wrote:

I'd say it's totally improper. Did you mean nothing illegal ?

As stated, it's common practice for attorneys to seek better employment, just as it is for every other profession. It would be ridiculous to claim that they could never work for a firm they had opposed in court. She did not walk across the courtroom to sit at the other table during the trial. The matter was completely settled, and had been for quite awhile.

Also as stated, she was the lead for the DoJ US Attorneys office in Texas. The case was also prosecuted by the DoJ Fraud Division in New York, as well as the DoT Office of Inspector General in Washington, representing the FAA. And was investigated by the FBI Chicago office, as Boeing headquarters were in Chicago.

Also as stated, the courts have final approval over the DPA, which the families are clearly availing themselves of now.

So unless all these other people and agencies were in on the conspiracy, the notion that the US Attorney engaged in a quid pro quo, is nonsensical.

Avatar2go wrote:

In this case it was limited to their sphere of influence, which was fraud related to the MAX documentation.

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ did find intent within the private text messages of the two simulator pilots, who did not disclose MCAS changes to the Flight Safety Board, prior to approval of documentation.

Fraudulent documentation makes for fraudulent certification.

Avatar2go wrote:

As stated, it's common practice for attorneys to seek better employment, just as it is for every other profession. It would be ridiculous to claim that they could never work for a firm they had opposed in court.

Lets not pretend that this "better employment" would have eventuated if she had gone after Boeing aggressively in her role as a prosecutor. To suggest it's just a coincidence is the definition of gaslighting.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

87GROUNDED wrote:

Hopefully he'll order the two airlines' training managers to appear as well. In the meantime this will be a good thread to watch.

I see we're still trying to shift blame away from the American company largely responsible for all of this, eh?

This is a very good point Cdydatzigs, I've often wondered if it wasn't an Indonesian or an Ethiopian MAX that had crashed and it was, say an American and a British MAX that had plunged out of the skies, would the grounding had happened quicker? Or even happened after the first crash?

I know Lionair doesn't have the best record for safety, and sadly nor does Ethiopian to that matter. But was there an assumption from Boeing and the Regulators (not just the FAA here but other Aviation Regulators from around the World) that the crashes happened to airlines from lesser developed nations that Boeing/Regulators firmly believed it wasn't anything to do with the design of this new B737 variant?

IMHO, Boeing have blood on their hands, they should face prosecution. Just because the crashed happened off American soil doesn't exclude them for facing the music for the pain and suffering they caused to the families of those lost. Nobody should ever be able to buy their way out of having to face justice. Let's hope the families get the justice they deserve, and not just a payout from Boeing to keep them quiet.

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoJ lead prosecutor for the Boeing investigation, some time afterwards took a job with the law firm that represented Boeing. Nothing whatever was improper about that, it happens all the time. It just means she is a good attorney.

Only the attorney will know if it is improper if she is working on the case for Boeing. She would have knowledge from her time at the DOJ that she takes into the new job. She is not supposed to use any of the knowledge gained from the previous case to her new work (I assume this would be the case for attorneys in the US). Now I am sure you could argue that she was chosen because she may have some knowledge in the aerospace area already and would not need to be brough up to speed.

But I am always drawn to Darleen Druyun, which you could also have argued that people moved from the USAF/DOD to Boeing all the time for better pay. They were just good at their jobs as well and there was nothing to see there, until she passed on information from Airbus that was not for Boeing's eyes to Boeing. It helps to be a little more cynical sometimes and not just rehash the official line like you are some paid shill for the company.

zkojq wrote:

Fraudulent documentation makes for fraudulent certification

Hence the fraud charges.

Lets not pretend that this "better employment" would have eventuated if she had gone after Boeing aggressively in her role as a prosecutor. To suggest it's just a coincidence is the definition of gaslighting.

Any evidence you have for that would be appreciated. She has an excellent record & reputation with the bar association. She won a $2.5B+ settlement and a DPA from two counts of wire fraud. The criminal penalty is $250K plus restitution.

AAMDanny wrote:

I've often wondered if it wasn't an Indonesian or an Ethiopian MAX that had crashed and it was, say an American and a British MAX that had plunged out of the skies, would the grounding had happened quicker? Or even happened after the first crash?

After the Lion Air accident, the FAA looked at the record of the aircraft, and found that MCAS had erroneously engaged in the preceding flight as well. That flight landed safely after one of the pilots recalled the correct procedure for a runaway stabilizer. That had been the expected outcome for an MCAS malfunction.

To address the Lion Air accident, the FAA ordered Boeing to fix the flaws in MCAS within 6 months, and alerted airlines and pilots around the world to the possibility of MCAS malfunction, as well as reminded them of the runaway stabilizer procedure. That was considered sufficient to prevent another statistically unlikely accident. It had nothing to do with the nationality involved.

I know Lionair doesn't have the best record for safety, and sadly nor does Ethiopian to that matter. But was there an assumption from Boeing and the Regulators (not just the FAA here but other Aviation Regulators from around the World) that the crashes happened to airlines from lesser developed nations that Boeing/Regulators firmly believed it wasn't anything to do with the design of this new B737 variant?

As stated above, the FAA clearly identified the flaws in MCAS after Lion Air, and ordered them to be remedied. There was never any assumption that the 737 MAX did not have those design flaws. Nor when the FAA disseminated that information, was there any objection by any regulator, anywhere in the world.

IMHO, Boeing have blood on their hands, they should face prosecution. Just because the crashed happened off American soil doesn't exclude them for facing the music for the pain and suffering they caused to the families of those lost. Nobody should ever be able to buy their way out of having to face justice. Let's hope the families get the justice they deserve, and not just a payout from Boeing to keep them quiet.

Boeing was prosecuted criminally for the crimes for which evidence existed, after a lengthy investigation by the FBI. This resulted in the DPA. Attorneys for the families had the opportunity in the arraignment hearing to charge other crimes, and present evidence for them.

Notably they did not do so. They instead asked the court to give them a greater role in enforcement of the existing DPA. There is a significant chance the judge will grant some form of relief on those requests.

The families also had asked in their original complaint, that immunity from prosecution in the DPA be dropped, and that the DoJ be ordered to investigate again. The judge is unlikely to grant that without evidence of additional crimes. It would be subject to immediate appeal by both Boeing and the DoJ.

We'll have to see what the rulings ultimately are, but the above are the expected outcomes under the law.

enzo011 wrote:

But I am always drawn to Darleen Druyun, which you could also have argued that people moved from the USAF/DOD to Boeing all the time for better pay. They were just good at their jobs as well and there was nothing to see there, until she passed on information from Airbus that was not for Boeing's eyes to Boeing. It helps to be a little more cynical sometimes and not just rehash the official line like you are some paid shill for the company.

The key difference in the Druyun case was the overlap that occurred. She was engaged in negotiations with Boeing for employment, for herself and family members, at the same time she was engaged in Boeing contracting negotiations and awards from the DoD. That was a clear conflict of interest, for which she should have recused herself.

In the case of the US attorney, there is no overlap, nor was she later employed by Boeing, but by a law firm that represented Boeing. It's a large firm, and there would be a firewall in place to prevent her from representing Boeing in anything regarding this case.

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/ ... and-ellis/
The article above brought some good points and questions. You deflected certain points/questions such the choice of Texas...

Muilenburg was entitled to a severance package that was negotiated when he took the position of CEO. It was not a reward, it was his benefit, and had nothing to do with the accidents. It could not be legally withheld.

What is your evidence this was a severance package?
May be the money he got was not part of the severance package. May be the board gave him good deal to be out and put all the blame of 737 MAX disaster on him.
Why the company (board) didn't sue him as CEO because 346 died/killed, he didn't call to ground the MAX after the first crash, Boeing lost around 19 billions, tarnished Boeing reputation...etc.

He was rewarded because he got 62 millions, he is not prosecuted (not in jail), and he is alive. At the opposite the persons who died/killed obviously are not alive like him, the family of the victims are suffering the lost of love ones, and each family got only 1.4 million (500 millions divided by 346) vs 62 millions for the CEO.
Is it fair that a CEO got 62 million severance package?
May be this video explain why he got 62 millions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4A1fybQKs

This CEO contacted the president to prevent the FAA from grounding the 737 MAX after the second crash, even though he was talking in his testimony about safety and accountability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhrhp-mCF-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhBH4UYi0A

Back in November, Boeing said that it opposed any effort to reopen the agreement, calling it "unprecedented, unworkable, and inequitable." It also noted it has been complying with the agreement for nearly two years.

Muilenburg was entitled to a severance package that was negotiated when he took the position of CEO. It was not a reward, it was his benefit, and had nothing to do with the accidents. It could not be legally withheld.

I added by mistake these 2 quotes in my previous post:

Back in November, Boeing said that it opposed any effort to reopen the agreement, calling it "unprecedented, unworkable, and inequitable." It also noted it has been complying with the agreement for nearly two years.

Muilenburg was entitled to a severance package that was negotiated when he took the position of CEO. It was not a reward, it was his benefit, and had nothing to do with the accidents. It could not be legally withheld.

Cubsrule wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Cdydatzigs wrote:

I see we're still trying to shift blame away from the American company largely responsible for all of this, eh?

You said it yourself. "Largely responsible", not totally responsible.

The whole conversation misses the point. Boeing’s potential criminal liability doesn’t depend on them being solely responsible. The fact that ET in particular bears some responsibility for their crash isn’t relevant in these proceedings. (It could be different in a civil lawsuit depending on the applicable law.)

Boeing could be sued for Negligence in that the MCAS system was only tied to the Capt's angle of attack sensor with no Backup or comparator by the opposite side AOA sensor. and the MCAS system was putting out a Nose Down signal to prevent a Stall.

strfyr51 wrote:

Boeing could be sued for Negligence in that the MCAS system was only tied to the Capt's angle of attack sensor with no Backup or comparator by the opposite side AOA sensor. and the MCAS system was putting out a Nose Down signal to prevent a Stall.

Boeing was sued for negligence in the MCAS design matter, and reached civil settlements with all the accident families. This was separate and apart from the $500M criminal settlement reached on the families' behalf, by the DoJ. Also separate from the $100M initial fund Boeing set up as temporary relief.

Meanwhile:

Volkswagen senior manager Oliver Schmidt has been sentenced to seven years in a U.S. prison for concealing software that was used to evade pollution limits on nearly 600,000 diesel vehicles.

aerotech777 wrote:

The article above brought some good points and questions. You deflected certain points/questions such the choice of Texas...

The choice of Texas was due to the state line that was crossed by the wire fraud. To become a federal crime, the fraud must be interstate. In this case the two airlines that received the fraudulent documents, were located in Texas.

What is your evidence this was a severance package? May be the money he got was not part of the severance package. May be the board gave him good deal to be out and put all the blame of 737 MAX disaster on him.

As stated, Muilenburg's severance package was composed of pension and other compensation that was his due. He received no actual severance pay. All of this was and must be reported to the SEC when he was terminated. Thus it is well documented.

“Upon his departure, Dennis received the benefits to which he was contractually entitled and he did not receive any severance pay or a 2019 annual bonus,” Boeing said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1Z92DQ

This CEO contacted the president to prevent the FAA from grounding the 737 MAX after the second crash, even though he was talking in his testimony about safety and accountability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhrhp-mCF-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhBH4UYi0A

Muilenburg felt strongly that the grounding was unwarranted, and was frustrated by the media coverage of the accidents that focused entirely on Boeing. This is well documented.

He was advised by his junior executives that he was tarnishing the reputation of Boeing by not accepting responsibility for the flaws in MCAS. But he was slow to understand or agree to this. By the time he did, the damage was done.

You can argue that this was foolish or incorrect, but it wasn't a crime. He didn't break any laws by expression of his views. His job was ultimately forfeit because of them.

Back in November, Boeing said that it opposed any effort to reopen the agreement, calling it "unprecedented, unworkable, and inequitable." It also noted it has been complying with the agreement for nearly two years.

Boeing opposes altering the DOA, as does the DoJ, on the grounds that it was negotiated in good faith, was approved by the courts, and that Boeing has complied with all the terms. There is not a legal reason for it to be overturned, and none were presented by the families in the hearing.

tjcab wrote:

Meanwhile:

Volkswagen senior manager Oliver Schmidt has been sentenced to seven years in a U.S. prison for concealing software that was used to evade pollution limits on nearly 600,000 diesel vehicles.

Schmidt's role in the Volkswagen fraud was similar to Forkner's role at Boeing, in that he did not disclose the information he knew to a federal regulator.

However Schmidt differs from Forkner in that he also conspired with superiors to conceal his knowledge, and to obstruct justice, by lying when questioned specifically on the issue by the EPA, and later by the FBI, after the actual test results became known.

In contrast, Forkner admitted his knowledge in a private text message to a colleague. But to the extent that he had discussions with Boeing management on the subject, he did not disclose his actions to them either.

In connection with his guilty plea, Schmidt admitted that he agreed with VW employees to mislead and defraud the United States and domestic customers who purchased diesel vehicles, and to violate the Clean Air Act.

Schmidt first learned during the summer of 2015 that certain VW diesel vehicle models contained a defeat device, or software that detected the difference between when the car was undergoing standard U.S. emissions testing and when it was being driven under normal conditions on the road. If the vehicle recognized that it was not being tested, many of its emissions control systems were significantly reduced, resulting in NOx emissions that were sometimes 30 times higher than U.S. standards.

Schmidt admitted to participating in discussions with other VW employees in the summer of 2015 on how to coordinate responses to questions from U.S. regulators about VW’s diesel vehicles without admitting to the defeat device contained in vehicles.

On the instructions of management, Schmidt met with U.S. regulators twice in August 2015 and attempted to obtain approval for the sale of additional VW diesel vehicles without disclosing what he knew was the truth – that the real reason for the high emissions on the road was that VW had intentionally installed software designed to cheat emissions testing.

Schmidt further admitted that he knew during his participation in the conspiracy that the VW “clean diesel” vehicles were being marketed to the public as being environmentally friendly and promoting increased fuel economy while complying with U.S. environmental regulations. Schmidt knew that VW’s diesel vehicles were not compliant with U.S. standards and regulations and that these representations made to domestic customers were false, he admitted.

As part of his guilty plea, Schmidt agreed that during his participation in the scheme, he and his co-conspirators obstructed justice.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswag ... ions-tests

Rejected by the judge

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge- ... ce=twitter

AAMDanny wrote:

This is a very good point Cdydatzigs, I've often wondered if it wasn't an Indonesian or an Ethiopian MAX that had crashed and it was, say an American and a British MAX that had plunged out of the skies, would the grounding had happened quicker? Or even happened after the first crash?

United 585 & USAir 427. These crashes, back in the 1990s, were the result of Boeing's flawed rudder PCU design. Both were American airlines, and yet no action was taken to ground the 737 at that time.

AAMDanny wrote:

I know Lionair doesn't have the best record for safety, and sadly nor does Ethiopian to that matter. But was there an assumption from Boeing and the Regulators (not just the FAA here but other Aviation Regulators from around the World) that the crashes happened to airlines from lesser developed nations that Boeing/Regulators firmly believed it wasn't anything to do with the design of this new B737 variant?

Boeing's defence for United 585 & USAir 427 were also the same - pilot error. So why is it surprising that they took a similar stance in this case?

Furthermore to dismiss the airline's safety record and not do anything about any crew issues uncovered during the investigation is to ensure that another tragedy will occur, only this time it could just be that the plane is not at fault. At least the Indonesian NTSC took a balanced view and called upon Lion Air to tighten up on its training. The Ethiopians still have the notion that their pilots are infallible, and was rightly called out by the NTSB & the BEA. Personally, given how ET lost a 737NG due to pilot error and vehemently argued that it was terrorism that brought down the plane, I wouldn't set foot on an ET plane even if it's not a 737MAX. Not until they acknowledge the fact that their pilots are not infallible & take all the necessary steps to ensure that each of their pilots have the right airmanship quality.

Judge O'Connor was very sympathetic to the families, but there were never any legal grounds to overturn the DPA. He gave them their day in court and an opportunity to confront Boeing directly.

He also rejected the pleas by some airlines to be considered crime victims in the case.

The families' attorney filed a brief claiming Boeing had violated the terms of the DPA by pleading not guilty in the arraignment, but that was legal nonsense, as every defendant has that right.

It remains to be seen if the judge will grant their other requests for appointing family representatives as overseers of Boeing compliance with the DPA.