← Back to Squawk list

68

Ex-Boeing Employees Warn Against Flying on 737 MAX

Submitted about a year ago

Former Boeing employees, including a senior manager, express reservations about flying on the 737 Max, citing safety concerns stemming from alleged production pressures and compromised quality control. (www.airlinerwatch.com) More...

102 member comments

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Deron Hull about a year ago 29

What's happened to Boeing is sad. I used to work at the facility where the 747 fuselage was built in Hawthorne ca. It was a source of pride for me. Unfortunately after the MD management took over, Boeing made engineering a low priority and wall street and management bonuses a high priority. They spent 68 billion buying back stock and paying dividends. The engineering talent pool in WA was reduced. We've seen the results now. I avoid 737's when booking travel.
This article is a good read on the topic. https://jacobin.com/2024/01/boeing-malfunction-ceo-pay-stock-buybacks

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Klaus Kahle about a year ago 5

Good read. Thanks for the link.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Stephen Ross about a year ago 6

Years ago there was a "Truism" amongst airline pilots - If you want the perfect airliner, let Lockheed design it, let Boeing build it and let McD market it. It would appear that since the merger the marketing has taken precedence! Too bad!! I always felt the safest in a Boeing built aircraft. S. Ross (Ret. TWA Capt.)

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Rick Polley 11 months ago 3

As I have said many times since the 2 fatal Max crashes, I will not set foot on another 737! History has shown that they can be unreliable, but the main reason for me, is that there was no accountability at all, of the Boeing board. 346 people were killed in those crashes, and Muilenburg is fantastically rewarded with a $62 million pay off! That's over $179,000 for each death he was rewarded for having a hand in killing!!!! That's why AMERICA has become a Huge Sickening Joke as far as Corporate Greed and Management style goes. A Soldier or Policeman may cause an unfortunate death, and they are persecuted and pilloried through every court in the land. People of America, WAKE UP!!!!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

George Dinius about a year ago 4

I’m told the same by Boeing Alumni.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Akhilesh Wakde 11 months ago 1

Good read about this topic

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

William Monti about a year ago 13

No body wakes up in the morning saying I want my work product to fail.

In my opinion what we have here in part here is a systemic failure of a thousand cuts leading up to a major incident with each minor event brushed off as small not to be worried about.

Ask any person responsible for Safety in a company about accidents that get brushed off with asking why it happened - like a pinched finger, that leads to a loss of function, that leads to a lost digit, leads to a broken hand, leads on and on up to fatal even. Each event if analyzed tells one something of value warranting correction.

The owner/operator of the equipment needs to be part of the process from concept to final use.

The terms "attention to detail" and "aggressive suspicion" need to be employed throughout design, build, maintain and operate.

Safety=accurate=build to design=quality=success.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Steven Newton about a year ago 13

The 737 Max was Boeing's response to the A320neo. Senior management wanted to get a competitor to the market fast. Designing a new aircraft from a clean sheet of paper would have taken far longer from inception to certification, so execs tried to rebuild the 737 and pretend it was the same, already certified, aircraft. The 737 Max is, in that sense, one big shortcut made out of cut corners.

What was on the minds of the airlines that lined up to buy and operate the aircraft?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Carson Losey about a year ago 8

I agree, Boeing was wayyyy to hasty on construction of the 737 MAX series… Airbus took there time building the NEO line. I would recommend the book Flying Blind by Peter Robison on this topic.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Gavin Waters about a year ago 4

Agreed, and my impression of the airlines that bought it in big numbers is a) they believed the Boeing sales pitch and trust (big mistake) b) didn't have to re-train pilots (until the crashes showed actually they did) c) the price was right (but what price for safety?). Boeing is a failed manufacturer producing faulty airplanes. This applies to the 787 also and I assume the 777X as well.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Constanze Steegmiller 11 months ago 2

Sad thing is, Lufthansa just bought several 737 Max. It is hard to believe but I guess it is what happens to large companies these days, make a lot of profit on the customers expense. Well I am not putting my suitcase on a 737 Max.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Carson Losey 11 months ago 2

I agree, never again will I trust a 737-MAX.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Gregg Bender about a year ago 8

The problem is located in upper management's turn to shareholder value over all else. For businesses like aviation, safely and quality must be the top concerns. Too many people can be hurt or killed when they aren't. Boeing inherited the McDonnell Douglas management view, and it's going to destroy Boeing of they don't go back to their roots.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Tom Bruce about a year ago 5

hope it's not too late....

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

a1brainiac about a year ago 12

CORPORATE GREED.....Boeing cared more about the stock price and shareholder dividends....than the people that fly on their planes

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Harry Schluderberg about a year ago 5

Boeing’s new motto: Boeing, giving each airplane a bad reputation.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Juan Jimenez about a year ago 8

What is the true core of this problem? My opinion is that it is the FAA's fire-and-forget strategy of delegation by designation, and its reactive attitude to issues like this, rather than executing a proactive strategy to prevent this from happening. Clearly, the FAA is NOT doing a good job of spot checks and audits of DMIR's and DAR-F's. This lack of active oversight and audit has created a situation where these FAA designee's fail to do their jobs correctly, either because they get lazy, are too close to management and are more concerned with their production bonuses than absolute safety. The FAA should be doing un-announced random audits and inspections of all manufacturing companies that operate under this system. If they are already doing it, this shows they are doing it wrong and/or not often enough!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

Juan, can you think of any reasons why the FAA isn't doing enough spot checks or audits? Is it because they can't or because they won't? I mean, there must be a reason.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Ron Wroblewski about a year ago 4

What is it about the MAX line in particular though? What about the 767f's still rolling off the line? The KC-46s as well...

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

CJ Hill about a year ago 3

Does anybody at Boeing speak up when these issues arise during product development and production? As I have stated before every major aerospace and defense contractor utilizes a gated program review process that engages the technical experts with senior management. Where was the pushback? Did concerns get raised? Were raised problems seriously addressed or rationalized away?Be curious to hear from Boeing or former Boeing employees about this.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

jeff slack about a year ago 5

You know, years ago when the S.C. plant opened and there was so much bad press for the 787 employees and ex-employees came forward and posted their horror on Youtube. Well produced, non-hysterical, 'just the facts mam' presentations........... one by one the videos mysteriously disappeared............

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

ko25701 about a year ago -2

And the 787s are all still flying. Unions kill jobs, that is a fact.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 4

I'll refrain from posting really how I feel about that comment, but will share: many years ago, I worked for a transportation company as a member of management whose drivers were Teamsters. The union saved the jobs of way too many people who were brought into my office because of union rule infractions. Some pushed the envelope as far as they possibly could, just barely passing through the length of time required before another infraction occurrence would cause termination. Unions do not kill jobs. That's why people pay their membership dues.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Nathan Cox about a year ago 7

If you asked me (a commercial pilot flying 747’s) this all goes way back to cutting the 757 from production in an effort to keep Southwest as a large customer on the 737’s. Boeing needed to keep tweaking an inadequate airframe to keep up with customer demands and yet keep costs down low. As time went on, Boeing kept pawning off good, union labor in WA out to unqualified people out of their sphere of influence/control. All this combined with poor Q&A at these outsourced plants where their products are made has caused this debacle we see unfolding on the Max. Boeing better get their ð© together.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

ko25701 about a year ago 2

An airframe with millions and millions of safe flight hours over several decades isn't safe anymore???

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

avionik99 about a year ago -1

Don't even make this about Union's! They are the ones that keep employee's that screw up from being fired!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Tim Dyck about a year ago -1

The term “good union labour” is an oxymoron, if you want good labour pay them a good wage with good benefits and a decent bonus package and keep the unions out.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

John Middaugh 12 months ago 2

There once was a time when Boeing was more concerned about safety engineering than cost saving measures. Why would you install a false exit door instead of a complete exit door for passenger safety unless you're concerned about the Bottom Line! This is a wake-up call for Boeing to get back to the basics of ensuring public safety.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Tim Dyck about a year ago 3

Hearing from ex employees always needs to be taken with a bit of caution. Are these employees being truthful or are they just upset at whatever led to them leaving the company. Also did they try to raise their safety concerns with the company befor they left? Did they go to the regulators with their concerns? If they did then why were they not listened to but if not then why didn’t they?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

CJ Hill about a year ago 3

If indeed missing bolts was one of the causes of the door plug failure, it is natural to peg this as a manufacturing/assembly issue. Interesting, many failures like this can be fixed by re-engineering to error proof the design.

All failures have multiple root causes. By definition each failure has a minimum of two. The cause that created the defect (missing bolts) and the the process that allowed the defect to escape detection (lack of inspection at reassembly; separated bolts not recognized as missing from assembly.) In my experience working these failures most have between 3 and as many as 7 root causes, any one of which, if detected, would have prevented the failure.

As a side note, I did a study for a client of the MCAS MAX failures leading to the two downed aircraft. There were 21, yes 21, factors that contributed that failure. Not all are root causes, but each was a significant enough red flag for Boeing to know that the MAX program, and the MCAS system, were in need of some serious fixes.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 3

If these accusations are valid, it's disturbing that none of this was made public when they were still employed. That would mean they didn't actually care for the safety of the craft and lives aboard, as they did for endangering their jobs. I have to wonder if those now speaking up are doing so to hit back at something they consider unfair treatment.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Tim Dyck about a year ago 1

I was wondering the same thing.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

AWAAlum about a year ago 2

I imagine if that had happened it would have been included when these former employees came forward. That would have been an important bit of the report.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 2

This one page airlinerwatch article calls these two guys former or ex-employees seven times, but mentions the organization they are with currently a grand total of zero times. Why would that be? It wouldn't be to give the impression that they, for purely altruistic reasons of course, each decided to take time away from their comfortable retirements (or whatever) to save the flying public from certain death, would it? Nah, but yeah.

That organizatin you forgot to mention seven times is the "Foundation for Aviation Safety", which according to their own web page, was created for and exists only to skewer the 737 and Boeing as loudly and as often as possible. Was this guy even in quality or engineering, or? Either way, he has a new career now.

Lying by omission, thanks for that.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Nick Abate about a year ago 6

you have a point and I agree. always check the messenger. But, and it is a big one. two jets with the max label have dropped out of the sky and one lost weight by losing a door during flight. those are facts that can not be ignored either.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 2

Not ignoring things was my entire point.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 2

That may be so, but its ultimate goal can't be faulted.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

Which ultimate goal is that? Promoting his new podcast?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 1

Well, let's see .... um, no ... according to YOUR OWN post ... "which according to their own web page, was created for and exists only to skewer the 737 and Boeing as loudly and as often as possible."

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

It was a rhetorical question.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Rick Polley about a year ago 1

CORPORATE GREED is ruining Boeing and the rest of the whole WORLD.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Stephen Ross about a year ago 1

See comment below.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

stratofan about a year ago 1

I saw a recent news article this morning about a Lufthansa A380 that had to divert to Paris because of a medical emergency on board. The writer was quick to point out that there was "nothing wrong" with the aircraft. Pity they are not as zealous with a problem with a Boeing aircraft. The MSM is fraught with the "H"-word all the time. I have flown for over 46 years, military and civilian, and as long as people are involved with either operation or maintaining an aircraft, there will be glitches from time to time.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Rusty Campos about a year ago 3

I may regret asking, but what is the "H"-word?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

stratofan about a year ago -1

Hypocrisy and/or Hypocrite. They prove it everyday.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

BlueOak about a year ago 1

The epitome of credibility - ex-employees.

While they might indeed be correct, they start from a place of questionable motiviation. If there were systematic failures, did they report the problems to the FAA while still employed, assuming their own management ignored them?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

bobinson66 about a year ago 1

One of the things that brings me to this website is the safety success of the airline industry and the people who work in it (I do not). The place the domestic American airline industry finds itself today is that there has not been a major airliner accident involving loss of life since somewhere around 2012. There are thousands of flights every day involving hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors not to mention millions of moving parts in extreme conditions. Think of where the industry started in the 40s and 50s with airline crashes happening a couple of times a month.

I wonder if the industry will let the Wall Street interests get away with sacrificing a bit of safety in the interests of profit. The industry has worked too hard to get where it is today to allow some multi-millionaire to become a billionaire off the hard work that got us here.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

CHRIS MORGAN about a year ago 2

Are you saying that the Lion Air & Ethiopian Airways Boeing 737MAX crashes (over 350 people were killed) don't count because they didn't happen within the USA?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

When did he say that? He didn't say anything like that.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

CHRIS MORGAN about a year ago 3

My point is that the fact that the Boeing crashes happened overseas, rather than in the USA, was irrelevant. Following the two 737MAX crashes Boeing agreed to pay 2.5 billion dollars after being charged with fraud over hiding information from safety regulators.

The failure of the door plug on Alaska Airlines in January happened at 16,000 feet, had that failure been at a much higher altitude then the consequences could well have been far more serious for the 180 people on board, possibly leading to the total loss of the aircraft. Spirit Aero Systems (the manufacturer of the door plug) are facing lawsuits for widespread quality (leading to safety) failures.

Quality control clearly is an issue with Boeing and it's suppliers at the moment and I'm sure, that given time, they will be able to rectify their problems. In the meantime however it is unrealistic to believe that all is well.

I don't work in the airline industry but I do fly fairly regularly and, although I've never counted, I guess that it's about a 50/50 split between Airbus & Boeing.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

I didn't ask what your motivation was, I asked you to point out where he said those crashes and the 350 dead people don't count.

Your point is wrong, anyway. Where it happened is relevant. Different regulations, different regulators, different airlines, different cultures. Ignoring these things will not make flying safer, regardless of how you rationalize it (the ends justify the means, in your case).

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

CHRIS MORGAN about a year ago 1

I didn't say 'You have said' I asked the question 'Are you saying?'

The initial thrust of this squawk from the ex Boeing employees is 'Is the 737MAX safe.

The contribution which prompted my question said that 'The (domestic) American Airline industry had not had an accident involving loss of life since 2012'. The 737 is a product of the American Airline Industry and by indicating domestic airline industry, and by excluding the overseas crashes seems at odds with the real issue which generated this particular squawk in the first place.

I agree with you that different regulations etc. should be considered, however in these tragic incidents we are talking about almost brand new aircraft (2 months old and just 4 months old) so I'm not sure that it is a contributing factor.

I have no idea what you mean by 'the ends justify the means, in my case'

In any event I think it is clear we agree to disagree and perhaps we should just leave this issue to rest in peace.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

"You have said" is totally different than "are you saying", got it and point taken.

Are you saying that the Sriwijaya Air crash that took off from the same airport and nosedived into the same water two years after the Lion Air crash doesn't count? 62 people died, but the airplane was delivered in '94, so...

Like you and Tucker Carlson always say, I'm just asking questions.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

CHRIS MORGAN about a year ago 1

The one thing that is a given is that there are always more questions than answers!!

All crashes are bad and, as you have said before, different rules, carriers (aircraft age)etc. have to be taken into account when investigating the cause. More importantly the causes and actions which have precipitated every incident must be identified and the perpetrator(s) held to account. Manufacturers or operators etc. that deliberately try to hide information do nothing for customer confidence, and as we see with Boeing, do serious damage to their bottom line.

Many moons ago I once had the terror of flying back from Jakarta to London on (probably) the world's oldest jumbo jet with Garuda Airways - every row of seats was different, half the toilets were out of action and the noise on takeoff and landing was indescribable. Some time later there was a period in which they were banned from flying into Europe. We also had a business house client who had carried out a very extensive tour of various countries within Africa and in his feedback thought that the 'highlight' of his trip had been sharing an internal flight within Mozambique with a live goat and several boxes of very scrawny chickens.

As you say - standards can vary, things have improved a little bit since then but complacency is a problem that has to be stamped on whenever, and wherever, it shows itself.

Apologies for my ramble - put it down to an old man just reminiscing about the good old days!!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

nick hawel about a year ago 1

I was unfortunate enough to end up on a Max after cancellations led me to a midnight flight from Casablanca to Agadir in Morocco . The plane was narrow and the vibration on takeoff was unnerving , but landed safely.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

heiligenwho about a year ago 0

ok, try the wings on all Airbus A320ceo and A321neo my friend. Crack in the door or crack in the wings. Doors are optional. wings are not.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Tim Dyck about a year ago 4

Have any a320 neos crashed? As for wing cracks I don’t recall any of those, perhaps you can elaborate on that.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Brian Klappenbach about a year ago 3

https://www.flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7_days/popular_new/94953/EASA_Expands_A320ceo_Wing_Fatigue_Cracking_Inspections_to_Include_All_A320neo_Models

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Gavin Waters about a year ago 4

Yes apparently there are wing cracks and requiring a new inspection regime. I just feel that bolts are compulsory and also that they are tightened properly and also doors at altitude are compulsory along with pressurisation. If someone had been in seat 26A it is virtually certain they would no longer be with us, possibly seat 26B person also. I assume you heard of the 737 pickle forks issue years ago - seems many possibilities for fatigue cracks in many types of airliners. Cracks are one thing. Explosive decompression is quite another.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Tim Dyck about a year ago 1

Thank but your link didn’t work for me. Might be the phone I am using? I did look into it a bit more and found a report on the problem. So thanks for letting me know about it.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Gavin Waters about a year ago 3

I don't agree doors are optional and I don't think you'd like to have been next to that door when it blew out. Not many airliners in history have broken up due to cracks anyway due to structural load spreading. One door blowing out is quite a different near disaster.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

david fairchild about a year ago -3

What else will disgruntled ex employees say?? Not newsworthy

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 3

You're assuming all ex-employees are disgruntled. Probably not even close. I've been an ex-employee several times, but not ever because I felt animosity or anger toward an employer...just because I'd accepted an enticing other offer.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

C J about a year ago 6

Quick question...did you look up Boeing's exec team before tossing out this well informed post? A quick glance at their exec profile page shows that 13 of 21 execs listed are white dudes. So...kinda silly for you to say that your fear of black people is why this happened. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a fair sum of money that the vast majority of Boeing's execs since the MD merger have been white dudes.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

willfe about a year ago 4

"13 of 21 execs listed are white dudes." So 60%? Meaning the other 40% are not "white dudes"? Doesn't sound like a "vast majority" to me.

Also, could you please remind me which part of being a "white dude" is bad again? Is it the "white" part or the "dude" part? I forgot this week's reason for hating that demographic. The memos keep getting lost in the mail :)

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 2

Pump the brakes there, mustache. Let's work through some reading comprehension. The "vast majority" comment was not related to the current executive team. If you sound out the words you'll see that I said a vast majority of Boeing execs since the MD merger, which refers to historical numbers, not just the current team. And in an effort to untwist the bunch in your panties, there's nothing wrong with white dudes. If you take a breath and look at the comment mine was in response to, you'll see that the previous poster had intended to blame the situation on DEI initiatives. This should assist in understanding the intent of my post showing that blaming this on DEI doesn't make a ton of sense when the slow decline of Boeing since the MD merger has mostly been guided by white dudes.

We're going to have to send you home from school today with a note to your parents to inform them that you might need some extra assistance in reading. We don't want to see you end up with your foot in your mouth again.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 0

That's quite a superiority complex you have gushing out all over there, newbie.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

1. Very cringe worthy use of "newbie". It's a forum on a website, not a frat, big guy.
2. I don't think there's anything superior about pointing out obvious mistakes someone made when they tried to inaccurately come after me.
3. Why don't you sit a few plays out. Even old pro's like you clearly need to take a time out when you put your nose into conversations you don't belong in.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 0

It's how you point things out, CJ., your way of talking down and now you're even resorting to downvoting when someone doesn't show admiration for your opinions.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

Ahhhh right, the downvote. A killer tactic that's sure to disenfranchise all who encounter it. That said, can I ask a quick question or two of you? You're going to get on the morality soap box by saying that I'm "talking down" to people, and yet you talked down to me. How does that work? Do the rules that you dictate not apply to you? Do you feel that you're entrusted to be the FlightAware police? Or are you just one of those keyboard warriors who likes to talk trash to people but then gets terribly sensitive and defensive when it comes back at you? The internet is a place where grown ups talk...if you can't handle grown up talk coming back your way, maybe this isn't the place for you.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 0

I love it when my point is proven.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

No response to the differing set of rules for me versus you? Just taking the easy way out? I don't deserve the respect that you say people do? Well done. You've really proven a point about who you are as a person.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

JMARTINSON about a year ago 1

I'll respond.

1. Pump the brakes there, mustache

2. Let's work through some reading comprehension

3. If you sound out the words you'll see

4. untwist the bunch in your panties

5. We're going to have to send you home from school today with a note to your parents

6. you might need some extra assistance in reading

7. don't want to see you end up with your foot in your mouth again

That's an impressive amount of condescension to stuff into one comment. Do you know what a subreddit is, newbie? There's one called AITA that you might want to check out.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

Nah, I'm good here. Thanks though!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 0

Thanks for the entertainment.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 0

You too, toots.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

Oh! And do feel free to say hi again at any time if you come up with an answer to my above questions or any factual data to support your EEO claims, which are definitely true! I'll be anxiously waiting!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Tom Bruce about a year ago 2

don't think that's what he meant?? just playing on words?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

Aleksandar Aleksandrov about a year ago 2

Yes, the guy who unironically says "blacks" is non-racist

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

Aleksandar Aleksandrov about a year ago 3

So you'd get off a plane with a black pilot?

Also stop saying "Blacks". You are speaking about human beings, not objects.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

willfe about a year ago 3

"Blacks" (with a capital "B") is literally a part of the AP's (and now Reuters') reporting guidelines. What's with the race baiting here? Which needlessly verbose phrase full of multi-syllable
words would you prefer we Ctrl-F/Ctrl-R in place of this string of six characters to satisfy your need to virtue signal? Is regular conversation possible without endless bickering over which specific demographic-identifying terms are in currently in favor?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 2

For someone who brags about their intelligence a lot you sure know how to make yourself sound a little less than sharp. Again, the Dunning Kruger effect proves accurate.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Brian James about a year ago -2

DEI is used in the corporate world to bring in diverse thoughts and opinions which in the long run make corporations work better. The more different ideas that are thrown at devising solutions, the better the end product.

DEI IS NOT a way to put people who are not properly trained into positions because of the color of their skin. This is propaganda that those who oppose integration are using to scare people.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Michael Dealey about a year ago 5

That's a very altruistic interpretation but it doesn't comport with reality. In practice, it's precisely about hiring people who fit a quota, regardless of qualification. IBM was just outed for this practice, with the CEO admitting on video that a certain percentage of all new hires must be of minority status, including minorities based on sexual identity. He went on to say that "Asians are not an underrepresented minority in the Tech industry." It's all about skin color and sexual orientation.

And tell me you didn't miss the FAA's new hiring guidelines. From their website:

"Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring...They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism."

This is a systemic problem across in America now; all driven by delusional, Leftist ideology.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

C J about a year ago 1

Billy...here's what you're missing in this whole thing. Nobody in their right mind is going to say that a person of color or a woman who submits their resume with zero qualifications for a job is going to get said job over a white guy with all of the right qualifications. Despite what you watch on your "news" network of choice, or what you read about on blogs or news sites from "experts", the intent of DEI in aviation is to open up doors of opportunity for those who wouldn't normally have that option. A great example is professional pilots in the airline world. A looming pilot shortage is something that most can recognize is a real threat to the future of the industry, and something EVERYONE can recognize is that pilot training is extremely cost prohibitive, particularly with 1k hour requirements before getting a job that pays a livable wage. Given those factors, why would it not make sense for companies to offer opportunities (such as United's Aviate program) to those who have the qualities to be an airline pilot but may not have the financial means to do so? Giving opportunities for people to prove themselves (aka "earn" it) in a way that isn't directly tied to their or their family's financial status seems like a no brainer. Yes, in your fear mongering blogs and news reports they'll paint it as an extreme case where anyone who doesn't look like you is immediately offered a job that you want, and there will be people who take it too far. However, given the fact that there are people on the opposite extreme who read/listen/watch the fear mongering garbage (*everyone looks at you*) and believe that they're being attacked for being a white guy, I think you'll see that it all balances out. Long story short, you're safe. Nobody is going to make you go to pride events or pretend like you appreciate diversity. The intent is just to give people opportunities to prove themselves and succeed.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Michael Dealey about a year ago 3

You're logic is flawed. When company policy dictates that 50% of new hires must consist of people of a certain race or gender, it means that other, possibly more qualified people, must be automatically excluded from consideration because of their race and gender. No one said someone with "zero" qualifications would be hired, but the company may be forced to hire from the bottom of the barrel, simply to fulfill a quota. Is that really who you want flying a plane, maintaining a plane, or managing air traffic?

You're dismissive reply to AWAAlum proves that you're either uniformed or in denial about how prevalent this actually is. Perhaps you should change *your* news sources.

I don't give a shit what color someone is or who they sleep with. The problem I have is that this practice exists AT ALL, because it practically guarantees that you'll NOT be getting the most qualified person for the job.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 2

Although it isn't the aviation industry, my father works for a very very large corporation which has actually furloughed "white dudes" and replaced them with under qualified people of color in order to meet EEO laws. I don't know where you go to form your opinions, but this time, you are the one underqualified in the informtion you're putting out.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago -1

lol "My dad said..." I can assure you that your dad is confused. In an employment at will state an employer can lay people off at any time, and I'm sure that's what happened. Rumbling about EEO laws and firing people because they're white is both hilarious and terrifyingly misguided.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

AWAAlum about a year ago 1

You're "sure that's what happened"...you need a new aladdin's lamp. You haven't clue 1. You would do well to work on your people skills and learn how to speak respectfully when attmepting to influence people over to your theories. Climb down off your high horse before you fall off. Now shoo.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

lol you're very funny. And there's no magic lamp over here, just a simple example of understanding the real world and not buying into garbage that people make up. I tell ya what, you show me a factual case (not a story from a dad, or an uncle, or a friend) of people being fired in modern times for the stated reason of EEO laws, and I'll apologize. Deal?

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 1

Billy Billy Billy...you need to understand context. Adorable attempt though.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

John Eliopoulos about a year ago 0

Agents of Airbus.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

dkenna about a year ago 11

How many have been killed on Max aircraft? How many issues has it had recently, along with other airframes from Boeing? Yet; you say it is all BS and wanting to get back at their old boss. All the downvotes are for a good reason. Overpaid execs get away with murder while collecting massive bonuses at the cost of the publics safety; and you say the people trying to warn you are wrong. Seriously?! Put the cool-aide down….

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

C J about a year ago 5

This comment legitimately deserves a standing ovation. Very well said!

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Pete Ostrowski about a year ago 3

Each and every shareholder of Boeing is, in part, responsible.
Boeing business decisions are based on providing shareholder value. From stock buybacks to engineering and assembly line decisions. Higher stock price keeps shareholders happy and increases ceo(others as well) salaries and bonuses

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

btweston about a year ago 12

Nothing you say has any meaning, and it is hilarious.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

willfe about a year ago 3

Yeah man those MAX's falling out of the sky were just sour grapes.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Larry Toler about a year ago 4

Despite your downvotes, I thought the same thing after I read the article. Although, it seems a little over-blown that they are saying not to fly any MAX aircraft. If it's going to get me from point A to point B, I'll take my chances. Any aircraft, no matter how safe can have issues in flight.
On a different note, former employees bashing their former employer to the press is probably not a good career move. As a possible future employer, they would not be my first choice to hire.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

avionik99 about a year ago 4

I guess no one here has ever heard of what's called "Disgruntled employee" I guess they think no one ever bashes their Ex employer? These people need to do a few job interviews from "Ex" employees, they would not have down voted your insightful response. But Boeing haters just gotta hate, no matter it seems.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Nick Abate about a year ago 6

Well disgruntled or not, there are a few things that can not be denied. Two jets fell out of the sky, and one landed with fewer parts than it took off with. All withing the last few years. Something is going on. The motto now is “If it’s Boeing, I’m not going.

Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?

You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.

Dismiss