Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies	Legal Proceedings 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 December 31, 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 December 31, 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 $1,585). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,741 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 $1,187, 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. The court granted summary judgment in 2010 in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims, and during the third quarter of 2012 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment. The individual plaintiffs will all have to decide during the first quarter of 2013 whether or not to pursue individual age discrimination claims. 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. Briefing of Boeing’s and Plaintiffs’ respective summary judgment motions was completed on June 4, 2012. 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. 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 these matters 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. The court has stated its intent to issue rulings on the amended motion for class certification and the alternative motion to proceed as a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty and then stay the case until it is determined if an appeal of the class certification order is filed. As a result, on September 19, 2012 the district court issued an order denying Boeing’s motions for summary judgment as premature pending class determination. 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. 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. Oral argument in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will be held on February 25, 2013. We expect a decision by the end of the second quarter of 2013. In addition, plaintiff shareholders filed three similar shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for the 787 Dreamliner that closely tracked the allegations in the putative class action lawsuit. Two of the suits were filed in Illinois state court and were consolidated. The remaining derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago. Following the March 2012 decision confirming the dismissal of the class action complaint, the plaintiffs in these derivative lawsuits agreed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. Plaintiff in the federal case filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 26, 2012, and the court dismissed the case on June 28, 2012. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state case filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 3, 2012, and the court dismissed the case on August 24, 2012.

Legal Proceedings

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 December 31, 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 December 31, 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 $1,585). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,741 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 $1,187, 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. The court granted summary judgment in 2010 in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims, and during the third quarter of 2012 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment. The individual plaintiffs will all have to decide during the first quarter of 2013 whether or not to pursue individual age discrimination claims.

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. Briefing of Boeing’s and Plaintiffs’ respective summary judgment motions was completed on June 4, 2012. 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. 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 these matters 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. The court has stated its intent to issue rulings on the amended motion for class certification and the alternative motion to proceed as a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty and then stay the case until it is determined if an appeal of the class certification order is filed. As a result, on September 19, 2012 the district court issued an order denying Boeing’s motions for summary judgment as premature pending class determination. 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.

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. Oral argument in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will be held on February 25, 2013. We expect a decision by the end of the second quarter of 2013.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders filed three similar shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for the 787 Dreamliner that closely tracked the allegations in the putative class action lawsuit. Two of the suits were filed in Illinois state court and were consolidated. The remaining derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago. Following the March 2012 decision confirming the dismissal of the class action complaint, the plaintiffs in these derivative lawsuits agreed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. Plaintiff in the federal case filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 26, 2012, and the court dismissed the case on June 28, 2012. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state case filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 3, 2012, and the court dismissed the case on August 24, 2012.