568
Couple of points.
Eventually after spending time on threads here, it seemed to be clear that pilots, first of all, generally aren't in the business of conversing with people who don't know what the pilots are talking about (and worse, often bring misconceptions to the aviators' conversations). And second, when pilots are in a discussion amongst themselves, it is a wise course to keep one's SLF mouth shut, and keyboard idle.
Except rule of law is too fundamental a principle for these niceties of professional boundaries.
I have not contended and do not contend that there aren't any Boeing senior or top management people whose conduct could be prosecuted and lead to a conviction. What I have said is that I am not willing to prejudge the legal process. If that makes me a typical lawyer, well, look up the oath of adherence to rule of law principles lawyers swear to in the United States, and you'll see that such adherence is a requirement, not an option.
I think the question of what deters future bad screw-ups by corporate leaders and officials is a topic where, certainly, different types of professional or occupational experience (different individual backgrounds, also) will lead people to different viewpoints. It might be the case, in the 737 MAX debacle, that the slamming of the prison cell door is the right result, but only after due process of law. And you might be pleased, on reading some of the legal work I did in one of the pending cases against Boeing, that in my advocacy role I take no prisoners and rather than a voice of reason, I go for killer instinct. That too is in the professional conduct rules, though politely called zealous advocacy. And thanks for the note of respect, I am trying here to acknowledge it, among all else.