Boeing Accused of Retaliating Against Two Engineers in 2022 (reuters.com) 51
Reuters reports that America's Federal Aviation Administration "is investigating a union's claims that Boeing retaliated against two employees who in 2022 insisted the planemaker re-evaluate prior engineering work on 777 and 787 jets."
The employees' union "said the two unidentified engineers were representatives of the FAA, which delegates some of its oversight authority and certification process to Boeing workers." The FAA noted on Tuesday that in 2022 it boosted oversight of planemakers by protecting aviation industry employees who perform agency functions from interference by their employers. A December 2021 Senate report found "FAA's certification process suffers from undue pressure on line engineers and production staff."
"Boeing can tell Congress and the media all it wants about how retaliation is strictly prohibited," said SPEEA Director of Strategic Development Rich Plunkett. "But our union is fighting retaliation cases on a regular basis, and, in this specific case, Boeing is trying to hide information that would shed light on what happened...."
Last week, Boeing quality engineer whistleblower Sam Salehpour, who raised questions about Boeing widebody jets, told senators he was told to "shut up" when he flagged safety concerns. He has said he was removed from the 787 program and transferred to the 777 jet due to his questions.
Boeing has "zero tolerance for retaliation," according a statement quoted by Reuters, in which the company says they "encourage our employees to speak up when they see an issue. After an extensive review of documentation and interviewing more than a dozen witnesses, our investigators found no evidence of retaliation or interference. We have determined the allegations are unsubstantiated."
The union's version of the story? "After nearly six months of debate, the two engineers, with backing from the FAA, prevailed. Boeing re-did the required analysis." The two engineers were still Boeing employees, however, and Boeing management was not pleased. When they came up for their next performance reviews, the two engineers received identical negative evaluations... Even after the manager of the two engineers admitted that he had rated them both poorly at the request of the 777 and 787 managers who had been forced to resubmit their work, Boeing refused to change the engineers' performance evaluations.
At this point, one of the engineers left in disgust; the other filed a formal "Speak Up" complaint with Boeing.
The employees' union "said the two unidentified engineers were representatives of the FAA, which delegates some of its oversight authority and certification process to Boeing workers." The FAA noted on Tuesday that in 2022 it boosted oversight of planemakers by protecting aviation industry employees who perform agency functions from interference by their employers. A December 2021 Senate report found "FAA's certification process suffers from undue pressure on line engineers and production staff."
"Boeing can tell Congress and the media all it wants about how retaliation is strictly prohibited," said SPEEA Director of Strategic Development Rich Plunkett. "But our union is fighting retaliation cases on a regular basis, and, in this specific case, Boeing is trying to hide information that would shed light on what happened...."
Last week, Boeing quality engineer whistleblower Sam Salehpour, who raised questions about Boeing widebody jets, told senators he was told to "shut up" when he flagged safety concerns. He has said he was removed from the 787 program and transferred to the 777 jet due to his questions.
Boeing has "zero tolerance for retaliation," according a statement quoted by Reuters, in which the company says they "encourage our employees to speak up when they see an issue. After an extensive review of documentation and interviewing more than a dozen witnesses, our investigators found no evidence of retaliation or interference. We have determined the allegations are unsubstantiated."
The union's version of the story? "After nearly six months of debate, the two engineers, with backing from the FAA, prevailed. Boeing re-did the required analysis." The two engineers were still Boeing employees, however, and Boeing management was not pleased. When they came up for their next performance reviews, the two engineers received identical negative evaluations... Even after the manager of the two engineers admitted that he had rated them both poorly at the request of the 777 and 787 managers who had been forced to resubmit their work, Boeing refused to change the engineers' performance evaluations.
At this point, one of the engineers left in disgust; the other filed a formal "Speak Up" complaint with Boeing.
Plausible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
how is living life where you treat all probabilities as a flat line?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a company that morphed from an Airplane manufacturer to a company run by MBAs and Bean counters, and prime focus was only on servicing the stakeholders, and the planes and Engineers were a nuisance that got in the way of the next quarter's profit, retaliation sounds exceptionally plausible, after all, the planes and engineers are merely the nuisance that gets in the way of the real purpose of the company now. That sounds sarcastic, but is true. How dare those lowlife engineers anyhow?
Its ‘plausible’ because of bean counters?
Gee, and here I thought it was plausible because their planes are falling out of the sky. Those silly nuisances can be so subtle.
Re: (Score:3)
As a company that morphed from an Airplane manufacturer to a company run by MBAs and Bean counters, and prime focus was only on servicing the stakeholders, and the planes and Engineers were a nuisance that got in the way of the next quarter's profit, retaliation sounds exceptionally plausible, after all, the planes and engineers are merely the nuisance that gets in the way of the real purpose of the company now. That sounds sarcastic, but is true. How dare those lowlife engineers anyhow?
Its ‘plausible’ because of bean counters?
Gee, and here I thought it was plausible because their planes are falling out of the sky. Those silly nuisances can be so subtle.
Planes are best designed and built by engineers with the proper chops. When managers and Beancounters make technical decisions based on short term profits, the planes start to fall out of the sky.
MBA and bean counter decisions:
Outsourcing to Spirit Aerosystems. That didn't turn out too well, seldom does
Taking the 737 airframe and placing bigger engines (bigger diameter) that intrude into the airflow over the wings, which suddenly add extra lift in high angle of attack situations, which can stall the
Didn't they just murder one? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Didn't they just murder one? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they just murder one? (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly. Boeing Whistleblower Warned Family Friend 'It's Not Suicide' Before Death [newsweek.com]
Too bad Boeing didn't design the pistol that Barnett Epsteined himself with. He'd still be alive.
Too soon?
Re:Didn't they just murder one? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Boeing Whistleblower Warned Family Friend 'It's Not Suicide' Before Death [newsweek.com]
Investigate for sure, but people suffering anxiety and PTSD, about to go into court for an extremely stressful deposition [wikipedia.org] sometimes do kill themselves.
Boeing still bears a lot of responsibility for his death as they were literally trying to apply enough pressure to break his spirit so he wouldn't talk. But it's very unlikely they pulled the trigger.
Also, I'm not a professional hitman, but if I were to murder someone and stage it as a suicide, I'd do it at night. I'd fire the gun and slip out the door or window, or I'd maybe even spike their drink if I knew the pharmacology well enough.
I wouldn't shoot them at 9:42am in a hotel parking lot. There's a LOT of ways for someone to see you in that scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you had attempted a couple times already and just found the right window to get it done. Nobody saw (or heard) him shoot himself either. Must not have been that busy.
The hotel staff literally heard the shot at 9:42 am.
And how do you imagine that hit worked? Can you even contrive a movie scene that doesn't sound ridiculous and needlessly depend on good luck? I mean just go stand in a hotel parking lot, just how sure are you that not only is no one is watching you at that moment, but no one is going to walk to a window or wander around a corner to see what was up with that gunshot they just heard?
Re: (Score:3)
There are other ways of convincing people to commit suicide.
Like threaten to do stuff to their loved ones.So it could have been suicide but under duress. And he had already informed others that if stuff happens it's not suicide...
Hypothetically possible... but an incredibly risky way to get someone to kill themselves. I mean it's not the "take the bank manager's family hostage" gambit because the potential victims can never know what could have happened.
Yet, you still need to convince the person you're serious, and if you manage that, well then they might just go to the FBI and now you're in piles of trouble (especially if you follow through, which the person would realize).
And again, even under duress I suspect it's pretty hard to
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would certainly do everything in your post if I had infinite opportunity too.
But in the real world limited access means other routes gain value. Would it even matter if "some guy" was seen doing it? It'd be the same outcome, everyone looking very sideways at Boeing who easily says "Prove it was us lol."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Boeing Whistleblower Warned Family Friend 'It's Not Suicide' Before Death [newsweek.com]
Investigate for sure, but people suffering anxiety and PTSD, about to go into court for an extremely stressful deposition [wikipedia.org] sometimes do kill themselves.
Boeing still bears a lot of responsibility for his death as they were literally trying to apply enough pressure to break his spirit so he wouldn't talk. But it's very unlikely they pulled the trigger.
Also, I'm not a professional hitman, but if I were to murder someone and stage it as a suicide, I'd do it at night. I'd fire the gun and slip out the door or window, or I'd maybe even spike their drink if I knew the pharmacology well enough.
I wouldn't shoot them at 9:42am in a hotel parking lot. There's a LOT of ways for someone to see you in that scenario.
It's clear you're not a professional hit man, if he'd be hired to make it look like a suicide (which one would presume as a suspicious death will just drag even more attention to Boeing), shooting them from the other side of the room will never look like suicide. Also drugs are extremely unreliable as you either need to give them an excessive dose which increases chances of the mark detecting the drugs or risk not giving them enough and surviving, it's actually quite hard to properly OD and survival rates a
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear you're not a professional hit man,
Glad to see I didn't blow my cover ;)
if he'd be hired to make it look like a suicide (which one would presume as a suspicious death will just drag even more attention to Boeing), shooting them from the other side of the room will never look like suicide.
First, the point was not that the room murder plausible, just that it was way more plausible than the truck murder.
Second, I never said shoot from across the room. Sneak in while he's sleeping. Though I agree pistol blow-back is an issue here, though maybe you have a second pistol with a silencer (not actually that effective) to stage a second shot while he's sleeping.
Also drugs are extremely unreliable as you either need to give them an excessive dose which increases chances of the mark detecting the drugs or risk not giving them enough and surviving, it's actually quite hard to properly OD and survival rates are quite high. Also this is the US, suicide by drugs look suspicious anyway.given that gunshot is by far the most popular method.
Meh, load up a class of whisky with sleeping pills, hold the gun to the side of his head, and say drink
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that Boeing is a major defense contractor, maybe it was someone bigger than Boeing.
Some of the upper admin is a cult (Score:5, Interesting)
Boeing's upper echelons are full out cult completely divorced of anything on the ground. Retaliation isn't just in the wheel house, it is the goddamn cornerstone of ensuring profits above all else.
Boeing has "zero tolerance for retaliation," according a statement quoted by Reuters
And the thing is that most of these cult boys see retaliation as some black and white concept, as unless I fucking came down there and actually slit your throat, I didn't actually retaliate. None of them understanding that they seed a cult of personalty that encourages people "no matter what you do, DO NOT HURT OUR PROFITS!" and via that mentality they enact all kinds of retaliation to anyone who disrupts the dollar.
After an extensive review of documentation and interviewing more than a dozen witnesses, our investigators found no evidence of retaliation or interference. We have determined the allegations are unsubstantiated.
Yes, yes, we know. You investigated yourselves and found nothing wrong. I don't think you can cult harder than that.
I hope the US government takes these shitheads to task. But in the end the MBAs, the PHBs, and the board of fuckwits will all get off scot-free because so long as you're a captain of capitalism, you can just do whatever the fuck you want and we'll just ask you nicely to please stop.
Fuck Boeing's top ranks, they've taken a company committed to quality and safety, and turned it into a profit at all costs shit hole that's become the defining quality of the United States various enterprises here of late. The enshitification continues
Re:Some of the upper admin is a cult (Score:5, Funny)
This is like Harvey Weinstein having zero tolerance policy against sexual harassment.
The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:5, Interesting)
Where has the FAA been in all this?
Their attitude to Boeing seems to have been "Hey, we've got far too much coffee and donuts to get through here, you guys just certify your own planes"
The FAA has also spent an inordinate amount of time, money and resource regulating the recreational drone community when it always has been and remains the safest branch of aviation *ever*. To this date, not one person, anywhere on the planet has ever died as the result of the recreational use of multirotor drones -- yet, as Boeings fall apart over our heads and disaster looms as a result of ATC failures, the FAA's response is to have #DroneSafetyDay on April 27th.
What do I mean about ATC failures?
Watch this YouTube video [youtube.com] from Juan Browne who is a seasoned airline pilot flying for a US airline. at 20:05 in the video he clearly states:
"at this rate of mistake making on behalf of ATC here in the domestic side of the US flying a terrible tragic accident is inevitable"
When a highly respected and experienced airline pilot issues a warning like that and backs it up with irrefutable evidence, the FAA should be dropping everything and fixing this problem.
Yet what are the FAA doing? #DroneSafetyDay -- trying to improve the safest form of aviation we've ever had whilst seemingly ignoring the real problems that have already claimed hundreds of lives and threaten to claim hundreds more.
Someone needs to be fired over this.
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely Congress shut them down somewhere in the past. You know, the "self-regulating is cheaper" mentality.
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:5, Interesting)
Regulatory capture is more likely. This is very strong in the MIC. Issues identified? Company calls their congressional delegation to the rescue and makes perfunctory fixes to evade the actual issues.
Watch "The Pentagon Wars" for a dollop of this crap, though it doesn't show how Congress gets directly involved in pushing garbage to protect jobs in their district/state.
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:5, Interesting)
Where was the FAA? No surprise Trump was fucking it up. https://nffe.org/nffe_news/tru... [nffe.org]
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't need to hire such engineers. There's no huge problem with having Boeing's own engineers certify stuff that Boeing builds. You just have to hold them liable and punish them appropriately when stuff happens.
Happens for other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So if there's a high chance you'd go to prison etc if shit happens, even if Boeing is your employer there'd be a limit to how much you'd bend over for Boeing's management, and you'd definitely make backups of evidence to cover your butt.
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:4, Interesting)
You just have to hold them liable and punish them appropriately when stuff happens.
The problem is that, when it comes to airframes, "when stuff happens" people die or are burned or otherwise grievously injured. It's not like a Volkswagen having emissions higher then reported or a financial institution falsely reporting to drive up their share price.
...and if you want to charge management criminally you have similar problems: Long, expensive trials requiring experts and a burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that managers and execs broke criminal laws.
Re:The FAA will have blood on its hands (Score:4, Interesting)
What "they" (federal, state, and local governments) need to do is go after people underpaying wages.
Wage theft exceeds all other theft combined, and more wages paid also means more taxes paid, and since we have a graduated tax system, the difference is really quite significant — they're reducing the tax rates paid as well by stealing the money that would put people into higher tax brackets.
Wonder what will be lost in-flight tomorrow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [businessinsider.com] it says it was a rather old plane, delivered in 1990.
Re: (Score:1)
Any problem like this that happens ten years after a plane is delivered to an airline is a maintenance problem, NOT a design problem. A wheel falls off a single airplane, a slide deploys, an engine shroud isn't latched securely, etc indicates the airline isn't inspecting or maintaining the plane adequately.
Example of the 767 wing slide: https://youtu.be/xsnAlNpkNuw [youtu.be]
Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point trust in the company should be 0%. I for one will never fly a Boeing aircraft again as long as bean counters are in charge. Remove the entire C suite and replace it with these whistle blowing engineers. That would be a good start to gaining trust back.
But but but (Score:2)
This only happens in Russia!?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop talking to yourself in front of a mirror.
"a ladder inside the horizontal stabilizer" (Score:4, Interesting)
"I was getting complaints about debris. Every day we were finding on airplanes that people were leaving, there was drawings, tools, fasteners. There was this one 787. And after a test flight, they found a ladder inside the horizontal stabilizer. All it would have taken was that ladder to fall up against the jack screw assembly and that plane would have been history."
https://www.wwno.org/2024-04-0... [wwno.org]
Who cares what Boring does (Score:3)
it's not like they'd let window panels fall off in mid-air or forget to tell pilots that the horizontal stabilizer had been rigged to go nose down instead of up.
cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
Some enjoy the shooting too much.
Personally, I would not have put up a fight. The only way these types learn is if something catastrophically goes wrong. That is when you pull out the email records of you explicitly warning them. Then you enjoy the silence and let them work it out. The shit will hit the fan a bit later. It will be everybody's fault. There will be yelling. They will try to stress you out, they will lie. Just make sure you have a strong paper trail. Then suddenly they will leave the company because they found a job closer to home and want to spend more time with family. Thank God there are good managers to.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought most of your comment was insightful, but I'm confused by this:
Personally, I would not have put up a fight. The only way these types learn is if something catastrophically goes wrong. That is when you pull out the email records of you explicitly warning them.
Does "catastrophically wrong" include the possible injury or death of innocent third parties, such as passengers and crew? If not, can you give an example of the catastrophic wrongness you were thinking of? If it does include injury or death, how could you live with yourself afterward?
Re: cynical (Score:3)
Non-retaliation (Score:1)
Oh dear... (Score:1)
> of the FAA, which delegates some of its oversight
> authority and certification process to Boeing workers...
Wait, wait, wait.
The FAA delegated some of its oversight authority, to _employees_ of the company being overseen?
Seriously? Who signed off on THAT blatant conflict of interests, and why are we just now finding out about it? To me that seems worse than all the other corruption we've seen in this case, added together.