FAA proposes $1.1M fine against United Airlines for allegedly skipping safety checks

[flashcrash]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $1,149,306 civil penalty against United Airlines for allegedly conducting flights from June 2018 to April 2021 in Boeing 777 aircraft that were not in airworthy condition.

FAA Proposes $1.1M Fine Against United Airlines for Allegedly Not Performing Maintenance Inspection | Federal Aviation Administration

FAA proposes fining United $1 million for skipping safety steps | CNN Business

[Gabriel]

Deal! That's likely a fraction of what they saved for not doing these inspections for 3 years.

[TeeVee]

and twice again, the gubmint fails us. first it took them how long to figure out these planes weren't being inspected per regs? then, rather than fining the individuals ultimately responsible, they fine the shareholders.

effin brilliant!

[Evan]

Not so much to pay for a nice bit of... evil...

[Gabriel]

and twice again, the gubmint fails us. first it took them how long to figure out these planes weren't being inspected per regs? then, rather than fining the individuals ultimately responsible, they fine the shareholders.

effin brilliant!

The shareholders appoint the board and the CEO. The shareholders buy shares when you have a more return-for-shareholder management and sell when you have a more excellence-focused management. The shareholders are at fault. In the same way that we the customers are at fault for the crappy service when our purchase criteria is "hey google, gimme the absolute cheapest flight you can fond me between A and B" (and yes TeeVee, I know you are an exception to the vast majority)

And read what I did NOT say. I didn't say that the management should not be fined: they should. But pretending that shareholders are innocent is naïve.

[YSSYplanespotter]

Perhaps the FAA should fine themselves instead for allowing their controllers to clear aircraft to land whilst being 10th in line!

[TeeVee]

The shareholders appoint the board and the CEO. The shareholders buy shares when you have a more return-for-shareholder management and sell when you have a more excellence-focused management. The shareholders are at fault. In the same way that we the customers are at fault for the crappy service when our purchase criteria is "hey google, gimme the absolute cheapest flight you can fond me between A and B" (and yes TeeVee, I know you are an exception to the vast majority)

And read what I did NOT say. I didn't say that the management should not be fined: they should. But pretending that shareholders are innocent is naïve.

first of all, very few if any board members take part in operations, which include decisions like skipping maintenance. this would be done by officers, whos primary duties are the daily operations of the biz. officers are appointed by the board.

next, this is an old, tired, and almost entirely WRONG refrain. this is like saying that US voters are responsible for trump and biden improperly removing classified data from the white house. we are responsible for electing these people, nothing more.

under your tired theory, electors are all prophets and know exactly the evil the people they elect are going to do in the future. this is utter nonsense.

douchebag directors and politicians for that matter, should ALL pay directly for their sins. did you know that most states' corporate laws have LAWS that require the corporation to indemnify officers and sometimes from their own dirty deeds? in-friggin-sane. this is what most people call carte blanche--carte blanche to do whatever the EF they like, which is what usually makes them more money at the expense of others, including lives (READ: 737Max...)

most shareholders havent a clue who the management are. they buy based on performance or better yet, perceived performance.

[Evan]

we are responsible for electing these people, nothing more.

We are responsible for electing these people and every consequence.

We are responsible for electing politicians who adamantly resist stronger regulation and oversight. We are responsible for electing members of congress who refuse to fund compliance requirements.

And yes, shareholders vote with their investment choices while CEO’s respond to their day-to-day and minute-to-minute whims. The only way to preserve a standard of investment in safety in this casino capitalism is to impose a standard of investment in safety, with dire consequences for those who fail to comply.

1.1 million is a joke. It, and the moral imperatives of capitalism, send a message: keep on doing what you’re doing.

[TeeVee]

good lord! i cant believe im reading this crap from two pretty intelligent people. it's as if both of you have lived under giant rocks your entire lives!!!

no politician has ever said one thing during his campaign and done another once elected, right? once again, you expect voters to be prophets, to know the future. jesus. talk about ignorant and aloof! people say what they NEED to say to get elected, even if it's a flat out lie (george santos for example). newly elected people with all the BEST intentions to do what they promised, get into office for the first time and then they discover reality: vote with nancy or you are done for. agree with mitch and vote the way he tells you or you will made a pariah and your constituents get shit.

maybe you really have no clue about how washington and every single state capitol works.

the same is true of boards. they are appointed mostly by large institutional investors with enormous voting power, based on what a few people in that institutional investor BELIEVE. boards then appoint officers whom they BELIEVE will do the right thing.

so you two go on blaming shareholders for douchebag upper management and C-suite assholes trying to maximize their compensation at any cost.

[Gabriel]

It is different with CEOs. They get hired by the shareholders for doing what they say the will do: Short term money for the shareholders.

[TeeVee]

nope. almost always, the shareholders elect board members. the board hires and fires officers, including the ceo. in theory, a very large group of shareholders could pressure a board to hire or fire. a majority of shareholders could force the board to hire or fire. this would be governed by the bylaws of the particular corporation

[Gabriel]

nope. almost always, the shareholders elect board members. the board hires and fires officers, including the ceo. in theory, a very large group of shareholders could pressure a board to hire or fire. a majority of shareholders could force the board to hire or fire. this would be governed by the bylaws of the particular corporation

In general, board members are also ______ of the company.
Board members represent the interests of the ________.

Cue, both blanks should be filled with the same word.

[eurowing]

Deal! That's likely a fraction of what they saved for not doing these inspections for 3 years.

how does removing one checklist item save the airline money?

[TeeVee]

In general, board members are also ______ of the company.
Board members represent the interests of the ________.

Cue, both blanks should be filled with the same word.

not necessarily accurate using the same word. board members are not always shareholders.

board members are supposed to look out for the interests of the corporation and shareholders. in reality, what is good for the corporation is good for the shareholders. what is good for the shareholders may not be good for the corporation. think boeing and max. i doubt very much that anyone can show me a case where a director or directors were found liable for a decision that was good for the corporation but not so good for the shareholders. shareholders come and go, especially in publicly traded corps. the corporation is almost always perpetual. so a decision like what boeing did with the max, may have resulted in some near term profits for the then shareholders, but proved to be pretty shitty for the corporation in the long run.

it might also surprise you to know that i think every state has laws on the books protecting directors form liability if they can defend their actions by the "business judgment rule"--a very nebulous, ill-defined rule that pretty much requires malicious intent or self-dealing to overcome.

[Gabriel]

not necessarily accurate using the same word. board members are not always shareholders.

Hence "in general", which means "not always".