business

Boeing Max returns to U.S. skies with first passenger flight

9 Comments
By DAVID KOENIG

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

9 Comments
Login to comment

... And, as an amazing proof of corruption, nobody at Boeing is in prison for conspiring to kill about 300 people. How fast and convenient were the victims forgotten! Who cares, as long as they're not Americans, right?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Go Boeing !!.. Go Boeing !!!...

****Airbus !!..

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Yikes. I’d rather walk.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All three airlines say they will give customers the chance to change flights if they are uncomfortable flying on the Max.

How will the passenger know? Do the airlines plan to proactively notify the passenger about this, or are they hoping they won't be able to tell the difference by looking at the back of engines? My guess is the latter.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

ebisenToday 07:10 am JST

... And, as an amazing proof of corruption, nobody at Boeing is in prison for conspiring to kill about 300 people. How fast and convenient were the victims forgotten! Who cares, as long as they're not Americans, right?

It's indeed really amazing. Is there actually any action against Boeing in the US, or something coming ?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Zoroto "How will the passenger know? Do the airlines plan to proactively notify the passenger about this"

When booking, aircraft type will be shown as "Boeing 737 MAX 8" in flight details. Or, with only 4 characters, as 737M.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

When booking, aircraft type will be shown as "Boeing 737 MAX 8" in flight details. Or, with only 4 characters, as 737M.

Do you, or the airlines expect the passenger to know these codes?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A software fix to remedy an inherent structural design flaw of mounting oversized engines on the wings.

No thanks. Boeing blew their war against Airbus Neos.

They will never dominate the single aisle passenger jet market now.

Buffoons.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And, as an amazing proof of corruption, nobody at Boeing is in prison for conspiring to kill about 300 people. 

It would be impossible to prove your claim to a jury and persuade all twelve to agree that officials and engineers at Boeing engaged in a conspiracy to knowingly kill people. Proving conspiracy requires proving two or more people knowingly conspired to commit an illegal act. What Boeing did was sloppy but proving criminal intent would probably not be possible. Another path would be to try Boeing officials for negligent manslaughter. Criminal negligence is legally defined as the failure to realize that your behavior is so dangerous that it could kill someone. In order to prove you were criminally negligent, the prosecution must be able to show that a reasonable person in your situation would have realized that their behavior was potentially dangerous. In the eyes of the law, you are reckless when you act in a manner that puts others at risk even though you are aware that your behavior could seriously harm or kill another person. To put it simply, the difference between these two legal definitions comes down to risk awareness. A person who is criminally negligent did not realize his behavior was dangerous, even though he should have, whereas a reckless person knew his behavior was dangerous, but ignored the risks. Proving any of this to a jury sufficiently to have all twelve jurors vote to convict might be tough.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites