Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 Passengers Potentially Deemed Crime Victims


Passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, which suffered a midair blowout earlier this year, may be considered crime victims, according to a new report from the Seattle Times.

The news publication obtained a letter from a passenger aboard the notorious flight, sent by a victim specialist at the FBI, identifying them as “a possible victim of a crime.” The letter went on to say that the matter is currently being investigated by the FBI and more information could not be shared at this time.

In response to the door plug incident, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into Boeing. The agency reportedly issued subpoenas and convened a grand jury in Seattle for further investigation.

The Seattle Times reported that the Justice Department’s criminal probe may center on whether Boeing breached the conditions of a 2021 settlement with federal prosecutors after two MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019, which killed more than 300 people. Under that agreement, Boeing would avoid federal prosecution if it fulfilled specific conditions for a three-year period—including reporting any instances of fraud involving its employees or agents and enhancing its compliance program. The Alaska Airlines door plug incident occurred two days before the agreement was set to expire.

According to reports, the FBI expects there to be a large number of potential victims involved in this case, prompting the agency to establish an email address, “AlaskaFlightVictims,” for individuals to reach out.

Amelia Walsh
Amelia Walsh is a private pilot who enjoys flying her family’s Columbia 350. She is based in Colorado and loves all things outdoors including skiing, hiking, and camping.


  1. Who committed the crime?

    Boeing for leaving the bolts out?

    Alaska Air Lines for flying an unairworthy airplane after two if not three write ups regarding a cabin pressurization problem?

    • After binging on “Perry Mason” and the “Lincoln Lawyer” series here’s my take; If Boeing knowingly failed to comply with the settlement’s conditions or concealed safety issues, it might bear responsibility. Conversely, if Alaska Airlines was aware of the airplane’s unairworthiness and failed to take appropriate corrective actions, it could also face legal repercussions.

      • My legal qualifications are as extensive as yours…. I believe things will turn on the phrase “knew or should have known.”

        They (Boeing and/or Alaska Air) may not have intentionally committed a crime. It may also be the result of neglect – not performing obvious work, or creating conditions where such work was overlooked.

    • Politicians, DOJ, Boeing, Alaska Airlines, Home Depot, and your local hardware stores are all examples of organizations: all of which could be totally honest, or more likely, less than perfect…to varying degrees. Some of it rules are broken intentionally, some accidentally. All politicians are not crooks, nor is it accurate to simply categorize an entire operation as unworthy of trust. It’s all too easy to fall prey to overgeneralizing which then leads to poor outcomes.

      • While the rank and file may not all be bad, I have seen a lot of evidence to support the organizations are. We do see; untrustworthy politicians (e.g. $34T in debt), the DOJ labeling parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, arresting journalists and putting them in shackles for doing their job, etc., etc., etc..

  2. If the government owned the Boeing airliner division these legal matters wouldn’t happen. We would have Airline Transportation Utopia. 🦄 🌈

  3. Careful–don’t give ideas to the “regulators”, “Congresscritters”, or the news media.

    NEEDED–a big SARCASM stamp available for posting–some people may take comments seriously!

    If anybody believes that the government can do a better job than our airlines, let them enjoy the RUSSIAN experience with government-produced aircraft, flight crews, maintenance, and airline management at AEROFLOT.

    • Have a friend who flew to Moscow on Aeroflot years ago when he was a contractor with ESA. He described the aircraft as “interesting” and only flew on this airline because that was the mode of travel used then to work with the Russians on what he calls “space biz.”

  4. On government intervention and rigorous oversight. While Boeing and Airbus are competitors in the aerospace industry, when it comes to operations within the United States, they are both subject to the same rigorous oversight and regulatory standards aimed at ensuring aircraft safety. This level playing field is crucial for maintaining high safety standards across the industry and ensuring the wellbeing of passengers and crew aboard any aircraft, regardless of its manufacturer. Airbus, for its part, seems to have been flying under the radar, quietly, making sure not to stir the Boeing regulatory pot. Are they avoiding drawing attention, while waiting for Boeing to stumble?

    • At this point, it is more like waiting for Boeing to do a face plant. Stumbling is pretty much their current business model.

      • I dimly recall (and I have not bothered to check; this is the internet, after all) a distant Airbus comment that it preferred a 50:50 duopoly, with each side making just enough money to make life worth living. This was because if the (always unnamed) competitor lost a significant share of the market, for whatever reason, then it would slash its prices such that Airbus could not compete. Furthermore, the price-slashing would be unsustainable, leading to further chaos with the competitor and thus the industry.