[slededit]

I'm almost certain "expense of human lives" didn't come up as a factor on any of the merger pitch decks. Frankly its a huge leap to see that a merger of two successful and relatively safe aircraft manufacturers would be intentionally at the expense of human lives.

[pytester]

It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant.

You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...

[anon1m0us]

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

[OnlineGladiator]

If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong.

So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.

[didbdidnd]

I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is.

Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided.

Could be a fiefdom for all I care.

But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”.

But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.

[bigiain]

Agreed.

And when it's the marketing department saying "X" in big print in flashy brochures and ads, and the legal department and their small print saying "not X in ways that kill purchasers expecting X", I'd expect company officers to be facing jail time.

I'm old fashioned that way too.

[OnlineGladiator]

I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.

[salawat]

Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print?

Hell, both Boeing and Tesla can be said to have indulged in the same sin: not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user

Taking the viewpoint that caveat emptor absolves the manufacturer of any complicity in mass producing and delivering for use dangerous systems without clearly communicating the underlying implementation details to a reasonable operator is just beyond naieve to the point of asking bad actors to take these types of risks in the least responsible way possible. In fact, the only reason Boeing is getting slammed so hard and Tesla isn't is entirely due to extra regulatory burden that aircraft manufacturers have to deal with that automotive don't.

Now, I personally take the onus of understanding my vehicle seriously, but not everyone does, and nevertheless, they still must be able to drive. Therefore I personally hold manufacturer's responsible for being good corporate citizens and not indulging in deceptive practices.

Not that that gets me or anyone else anywhere. It's the principle of the thing though.

[braythwayt]

“Onus” is an exclusive term. It’s on one party, or another.

Onus does not apply to the safety of consumer products. For example, it is the responsibility of an automobile owner to drive a car with brakes in good working condition. Period.

But it is also the responsibility of an automobile manufacturer to issue a recall and fix faulty brakes in a car they sell.

It’s not an either-or. We don’t say, “Because the onus is on the driver to drive a safe vehicle, there is no fault to be laid at the manufacturer’s door. Caveat emptor.” We hold both parties responsible to some degree or other.

In sum, yes, drivers are supposed to know the limitations of their equipment and operate it responsibly. But also yes, manufacturers have responsibilities around the safety of the hardware and software they sell to people to operate as motor vehicles.

The driver’s responsibility does not absolve the manufacturer of its responsibilities.

[bigiain]

I agree that higher standards for getting (and keeping) driver's licenses is a good thing to discuss. (It's political suicide, which is why it never gets acted upon in spite of the thousands of road deaths every year.)

But I think the solution to the problem describe upthread is more along the lines of "we need higher standards of truth in advertising".

While I agree that "the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works" - I think it's entirely understandable that drivers base that understanding on what the sales guy and marketing team told them when they researched and bought it, and that if they use works like "self driving" and "autonomous" and "autopilot" that it's reasonable for drivers to interpret them in their commonly understood meanings. Disclaimers in legal documentation redefining commonly understood English words are _not_ OK in my opinion.

[bryanrasmussen]

Luckily the modern automobile is so simple in all its functionality that anyone who wishes to purchase one can learn everything about the workings in a half hour over coffee!

[ulfw]

"Marketing" being "different" from "legal" is the definition of corporate lying if I've ever seen one.

[evan_]

Of course it did, but it was probably spelled differently, like “a merger would enhance our ability to fight regulation”. The regulations being things like “you have to have planes that don’t rapidly fly into the ground for no reason” etc.

[Guthur]

There are many thousands if not millions of humans involved. Successful business affects so many even far removed from the company. Large companies like these are often heavily invested by institutional investors covering many of the populations pensions.

[buddylw]

If they aren't considering human lives in the process, that may be the real problem.

[lovich]

Why would it have to be intentional? They are pursuing profit. Human lives were ended as a result of their actions in the pursuit of profit.

Is that not pursuing profit at the expense of human lives?

[DuskStar]

If I drive to the store to get milk and end up getting in a fatal accident along the way, am I pursuing milk at the expense of human lives?

[tw04]

If you drove to the store in a car you knew had faulty brakes and killed someone: yes you would be pursuing milk at the expense of human lives. And I guarantee you if they could prove you knew your brakes were bad, the punishment would absolutely be worse than if you just had an unpreventable accident.

[bumby]

This assumes Boeing had a priori knowledge that the system would cause a crash.

The fact that the system safety analysis didn't label it 'catastrophic' seems to indicate they didn't know this. This doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that they should have, or that they still didn't follow their design procedures stating redundant senaors

[tw04]

“I didn’t KNOW removing three of the four brakes on my car would cause a crash” is an argument you could make. I wouldn’t want to stake my freedom on it.

[bumby]

That's assuming you are making a connection between brakes and a catastrophic failure.

The fact the system safety analysis didn't call out an MCAS failure as catastrophic seems to indicate they misunderstood the system risk which is different than claiming a catastrophic failure is an acceptable risk

[danharaj]

Yes. Driving is dangerous. Our society has just deemed its danger acceptable even though we know how many people die because we are so dependent on cars. This is the grim fact of the matter.

[xnyan]

It's like going to get milk every day for 20 years, then deciding to let your sometimes reliable brother get milk for you because it's cheaper, and after they kill people in a wreck getting milk you keep on letting them get milk for you.

[newfangle]

Except, going by your anology, this would be the first time Boeings brother killed someone getting milk.

[wtallis]

If you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then yeah, that's a fair characterization.

[bumby]

Not trying to be a Boeing apologist, but if the bar is "zero risk" almost no business plan in industry would be implemented.

They have to acknowledge at some point that lives may be at risk in their business. Whether or not that risk level is a acceptable and that they properly gauge that risk 8s another matter

[pfortuny]

“At whatever costs” easily becomes a moral stance even if nothing strictly immoral was supposed to be assumed.