Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Various legal proceedings, claims and investigations related to products, contracts, employment 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 in the past. 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 will disclose 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. Employment, Labor and Benefits Litigation In connection with the 2005 sale of our former Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit), certain individuals not hired by Spirit alleged that Spirit’s hiring decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (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. In 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's 2010 summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims, but the parties were not precluded from making claims on an individual basis. Claims with respect to twenty-six additional individuals were dismissed during the first quarter of 2014. As of March 31, 2014, sixty-two individual claims related to this matter were pending. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses. We do not expect to incur any losses given the current status of this matter. Also related to the 2005 sale of the former Wichita facility, on February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging collective bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former employees of the Wichita facility. On December 11, 2012 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted Boeing’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that amendment of The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plan violated the IAM collective bargaining agreement, as well as individual ERISA §510 claims for interference with benefits. The court denied Boeing’s motion for all other claims. The parties are conducting additional discovery in anticipation of further court proceedings, which have not yet been scheduled. We believe that Spirit is obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in this matter, although to date Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation. We currently estimate that the putative class includes up to approximately 2,000 former Wichita employees. We 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 September 19, 2013, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On October 3, 2013, Boeing filed a petition for review of the class certification order with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied by the Seventh Circuit on November 26, 2013. Summary judgment briefs were filed in the district court on January 6, 2014, and plaintiffs’ opposition briefs were filed on February 10, 2014. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation.

Legal Proceedings

Various legal proceedings, claims and investigations related to products, contracts, employment 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 in the past. 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 will disclose 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.

Employment, Labor and Benefits Litigation

In connection with the 2005 sale of our former Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit), certain individuals not hired by Spirit alleged that Spirit’s hiring decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (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. In 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's 2010 summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims, but the parties were not precluded from making claims on an individual basis. Claims with respect to twenty-six additional individuals were dismissed during the first quarter of 2014. As of March 31, 2014, sixty-two individual claims related to this matter were pending. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses. We do not expect to incur any losses given the current status of this matter.

Also related to the 2005 sale of the former Wichita facility, on February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging collective bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former employees of the Wichita facility. On December 11, 2012 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted Boeing’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that amendment of The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plan violated the IAM collective bargaining agreement, as well as individual ERISA §510 claims for interference with benefits. The court denied Boeing’s motion for all other claims. The parties are conducting additional discovery in anticipation of further court proceedings, which have not yet been scheduled. We believe that Spirit is obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in this matter, although to date Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation. We currently estimate that the putative class includes up to approximately 2,000 former Wichita employees. We 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 September 19, 2013, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On October 3, 2013, Boeing filed a petition for review of the class certification order with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied by the Seventh Circuit on November 26, 2013. Summary judgment briefs were filed in the district court on January 6, 2014, and plaintiffs’ opposition briefs were filed on February 10, 2014. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation.