Wikipedia:

"In 2022, Calhoun (Boeing CEO) received $22.5 million from Boeing. Most of his 2022 compensation was in the form of estimated value of stock and option awards. He received the same $1.4 million salary as in 2021. Boeing announced in March 2023 that Calhoun would not receive a $7 million performance-based bonus, which had been tied to getting the new widebody 777X into service by the end of 2023. In February 2023, Boeing awarded Calhoun an incentive of about $5.29 million in restricted stock units to 'induce him to stay throughout the company's recovery.' In March 2023, Boeing announced Calhoun was being given shares worth $15 million that will vest in installments over three years."

Was Calhoun really the problem? This company is one of those massive, glacial companies that have enormous inertia. Whatever changes in process led to all these disasters, it was something that started long before Calhoun's reign, I personally blame Jim McNerney.

One of the reasons we generally excuse extremely high levels of executive compensation is that when things go well, the executives take full credit for it. Does it not seem reasonable that they should also take full credit, in ways beyond words, when things do not go well? I'm very much opposed to the increasing trend of socializing costs and privatizing profits which I feel this is a sort of a spin on. 'Privatize success, socialize failure.'

Fair enough. But I think that former executives should also be looked at, too. Otherwise, the incentive becomes to trash the company for short term profits and GTFO before shit hits the fan.

So you're saying a CEO doesn't really change anything about a corporation, so what is he being paid for?

Do you seriously think what I'm saying is "a CEO doesn't change anything about a corporation" !?

Maybe there should be some similar effect for corporations. Maybe ban then from giving out dividends of performing stock buy backs until sentence is served. Here I think something reasonably light like 10 to 50 year per victim non concurrent would do the trick.

Don't be ridiculous. Yeah, we truly need consequences for corporations (and arguably their leaders) that isn't just cost of doing business, but the upper end of your suggested sentence is a span longer than written history.

Wanting a harsh sentence is fine, but lets limit it something we can likely see done before the end of our civilization in its current form.

Too big to jail.

That's the purpose of creating a corporation.

Shareholders have limited liability. Management does not.

Management evolved language of avoiding responsibility. For example, instead of saying "use cheaper parts" they'll say "we need to focus on better use of our financial resources for increasing shareholder value". No court can pin them down for telling designers to use cheap parts, but the designers get the message. And if the designers don't get it, lower management will tell them in plain language. That shift the blame onto lower ranks while the top management is laughing all the way to the bank and move on to another high-paying job.

To commit criminal fraud with impunity?

Kind of, yes. The legal purpose of a corporate structure is that the corporation is a liability shield for the people in it.

It's to provide limited financial liability for the shareholders; the actual employees don't get any. And it has nothing to do with criminal liability.