The legal system set up over the course of many years - decades, really - for responding to the losses experienced when an air carrier airplane crashes has some complexities just built right into it. So, as a result, any attorney who has even just a little background and education in this subject area but who then tries to pass things off as just straightforward common sense does a disservice to the civil aviation sector itself. And also to the professionals who operate civil aviation, and the many people who participate in more workaday capacities and many more who benefit from it.
At the same time, practicing law does involve deploying language in the service of one's clients, no matter which side of a dispute or negotiation one is on. Also, no matter if the client is something high-sounding like "the public interest" which is supposed to be above relatively mundane court disputes. Regrettably this can and often does lead to a lot more words being used (as noted . . .) and even sometimes a pedantic tone . . .
But since it has become relevant, some of the legal steps Boeing has taken in the aftermath of the two accidents could add to the overall sense of indictment against lawyers in general and the profession too. One move they've made is to try to get the court cases filed in Chicago arising from the crash in Ethiopia transferred to Ethiopia. This move follows a recognized legal doctrine, one that is used in civil aviation lawsuits pretty commonly. It depends on a list of about eight different factors (and so nothing more will be said here about how it does or does not apply).
Still, a neutral observer, aware of all the misdeeds or worse by Boeing in this particular situation could justifiably assess the legal maneuver as little more than a continuation of corporate greed which led to the 737 MAX debacle in the first place. As well as a greedy exercise of raking up billable hours (but, oh, is my cynicism about "the large law firm" showing?).
And there's more in Chicago, too. About 2500 pilots from airlines around the world are claiming, in a proposed class action lawsuit, that Boeing is liable to them after they gained type ratings on the 737 MAX only to find, after the grounding, a highly negative impact on their careers. The essence of Boeing's defense at this point? Never mind the negligence, or worse, in the design and interactions with FAA....and never mind too the misleading if not deliberately lying statements Boeing made about training requirements and other aspects of the aircraft. Complexities of some legal doctrines prevent the pilots, Boeing claims, from having any legal rights even if all the alleged wrongdoing took place exactly as alleged. Boeing's legal brief is very polished! very strongly argued!...and highly troubling.
In fact, Boeing argued (IIRC) that pilots whose careers were derailed and harmed by the 737 MAX debacle and Boeing's wrongful conduct are no more entitled to their day in court than cafe baristas employed at airports whose jobs also might be negatively impacted by the grounding. Interesting, that the once great and proud airframer now argues, in the United States District Court in Chicago, that flying an airplane made by Boeing for an air carrier in any of many countries around the world carries no legal obligations owed by Boeing any greater than a variation of "coffee, latte or me?"
I'm not representing the pilots in the proposed class action lawsuit and I have never talked to any of them, and so I cannot and don't claim certainty that the above accurately summarizes how they view the situation. But I have to wonder, given how Boeing has argued that even if it did quite a lot of things very, very wrongfully with regard to the 737 MAX, and even if something like 2500 pilots worldwide had their careers damaged because Boeing's wrongful acts caused the airplane to be grounded, that's just the way the ....just the way the MCAS misfires?