Under US law (other countries may be different), it is clearly not insider trading. A Boeing customer has no duty of confidentiality to Boeing and they didn't misappropriate the information from someone who did, so they are not an insider.

Even though they have access to information that the rest of the public doesn't, it is still perfectly legal to trade on that information.

Please provide sources. This contradicts the "avoiding insider trading" course I had to go through at work last month. (and just to be clear, I'm not saying you're the one who is wrong).

How does it contradict your course? Your comment is missing just as much information as OP’s.

Whether you have a "duty of confidentiality" or not is irrelevant to whether you've engaged in insider trading or not.

Plane crash is public knowledge.

IANAL But I'd say, being 'inside a Boeing' is not, legally speaking, the same as being 'inside Boeing'.

Saying that, I don't remember hearing the stewardess during the safety briefing say

"In the unlikely event of a crash, make sure to get them shorts in quick!"

Probably because I usually fly on Airbus.

> 'inside a Boeing' is not, legally speaking, the same as being 'inside Boeing'.

Due to mens rea, it’s treated the same. However, if the subject can stick their arm out of the gaping hole in the side of the Boeing aircraft while making the trades, this proves that the information was in fact public and their beneficiaries should not face any legal contest to the profits from the trades as long as the trades were executed prior to the moment of impact.

I am also not a lawyer.

I don't think that counts as material knowledge.

Wrong kind of inside :)

No.