Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Various legal proceedings, claims and investigations related to products, contracts and other matters are pending against us. Potentially material contingencies including A-12 and Employment, Labor and Benefits litigation 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 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 September 30, 2013, 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. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the default termination decision could not be sustained and on March 31, 1998, awarded the Team $1,200 in unreimbursed costs. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in July 1999 and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the Team was in fact in default. 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 and the trial court heard oral argument on May 7, 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. On May 17, 2013, the President's Fiscal 2014 Budget Request to Congress included a new Department of Defense General Provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to receive and retain payment in-kind in settlement of the A-12 aircraft litigation. On July 30, 2013, the Team and the Navy executed a settlement agreement that would take effect if the authorizing legislation is enacted on or prior to May 31, 2014. If this legislation is enacted and the litigation is settled pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we would incur a pre-tax charge to write-off A-12 costs included in inventory in addition to costs associated with an in-kind settlement. We believe it is reasonably possible that the litigation could be settled. 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 September 30, 2013. Final resolution of the A-12 litigation will depend on whether the litigation is settled or the outcome of further proceedings. 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 $1,600). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,748 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 $1,193, including interest from June 26, 1991. 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 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. As of September 30, 2013, eighty-eight individual claims related to this matter were pending. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses. 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 2,000 former Wichita employees. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from both 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. 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. 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 and other matters are pending against us. Potentially material contingencies including A-12 and Employment, Labor and Benefits litigation 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 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 September 30, 2013, 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.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the default termination decision could not be sustained and on March 31, 1998, awarded the Team $1,200 in unreimbursed costs. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in July 1999 and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the Team was in fact in default. 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 and the trial court heard oral argument on May 7, 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.

On May 17, 2013, the President's Fiscal 2014 Budget Request to Congress included a new Department of Defense General Provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to receive and retain payment in-kind in settlement of the A-12 aircraft litigation. On July 30, 2013, the Team and the Navy executed a settlement agreement that would take effect if the authorizing legislation is enacted on or prior to May 31, 2014. If this legislation is enacted and the litigation is settled pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we would incur a pre-tax charge to write-off A-12 costs included in inventory in addition to costs associated with an in-kind settlement. We believe it is reasonably possible that the litigation could be settled.

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 September 30, 2013. Final resolution of the A-12 litigation will depend on whether the litigation is settled or the outcome of further proceedings. 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 $1,600). In that event, our loss would total approximately $1,748 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 $1,193, including interest from June 26, 1991.

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 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. As of September 30, 2013, eighty-eight individual claims related to this matter were pending. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses.

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 2,000 former Wichita employees. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from both 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. 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. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation.