Last year, the former quality manager at Boeing warned that the 787 Dreamliner plant, one of the company’s new aircraft models, had been plagued by mean work practices and poor supervision. John Barnett, who worked at the aircraft manufacturer for many years, said Boeing was building aircraft with “unstandard” parts, and its speed and efficiency requirements were at risk. Barnett refused to ride in Dreamliner, when he died in an apparent suicide, he also had a legal dispute with the company.
Yesterday, Barnett warned regulators that the plane crashed in Ahmedabad, India killed one of the passengers. The crash, the worst aviation disaster in recent memory, sparked a new scrutiny of its controversial manufacturer. While it will take months to understand what actually caused the crash, it is not particularly strange if the source of the disaster ends up being a vulnerability in aircraft technology design. Barnett’s death sparked conspiracy theory as he involved legal cases against his former employer, who was part of critics who have long expressed concern about corporate manufacturing practices.
787 was founded in 2011, and one of the benefits of advertising is that Boeing can produce aircraft cheaper than previous models. However, from the beginning, the aircraft was ridiculed for its overly complex assembly process. One critic wrote in 2013 that the plane was grouped together through a complex network of contractors, some of whom provided limited transparency. Another aviation commentator said it seemed like Boeing was saying “F*ck. Let’s throw away everything we know or use in aircraft production and use this new unproven approach.” Critics noted that the company outsourced too many parts to too many different contractors, and that all of these components may not fit together properly when the process is finally assembled.
After launch, the aircraft was plagued by technical problems almost immediately. In 2013, the cabin was grinding with a series of battery-related fires that caused the FAA to grind in the 787s in the United States until safety issues were resolved. In 2015, the U.S. Air Safety Agency discovered a software error in the aircraft’s generator control device that could be assumed to cause the aircraft pilot to “lose control.” The plane also suffered from fuel leaks and other problems.
In 2019, the New York Times first reported the production of Dreamliner at its South Carolina plant, noting that it was allegedly “dangled by counterfeit production and weak supervision that could potentially harm safety.” Barnett [come] Outside Charleston, I would say by my name it is safe and actionable. ”
After Barnett’s death, another whistleblower for Sam Salehpour, an engineer who had previously worked at Boeing, claimed that a flaw in the way the 787 was assembled could cause the plane to “crash” in the middle. Salehpour went on to testify about the problems before Congress, accusing his former company of being involved in “crime cover-up.” He also hinted that something might “have” from his outspoken criticism. Around the same time, other Boeing whistleblowers emerged from the woodwork, with similar criticisms of the aircraft manufacturer, one of which died. That spring, Boeing also acknowledged documents about the 787 and communicated with the FAA that it “may not have completed the required inspections to confirm the appropriate bonds and rooted wings where the fuselage is added”, and other misconduct may have occurred at the company.
Boeing did not return a request for comment.
