web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Appointments and Executive Changes

Uber Says 3,045 Sex Assaults Were Reported in U.S. Rides Last Year

SAN FRANCISCO — Uber said on Thursday that it had reports of 3,045 sexual assaults during its rides in the United States in 2018, with nine people murdered and 58 killed in crashes, in its first study detailing unsafe incidents on the ride-hailing platform.

The number of incidents represented a fraction — just 0.0002 percent — of Uber’s 1.3 billion rides in the United States last year, the company said.

There are few comparable figures to judge Uber’s safety record against. The New York Police Department, which keeps a register of sex crimes and rapes that occur on transit systems, counted 533 in 2018.

But even one of Uber’s top executives said the company’s findings were difficult to stomach.

ImageWestlake Legal Group 05uber2-articleLarge Uber Says 3,045 Sex Assaults Were Reported in U.S. Rides Last Year West, Tony (1965- ) Uber Technologies Inc Traffic Accidents and Safety sexual harassment Sex Crimes Murders, Attempted Murders and Homicides Corporate Social Responsibility Car Services and Livery Cabs Automobile Safety Features and Defects Appointments and Executive Changes

Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, led the compilation of the safety report.Credit…Carlos Chavarría for The New York Times

“The numbers are jarring and hard to digest,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in an interview. “What it says is that Uber is a reflection of the society it serves.”

Safety has been a long-running Achilles’ heel for ride-hailing companies, which depend on a large volume of people using their service. Uber, the world’s biggest, chose to be transparent about cataloging sexual assaults, murders and crash fatalities as it has faced growing pressure over these issues.

Many ride-hailing companies initially thrived by flouting regulations and allowing almost anyone with a car to become a driver without the screening and licenses required in the taxi industry. Reports of sexual assault and murders have since become a regular occurrence as ride-hailing has become a mainstay of urban transportation. Many of the companies face a growing number of lawsuits over safety incidents.

In 2017, a woman who was raped by her Uber driver in India sued the company and its executives for obtaining and mishandling her medical records; she later settled for an undisclosed sum. This week, 19 women joined a lawsuit against Lyft, saying they had been sexually assaulted during rides arranged by the company.

Uber and others have introduced more safety features and procedures in recent years. Uber has rolled out automated technology to regularly check drivers’ driving records and criminal history. Since 2018, it said, it has deactivated 40,000 drivers in the United States after they failed the checks made by the automated technology.

Lyft is “committed to releasing our own safety transparency report and working within the industry to share information about drivers who don’t pass our initial or continuous background checks or are deactivated from our platform,” a company spokeswoman, Alexandra LaManna, said on Thursday.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said ride-hailing companies needed to do more on safety, such as conduct fingerprint-based background checks of drivers.

“All of those steps are starters because these ride-hailing companies have been abjectly failing in their duty to protect against predators or criminals,” he said.

Uber and Lyft are struggling financially. This year, both companies staged prominent initial public stock offerings that went on to disappoint Wall Street. The companies are also losing enormous sums of money because of the continuous expense of attracting drivers and passengers. Last month, Uber posted a quarterly loss of $1.2 billion.

The report did not give a comprehensive picture of safety across Uber’s operations. It provided no information on the 65 countries outside the United States where Uber offers its services.

In Brazil, India and elsewhere, murders and assaults stemming from ride-hailing services have been widely reported. Didi Chuxing suspended some of its services in China and fired executives last year after a female passenger was raped and killed.

Still, Uber’s study establishes a benchmark for safety in an industry where such data has been scarce.

The report covered the safety of both riders and drivers. Murder victims were drivers, passengers and third parties. In cases of rape, Uber said, 92 percent of the reported victims were riders. But drivers reported other types of sexual assaults at roughly the same rate as riders, Uber said.

The company was not specific about who the perpetrators were.

Uber said it had cataloged 2,936 sexual assaults in 2017 and 3,045 in 2018, ranging from unwanted kissing of what it called a “nonsexual body part” to attempted rape and rape. The largest category was nonconsensual touching of a “sexual body part” like someone’s mouth or genitals.

The number of fatal crashes related to Uber trips was 49 in 2017 and 58 in 2018. The statistics included accidents that occurred outside Uber vehicles, such as when a passenger was struck after exiting a ride, and crashes in which Uber drivers were not at fault.

Uber disclosed 10 murders in 2017 and nine in 2018. Seven victims were drivers, eight were passengers, and four were third parties, like bystanders outside the Uber vehicles, the company said.

Throughout its study, Uber emphasized that 99.9 percent of its trips were safe and that it was taking an unusual step by releasing the data in the first place. Sexual violence experts agreed that publishing the numbers was an important step in combating abuse across the industry.

“That a company is willing to peel back the drapes and let us look into what is happening is, to me, the success,” said Cindy Southworth, the executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence and a member of Uber’s safety advisory board.

Uber began studying the issue of sexual assault in late 2017 under its newly hired chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi. He recruited Mr. West, a former Justice Department official, to the company and asked him to review cases of sexual harassment and assault among Uber rides that year.

Over the next 21 months, Uber trained its staff to filter reports from riders and drivers globally into 21 categories, such as nonconsensual sexual penetration, leering and unwelcome comments about a person’s appearance. The company also worked with safety organizations such as the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

Uber ultimately narrowed the scope of its report to five categories and concentrated on the United States.

Jeanne Christensen, a partner at the Wigdor law firm who has represented rape victims in lawsuits against Uber, said the publication of data would create incentives for Uber to improve its safety.

“The more that the public is aware, the more the company and everyone else has to respond,” she said. “It’s such a part of daily life that everyone is going to take it. We’re already at that point. So now they just have to make it as safe as possible.”

Mr. West said Uber had more work to do. The company has tripled the size of its safety team since 2017, to 300 employees, and plans to continue expanding it. Next year, it plans to set up a support hotline in partnership with the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, a nonprofit that works against sexual violence.

Mr. West said Uber would also share information with other ride-hailing companies about drivers it thinks have committed an assault, though he did not present a timeline for doing so.

“There is no law, regulation or lawsuit that is forcing Uber to make this data available,” he said. “We are doing this, frankly, because the public has a right to know.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Uber: 3,045 Sexual Assaults Reported in U.S. Rides Last Year

SAN FRANCISCO — Uber said on Thursday that it has reports of 3,045 people in the United States being sexually assaulted during its rides in 2018, with nine murdered and 58 killed in crashes, in its first study detailing unsafe incidents on the ride-hailing platform.

The number of incidents represented a fraction — just 0.0002 percent — of Uber’s 1.3 billion rides in the United States last year, the company said.

There are few comparable figures to judge Uber’s safety record against. The New York Police Department, which keeps a register of sex crimes and rapes that occur on transit systems, counted 533 incidents in 2018.

But even one of Uber’s top executives said that what the company had found was difficult to stomach.

ImageWestlake Legal Group 05uber2-articleLarge Uber: 3,045 Sexual Assaults Reported in U.S. Rides Last Year West, Tony (1965- ) Uber Technologies Inc Traffic Accidents and Safety sexual harassment Sex Crimes Murders, Attempted Murders and Homicides Corporate Social Responsibility Car Services and Livery Cabs Automobile Safety Features and Defects Appointments and Executive Changes

Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, led the compilation of the safety report.Credit…Carlos Chavarría for The New York Times

“The numbers are jarring and hard to digest,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in an interview. “What it says is that Uber is a reflection of the society it serves.”

Safety has been a long-running Achilles’ heel for ride-hailing companies, which depend on a large volume of people wanting to use their service. Uber chose to be transparent about cataloging instances of sexual assaults, murders and crash fatalities as it has faced growing pressure over these issues.

Many ride-hailing companies initially allowed almost anyone with a car to become a driver without the screening and licenses required in the taxi industry. Reports of sexual assault and murders from ride-hailing trips have since become a regular occurrence. Many of the companies now face a growing number of lawsuits over safety incidents.

In 2017, a woman who was raped by her Uber driver in India sued the company and its executives for obtaining and mishandling her medical records; she later settled for an undisclosed sum. This week, 19 women joined a lawsuit against Lyft, saying they had been sexually assaulted during rides arranged by the company.

In response, Uber and others have introduced more safety features and procedures in recent years. Uber has rolled out automated technology to regularly check drivers’ driving records and criminal history. Since 2018, it said, it has deactivated 40,000 drivers in the United States after they failed the checks made by the automated technology.

Lyft, in a statement about the lawsuit this week, said it was “continuously investing in new features and policies to protect our riders and drivers.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat of Connecticut, said ride-hailing companies need to do more on safety, such as conducting fingerprint-based background checks of drivers.

“All of those steps are starters because these ride-hailing companies have been abjectly failing in their duty to protect against predators or criminals,” he said.

The report is being issued as Uber and Lyft struggle financially. Both companies staged prominent initial public stock offerings this year that went on to disappoint Wall Street. The companies are also losing enormous sums of money because of the continuous expense of attracting drivers and passengers. Last month, Uber posted a quarterly loss of $1.2 billion.

The report did not give a comprehensive picture of safety across Uber’s operations. It focused solely on the United States and provided no information on the 65 other countries where Uber offers its services.

In Brazil, India and elsewhere, murders and assaults stemming from ride-hailing services have been widely reported. Didi Chuxing, a ride-hailing service in China, suspended some of its services and fired executives last year after a female passenger was raped and killed.

Still, Uber’s report establishes a benchmark for safety in an industry where such data has been scarce.

The report covered both the safety of riders and of Uber drivers. Drivers, passengers and third parties were all murdered. In cases of rape, Uber said that 92 percent of the reported victims were riders. But drivers reported other types of sexual assaults at roughly the same rate as riders, Uber said.

The company was not specific in its report about who the perpetrators of the incidents were.

In its sexual assault findings, Uber said it cataloged 2,936 incidents in 2017 and 3,045 in 2018, ranging from unwanted kissing of what it called a “nonsexual body part” to attempted rape and rape. The largest category was of nonconsensual touching of a “sexual body part” like someone’s mouth or genitals.

The number of fatal crashes related to Uber trips was 49 in 2017 and 58 in 2018. The statistics included collisions that occurred outside Uber vehicles, such as when a passenger was struck after exiting a ride, and crashes in which Uber drivers were not at fault.

Uber disclosed 10 murders in 2017 and nine in 2018. Over that period, seven drivers were killed, eight were passengers, and four were third parties, like bystanders outside the Uber vehicles, the company said.

Throughout its report, Uber emphasized that 99.9 percent of its trips were safe and that it was taking an unusual step by releasing the data in the first place. Sexual violence experts agreed that publishing the numbers was an important step in combating abuse across the industry.

“That a company is willing to peel back the drapes and let us look into what is happening is, to me, the success,” said Cindy Southworth, the executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence and a member of Uber’s safety advisory board, which looks at safety issues.

Uber began studying the issue of sexual assault in late 2017 under its then-new chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi. He recruited Mr. West, a former Justice Department official, to the company and asked him to review cases of sexual harassment and assault among Uber rides that year.

Over the next 21 months, Uber trained its staff to filter reports from riders and drivers globally into 21 categories, such as nonconsensual sexual penetration, leering and unwelcome comments about a person’s appearance. The company also worked with safety organizations such as the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

Uber ultimately narrowed the scope of its report to five categories and concentrated on the United States.

Mr. West said Uber had more work to do. The company has tripled the size of its safety team since 2017, to 300 employees, and plans to continue expanding it. Next year, it plans to launch a support hotline in partnership with the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, a nonprofit that works against sexual violence.

Mr. West said Uber would also share information with other ride-hailing companies about drivers it thinks have committed an assault, though he did not present a timeline for doing so.

“There is no law, regulation or lawsuit that is forcing Uber to make this data available,” he said. “We are doing this, frankly, because the public has a right to know”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

United C.E.O. Munoz to Step Down, 5 Years After Leading Turnaround

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_129890711_aa573898-3b81-4f64-b437-df733b6041d1-articleLarge United C.E.O. Munoz to Step Down, 5 Years After Leading Turnaround United Continental Holdings Inc United Airlines Munoz, Oscar (1959- ) Dao, David A (1948- ) Appointments and Executive Changes Airlines and Airplanes

Oscar Munoz joined United Airlines as chief executive officer in 2015, when its 2010 merger with Continental Airlines was still causing difficulties.Credit…Mike Cohen for The New York Times

Oscar Munoz, who helped to steady United Airlines after a troubled 2010 merger, but not without the occasional public relations crisis, will step down next year as the airline’s chief executive.

In May, J. Scott Kirby, the airline’s president and a veteran of the industry, will succeed Mr. Munoz, who will move on to the position of executive chairman of the airline’s board for a one-year term.

Analysts said they were unsurprised by the leadership change, which had been predicted since Mr. Kirby was hired in 2016, shortly after Mr. Munoz underwent a heart transplant. Mr. Munoz, a first-generation college student from an immigrant family, had also been expected to assume the role of chairman several years ago, but the promotion was scuttled in 2017 after the airline stumbled in responding to public outrage when security officers dragged a passenger off one of its planes in Chicago.

“While the timing of this transition was always a key topic, this has been largely expected by investors ever since Oscar Munoz hired Scott Kirby in 2016,” Andrew Didora, an airline analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, wrote in a research note. Mr. Didora added that he did not anticipate a change to the airline’s strategy.

Mr. Kirby was president of American Airlines after its 2013 merger with US Airways, where he had held the same title. By comparison, Mr. Munoz was a relative newcomer to the industry when he joined United in 2015 from CSX, the freight railroad where he had been president and chief operating officer. He previously was a director on United’s board and before that on the board of Continental Airlines.

When Mr. Munoz took the helm at United, the airline was struggling to overcome problems associated with its 2010 merger with Continental and a federal corruption investigation involving the company’s dealings with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Despite his lack of direct industry experience, Mr. Munoz helped turn United around. The airline’s stock has jumped more than 50 percent during his tenure, outpacing the 16 percent increase over the same period for the S&P 500 Airlines Industry Index.

While Mr. Munoz is credited with developing strategy and improving employee relations, Mr. Kirby has driven improvements in operations, said Savi Syth, an airline analyst with Raymond James.

“I think the two are quite complimentary to each other,” she said.

One of Mr. Munoz’s first accomplishments as chief executive was the completion of negotiations for new union contracts with pilots, flight attendants and mechanics. That, Mr. Didora said in his note, paved the way for better on-time performance and profitability.

Ms. Syth said Mr. Kirby had led a domestic strengthening for the airline, which focused on its international strengths during and after the Great Recession.

“Scott has really come in and with his team changed that dynamic, where they’re increasingly a much more important domestic player,” she said.

Ms. Syth and Mr. Didora both said they expected little to change under Mr. Kirby, who has led United’s push to further segment its cabins, introducing extra fees such as those that allow passengers to sit closer to the front of planes. He is also leading a multiyear effort to strengthen United’s hubs, particularly in Chicago, Denver and Houston. He has described that move as critical to growth.

In recent years, the United States airline industry has shrunk through mergers and acquisitions to four large carriers: American, Delta, United and Southwest. That has increased the importance of hub airports, where typically one airline is dominant.

United, which also has a major presence at Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International Airports, has done well financially in recent years. The company reported third-quarter earnings in October that topped analyst expectations.

As a result of its success, United has been able to close in on competitors like Delta, and Mr. Kirby is likely to continue to work toward that goal. “They made great strides, but I think they still have their sights on narrowing” the gap, Ms. Syth said.

Despite the airline’s turnaround, Mr. Munoz’s tenure was marred by several controversies. In April 2017, a passenger, Dr. David Dao, was dragged off a United flight at O’Hare International Airport when he objected to giving up his seat for an airline employee. Video of the incident quickly spread on social media and became the subject of days of news coverage and public commentary.

The airline was harshly criticized for how it handled the crisis, especially an email Mr. Munoz sent to employees that seemed to blame Dr. Dao. “As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help,” he wrote.

That only inflamed outrage at the company and Mr. Munoz, who later agreed to drop a clause in his contract under which he would become the company chairman while staying on as chief executive. The next year, a dog died on a United flight after it was stored in an overhead compartment.

Shares in the company rose after the company announced Mr. Kirby would take over from Mr. Munoz but were down 0.35 percent by the close of trading.

As part of the transition, Jane Garvey, the current chairwoman, will retire from the airline’s board of directors in May.

Katie Robertson contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Google’s Founders Slowly Stepped Away From Their Company

Westlake Legal Group 04larrysergey8-facebookJumbo How Google’s Founders Slowly Stepped Away From Their Company YouTube.com Thrun, Sebastian Search Engines Pichai, Sundar Page, Larry Google Inc Driverless and Semiautonomous Vehicles Computers and the Internet Brin, Sergey Appointments and Executive Changes Android (Operating System) Alphabet Inc

SAN FRANCISCO — About a month after Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, Larry Page, the Google co-founder, was summoned along with other prominent tech executives to a meeting at Trump Tower.

It was a rare public appearance for Mr. Page. He sported a tan suit and shifted in his seat as he introduced himself and noted (incorrectly) that his company was probably the youngest in the room. “Really glad to be here,” said Mr. Page, who did not look glad to be there.

By the time he was again summoned in 2018 — this time to testify to Congress on tech’s various problems — Mr. Page had all but abandoned the roles typically associated with leading one of the world’s richest and most powerful companies. He didn’t show, and senators placed an empty chair and his placard alongside the other speakers.

On Tuesday, Mr. Page and Sergey Brin, his Google co-founder, said they were stepping down from day-to-day executive roles at Alphabet, Google’s parent company. While the move seemed sudden, it was the culmination of a yearslong separation between two of Silicon Valley’s most prominent founders and the company they began 21 years ago.

For some time, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin have drawn down their daily involvement in the company, ceding managerial tasks to deputies so they could focus on a variety of projects, including self-driving cars, robotics and life-extension technology. They left the often messy business of running Google itself to Sundar Pichai, a trusted deputy who became Google’s chief executive in 2015.

Tuesday was the capstone of that split. The founders named Mr. Pichai as the chief of both Google and Alphabet, while they will remain on Alphabet’s board of directors. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin still hold 51 percent of Alphabet’s voting shares, giving them effective control over the company — and Mr. Pichai, if they wish.

In a letter announcing the change, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin compared their 21 years at Google to raising a child, saying now was the “time to assume the role of proud parents.”

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin helped unleash the modern internet and Silicon Valley as cultural and business phenomena. Over the past two decades, they oversaw a company that was central to one of the most consequential periods in the history of business.

Now, as society and government begin to reckon with the fallout of changes wrought by the internet, the two men are walking away, most likely to pursue other projects, funded by the billions of dollars they made at Google and driven by a belief that technology can solve the planet’s problems.

Google faces legal and regulatory challenges on several continents. It is fighting with its own employees. And it is trying to reverse sinking public opinion of its brand. But Mr. Pichai, not the founders, will be tasked with leading Google through the most difficult period in its history.

“It’s an impossible job now,” said Shane Greenstein, a professor at Harvard Business School who has studied Google and its founders. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin are cerebral, technical thinkers, and the issues facing the company “are not merely technical problems or scientific problems,” he said. The problems “are very much corporate lawyerly types of policy issues, for which historically they have not been enthusiastic.”

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin met as graduate students at Stanford University, and in 1996, they came up with a better way of ranking internet search results. It was, at the time, a school project. After they developed their internet search engine, they tried to sell it, but couldn’t find any takers. So they started a company.

That singular innovation gave rise to a company and product that functions as an effective tax on the internet. Billions of people navigate the web through Google’s search box, and it charges a toll in the form of tracked and targeted advertising.

Google has grown to be dominant in several markets. Its search engine handles nine out of 10 internet searches and the company’s Android software powers roughly three-quarters of the world’s smartphones. And for a generation of young people, YouTube, which Google acquired in 2006, has all but supplanted television.

But to some observers, the more powerful Google became, the less interested its founders appeared to be in running it.

“They’re accidental entrepreneurs,” Mr. Greenstein said. “Given their origins, it’s not surprising. They probably still harbor a desire to be a professor with a lab.”

After Mr. Page and Mr. Brin formally founded Google in September 1998, they turned out to be skilled businessmen. Still, investors worried they were not ready to run what many rightly believed could become one of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.

By 2001, Google’s board pushed the founders to bring on an experienced executive to lead the company. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin picked Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of the software company Novell, as Google’s new C.E.O., in part because the three had bonded at Burning Man, the arts festival in the Nevada desert.

Eric Schmidt was brought in to be Google’s chief executive before its 2004 public offering.Credit…Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

While the founders were initially wary of having a boss, they quickly warmed to Mr. Schmidt. One of the benefits of no longer being C.E.O., colleagues told Mr. Page, was that he would no longer have to perform tasks like talking to advertisers and investors, according to “In the Plex,” a book about Google’s beginnings by Steve Levy.

Instead, the founders sought out new efforts, such as mapping the world, digitizing books, developing artificial intelligence and creating new smartphone software to rival Apple’s iPhone.

In 2005, Mr. Page attended the Darpa Grand Challenge, a race for self-driving cars in the California desert. There he met Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor and leading developer of autonomous vehicles, which were then in their infancy.

“I was flabbergasted that a founder of a search engine company would attend a robot race,” Mr. Thrun said in an interview on Tuesday. “It wasn’t long before Larry pushed me to start the Chauffeur team.”

Chauffeur was Google’s secret self-driving car project, which Mr. Thrun began in 2009 under close coordination with Mr. Page and Mr. Brin. Today, a number of big tech companies are experimenting in transportation, but when news of the project broke in 2010, it was unprecedented for an internet company to be building a car.

“I didn’t think of Google as a transportation company,” Mr. Thrun said. “But Larry thought of Google as a company that pushed innovation in any area.”

Mr. Thrun led Chauffeur under Google X, the so-called moonshot lab where engineers were encouraged to build science-fiction projects they thought might never work. Many of their projects did fail, like space elevators, jet packs and teleportation, but others are still in development, like delivery drones, energy-producing kites and internet-beaming balloons.

Like most of the futuristic projects at Google, the lab was the brainchild of the founders. Mr. Brin particularly wanted something to work on because he was getting bored in management, said Michael Jones, the co-founder of Google Earth who spent 11 years at the company.

“He was always frustrated in what to do; you can’t engineer from the top,” Mr. Jones said. “He wanted to go build things.”

Mr. Brin moved his desk to Google X and began experimenting with computer-embedded glasses, delivery drones and barges in San Francisco Bay that could possibly house data centers.

In 2011, Mr. Page retook the C.E.O. job atop Google, getting something of a hero’s welcome. Yet the pattern — wanting to be in charge, but not wanting to deal with the day-to-day job — would quickly repeat itself.

He seemed no more interested in the menial aspects of the job. He was frustrated by having to deal with things like executive infighting and turf wars that are an unavoidable part of corporate life, according to three former executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Even then, well before the recent employee uprisings, he had grown disillusioned with what he saw as entitled behavior from Google engineers, said two other executives who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. He also started to experience health problems, most notably paralysis of his vocal cords. Executives who met with Mr. Page, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he sometimes used an electronic speaker to amplify his strained voice.

“Larry is like a professor who’s a business star. I don’t think he has any appreciation or love or desire to run a company actually,” said Mr. Jones, the former Google executive. “The thing he cares about is pushing toward innovation.”

In 2013, when stock analysts asked Mr. Page about how much money the company was spending on far-off research projects that might never generate revenue, he chided them for short-term thinking and said they should be asking him to spend more. It was the last earnings call for Mr. Page.

“I know you would all love to have me on, but you’re also depending on me to ruthlessly prioritize my time for the benefit of the business,” he told analysts.

Mr. Page did have time for side projects. For years, Mr. Page and Mr. Thrun had been discussing a new kind of vehicle: electric personal aircraft. But rather than try to build one at Google, they pursued a project independently, funded by Mr. Page’s personal wealth.

“We felt flying was too far out for Google and for their shareholders,” Mr. Thrun said.

Mr. Thrun now runs Kitty Hawk, which makes three kinds of electric aircraft. Mr. Page is the primary funder, and he has been visiting a few times a month, Mr. Thrun said. (Mr. Page has had three flying-car start-ups.)

Mr. Page has also invested in an asteroid-mining company. Mr. Brin bankrolled space-travel and synthetic-beef companies. Both helped fund Tesla. And Mr. Brin is building an airship in a hangar near Google’s headquarters.

Some Google employees say the founders have been ceding the spotlight to other executives for years. At a Fortune conference in 2015, in one of Mr. Page’s last public interviews, he was asked about Google’s interest in China, a country the company had mostly exited years earlier.

“I’ve also delegated this question to Sundar,” Mr. Page responded. “I help him think about it. But I don’t have to answer this question now.” He smiled, and the crowd laughed.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Era Ends for Google as Founders Step Aside From a Pillar of Tech

Westlake Legal Group 03google-facebookJumbo Era Ends for Google as Founders Step Aside From a Pillar of Tech Pichai, Sundar Page, Larry Google Inc Brin, Sergey Appointments and Executive Changes Alphabet Inc

SAN FRANCISCO — Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the Stanford graduate students who founded Google over two decades ago, are stepping down from executive roles at Google’s parent company, Alphabet, they announced on Tuesday.

Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, will become the chief of both Google and Alphabet.

The move is an end of an era for Google. Mr. Page and Mr. Brin have personified the company since its founding and have been two of the technology industry’s most influential figures, on a par with the founders of Apple and Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Their early work on the Google search engine helped corral an unruly cloud of information on the World Wide Web. And their ideas about how to run an internet company — like offering generous employee perks like free shuttle buses to the office and making rank-and-file employees feel as though they have a stake in the company — became a standard for Silicon Valley.

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin took a lesser role in day-to-day operations in 2015 when they turned Google into Alphabet, a holding company that includes the self-driving car company Waymo under its umbrella.

Since then, they have spent more time overseeing a variety of so-called other bets, like life-extension technology, while Mr. Pichai ran Google and its enormous search and advertising business. The business has continued to grow and Alphabet is among the most valuable companies in the world, but the internet giant is entering one of the most turbulent periods in its history, with antitrust scrutiny, employee walkouts and growing public skepticism of its power.

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, who are both 46, will remain directors on Alphabet’s board and the company’s two largest individual shareholders. They retain a majority of the company’s voting shares, which will give them effective control over the board and ensure they still have a say over the company’s future.

“Today, in 2019, if the company was a person, it would be a young adult of 21 and it would be time to leave the roost,” the founders wrote in a public letter on Tuesday. “While it has been a tremendous privilege to be deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the company for so long, we believe it’s time to assume the role of proud parents — offering advice and love, but not daily nagging!”

The move confirms the ascendancy of Mr. Pichai, who is 47, as one of tech’s most powerful people. While he has run the core Google business for four years, he has still reported to Mr. Page, Alphabet’s chief executive, and Mr. Brin, its president.

Now he is the sole executive in charge of a company that has giant businesses in search, advertising, maps, smartphone software and online video, as well as a variety of fledgling bets in far-off areas like drone deliveries and internet-beaming balloons.

In recent years, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin seemed to have lost interest in running the company they founded. The reorganization into a holding company was in part intended to address that. While Mr. Pichai took the reins of the often messy business of Google, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin would focus on what were effectively science projects.

Mr. Brin moved his desk for a time to X, the so-called moonshot lab where engineers worked on projects that were likely to fail — but had big potential if they didn’t. Mr. Page was rarely a presence on Google’s campus and was working on long-shot technology problems and personal side projects like his flying-car start-up, Kitty Hawk.

They have largely disappeared from public view, at least as company representatives. Despite being the chief of one of the world’s most valuable public companies, Mr. Page did not speak on Alphabet’s quarterly earnings calls, appear for congressional testimony like other tech executives over the last year, or sit for interviews with journalists.

One of Mr. Brin’s few on-the-record comments to journalists in recent years came at San Francisco International Airport when he was protesting President Trump’s immigration policy. He told reporters he was there as a private citizen.

While Mr. Page and Mr. Brin had been a regular presence at weekly all-staff meetings in Google’s early years, they had all but stopped appearing over the last year.

One of Mr. Page’s last appearances at the company meeting was last year when he apologized to employees for his handling of the departure of Andy Rubin, a former senior executive who received a $90 million payout after the company deemed sexual harassment claims against him credible. In June, Mr. Page surprised investors and employees when he did not attend Alphabet’s shareholder meeting.

In recent years, the freewheeling work culture promoted by Mr. Page and Mr. Brin has run into trouble. Employees have staged public protests over the company’s handling of sexual harassment claims against executives, its treatment of contract workers and its work with the Defense Department, federal border agencies and the Chinese government.

The soft-spoken Mr. Pichai has been reluctant to confront the protests head-on, but he has quietly cracked down on employee unrest. Google has halted the weekly company meetings and placed restrictions on what employees can discuss on message boards.

Though working at Google is becoming more like working at other giant companies, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin’s interests and styles — like focusing on passion projects and math jokes — have become part of Silicon Valley iconography.

While other tech titans like Mr. Jobs and Mr. Gates were known for their sometimes brash and mercurial leadership styles, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin were low-key and cerebral. But not always. Mr. Brin sky-dived for a company event that introduced one of the company’s most disappointing products, the Google Glass wearable device. He was often was spotted riding an elliptical bike to work.

That idiosyncratic style, that “Googliness,” became something company managers were told to look for in applicants.

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin are among the few tech company founders who have walked away from day-to-day roles at the company they created and that made them billionaires. Mr. Gates did something similar when he handed the chief executive role at Microsoft to Steve Ballmer in 2000, during his company’s long antitrust fight with the Justice Department.

While Google is now gearing up for its own antitrust fight, with investigations into its power in Congress, the Justice Department and nearly every state, there are notable differences with Microsoft.

When Mr. Ballmer took over as chief executive there in 2000, the company had just been found to have repeatedly violated the nation’s antitrust laws in a landmark case brought by the Justice Department. Mr. Pichai is still unsure what he faces from regulators and lawmakers. The scrutiny includes Google’s dominant market share in internet search and how it competes with smaller rivals in the digital-ad business.

“For Google, it is still to be determined just what it is facing on the antitrust front,” said David Readerman, a longtime technology analyst and portfolio manager at Endurance Capital Partners. “But that is a clear and present risk.”

In their letter on Tuesday, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin said they would remain committed to the company “for the long term, and will remain actively involved as board members, shareholders and co-founders. In addition, we plan to continue talking with Sundar regularly, especially on topics we’re passionate about!”

Whatever they decide to do, they will have no trouble funding it. Mr. Page is worth about $58.9 billion and Mr. Brin is worth about $56.8 billion, the sixth- and seventh-richest people in the world, according to Forbes.

Steve Lohr contributed reporting from New York.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Google’s Founders Step Aside as Sundar Pichai Takes Over Alphabet

Westlake Legal Group 03google-facebookJumbo Google’s Founders Step Aside as Sundar Pichai Takes Over Alphabet Pichai, Sundar Page, Larry Google Inc Brin, Sergey Appointments and Executive Changes Alphabet Inc

SAN FRANCISCO — Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the two Stanford University graduate students who founded Google more than two decades ago, said they were stepping down from executive roles at Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, will become the chief of both Google and Alphabet.

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin will remain directors on Alphabet’s board and the company’s two largest individual shareholders. Indeed, the men hold a majority of the company’s voting shares.

The move nevertheless signals an end of an era for Google. The two men have personified the company for more than 20 years, though they took a lesser role in day-to-day operations in 2015 when they turned Google into Alphabet, a holding company that also includes the self-driving car company Waymo among its pieces.

Since then, they have spent more time overseeing a variety of so-called other bets, like life-extension technology, while Mr. Pichai ran Google and its enormous search and advertising business.

“Today, in 2019, if the company was a person, it would be a young adult of 21 and it would be time to leave the roost,” the founders wrote in a public letter on Tuesday. “While it has been a tremendous privilege to be deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the company for so long, we believe it’s time to assume the role of proud parents — offering advice and love, but not daily nagging!”

The move also confirms the ascendancy of Mr. Pichai as one of tech’s most powerful people. While he has run the core Google business for four years, he still reported to Mr. Page, Alphabet’s chief executive, and Mr. Brin, its president.

Now he is the sole executive in charge of a company that has giant businesses in search, advertising, maps, smartphone software and online video, as well as a variety of fledgling bets in far-off areas like drone deliveries and internet-beaming balloons.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020

Westlake Legal Group 00DC-Hulse1-facebookJumbo Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020 United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Senate Committee on the Judiciary Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Obama, Barack McConnell, Mitch Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Garland, Merrick B Democratic Party Appointments and Executive Changes

WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.

But would it?

That was the case in 2016 when Senate Republicans stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to fill an opening that occurred with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure. “Let the people decide,” was the Republican mantra at the time, as they argued that it was improper to consider Mr. Obama’s nominee when voters were only months away from electing a new president who should get the opportunity to make his or her own choice on a Supreme Court justice.

But with the tables turned and Republicans holding the White House, that almost certainly would not be their refrain in 2020 if a court seat were to open up through death or retirement.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, majority leader and unapologetic mastermind of the 2016 Garland blockade, has made clear that he would move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump. The only potential barrier would be resistance from his own party on the grounds it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.

Widespread defections on that basis seem highly unlikely.

And Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine who broke with her party and backed holding a confirmation hearing and vote on Judge Garland in 2016, said she would take the same position in 2020: Should a vacancy arise, the sitting president should get the chance to choose a nominee, and the Senate should move forward to confirm.

“My standard on the nomination of Supreme Court nominees remains the same,” she said. “As long as the president is in office, he has the constitutional right to nominate. I thought that Merrick Garland should have had a hearing and a vote. Now obviously, senators could have voted against him based on the timing. But to block the nomination from proceeding at all, I thought was wrong.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, oversaw the Judiciary Committee but refused to convene a hearing for Judge Garland and met with him only grudgingly. As a result, he said last year that he would not consider a nominee in 2020 if he were still chairman of the panel. But he has since left the top spot on the panel to take over the Finance Committee, sparing him the prospect of either going back on his word or infuriating Mr. Trump and his colleagues. Allies say they doubt he would take a stand against a nominee since he is no longer chairman.

Republicans say the difference between 2016 and 2020 is one of political alignment. Democrats held the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016; Republicans now control both. To Mr. McConnell and his colleagues, that shift justifies their new position. But in 2016, Republicans focused most of their argument against taking up Mr. Obama’s nominee not on party control, but on the basis of the approaching presidential election, and they would face thunderous charges of hypocrisy if they took up a nomination next year.

Democrats remain angry over the treatment of both Mr. Obama and Judge Garland and expect Republicans to move aggressively if the chance arose for Mr. Trump to place a third nominee on the court. Should any nominee replace one of the four justices picked by Democratic presidents, it would cement a commanding 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and the lure of that lineup would probably prove irresistible to Republicans.

“Do you have any Republican senator saying that in 2020 we won’t ram through a Supreme Court nominee?” asked Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Of course they will.”

Mr. Coons, an active player on judicial nominations, called the stonewalling of Judge Garland — a man some Republicans had earlier said they would consider a strong choice by a Democratic president — “among the worst things the Republicans have done in my decade in the Senate.” His colleagues agree. The dispute, which colored both the confirmation fights over Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, has badly frayed relationships both on the committee and in the Senate.

Should Republicans remain united, however, there is little Democrats could do to impede a nomination, because a series of rules changes has neutered the filibuster when it comes to judicial picks, meaning the majority party can push through the president’s choice without a single vote from the minority.

Though Democrats would lack procedural weapons, they and their allies say they would still mount a challenge using whatever tools available, and their attention would focus intently on the nominee. While it is hard to imagine proceedings more toxic than the Kavanaugh hearings, a move to install an election-year nominee with the specter of impeachment swirling in the capital would certainly be considered inflammatory by Democrats and those on the left.

“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

Mr. Coons said his preference would be that the conflict be avoided altogether and no vacancy arose. If one did, the fight would no doubt spill over into the presidential and congressional elections. It could also give momentum to calls by some Democratic presidential contenders and advocacy groups to reconfigure the court to offset what they see as an illegitimate conservative imbalance — building support for ideas that have not yet been embraced by the party mainstream.

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.

One wild card is the timing of any vacancy. Judge Garland was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in mid-February, a time frame that would ordinarily be well beyond the period needed to pick a nominee for Senate review and a confirmation vote if it had not been for the Republican refusal to take up the nomination. A vacancy that occurred later in 2020, much closer to the election, could present Republicans with a tougher argument to make, though there would no doubt be intense pressure for them to move forward no matter what the calendar said.

But with no vacancy imminent — and Democrats holding their breath that none will occur — just one thing is certain about a potential 2020 Supreme Court fight: It would be brutal for all involved.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020?

Westlake Legal Group 00DC-Hulse1-facebookJumbo Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020? United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Senate Committee on the Judiciary Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Obama, Barack McConnell, Mitch Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Garland, Merrick B Democratic Party Appointments and Executive Changes

WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.

But would it?

That was the case in 2016 when Senate Republicans stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to fill an opening that occurred with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure. “Let the people decide,” was the Republican mantra at the time, as they argued that it was improper to consider Mr. Obama’s nominee when voters were only months away from electing a new president who should get the opportunity to make his or her own choice on a Supreme Court justice.

But with the tables turned and Republicans holding the White House, that almost certainly would not be their refrain in 2020 if a court seat were to open up through death or retirement.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, majority leader and unapologetic mastermind of the 2016 Garland blockade, has made clear that he would move ahead with a high court nominee from President Trump. The only potential barrier would be resistance from his own party on the grounds it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.

Widespread defections on that basis seem highly unlikely.

And Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine who broke with her party and backed holding a confirmation hearing and vote on Judge Garland in 2016, said she would take the same position in 2020: Should a vacancy arise, the sitting president should get the chance to choose a nominee, and the Senate should move forward to confirm.

“My standard on the nomination of Supreme Court nominees remains the same,” she said. “As long as the president is in office, he has the constitutional right to nominate. I thought that Merrick Garland should have had a hearing and a vote. Now obviously, senators could have voted against him based on the timing. But to block the nomination from proceeding at all, I thought was wrong.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, chaired the Judiciary Committee but refused to convene a hearing for Judge Garland and met with him only grudgingly. As a result, he said last year that he would not consider a nominee in 2020 if he were still chairman of the panel. But he has since left the top spot on the panel to take over the Finance Committee, sparing him the prospect of either going back on his word or infuriating Mr. Trump and his colleagues. Allies say they doubt he would take a stand against a nominee since he is no longer chairman.

Republicans say the difference between 2016 and 2020 is one of political alignment. Democrats held the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016; Republicans now control both. To Mr. McConnell and his colleagues, that shift justifies their new position. But in 2016, Republicans focused most of their argument against taking up Mr. Obama’s nominee not on party control, but on the basis of the approaching presidential election, and they would face thunderous charges of hypocrisy if they took up a nomination next year.

Democrats remain angry over the treatment of both Mr. Obama and Judge Garland and expect Republicans to move aggressively if the chance arose for Mr. Trump to place a third nominee on the court. Should any nominee replace one of the four justices picked by Democratic presidents, it would cement a commanding 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, and the lure of that lineup would probably prove irresistible to Republicans.

“Do you have any Republican senator saying that in 2020 we won’t ram through a Supreme Court nominee?” asked Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Of course they will.”

Mr. Coons, an active player on judicial nominations, called the stonewalling of Judge Garland — a man some Republicans had earlier said they would consider a strong choice by a Democratic president — “among the worst things the Republicans have done in my decade in the Senate.” His colleagues agree. The dispute, which colored both the confirmation fights over Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, has badly frayed relationships both on the committee and in the Senate.

Should Republicans remain united, however, there is little Democrats could do to impede a nomination, because a series of rules changes has neutered the filibuster when it comes to judicial picks, meaning the majority party can push through the president’s choice without a single vote from the minority.

Though Democrats would lack procedural weapons, they and their allies say they would still mount a challenge using whatever tools available, and their attention would focus intently on the nominee. While it is hard to imagine proceedings more toxic than the Kavanaugh hearings, a move to install an election-year nominee with the specter of impeachment swirling in the capital would certainly be considered inflammatory by Democrats and those on the left.

“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

Mr. Coons said his preference would be that the conflict be avoided altogether and no vacancy arose. If one did, the fight would no doubt spill over into the presidential and congressional elections. It could also give momentum to calls by some Democratic presidential contenders and advocacy groups to reconfigure the court to offset what they see as an illegitimate conservative imbalance — building support for ideas that have not yet been embraced by the party mainstream.

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.

One wild card is the timing of any vacancy. Judge Garland was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in mid-February, a time frame that would ordinarily be well beyond the period needed to pick a nominee for Senate review and a confirmation vote if it had not been for the Republican refusal to take up the nomination. A vacancy that occurred later in 2020, much closer to the election, could present Republicans with a tougher argument to make, though there would no doubt be intense pressure for them to move forward no matter what the calendar said.

But with no vacancy imminent — and Democrats holding their breath that none will occur — just one thing is certain about a potential 2020 Supreme Court fight: It would be brutal for all involved.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

T-Mobile’s Longtime C.E.O., John Legere, to Step Down

Westlake Legal Group 18tmobile-1-facebookJumbo T-Mobile’s Longtime C.E.O., John Legere, to Step Down Wireless Communications T-Mobile US Inc. Legere, John J Appointments and Executive Changes

John Legere, the colorful and longtime chief executive of T-Mobile, will step down at the end of April after his contract expires.

He will be succeeded by Mike Sievert, the president and chief operating officer of the wireless company, the company said Monday.

Mr. Legere, who has been credited with reviving T-Mobile since becoming its chief executive in 2012, is stepping down as part of what the company called “a comprehensive, multiyear, leadership succession planning process.”

He will focus on closing T-Mobile’s pending acquisition of Sprint while transitioning leadership to Mr. Sievert and will remain a member of the T-Mobile board, the company said on Monday.

T-Mobile didn’t say what Mr. Legere’s plans are. He was reportedly one of several candidates who had been considered to run WeWork, the beleaguered office rental company, but Mr. Legere said he’d never had talks with the company.

“I was never having discussions to run WeWork, and because we had this announcement pending, I couldn’t say it but it did create a weird awkward period of time,” he said on a call on Monday.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Boeing Ousts Top Executive as 737 Max Crisis Swells

Boeing ousted one of its top executives on Tuesday, the most significant management change the airplane maker has made as it struggles to contain the crisis following the crashes of two 737 Max jets that killed 346 people.

The executive, Kevin McAllister, was the head of Boeing’s commercial airplanes division. He had been at the center of the company’s response to the crashes and its troubled efforts to return the Max to service after regulators grounded it. This month, The New York Times reported that he was under scrutiny inside the company for his poor handling of relationships with airlines, and his management of the commercial division, which is Boeing’s largest business.

The ouster was Boeing’s most direct effort to hold someone in senior leadership accountable for the bungled handling of the Max crisis, which continues to spiral out of control. The company’s board stopped short of removing Boeing’s chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg, though it stripped him of his title of chairman just over a week ago.

The decision to remove Mr. McAllister was made while the Boeing board met in San Antonio on Monday. With directors and senior executives gathered for tense meetings at the plant where the company builds Air Force One, Boeing’s stock took a beating. Two analysts issued downgrades and shares plummeted to their lowest level in more than three months.

The management change adds an element of volatility to the biggest crisis in the company’s 103-year-history. The Max jets have been grounded since March, costing Boeing at least $8 billion and roiling the global aviation industry.

The company is also facing intense pressure from lawmakers in Washington. On Friday, messages became public that suggested a pilot involved in the development of the Max had voiced concerns about the automated system in 2016, months before the Federal Aviation Administration certified the plane. That system, known as MCAS, was found to have played a role in the accidents.

Those messages are expected to be of central importance when Mr. Muilenburg testifies before Congress next week. Lawmakers have spent the last several days hammering the company and its board for failing to hold anyone accountable for mistakes that may have contributed to the two crashes.

“If nothing else, it gives Dennis Muilenburg something to point to when he is on the Hill,” Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Teal Group, a consulting firm, said of Mr. McAllister’s departure. “People are calling for action. Rightly or wrongly, he can point to this as a form of action.”

Inside Boeing, Mr. McAllister faced criticism for alienating important customers and for the cascading series of delays that has kept the Max grounded for more than seven months.

The commercial division is dealing with a raft of issues beyond the Max. They include claims of shoddy production at Boeing’s plant in Charleston, S.C.; cracking on the 737 NG, the Max’s predecessor; and the discovery of foreign objects inside the KC-46 tanker, a military aircraft that the group builds.

Westlake Legal Group merlin_152397885_5588305c-8e58-47f0-9b4a-3ac83d14e790-articleLarge Boeing Ousts Top Executive as 737 Max Crisis Swells McAllister, Kevin G Lion Air Justice Department Federal Aviation Administration Ethiopian Airlines Boeing Company Boeing 737 Max Groundings and Safety Concerns (2019) Aviation Accidents, Safety and Disasters Appointments and Executive Changes Airlines and Airplanes

Boeing 737 Max: What’s Happened After the 2 Deadly Crashes

Boeing remains under intense scrutiny nearly one year after the first Max jet was involved in a fatal accident.

“There were several challenging issues in the pipeline beyond the 737 Max problems,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. “He had too much under his watch that was off target to maintain credibility.”

Stanley A. Deal, who had been acting as the head of global services for Boeing, will replace Mr. McAllister immediately. Mr. Deal, who has spent more than three decades at the company, has held several senior roles throughout the company, including at in the commercial airplanes division.

“We’re grateful to Kevin for his dedicated and tireless service to Boeing, its customers and its communities during a challenging time, and for his commitment to support this transition,” Mr. Muilenburg said in a statement.

Until recently, the Boeing board had resisted shaking up senior management of the company while the Max remains out of service. Several directors also were said to be sympathetic to Mr. McAllister’s argument that he had inherited many of the problems his division was dealing with, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. McAllister took over the commercial division in November 2016, after much of the development on the Max was completed, but before it was certified by the F.A.A.

Boeing is facing multiple investigations and lawsuits related to the crashes, including a criminal investigation being led by the Department of Justice.

Next week is the one-year anniversary of the first crash, of Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia. Boeing reports quarterly earnings on Wednesday, which are expected to show further slumps in sales and profits.

Since the Max’s grounding shortly after the second crash, airlines have canceled thousands of flights and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

The Max’s return to service has been delayed multiple times as Boeing and global regulators have uncovered new problems with the plane. Airlines do not expect the plane to fly again until next year.

Boeing has said that if the delays persist much longer, it may be forced to halt production of the Max. Such a move would represent a drastic setback for the division that Mr. McAllister oversaw, severely disrupting Boeing’s enormous manufacturing work force and its vast network of suppliers.

“The Boeing board fully supports these leadership moves,” Boeing’s chairman, David Calhoun, said in a statement. “Boeing will emerge stronger than ever from its current challenges and the changes we’re making throughout Boeing will benefit the flying public well into the future.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com