Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies	Legal Proceedings On June 25, 2012, Boeing Satellite Systems International, Inc. (BSSI) and Boeing entered into a settlement agreement with ICO Global Communications (Operations), Ltd. and others (ICO) with respect to litigation initiated in 2004 in connection with satellite and launch contracts. On April 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal directed that judgment be entered for BSSI and Boeing on all claims. In connection with the settlement agreement, ICO withdrew its petition with the California Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision. Various legal proceedings, claims and investigations related to products, contracts and other matters are pending against us. Potentially material contingencies are discussed below. We are subject to various U.S. government investigations, from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings could result or have resulted. Such proceedings involve or could involve claims by the government for fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. Under government regulations, a company, or one or more of its operating divisions or subdivisions, can also be suspended or debarred from government contracts, or lose its export privileges, based on the results of investigations. We believe, based upon current information, that the outcome of any such government disputes and investigations will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, except as set forth below. Where it is reasonably possible that we will incur losses in excess of recorded amounts in connection with any of the matters set forth below, we have disclosed either the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of such amounts or, where no such amount or range can be reasonably estimated, the reasons why no such estimate can be made. A-12 Litigation In 1991, the Department of the Navy (the Navy) notified McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now merged into The Boeing Company) and General Dynamics Corporation (together, the Team) that it was terminating for default the Team’s contract for development and initial production of the A-12 aircraft. The Team had full responsibility for performance of the contract and both contractors are jointly and severally liable for any potential liabilities resulting from the termination. The Team filed a legal action to contest the Navy’s default termination, to assert its rights to convert the termination to one for “the convenience of the government,” and to obtain payment for work done and costs incurred on the A-12 contract but not paid to date. As of June 30, 2012, inventories included approximately $587 of recorded costs on the A-12 contract, against which we have established a loss provision of $350. The amount of the provision, which was established in 1990, was based on McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s belief, supported by an opinion of outside counsel, that the termination for default would be converted to a termination for convenience, and that the best estimate of possible loss on termination for convenience was $350. On August 31, 2001, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a decision after trial upholding the government’s default termination of the A-12 contract. In 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, finding that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard, vacated the trial court’s 2001 decision and ordered the case sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. On May 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a decision upholding the government’s default termination of the A-12 contract. We filed a Notice of Appeal on May 4, 2007 with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion affirming the trial court’s 2007 decision sustaining the government’s default termination. On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the default termination, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. On July 7, 2011, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for additional factual determinations. On July 3, 2012, the trial court set a briefing schedule, which, absent extensions, we expect to be completed in March 2013. On December 29, 2009, the Navy sent letters to the Team requesting payment of $1,352 in unliquidated progress payments, plus applicable interest. On November 15, 2011, the Navy sent a letter confirming that it would not pursue payment from the Team pending all trial court and appellate proceedings adjudicating the issues remanded by the Supreme Court. We believe that the termination for default is contrary to law and fact and that the loss provision established by McDonnell Douglas Corporation in 1990, which was supported by an opinion from outside counsel, continues to provide adequately for the reasonably possible reduction in value of A-12 net contracts in process as of June 30, 2012. Final resolution of the A-12 litigation will depend on the outcome of further proceedings or possible negotiations with the U.S. government. If after all legal proceedings are concluded, the court determines, contrary to our belief, that a termination for default was appropriate, we could incur an additional loss of up to $275, consisting principally of $237 of remaining inventory costs. If the courts further hold that a money judgment should be entered against the Team, we could be required to pay the U.S. government up to one-half of the unliquidated progress payments of $1,350 plus statutory interest from February 1991 (currently totaling up to $1,575). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,735 in pre-tax charges. Should, however, the March 31, 1998 judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in favor of the Team be reinstated, we could be entitled to receive payment of approximately $1,182, including interest from June 26, 1991. Employment, Labor and Benefits Litigation We have been named as a defendant in two pending class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of our former Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit). The first action involves allegations that Spirit’s hiring decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated ERISA, violated our collective bargaining agreements, and constituted retaliation. The case was brought in 2006 as a class action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit. During the second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims. Following certain procedural motions, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2011, and are seeking to stay all remaining individual claims in the district court pending resolution of the appeal. Plaintiffs’ appellate brief was filed on November 14, 2011. Boeing’s appellate brief was filed on January 20, 2012. Oral argument was held on May 10, 2012. The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former employees of the Wichita facility. Written discovery closed by joint stipulation of the parties on June 6, 2011. Depositions concluded on August 18, 2011. Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was filed on December 9, 2011. Boeing’s opposition and dispositive motions were filed on February 10, 2012. All briefing was completed on June 4, 2012. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005. While Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation in the second action, we believe that Spirit is obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second action. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation. On October 13, 2006, we were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its participants, and were undisclosed to participants. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of §502(a)(2) of ERISA, and sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to §502(a)(3) of ERISA. During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in the district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing in 2008 to the case’s class certification order. On January 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification order and decertified the class. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and a supplemental motion on August 7, 2011. Boeing’s opposition to class certification was filed on September 6, 2011. Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of class certification was filed on September 27, 2011. This issue is fully briefed and awaits district court determination. Boeing’s motions for summary judgment based on ERISA’s statute of repose and for summary judgment on the merits were both filed on December 21, 2011. Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the merits and statute of limitations motions were filed on February 6, 2012. Boeing reply briefs were filed on March 7, 2012. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation. BSSI/Telesat Canada On November 9, 2006, Telesat Canada (Telesat) and a group of its insurers served BSSI with an arbitration demand alleging breach of contract, gross negligence and willful misconduct in connection with the constructive total loss of Anik F1, a model 702 satellite manufactured by BSSI. Telesat and its insurers initially sought over $385 in damages and $10 in lost profits, but revised their total demand to $263 in the Statement of Claim. On April 11, 2012, in the Statement of Reply, Telesat again revised their total demand to $71. BSSI has asserted a counterclaim against Telesat for $13 in unpaid performance incentive payments plus late charges. BSSI also asserted a $180 contingent counterclaim on the theory that any ultimate award to reimburse the insurers for their payments to Telesat could only result from Telesat’s breach of its contractual obligation to obtain a full waiver of subrogation rights barring recourse against BSSI. We believe that the claims asserted by Telesat and its insurers lack merit, but we have notified our insurance carriers of the demand. The arbitration was stayed pending an application by Telesat to the Ontario Superior Court on a preliminary issue. On July 16, 2010, the court denied Telesat’s request to exclude certain evidence, but granted its alternative request to remove the Chairperson from the arbitration panel. A new Chairperson was appointed on August 19, 2010, and the stay has been lifted. The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled for November 12, 2012. On April 26, 2007, a group of our insurers filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting certain defenses to coverage and requesting a declaration of their obligation under our insurance and reinsurance policies relating to the Telesat Anik F1 arbitration. On June 12, 2008, the court granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that our insurance policy excluded the kinds of losses alleged by Telesat. On January 16, 2009, the court granted Boeing’s motion for reconsideration, ruling in favor of Boeing to require the insurers to provide insurance coverage to defend the claim. The case has been stayed pending completion of the underlying arbitration. Civil Securities Litigation On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two of our senior executives in federal district court in Chicago. This lawsuit arose from our June 2009 announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft. Plaintiffs contended that we were aware before June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that our determination not to announce this delay earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of our stock price for a multi-week period in May and June 2009. On March 7, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On March 19, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider that order. On April 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and on April 25, 2012, Boeing filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal based on the district court's failure to award sanctions against the plaintiffs. No briefing schedule has been set yet. In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the putative class action lawsuit. Two of the suits were filed in Illinois state court and have been consolidated. The remaining derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago.

Legal Proceedings

On June 25, 2012, Boeing Satellite Systems International, Inc. (BSSI) and Boeing entered into a settlement agreement with ICO Global Communications (Operations), Ltd. and others (ICO) with respect to litigation initiated in 2004 in connection with satellite and launch contracts. On April 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal directed that judgment be entered for BSSI and Boeing on all claims. In connection with the settlement agreement, ICO withdrew its petition with the California Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision.

Various legal proceedings, claims and investigations related to products, contracts and other matters are pending against us. Potentially material contingencies are discussed below.

We are subject to various U.S. government investigations, from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings could result or have resulted. Such proceedings involve or could involve claims by the government for fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. Under government regulations, a company, or one or more of its operating divisions or subdivisions, can also be suspended or debarred from government contracts, or lose its export privileges, based on the results of investigations. We believe, based upon current information, that the outcome of any such government disputes and investigations will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, except as set forth below. Where it is reasonably possible that we will incur losses in excess of recorded amounts in connection with any of the matters set forth below, we have disclosed either the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of such amounts or, where no such amount or range can be reasonably estimated, the reasons why no such estimate can be made.

A-12 Litigation

In 1991, the Department of the Navy (the Navy) notified McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now merged into The Boeing Company) and General Dynamics Corporation (together, the Team) that it was terminating for default the Team’s contract for development and initial production of the A-12 aircraft.

The Team had full responsibility for performance of the contract and both contractors are jointly and severally liable for any potential liabilities resulting from the termination. The Team filed a legal action to contest the Navy’s default termination, to assert its rights to convert the termination to one for “the convenience of the government,” and to obtain payment for work done and costs incurred on the A-12 contract but not paid to date. As of June 30, 2012, inventories included approximately $587 of recorded costs on the A-12 contract, against which we have established a loss provision of $350. The amount of the provision, which was established in 1990, was based on McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s belief, supported by an opinion of outside counsel, that the termination for default would be converted to a termination for convenience, and that the best estimate of possible loss on termination for convenience was $350.

On August 31, 2001, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a decision after trial upholding the government’s default termination of the A-12 contract. In 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, finding that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard, vacated the trial court’s 2001 decision and ordered the case sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. On May 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a decision upholding the government’s default termination of the A-12 contract. We filed a Notice of Appeal on May 4, 2007 with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion affirming the trial court’s 2007 decision sustaining the government’s default termination. On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the default termination, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. On July 7, 2011, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for additional factual determinations. On July 3, 2012, the trial court set a briefing schedule, which, absent extensions, we expect to be completed in March 2013. On December 29, 2009, the Navy sent letters to the Team requesting payment of $1,352 in unliquidated progress payments, plus applicable interest. On November 15, 2011, the Navy sent a letter confirming that it would not pursue payment from the Team pending all trial court and appellate proceedings adjudicating the issues remanded by the Supreme Court.

We believe that the termination for default is contrary to law and fact and that the loss provision established by McDonnell Douglas Corporation in 1990, which was supported by an opinion from outside counsel, continues to provide adequately for the reasonably possible reduction in value of A-12 net contracts in process as of June 30, 2012. Final resolution of the A-12 litigation will depend on the outcome of further proceedings or possible negotiations with the U.S. government. If after all legal proceedings are concluded, the court determines, contrary to our belief, that a termination for default was appropriate, we could incur an additional loss of up to $275, consisting principally of $237 of remaining inventory costs. If the courts further hold that a money judgment should be entered against the Team, we could be required to pay the U.S. government up to one-half of the unliquidated progress payments of $1,350 plus statutory interest from February 1991 (currently totaling up to $1,575). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,735 in pre-tax charges. Should, however, the March 31, 1998 judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in favor of the Team be reinstated, we could be entitled to receive payment of approximately $1,182, including interest from June 26, 1991.

Employment, Labor and Benefits Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in two pending class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of our former Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit). The first action involves allegations that Spirit’s hiring decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated ERISA, violated our collective bargaining agreements, and constituted retaliation. The case was brought in 2006 as a class action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit. During the second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims. Following certain procedural motions, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2011, and are seeking to stay all remaining individual claims in the district court pending resolution of the appeal. Plaintiffs’ appellate brief was filed on November 14, 2011. Boeing’s appellate brief was filed on January 20, 2012. Oral argument was held on May 10, 2012.

The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former employees of the Wichita facility. Written discovery closed by joint stipulation of the parties on June 6, 2011. Depositions concluded on August 18, 2011. Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was filed on December 9, 2011. Boeing’s opposition and dispositive motions were filed on February 10, 2012. All briefing was completed on June 4, 2012. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005. While Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation in the second action, we believe that Spirit is obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second action. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation.

On October 13, 2006, we were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its participants, and were undisclosed to participants. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of §502(a)(2) of ERISA, and sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to §502(a)(3) of ERISA. During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in the district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing in 2008 to the case’s class certification order. On January 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification order and decertified the class. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and a supplemental motion on August 7, 2011. Boeing’s opposition to class certification was filed on September 6, 2011. Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of class certification was filed on September 27, 2011. This issue is fully briefed and awaits district court determination. Boeing’s motions for summary judgment based on ERISA’s statute of repose and for summary judgment on the merits were both filed on December 21, 2011. Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the merits and statute of limitations motions were filed on February 6, 2012. Boeing reply briefs were filed on March 7, 2012. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation.

BSSI/Telesat Canada

On November 9, 2006, Telesat Canada (Telesat) and a group of its insurers served BSSI with an arbitration demand alleging breach of contract, gross negligence and willful misconduct in connection with the constructive total loss of Anik F1, a model 702 satellite manufactured by BSSI. Telesat and its insurers initially sought over $385 in damages and $10 in lost profits, but revised their total demand to $263 in the Statement of Claim. On April 11, 2012, in the Statement of Reply, Telesat again revised their total demand to $71. BSSI has asserted a counterclaim against Telesat for $13 in unpaid performance incentive payments plus late charges. BSSI also asserted a $180 contingent counterclaim on the theory that any ultimate award to reimburse the insurers for their payments to Telesat could only result from Telesat’s breach of its contractual obligation to obtain a full waiver of subrogation rights barring recourse against BSSI. We believe that the claims asserted by Telesat and its insurers lack merit, but we have notified our insurance carriers of the demand. The arbitration was stayed pending an application by Telesat to the Ontario Superior Court on a preliminary issue. On July 16, 2010, the court denied Telesat’s request to exclude certain evidence, but granted its alternative request to remove the Chairperson from the arbitration panel. A new Chairperson was appointed on August 19, 2010, and the stay has been lifted. The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled for November 12, 2012.

On April 26, 2007, a group of our insurers filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting certain defenses to coverage and requesting a declaration of their obligation under our insurance and reinsurance policies relating to the Telesat Anik F1 arbitration. On June 12, 2008, the court granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that our insurance policy excluded the kinds of losses alleged by Telesat. On January 16, 2009, the court granted Boeing’s motion for reconsideration, ruling in favor of Boeing to require the insurers to provide insurance coverage to defend the claim. The case has been stayed pending completion of the underlying arbitration.

Civil Securities Litigation

On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two of our senior executives in federal district court in Chicago. This lawsuit arose from our June 2009 announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft. Plaintiffs contended that we were aware before June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that our determination not to announce this delay earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of our stock price for a multi-week period in May and June 2009. On March 7, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On March 19, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider that order. On April 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and on April 25, 2012, Boeing filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal based on the district court's failure to award sanctions against the plaintiffs. No briefing schedule has been set yet.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the putative class action lawsuit. Two of the suits were filed in Illinois state court and have been consolidated. The remaining derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago.