The fish rots from the head, at some point the smell gets so bad you have to do something about it.

In the past (MCAS debacle) Boeing leadership was able to push liability downward rather than take responsibility. There were no meaningful consequences for leadership who have the most impact on, and responsibility for, these things happening, so leadership was emboldened to be even worse.

Boeing is in a special position. It is militarily unacceptable for Boeing to go out of business or otherwise. It is economically unacceptable to punish Boeing, because those punishments would just be passed down to laborers and not result in any change, because labor has no ability to apply pressure upwards because unionization is so weak. This gives Boeing leadership incredible political leverage which lets them do things like avoid FAA oversight and "monitor" themselves.

Boeing is too big to fail. The corporate veil protects those who are responsible from experiencing consequences.

If you want to read more about the Boeing debacle, you can find a rather prescient take on American industry from Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy. Here is some of his testimony to congress in 1982:

> Corporate Power A preoccupation with the so-called bottom line of profit and loss statements, coupled with a lust for expansion, is creating an environment in which fewer businessmen honor traditional values; where responsibility is increasingly disassociated from the the exercise of power; where skill in financial manipulation is valued more than actual knowledge and experience in the business; where attention and effort is directed mostly to short-term considerations, regardless of longer-range consequences.

> Political and economic power is increasingly being concentrated among a few large corporations and their officers - power they can apply against society, government and individuals. Through their control of vast resources, these large corporations have become, in effect, another branch of government. They often exercise the power of government, but without the checks and balances inherent in our democratic system.

> With their ability to dispense money, officials of large corporations may often exercise greater power to influence society than elected or appointed government officials - but without assuming any of the responsibilities and without being subject to public scrutiny. Woodrow Wilson warned that economic concentration could ''give to a few men a control over the economic life of the country which they might abuse to the undoing of millions of men.'' His stated purposes was: ''to square every process of our national life again with the standards we so proudly set up at the beginning and have always carried in our hearts.'' His comments are apropos today.

What you are seeing is a lack of consequences because a company is too big and too politically powerful. Even if you believe it is sabotage, Boeing leadership has a responsibility to prevent sabotage. They are no less off the hook whether the problem is sabotage or incompetence.

Let me regale you with a rumored story heard third hand about someone who worked at Boeing. They went to their manager and said "I found this problem." The manger said "Do not tell me about problems, do not put it in writing, if you tell me or write it down that makes us liable."

That is a clear culture problem and clear leadership problem. Leadership forces blame and liability downwards creating a culture where speaking up puts you in danger. It puts you in danger for liability reasons or in danger for short term business considerations (now we have to expend resources that we wouldn't have if you had stayed quiet).

Either way, you have to ask who is taking responsibility for Boeing outcomes? It is clearly not Boeing leadership.