SoylentNews

barbara hudson writes:

I know, yet another Boeing story. But it's like herpes - the gift that keeps on giving.

The same day that Boeing CEO Mullenberg crashed and burned [soylentnews.org] as Boeing CEO, the criminal investigation into Boeing heated up, with Boeing's test pilot hiring criminal lawyers and refusing to turn over documents [theguardian.com]to the Department of Justice under the 5th amendment, saying in effect that turning them over "may tend to incriminate him."

The embattled US aircraft maker Boeing has reportedly sent US regulators “troubling communications” related to the development of the 737 MAX – on the same day that the CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, was forced to step aside.

According to a senior Boeing executive, the documents include new messages from Mark Forkner, a senior company test pilot who complained of “egregious” erratic behavior in flight simulator tests of Boeing’s MCAS anti-stall system, and referred to “Jedi mind tricks” to persuade regulators to approve the plane.

The executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Seattle Times that the Forkner communications contain the same kind of “trash talking” about Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) regulators as the earlier messages released in October.

So what would make Forkner, the test pilot lawyer up?

Forkner, meanwhile, has reportedly hired his own criminal defense lawyers and invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid turning over records to the Department of Justice, which has opened a criminal inquiry into the company’s handling of the 737 Max’s development.

It was Forkner who requested that information about MCAS be omitted from flight manuals and pilot training, rendering the pilots of both the doomed Lion Air and Ethiopian flights helpless when the system kicked in, pushing the plane’s nose down repeatedly until they ultimately lost control.

But the timing of the latest information release is likely to increase anger surrounding Boeing’s handling of the crisis, even as a new CEO, David Calhoun, takes the reins early next year.

This is going to get ugly. We have the DoJ finding smoking guns in the lead-up to two fatal air crashes of 737MAX jets.

So we can expect the DoJ investigation to be followed by an investigation by the SEC for wilfully holding information that could materially affect their share price.

Then there's the now-inevitable class action share holder lawsuits. Boeing has lost 20% of it's share price, so it would be hard to argue that their failure to disclose MCAS problems, especially after the first crash, wasn't aimed in part to protect their share price.

Next, Boeing's customers. It would be hard to argue that the 737MAX jets sitting in the employee parking lot have retained their full value, or that their long-term resale value hasn't been affected. Leasing companies in particular are affected by resale / residual value of aircraft.

So what are we looking at in 2020?

1. DoJ criminal investigation continues;
2. SEC stock price manipulation investigation;
3. Shareholder class action lawsuits;
4. Airline demands for more compensation for damages;
5. Increased monetary damages for crash victims (let's not forget them, though I'm sure Boeing would like to).
6. An increasingly aggressive and oppositional FAA.
7. Other countries regulators doing their own due diligence;
8. More anonymous leaks by "senior executives" and others.

Given all this, Boeing is in for some rough skies in the years ahead. Even if the MAX returns to flight in time for the 2020 summer holidays, which looks increasingly unlikely, these problems are not going to go away.

The probability of Boeing reorganizing as separate businesses for space, military, and civilian aviation just increased.

As an aside, refusing to turn over documents is an odd use of the 5th. It's one thing to argue that you shouldn't be forced to unlock your electronics before turning them over, but to argue that you can refuse to turn over evidence that isn't password-protected or encrypted based on the 5th seems like quite a stretch. I can't see someone successfully arguing against a search warrant because it might turn up incriminating evidence.

Original Submission