BOEING Whistleblower Reveals Which PLANES are 'NOT SAFE'

[@Retr0racin]

I spent 34 years at this factory. They put shareholder value above quality. If you spoke up and made noise you did not last very long, squeaky wheels get replaced real fast. I retired four years ago the very first day I was eligible. Ed knows what he is talking about.

[@bmw_m4255]

typical aviation in general honestly

[@nedmilburn]

​@@bmw_m4255Boeing used to be a company room by engineers...Now it's a company run by bean counters (since McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money and over-ran he management).

[@polyphase4425]

Boeing requires Engineers in upper management (Leadership), not bean counters.

[@raycatlin3554]

Glad you made it out unscathed Retro ! 🥳. .👏

[@jollcheist1443]

Enjoy your retirement you did your part.

[@arturo468]

I believe Ed Pierson who worked at Boeing, not the aviation attorney.

[@JaneHasGame]

The attorney looks a little nervous?

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@JaneHasGame There was a tension in his voice when he disagreed : its a give away he believes him.

[@bhupeshpatel-yw1db]

The CEO should be charged $1 million for every day they don’t provide documentation requested by FAA. See how quickly things move then.

[@xx133]

or just fine him for everything he has, and put Boeing under worker/democratic control. it's not just the CEO the shareholders, and more broadly, our economic system demands this. Maximizing profits and ever increasing risk taking. No industry is spared.

[@rdbchase]

The CEO should not be the CEO and most or all of the members of the Board of Directors should not be on the Board of Directors.

[@xx133]

@@rdbchase there shouldn’t be a ceo or board of directors. If the company was democratically owned and run by the workers this would never have happened, as there would be no incentive to systematically play jenga with the company and infiltrate regulatory bodies the in order to maximize profits for shareholders.

[@jlvandat69]

Every person posting uninformed, irrational comments should be fined. It would really clean up the YT comment section.

[@xx133]

@@jlvandat69 👈 mediaeval serf just entered the chat to protect their dear lord.

[@georgeh6856]

Trust the guy who worked at Boeing and not the lawyer.

[@Dan_the_Great_]

Notice the lawyer didn’t even want to point out Boeing didn’t tell pilots or companies about MCAS. Big clown and working for Boeing at same time. I wouldn’t be surprised if he himself had the idea to kill whistleblower

[@Ezra411st]

Yep

[@johntrew1597]

Yes, the lawyer is talking like Boeing lawyer not an independent commentator. When in doubt never trust the lawyer over the technical experts .....he is auditioning for a job with Boeing.

[@cowarddonnie-ji5yz]

The lawyer gets money if the plane crashes

[@kansascityshuffle8526]

I think he’s wisely skirting a potential defamation lawsuit.

[@robertbarnier45]

Why is a lawyer even being asked to comment.

[@HaggardPillockHD]

Only one who'd defend Boeing

[@charlestoast4051]

What do you call twenty lawyers lying on the seabed? A good start.......

[@tapiocamango]

@@charlestoast4051I don’t get this one, Charles.

[@florencioigual]

Who do you believe the most, the former Boeing quality manager who supervised production and says the 737MAX is not safe, or the attorney who never worked in a Boeing factory and says it is safe?... 🤔

[@christopherhennessey8991]

Boeing quality manager is who I believe.

[@mcamp9445]

737 Max is fine. MCA was a really stupid thing. It is also true that neither of those crashes should’ve happened. The pilot should be able to recover the plane, especially the second time notice no crashes by any first world airlines

[@terrygerhart6878]

The lawyer defined an unsafe airplane, then says its an okay safe plane to fly. A good example of lawyers speak out of both sides of their mouth.

[@jungbolosse3034]

​@@mcamp9445What is a first world airline never heard that expression

[@deezeed2817]

I wouldn't trust a Jew at all. They even tell the world there's no genocide in Gaza.

[@nickjw88]

RIP John Barnett Whistleblowers from Boeing days are numbered.

[@andrew_koala2974]

Educate yourself and learn that ONLY a living soul has a name in Mixed Case Letters CORPORATIONS - being DEAD entities { CORPUS } have the name in ALL CAPS - as do the CORPSES in the Cemetery ALL CORPORATE { Legal } names are always written in the ALL CAPS iteration. Learn correct grammatical legal English Also learn that there is a difference in meaning between Given Name and Family Name -- compared to FIRST NAME and LAST NAME Now go and do your homework - then write an essay explaining the reasoning in the difference. I can also guarantee that you have not yet learned the difference in meaning between ON / OFF and on / off and in which context they are used. Your education is at best - elementary level

[@1337flite]

​ @andrew_koala2974 educate yourself proper nouns use capital first letters. I bet you're a soveriegn citizen and believe that the earth is flat.

[@santiago3978]

@@andrew_koala2974Retard. Go comment about UFO’s again.

[@JeromyBranch]

No way that man killed himself. He died just like Mr. Ihaveanislandwithlittlegirlsforyou. When muckety muck politicians are involved, and I have no doubt some are deeply involved with Boeing, people have a tendency to disappear when they can expose these politicians.

[@TeaandTacos77]

Why was this attorney invited to be on a panel about safety? He's not an aviation expert or a pilot and he's very clearly got a major COI. 'Both sides' nonsense should not be an excuse to mislead the public like this. If more people get on Boeing planes and are injured or die, this guy faces no consequences. In fact, he gets richer defending more lawsuits. Just incredibly poor form to include him and let him spout potentially dangerous misinformation. If you felt compelled to present Boeing's side, then invite a Boeing engineer or executive, not some bootlicking lackey.

[@davidphillips6803]

Agree 💯.

[@matthewmoore5020]

He IS a pilot.. and we DID invite Boeing .. but no answer

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@matthewmoore5020 Given Boeing are currently fighting a legal action, they dare not appear : a single remark might cost them both public support and millions.

[@protector22222]

i believe they did say he was a pilot

[@KimoKimochii]

he obviously got paid

[@TechnikMeister2]

As a Qantas pilot and instructor for 25 years, and now as a safety consultant to CASA (Australia's equivalent of the FAA and NTSB), I had the pleasure of spending time with both Japanese aircraft manufacturers, Mitsubishi and Kawasaki, and also with Hitachi Computers Systems who design their flight control systems. I have also been given behind the scenes tours incognito at Boeing factories in Renton and Charleston, and also at Spirit Aerospace in Kansas. It will come as no surprise to report that Boeings plants are a mess, and I personally spoke to workers who actually were to all intents and purposes, uneducated, and who dressed sloveningly and had a bad attitude. They were paid what a job at MacDonalds in Australia would pay. In Japan, workers are required to wear special uniforms and there are different coloured shirts and caps denoting different job functions. The QA guys had jellow shirts and they were everywhere, watching everything and constantly doing surprise checking of wiring and bolt torque settings. To get a job there is a demanding experience requiring a tertiary qualification. They are well paid and given excellent company benefits. It was expected that you could work your entire career there. That would be laughable in the USA. But hello! It used to be like that at Boeing too. When they merged with MD, instead of retaining the best Boeing engineering staff, they sacked them and replaced them with poor quality, cheaper MD staff who had sent MD broke for the same reason as today. If Being didn't have a good military revenue stream, it would probably have gone out of business by now.

[@roberthevern6169]

Sad, but likely true!

[@wobby1516]

Whenever accounts take charge quality and pride drop through the floor.

[@TheGecko213]

Shareholders returns takes priority over quality

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@TheGecko213 More like bank interest : when McDonald Douglas got taken over, the debt, and interest payments, fell onto Boeing. No one at Boeing realized how bad MD was. The effect can be expected to escalate with time as each part of the Boeing aircraft gets updated. If the interest isn't paid, the company will be declared bankrupt. Boeing should simply have waited for MD to go bankrupt, and pick up at cents to the dollar, anything of interest.

[@NickFrom1228]

Boeing has another issue. Unions. I can't count the number of stories of terrible workers that can't be sacked because everything is unionized. For instance one guy would do everything, all day long like he was at half speed. He was literally watched every single day, walk everywhere in slow motion, do everything in slow motion etc. When the end of shift signal was given he was one of the fastest moving people and at the door before most others. There is story after story of couldn't care less attitudes in workers. Not only that, management is whacked. I have a friend that was a physicist by training and had an interest in materials science and building planes (but his actual job was avionics QA). He and a couple other guys figured out a cool way to build a much stronger panel for the outer layer of the plane. They even tested it with the infamous chicken gun. It blew away all other Boeing designs by a long ways. So, having this awesome new panel technology is a good thing for Boeing, right? No. They were disciplined for doing it because they were in WA and this type of work is supposed to be done in Kansas. Since they were not in Kansas it didn't matter that they had produced this really good design, what mattered to management was the adherence to the agreements with the unions etc. It's so insane you can't make this stuff up.

[@jerrypolverino6025]

I have devoted my entire life to aviation, from education and aerospace science to a career airline captain. It hurts watching a once great engineering firm taken over by a gang of corporate thugs, whose only interest is their own personal wealth. It’s criminal and it’s disgusting. Even though I’ve been a career Boeing airline captain, I will no longer set foot on any Boeing aircraft. The BOD has been consistently and continuously lying to investors, crews, passengers and the FAA.

[@rdbchase]

If it were criminal, the corporate thugs would be under arrest. Nationalize Boeing now!

[@pantera01971]

It's not just about profit, they've put DEI above safety and quality and they've pushed DEI onto their suppliers. I worked for one of their suppliers and I've seen their quality go into the toilet.

[@jerrypolverino6025]

@@pantera01971 No way I am booking a flight on Boeing aircraft.

[@pantera01971]

@@jerrypolverino6025 The supplier I worked for is a big name in the aircraft Industrie and they make components for all manufactures, not just Boeing. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing until these companies are held accountable in a meaningful way and that's not likely to happen until a plane crashes and the cause is traced back to their negligence.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@pantera01971 I suspect the incident which will cause changes will be worse : a midway airframe failure causing the loss of all, is one of the possibilities.

[@johnabney3530]

What?! This attorney thinks he's more of an expert because he's flown on it more times than the guy who built it? I stopped right there, no conscience in criminal defense attorneys. Stand in front of the 346 families who lost dear ones and say this to them. The big problem is choosing South Carolina, you get what you pay for...

[@desobrien3827]

The only thing the Lawyer got right, "737 is from the 60's in design". The lawyer, does not know about the "Swiss cheese affect"!

[@H00L3y]

*effect

[@martinkirugi254]

I would rather trust a car with no brakes than a Boeing lawyer

[@tuanpham-vv3qj]

Again, beancounter as CEO! That is the error!

[@michaeledwards2251]

Boeing bought out with their own money : bank interest crushing all over interest.

[@HaggardPillockHD]

Most CEOs of these multinationals are all the same. Bean counters with an MBA

[@doltBmB]

rather a rivet counter than a bean counter

[@scruffscrofula]

They don't learn.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@scruffscrofula Their determined not too. When $ is your sole interest, your thinking is no different than an arms manufacturer.

[@EllieM_Travels]

The workers at Boeing used to have a saying, “If it’s Boeing, we’re not going.” I see nothing’s changed.

[@MM-tt3np]

Boeing is a symbol of the "great" america!! Well, the whole USA is crumbling today so... there you have it ;)

[@bartsolari5035]

Clarence Thomas Robert Menend, et al

[@Silvina46]

DEI woke policies

[@istra70]

Exactly ! ....... and no outside enemy !

[@johncantwell8216]

@@istra70 Correct...no outside enemies destroy a once-great society. In 1970, a KGB defector named Yuri Bezmenov warned us how the KGB sows the seeds of discontent, starting in academia. It takes 2 or 3 generations, but once it happens the downfall is fast.

[@istra70]

@@johncantwell8216 History is the best teacher. All big empires like Greek or Roman empire - they didn't collapse because of foreign ( outside ) enemy - but from corruption and rot within.... We can all see history repeating itself today....

[@jdcaldwell5088]

What wrong with Boeing?????? GREED OVER SAFETY 😮

[@michaeledwards2251]

Boeing bought out with their own money : bank interest crushing all over interest.

[@raymondcaruso507]

DEI hiring practices.

[@twig3288]

Boeing’s statement in response to the death of John Barnett sounds like what you would expect from a Mafia boss after the sudden unexpected death of a key witness against them

[@Silvina46]

Exactly 😱

[@dgdave2673]

Lol 😂 the lawyer was in lying mode from the outset! Pathetic

[@marshallmatters1526]

Why would you trust a lawyer, there to defend Boeing no doubt, over an ex senior manager for Boeing? I'll trust the guy who knows what hes talking about over the guy who's a lifelong paid professional liar.

[@davewalker9926]

The lawyer here uses double-speak and communicates a confusing message that reduces clarity.

[@twig3288]

That’s his job

[@robvoyles]

he's not very good at it.@@twig3288

[@scotfree21]

How on earth is a Lawyer an expert on aircraft ?

[@davewalker9926]

20 years of horrendous management at Boeing has led to this. Short-term greed squandered a global, world-class legacy. Bring in new management focused on engineering and safety. Boeing has a very short window to turn things around.

[@ginac895]

I believe Ed. Arthur, you can shove it.

[@robcormier7272]

I don't want to see any Boeing product at my gate at this point. The 767 was perhaps the pinnacle of their engineer years and It didn't even need fuel to fly as demonstrated on a couple of occasions. Just an amazing aircraft that showcased what was possible. Truly a sad story of corporate greed that has come home to roost.

[@michaelandmariedownes6070]

Who invited a lawyer to be involved in this discussion?

[@HaggardPillockHD]

No one else would defend Boeing

[@fernandobernardo6324]

He's showing Boeing perspective.

[@beargillesgaming]

You can just hear the anxiety and fear from the attorney. He is not comfortable and knows fully this is a situation he cannot control. It seems almost every aspect of life is degrading.

[@martintowle1308]

If i have to hear "thoughts and prayers" one more time I'm going to puke.

[@Afuru1]

The Ex Boeing engineer is more believable than the other guys. The Max should not be flying anymore.

[@BobC-kz1it]

What you are forgetting 737 is an old plan and should have been built from new with a completely new plan from the ground up.

[@nickolliver3021]

go tell them that and Airbus too

[@michaeledwards2251]

The problem wasn't the age of the plan, it was the priorities of the original design. Ease of loading and unloading. To achieve this, the wings were too close to the ground by modern standards. The engines were made more efficient by increasing the total air flow. The engine intake area had to be increased, and the engines moved to prevent the intake hitting the ground. The change in engine design resulted in a change in the flight characteristics of the 737 MAX. To prevent the change in flight characteristics requiring 737 rated pilots needing rerating with simulator training, the MCAS was introduced. The MCAS existed for commercial reasons only.

[@Dan_the_Great_]

@@nickolliver3021you referring to what plane from airbus?

[@danarrington2224]

So, about 5 years ago Boeing announced a new policy regarding their 3D CAD models and the 2D paper drawings that go with them. It's still generally accepted that regardless of the data in a CAD file of a component, the 2D drawing is the control. Even in terms of legal agreements between suppliers and their customers, if there is a conflict the 2D drawing is legally binding. Boeing went to all its suppliers 5 years ago and told them that they would no longer make 2D drawings of their components. It was up to the supplier to be able to extract all the critical details from the 3D CAD model. See, the solid modeling tools in CAD systems have become very efficient over the past decade or so. Making the accompanying 2D drawings, however, is still quite cumbersome. If it takes 10 minutes to make a 3D model, it might take an hour to generate the 2D drawing. As this new policy was rolled out Boeing audited it's suppliers to be certain that they had the proper tools to work directly from CAD data. Today, even a one-man shop behind somebody's house can easily do that. The problem is communicating the critical features to the manufacturing floor. There's always been a 2D drawing to do this and there really isn't a way around that even now. So, vendors had to make their own in-house "drawings" which has the same effect as letting "the fox guard the hen house." It's dangerous since there may only be 5 or 6 critical features described in the 3D model but the dimensions for the rest of the component are still important. In one single policy, Boeing cut costs, increased risk, and overburdened their suppliers. Fly Airbus...

[@michaeledwards2251]

Without 2D drawing, how can Boeing supervise ? You need the ability to pick critical points and measure against a concrete reference.

[@marjorielicup7514]

I believe that 3D has a command to convert to 2D.

[@danarrington2224]

@@marjorielicup7514 WTF are you talking about?

[@rdbchase]

People can take solace in Arthur Rosenberg's assurance only to the extant that they think he knows what he's talking about -- as an aviation attorney, he doesn't speak with direct experience of work on aircraft.

[@andrew_koala2974]

Attorney [ from ' Attorn ' -- meaning - to twist or turn ] is the mediator. ( Manipulator ) Attorneys are Snakes - When one observes a snake moving - it also twists and turns

[@philipambler3825]

This guy couldn't check for cheese at a barmitzfer...

[@HaggardPillockHD]

​@@philipambler3825 *bar mitzvah

[@Rasscasse]

There are more problems than just the ones they have highlighted here. We’ve got the faulty deicing system, which can overheat and set fire to the engine if you forget to turn it off when it’s not icy . One pilot reported that he used post it notes to remind him to turn it off. How crazy is that !

[@jantjarks7946]

Switch on the timer on the mobile phone. It too has the advantage that the light of the phone can illuminate the bolt of the windshield wiper, where ice is building up early. Just put it on the dashboard. Yep, technology of the 1960s....

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@jantjarks7946 No temperature switch to prevent overheating.

[@philipambler3825]

When De-Icing gets pretty dicey because of Boeing.

[@redwithblackstripes]

the attorney kept explaining how safe this plane is by pointing out how defective it is, its kinda impressive.

[@scruffscrofula]

Legal double-speak

[@lontarian2228]

Wow ! No authority is suspicious the poor guy 'kill himself' right before suing the company he has been exposing ?

[@FORTRAN4ever]

The lawyer sounds so condescending.

[@ExaltedDuck]

Back around 2012 I regularly chatting with BR&T engineers that assigned to qualify the systems and products at the company where I working at the time. The topic strayed to the dreamliner and its batteries one day and I heard one of the most shocking and appalling things I've heard in the line of my work. I asked why they continued with lithium Ion batteries when lithium polymer was widely available. The answer - and stated so matter of factly that these more recent discoveries of cultural problems don't surprise me in the least - "At the time they became available, it would have delayed the plane's rollout by 12-18 months". Like, they knew full well how much more stable LiPo was but chose to ignore that to meet a deadline. We're really lucky that the fires that did occur, didn't lead to any loss of life.

[@xx133]

The reason why this occurred is the same reason why the planes haven't been grounded. Maximizing profits. Our economic system demands it. Capital owners are the ones running the show.

[@chikarahokage5536]

You can’t fix a mechanical problem with electronic, the design decision is an awful cost cutting from management, as a safety engineer there are so many wrong principles here.

[@CookyMonzta]

5:00 Good! ⚠️ I hope Pierson got himself a bodyguard and a private detective.

[@roberthevern6169]

Definitely!

[@Dan_the_Great_]

Bruh I was thinking he was the one who died

[@CookyMonzta]

@@Dan_the_Great_ It was somebody else, who testified and was later found dead. It was ruled a suicide, but many believe it was staged.

[@LangfordRae-mz8pf]

Very interesting, informative and rather worrying

[@Starfish2145]

So the attorney thinks we should believe the plane is safe because he flies all the time?? 🤦‍♀️ Then he says “it’s a deadly mix”. 😂😂😂😂

[@jean-baptiste6479]

Attorney talking about aircraft safety is like sovereign citizen goung to court without an attorney.

[@Svabre]

Uhhh guys I don’t entirely agree with differentiating between these aircraft - the new aircraft are certainly worse, but the maintenance guidelines and parts for other Boeing models still come from the same place, so I’d argue none of them are safe anymore.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The software is the most concerning factor : sloppy design, testing, and update, will cause across the board problems.

[@lours6993]

Why are we taking technical safety advice from a lawyer with vested interests? Appalling to include him as if he is qualified to participate in such a debate.

[@HaggardPillockHD]

No one else would defend Boeing. You think the bosses would dare show their faces on TV?

[@hidden-treasures]

The lawyer says the plane is safe, so that settles it? I believe that the plane should be allowed to fly only to Vegas and back. That seems appropriate, since it would allow you to gamble on your flight, as well as while you're in Vegas.

[@N3utrimoe]

🤣

[@gracecaldwell4952]

isn't that sabotage to not put bolts in the door plug ?

[@robertbarnier45]

Even the lawyer describes a company failing badly.

[@collcoll9098]

I really enjoyed this program about Boeing.. very informative and I am surprised that such a prestigious company would take such an approach to producing aeroplanes. There is no margin of error in this industry. They must be more responsible.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Boeing bought out with their own money : bank interest crushing all over interest.

[@bar10ml44]

The lawyer is a disgrace

[@JoesephBidon]

The merger with McDonald-Douglass was a disaster. That's where the "cultrure" of Boeing went out the door!

[@plunder1956]

If I was booking a flight I'd ask "is this a Boeing aircraft or not" if it was I wouldn't buy a ticket from them. If I turn up at an airport & find a 737 Max waiting for me, I'm staying on the ground. Many Boeing aircraft are NOT fit to fly at all.

[@kolattek]

I believe Ed and alan

[@turfterf6874]

Boeing used to be a company run by engineers. Now it's run by financial money men. This happens to every company once the money grubbers take over.

[@RoryEwanTan-gv3jx]

I am not getting on a Boeing airplane until they fix the company. God help us.

[@3DZON_R870]

Lawers are payed to defend whatever regardless of morals or ethics, their opinion is not to be taken as unbiased or valid. Will definetely believe an engineer that builds those planes, than the devil's advocate.

[@TheHarshil]

Right?! Like their only purpose is to defend client, regardless of morals. Why was he even invited here

[@grandpa5508]

Consequences of putting profit before safety.

[@dramspringfeald]

As we've come to understand, Boeing saying "Pilot Error" what they mean is Boeing Engineering Failure

[@karmabeatONs]

How the does the media say dead whistle blower....and not do a deep dive on the BOD?

[@jaycharlton2085]

Terrific debate! Thanks.

[@i0r-r-tjtkttl]

Who cares about what the heck the lawyer says; he says Max got all kinds of problem but Max is still safe? Give me a break! No body is buying.

[@Whatmobiledeal]

If a ex Boeing employee WONT step foot on a Boeing, you’d have to have rocks for brains 🧠 to step on one yourself. Any flights I’ll take I will be 100% making sure they’re not a Boeing.

[@seanthompson258]

CUTTING CORNERS AND DONT REALLY CARE ABOUT SAFETY! MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT! SAME OLD SAME OLD STORY, DEVOLVING RATHER THAN EVOLVING!

[@petenutt]

Al-Jazeera warned 10 years ago in a documentary

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Yup and you can still find it here on KZbin, well worth the search and watch time.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 I would appreciate the correct search term. With Thanks. ( I find your comments enjoyable : they remind me of those details I had forgotten. )

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 Is it the Al-Jazeera documentary 2012 Al Jazeera Documentary "On a wing and a prayer"

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@michaeledwards2251 could be, been few years since I watched it, but I do remember it was very interesting and very pretty indepth and well done. Had it been done by 60 Minutes instead of Al-Jazeera, it would of probably won some major awards.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@michaeledwards2251 try al jazeera boeing documentary in the youtube search box, it brings up a number of their documentary's regarding Boeing, from the early problems with the 787 to the 737.

[@martinfoy9327]

I’m a degenerate drug addict and I can tell you that when parts are coming off a plane it’s not safe.

[@linuxuberuser]

Yes the safety of the software had a lot to do with the door plug coming off.

[@michaeledwards2251]

From what I read about the problem, the door came off, due the subcontractor's software having slightly different usages for the state of a door from Boeing. No one had made the effort needed to make sure both agreed. This resulted in an unfinished door being used during flight. It was luck no one died.

[@IRACEMABABU]

Passenger : if it's Boeing, i am not going. Airline : if it's Boeing i'm not buying.

[@MoonShine-o5n]

I mean.. the lives of people lost during those two max crashes seem to be very minimized just because they weren’t Americans🤬 Simply not acceptable in the industry they’re in. These are human lives we’re talking about.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Your aware the grand niece of Ralph Nader died on the Ethiopian flight ? Its one of the reasons why he is so engaged.

[@jeffpestano1296]

That’s really weird that the guy on the right is saying the same things as the other two but calling it safe. That’s how politicians speak.

[@sunshine7453]

No company is happy with whistleblower.

[@dewetrobertson1752]

The lawyer don't belong on the panel

[@kevin-parratt-artist]

I select my flights according to this: 1. Destination 2. Airbus 3. Schedule 4. Price

[@VladaldTrumptin]

Evens if they’re not directly responsible for the death of the whistleblower, they’re indirectly responsible for his “suicide” no doubt either way. They must pay.

[@yutakago1736]

The problem with Boeing is the same as other US companies that are listed on the stock exchange. They hired CEO whose only priority is to protect the interest of shareholders. Meaning they will cut headcount to save labor cost in order to boost share price. They retrench many QC inspectors that are suppose to ensure the quality of the plane build at Boeing. That is the reason why the quality of Boeing 737 Max drop. Therefore, to solve Boeing problem is to delist Boeing from the stock exchange.

[@seanthompson258]

AIRBUS DOENST MAKE ALTERNATIONS TO AN AIRCRAFT AND AD TECH AND NOT TELL THE PILOTS ABOUT IT!!!!

[@PeterMullinger]

In my view the 737 has had is day. It is only allowed to be produced owing to all sots of concessions.

[@carlo_berruti]

The rendering of Alaska Airlines’ door plug at min. 01:50 (and following) is VERY wrong: it seems those who made the video are the only ones in the world not to have seen any pictures of the damaged plane. The one depicted is an over wing exit and not the door plug, that was well behind the wing. If what had dropped from the sky were an over wing exit door, the plane would have most likely crashed in a matter of minutes, because the door would have damaged the wing. It would have been enough to take a look at any major TV News of the last three months

[@HighFlyer96]

Well, I'm sure people's clothes and belongings aren't white squares either. The animation is an over simplification for the average viewer, likely made by an intern with the lack of love for detail

[@carlo_berruti]

@@HighFlyer96 yes, clothes and belongings have all the rights to be oversimplifications, but the position of a door plug in a video (with a panel of reputable experts) that is just about the door plug incident is a plain mistake. That is an overwing exit door and totally different from any of the endless pictures we’ve seen since the accident took place

[@HighFlyer96]

@@carlo_berruti Fair enough. You've made a solid argument and convinced me.

[@mubarakaminu6862]

the lawyer is capping

[@Hanking-Warry]

"which PLANES are 'NOT SAFE'" any of those whose type number begins with 7.

[@selvarajsubrammanian9242]

🤣😭sad and funny

[@nickolliver3021]

and A

[@morphius2003]

​@@nickolliver3021What isn't safe on the A-10 Warthog?

[@nickolliver3021]

@@morphius2003 or any other plane

[@Dan_the_Great_]

@@nickolliver3021airbus far from Boeing 🤣

[@thisisnumber0]

Clickbait. You did not tell us which aircraft are not safe. I'm out.

[@nupagadii5834]

777 wing engine pylons are designed faulty. 787 fuselage is designed faulty - Air Norwegian case - microcracks and sensors have not picked it out....

[@idunnoanymore2870]

Alaska was very fortunate the door did not hit any components on the tail or stabilizer, or it could’ve have been catastrophic!!!!!

[@bobbowie5334]

This guy should investigate _term_ life insurance.

[@bubbay.1610]

SADLY, Most of the time It doesn't end well for Most Whistleblowers, Cleaners?Rubbed Out?Go Figure? Boeing became Too FUBAR QUALITY is GONE, if it's A BOEING I'm NOT GOING Their Golden Age of Commercial Aviation has Sadly Diminished. AIRBUS turned the tables.

[@stuartlee6622]

Lockheed-Martin need NOW to reenter the commercial aircraft market!!!!

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Nope.....they were in the industry before and left under a very large cloud, remember the L-1011 disaster? They left the industry to focus on the more profitable military industry then the commerical side of things. They would have to invest massive amount of fiscal resources to re-enter the market place, from designing new competative models to retooling and expanding existing production facilities or building new ones. The fiscal drain would be prohibative. Then there is marketing and sales aspect to consider. They would have to go head to head against not only Airbus and Boeing, but also established smaller firms such as Bombardier in Canada, Embraer in Brazil and recently Comac of the PRC. All these firms have marketshare and brand recognitional as well as a history with the worlds airlines, Lockheed Martin would be coming in rather cold. It would be a massive up hill battle for Lockheed Martin to reenter into market and gain market share, plus it would be a massive finacial burden for the company, even if it was subsidised by their weapons and space divisions.

[@stuartlee6622]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 The TriStar was a marvelous airliner, much better than the DC-10! The Connie made lots of money. The Electra, once it's wings problem was fixed, was good, etc.. Lockheed could and SHOULD reenter the commercial aircraft market!

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@stuartlee6622 There were only 250 L-1011's built of which 5 crashed,. While the L-1011 was arguably the most avanced airline of its time period technology wise, both it's direct competitor the DC-10 and Boeing 747's were superiour aircraft in terms of performance and passenger capacity. Plus the DC-10, another tri-jet aircraft, was cheaper to built and acquire. As for the Connie and Electra, both were prop powered aircarft although the Lockheed Electra L-188 Model 10 had four turbo-props. Both however were made obsolete when first the UK's de Havilland DH.106 Comet first flew in 1949, followed by the Avro Canada C102 Jetliner a few months later the same year. The final nail into the coffins of the Connie and Electra was when the first Boeing 707 took to the skies five years later in 1954. Interestingly enough, the L-188 Electra first flew in 1957, three years after the introduction of the 707 and in the same year the 707 had entered into commerical service, followed by the DC-8 in 1959. Basically Lockheed was already well behind both Boeing and Douglas from the start and did not offer a proper jetliner until the launch of the L-1011 in 1970. Today's Lockheed Martin faces the same problem as it did back then, they are starting well back from the established firms and have no designs or ability to produce or market one even if they did. Even if they start this minute, it would take them at least 15 to 20 years to get a plane to market, starting with a clean sheet design. About the only way they could get into the market today, is if they were to either licence build an existing Airbus, Embraer or even Comac design or buyout one of those firms, which is highly unlikely given the national pride those firms give their respective countries. Or perhaps they can acquire the commerical airline arm of Boeing. That I could see happening if given both massive Government fiscal and political support.

[@sulevisydanmaa9981]

@stuartlee6622 I 2ND TO THAT : THE STARLINER-SUPER SUPER CONNIES BACK IN THE AIR . Let s start a new carrier , call it NOSTALGIA AIRWAYS . Fly Finnair 🇫🇮

[@christianfournier6862]

@@sulevisydanmaa9981= I flew on a SuperConstellation between Paris and Brussels fifty years ago. We were provided with puke-bags when passing the entrance door. Endearing memory, symbolic of the progress aviation has made in that last half century. The woes of Boeing come from the immense strides aviation has made in safety during that period, so immense that Boeing excs have taken safety for granted and thought they could get by with a little greed... What Boeing execs have forgotten is that performing close to perfection makes the public more and more intolerant of any remaining imperfection. Cutting any kind of corner becomes a criminal act! Gone are the days when the B26 Marauder could be rushed into production and earn its nickname of “widowmaker" before becoming one of the lesser dangerous bombers to fly in combat missions. But then it was war!

[@rajeshraghavan2248]

An airplane with wrong aerodynamics relying strongly on a computer software (MCAS) to stabilize it is in a wrong place itself. Why are they having a debate on this useless aircraft ?. 737 max had to be build from scratch if they needed to place the large engines below thier wings. Dont try to compete with Airbus cause they have better standards than Boeing.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The aerodynamics of the 737 MAX is fine from a pilots point of view. The sole function of the MCAS was to avoid the need for 737 rated pilots, to be rerated for the 737 MAX by simulator training. After the LION AIR crash, Boeing did an analysis of the probability of another crash caused by the MCAS, which was present for commercial reasons only, and concluded another crash would be expected in the lifetime of the airframe. Since Boeing interpreted this to mean the immediate probability of another crash was low, they had time to develop a fix to the MCAS, and could avoid the commercial losses from the need to simulator train 737 pilots. Every time I think I understand how bad this is, I learn something worse. If the above sounds bad, rest assured the worst has yet to come out.

[@fw1421]

The door plug was a manufacturing defect the others are maintenance issues by the airlines. Stonewalling the FAA is a serious problem. Boeing has been uncaring about safety ever since they bought Macdonnell Douglas’s. All they care about is return on investment and executive bonuses.

[@RemarkableSean]

"... It's irresponsible to say it's unsafe to fly.... it's a Rube Goldberg..."

[@philipambler3825]

Goldwingading Goldberg

[@Activated_Complex]

Even the one guy saying the 737 Max is "largely safe," which is in itself somehow less than reassuring, goes on to describe Boeing as "pumping out" airplanes with manufacturing problems.

[@goupigoupi6953]

"When one door closes, another one opens" - Boeing.

[@fieldsofgold775]

Before I buy any ticket. I check that the aircraft in service is not a 737 Max. I’m even now starting to do the same thing with 787’s. I look for airlines flying Airbus now instead.

[@harrybretschneider6343]

Didn't I hear recently that many of the 787 dreamliner's panels in many cases didn't match up when installed? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[@tedd8055]

I'm not getting in a plane with bandaid fixes.

[@Maximus-HK]

Brilliant debate. Shocking revelations; playing with people's lives

[@boyvanurk9854]

The truth is rarely heard, usually seen.

[@pierredenis1071]

Apparently the whistleblower was killed ....and he advised every body that if he should die it would'nt be by suicide,...

[@3DZON_R870]

Its true that this is not an engineering problem, this is a company "Culture" problem. As it stands safety has taken not even a back seat, but its treated as baggage in the trunk.

[@Ezra411st]

It's also easier to put all the blame on the pilots over the Airlines it Manufacturers

[@Dan_the_Great_]

Attorney sure did have the nerve to say such a thing and doesn’t even know what really been going on with BOEING like our good whsitle blower here…: or should I say…. MD

[@danijuggernaut]

They talk about the MCAS, but it starts with faulty AOA sensors wich it's not a common fail item. So a shity sensor activates a shity system.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Remember the sensor in question could be fitted in 6 different positions, only one of which was correct. Faulty maintenance by an airline is strong possibility in both crashes. The evidence is hard to verify, as both aircraft went head first into the ocean, and ground, respectively.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Thank you for your comment : it seems to have disappeared.