Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
A federal judge has shot down a plea agreement between Boeing and the Justice Department over concerns over leniency, transparency, and public confidence in the aftermath of two fatal 737 Max crashes.
Let’s bring you up to speed: Back in 2018 and 2019, Boeing faced a wave of lawsuits after two crashes involving its 737 Max aircraft—Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302—that claimed the lives of 346 people. The crashes were linked to a flawed flight-control system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which Boeing designed to compensate for aerodynamic changes caused by larger engines mounted on the aircraft. Investigations revealed that Boeing had prioritized profits over safety, rushing the plane to market to compete with Airbus’s A320neo and concealing critical information about MCAS from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to avoid triggering costly pilot retraining requirements.
Boeing reached a plea agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to address the legal and financial fallout in 2021. Under the deal, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the US government, pay up to $487 million in fines, and allocate $455 million to safety and compliance improvements. The agreement also required Boeing to operate under the supervision of a government-appointed monitor for three years. However, critics—including victims’ families—condemned the deal as a “sweetheart agreement” that let Boeing off the hook for its misconduct and failed to reflect the gravity of the company’s role in the crashes.
What’s going on now: US District Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the plea agreement between Boeing and the Justice Department, citing serious concerns over its structure and the exclusion of the court in key oversight decisions. The judge said, “Marginalizing the court in the selection and monitoring of the independent monitor as the plea agreement does undermines public confidence in Boeing’s probation.” He also criticized the proposed selection process for the monitor, which included considerations of diversity, noting that “appointing a monitor for any reason apart from suitable competency was incompatible with the overarching goal of restoring public faith.”
Reactions: In a statement, a lawyer representing family members of victims called the judge’s ruling a “positive step.” She added, “We anticipate a significant renegotiation of the plea deal that incorporates terms truly commensurate with the gravity of Boeing’s crimes. It’s time for the DOJ to end its lenient treatment of Boeing and demand real accountability.”
Paul Cassell, another lawyer representing victims’ families, called the judge’s decision “an important victory.” He added,”No longer can federal prosecutors and high-powered defense attorney craft backroom deals and just expect judges to approve them. Victims can object – and when they have good reasons for striking a plea, judges will response.”
