Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

This is just a disclaimer that the accusations in this thread are not verified as from an official source.

✈️ atcsundevil

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

So basically you are saying that Boeing is not capable to build an airplane without the customer having to inspect it throughout the process? I am a bit surprised tbh.

Just a clarification question: Who is employing the Customer Coordinator, Boeing or the Customer?

Not knowing the process in detail, it seems to be more like a problem on Boeings QA side.

And instead of speaking to your supervisor and/or the competent authorities about that matter, you decide to toot confidential information into an open aviation forum, frequently followed by all the experts in journalism.
Thanks for the heads-up, but I do hope nobody finds out your real name buddy, because i'm pretty sure you just broke the secrecy clause in your working contract...

https://www.caaf.org.fj/

I would suggest you send an email to the above

senatorflyer wrote:

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

So basically you are saying that Boeing is not capable to build an airplane without the customer having to inspect it throughout the process? I am a bit surprised tbh.

This is standard practice at both Airbus and Boeing. When you are spending billions of dollars on what is still largely hand built machinery you generally want the opportunity to expect the goods as much as possible.

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

Op you are so brave to call the company out without knowing what's going on for sure. There Could be lots of reasons why this plane is being done differently then what you are used to..

Now since you are so brave go ahead and post your bems Id here as well.. I'm waiting

Shouldn’t you be debating the topic and not going after the person?

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum about the reasons for the differences in processes.

I find it most surprising Boeing doesn’t just do quality assurance on their products automatically, without the operator needing to eagle eye over the whole thing. When you’re buying such a safety critical, expensive bit of equipment from one of the leaders in the industry you should expect them to be built with care and correctly.

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

Maybe you should contact the FAA? They have whistle blower program IF what you are saying is true (and I'm sorry, but I do not believe you right now, you appear to have an ax to grind with them and the anonymity of this forum allows you to do so).

cpd wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

Op you are so brave to call the company out without knowing what's going on for sure. There Could be lots of reasons why this plane is being done differently then what you are used to..

Now since you are so brave go ahead and post your bems Id here as well.. I'm waiting

Shouldn’t you be debating the topic and not going after the person?

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum about the reasons for the differences in processes.

No, you need first to verify the credibility of the person. New account, 1st post, and naming Boeing and their customer: sounds like defamation to me.
OP should be very careful: Boeing and/or the airline might come after him/her, especially if his/her accusations are bogus.

ANNEX14 wrote:

Not knowing the process in detail, it seems to be more like a problem on Boeings QA side.

And instead of speaking to your supervisor and/or the competent authorities about that matter, you decide to toot confidential information into an open aviation forum, frequently followed by all the experts in journalism.

After the MAX fiasco OP did the right thing by not relying on supervisors and/or the FAA but inform us at Airliners.net instead. Lives at stake trump confidentiality agreements.

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

If your values, Company ethics and/or the safety of yourself or others is in question please contact The Boeing Ethics Line at 1 (888) 970-7171 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Central time.

I’d be very careful posting information like this. You have no idea what the contractual QA language between Boeing and Fiji might be. They might have a contractual clause that allows them to complete the QA work upon delivery in Fiji. Sure it probably costs them more if they find an issue in Fiji as opposed to while the plane is on the line but that’s their choice. They could have also signed off on a QA process they expect Boeing to follow. I know many companies when ordering multiples of a uniquely manufactured product (ie aircraft, locomotives, oil rigs, etc...) will QA the first one off the line and then sign off on a QA process to be met in the facility then do their own QA upon delivery. God forbid you actually expect a manufacturer to produce something to your desired standards without being physically present to sign off on each item as it rolls off the line.

I have to question how valid this OP is. My first impression is that you have an axe to grind with your employer. If it is real and you have knowledge someone is skirting procedures, this should not be the first place you make your claim.. I'd be worried about my job if I were you, especially if this rumor is unfounded. I am sure quite a few Boeing employees are on this site. Perhaps even your supervisor.

ANNEX14 wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up, but I do hope nobody finds out your real name buddy, because i'm pretty sure you just broke the secrecy clause in your working contract...

not everybody thinks like you. But you are right, history shows that there are not many of them.

Alfons

To the OP,

First off, thanks for your post. As others have said, there probably is more to the story. Having that been said...

You've named both your employer and a customer. While there may very well be valid concerns here, whistle blower rules won't protect you for bringing this to a public forum, primarily because there are channels through the FAA to deal with this.

Based on things I've seen with Boeing, I would strongly recommend seeing to it that you are truly anonymous here. They won't respond kindly if you're found out.

In any case, if you were to ask the mods to remove this thread, I doubt anyone will hold against you.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

To the OP,

First off, thanks for your post. As others have said, there probably is more to the story. Having that been said...

You've named both your employer and a customer. While there may very well be valid concerns here, whistle blower rules won't protect you for bringing this to a public forum, primarily because there are channels through the FAA to deal with this.

Based on things I've seen with Boeing, I would strongly recommend seeing to it that you are truly anonymous here. They won't respond kindly if you're found out.

In any case, if you were to ask the mods to remove this thread, I doubt anyone will hold against you.

IP logged already, web cached and etc.
Nowhere to run at this point.
He better knew what he was doing.

PixelPilot wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

IP logged already, web cached and etc.

you need a court ruling to get access to the ISP's logfiles. In Europe, that's not so easy to get it and usually only when really bad things happened.

Soooo.....
are the quality things optional? The post starts off saying Boeing has two and then the airline has the last. It seems that Boeing's is a standard part of the process. Then you shift blame to Fiji. So please clarify who is responsible for the checks. Is it standard, or do customers have to pay for it?

I find it worrysome that Boeing charges extra for an inspection that uncovers 20% of all anomalies.

Wait, so airline do the quality inspection? I dont understand?

This post and OP both smell fishy. Have doubts he is what he claims. Have some doubts we will hear from him again, but if so maybe then he can convince me his post is real.

This is becoming just plain silly. Either this is fake news, with someone pretending to be a Boeing employee or if it’s true, why report such a situation here? Clean this up

Why is this thread bashing Boeing? I know it's popular this year, but everyone seems to jump to conclusions that this is Boeing's fault.

The OP's point is that this is FIJI AIRWAYS we're talking about here. For some reason they don't appear to coordinate factory QA as other customers customarily do. For what reasons, I don't know and I'll refrain from guessing.

The other poster who suggesting making a report to the Fijian CAAF is exactly what this poster should do. Send the report. Hopefully CAAF will inquire to Fiji and they'll find out if this is proper or not.

Also, why is it bad that Boeing has customer on-site QA? This is a huge investment that is built by hand. Customers want to make sure they get to examine the goods before being on the hook for millions of dollars and many human lives. So having customer on-site QA makes sense - the customer can rest assured that a non-OEM party contributed to the proper build of the aircraft. Kind of like a "second opinion" type of thing.

Customers get very involved as they should. There is a video around of LH taking their first 747-8 some years back. They nitpicked the crap out of that plane. As for this poster, one more question. If he is a mechanic, did he report to his supervisor and if not, why not. If so, what was the supervisor's response? My bet: We will never know....

Airlines most likely do it so they can conform it to their op specs as fast as possible. You can also just do all these tasks after you take delivery. Or it’s what airlines have to do when they buy a used airplane.

blueglacier737 wrote:

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington.

Are "mechanics" used on the FAL? Is that the official term for aircraft assemblers? If not, what would they be using their "mechanic" skills to fix? The tooling?

GlobalAirways wrote:

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

If your values, Company ethics and/or the safety of yourself or others is in question please contact The Boeing Ethics Line at 1 (888) 970-7171 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Central time.

Retribution, inaction, lack of disclosability/no FOIA if it's a Safety Management System (SMS) programme.

That's why.

hivue wrote:

blueglacier737 wrote:

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington.

Are "mechanics" used on the FAL? Is that the official term for aircraft assemblers? If not, what would they be using their "mechanic" skills to fix? The tooling?

Yes, absolutely. BCA requires this licensure. As do most OEMs. In the US, an A&P is a mechanical certificate that covers quite a lot of ground. Inspectors must have this as the basis of their IA's/QA's, etc in the same way that a 747 pilot must first have a PPL with the necessary endorsements before applying for the type rating.

I'm not honestly sure why it would be a surprise that Mechanical skillsets would include Assembly.

The simple implication, being the carrier may not fulfill their commitment to the introduction of this fleet type.

greendot wrote:

GlobalAirways wrote:

blueglacier737 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a mechanic on the 737 MAX final assembly in Renton, Washington. A Fiji Airways 737 MAX-8 has been making its way down the assembly line with installation plans (the build authority) that doesn't include most of the standard quality inspections MAX's receive.

Boeing has three quality inspection levels on the assembly line: QA, Customer Coordinator, and the Airline Customers. The QA's are the first level of inspectors, usually finding around 80% of nonconformities. The Customer Coordinators conduct the next inspections and usually find the bigger nonconformities like nicked wires or riding conditions that could endanger the aircraft's safety. Once the Coordinators are satisfied they call the Airline Customer to give it final buyoff. The Airline Customers rarely find anything significant and sometimes let the Coordinators give final buyoffs themselves.

This Fiji Airway's MAX-8 however only has a single level of QA inspections on many critical installations where nonconformities could compromise the plane's safety. On several installations this was first time I'd hadn't seen at least two sets of required inspections. As much as I appreciate the work of our QA's there are still important flaws that escape them that are later found by the Coordinators. I've had Coordinators find lost tools, sharp FOD, nicked wires and loose nut plates that even experienced QA's have missed.

With this many important inspections removed it me makes question Fiji Airway's commitment to safety and quality. I understand Fiji is a small airline without large amounts of capital like some of their rivals, but I can't imagine they save that much money by not requiring standard inspections. Boeing could of course could try not fleecing their customers for every additional feature, especially something that should be routine like quality inspections. Maybe Fiji just trusts us enough to get the job done and do it well.

Before the crashes I probably wouldn't have thought much about it, but now I do.

If your values, Company ethics and/or the safety of yourself or others is in question please contact The Boeing Ethics Line at 1 (888) 970-7171 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Central time.

Retribution, inaction, lack of disclosability/no FOIA if it's a Safety Management System (SMS) programme.

That's why.

If those are the concerns posting this on a public forum is hardly the correct action.

Quite a few things seem to happen on Boeing assembly lines. 767 tanker FOD issues anyone? Do you honestly think it is any less for the civilian products? There was a thread on here about a KLM 737NG that needs a new fuselage...
My lot has a representative on site for all new builds, quite a few things have come up, including a wing being taken off again due to a tool left in between the wing and fuselage attachments.
So the OP has a point. Trust but verify.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1427119

arcticcruiser wrote:

Quite a few things seem to happen on Boeing assembly lines. 767 tanker FOD issues anyone? Do you honestly think it is any less for the civilian products? There was a thread on here about a KLM 737NG that needs a new fuselage...
My lot has a representative on site for all new builds, quite a few things have come up, including a wing being taken off again due to a tool left in between the wing and fuselage attachments.
So the OP has a point. Trust but verify.

Trust but verify, yes.
Spill out information like that on a public forum, citing the company and customer names and using a new account while not following on the thread; NO WAY.

If OP is truly concerned about what's happening, there are much better ways of reporting it (FAA whistle blower, Boeing Ethics Hotline, anonymous call to the customer, etc).
This truly look like someone with an ax to grind, a disgruntled employee (same difference) or just something slinging $h!t out there and see what sticks...

Polot wrote:

greendot wrote:

GlobalAirways wrote:

If your values, Company ethics and/or the safety of yourself or others is in question please contact The Boeing Ethics Line at 1 (888) 970-7171 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Central time.

Retribution, inaction, lack of disclosability/no FOIA if it's a Safety Management System (SMS) programme.

That's why.

If those are the concerns posting this on a public forum is hardly the correct action.

Actually, anonymous public disclosure is really the only logical recourse.

Corporations have literally every advantage to silence a dissenter. They employ someone, they hold someone hostage via Non Disclosure Agreements, and they hold all the advantage in choosing employment of the individual. Furthermore, the government does not "protect" an individual like this. Once this person is known, he is forever tarnished in the industry. There's simply no way to protect him. It's better for more people to know, and for those individuals to put pressure on the FAA or the company. If letters are sent to the FAA, then at least those letters can be used to hold the FAA accountable via FOIA and legal action. Corporate internal processes are honeypots that protect the company from legal action, mostly.

WayexTDI wrote:

This truly look like someone with an ax to grind, a disgruntled employee (same difference) or just something slinging $h!t out there and see what sticks...

If he is a "disgruntled employee", what does it matter? Do you think a disgruntled employee can get the FAA to punish Boeing through mere accusations? Don't you think he would need evidence?

The evidence either leads to a true condition or it doesn't. If it's true, then it needs to be addressed.

Even a "disgruntled employee" can be telling the truth about something wrong going on.

Ever think to ask a customer coordinator first?
GECAS and Boeing have a contractual agreement, as does the airline with GECAS.

This agreement will cover everything, including who is responsible for inspections. Just because this airplane is worked differently then what you are used doesn't mean that the additional inspections aren't happening.

With all the Max hysteria from the experts here on ANet and in the media, your post is nothing but clickbait, and an opportunity to pile onto Boeing and the airline.

Check your facts.

greendot wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

This truly look like someone with an ax to grind, a disgruntled employee (same difference) or just something slinging $h!t out there and see what sticks...

If he is a "disgruntled employee", what does it matter? Do you think a disgruntled employee can get the FAA to punish Boeing through mere accusations? Don't you think he would need evidence?

The evidence either leads to a true condition or it doesn't. If it's true, then it needs to be addressed.

Even a "disgruntled employee" can be telling the truth about something wrong going on.

There is no wrong doing.
There is a process.
He doesn't have the whole picture.

I contractually take delivery of airplanes for a living at many manufacturers for many airlines. Each has a different arrangement.

The mechanics often think they know, until they don't because a contract is different.

7673mech wrote:

greendot wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

This truly look like someone with an ax to grind, a disgruntled employee (same difference) or just something slinging $h!t out there and see what sticks...

If he is a "disgruntled employee", what does it matter? Do you think a disgruntled employee can get the FAA to punish Boeing through mere accusations? Don't you think he would need evidence?

The evidence either leads to a true condition or it doesn't. If it's true, then it needs to be addressed.

Even a "disgruntled employee" can be telling the truth about something wrong going on.

There is no wrong doing.
There is a process.
He doesn't have the whole picture.

I contractually take delivery of airplanes for a living at many manufacturers for many airlines. Each has a different arrangement.

The mechanics often think they know, until they don't because a contract is different.

That is the process of one party. It certainly is not the only process available to achieve an end. If there is no wrong doing, then a simple FAA or contract inspection by the involved parties will diffuse this concern. The company always has the option to thank the person for their concern, and then provide an explanation such as it being a prearranged contractual obligation.

greendot wrote:

7673mech wrote:

greendot wrote:

If he is a "disgruntled employee", what does it matter? Do you think a disgruntled employee can get the FAA to punish Boeing through mere accusations? Don't you think he would need evidence?

The evidence either leads to a true condition or it doesn't. If it's true, then it needs to be addressed.

Even a "disgruntled employee" can be telling the truth about something wrong going on.

There is no wrong doing.
There is a process.
He doesn't have the whole picture.

I contractually take delivery of airplanes for a living at many manufacturers for many airlines. Each has a different arrangement.

The mechanics often think they know, until they don't because a contract is different.

That is the process of one party. It certainly is not the only process available to achieve an end. If there is no wrong doing, then a simple FAA or contract inspection by the involved parties will diffuse this concern. The company always has the option to thank the person for their concern, and then provide an explanation such as it being a prearranged contractual obligation.

That only works if you raise the concern via the proper channels (which a public forum is not). It doesn’t matter now whether the concern was legitimate or not...once/if Boeing figures out who the OP is they will likely fire him.

Keep in mind he is not just talking about his employer, but an independent company (Fiji Airways) that doesn’t even own the plane!

Polot wrote:

once/if Boeing figures out who the OP is they will likely fire him.

My point is proven then.

greendot wrote:

Polot wrote:

once/if Boeing figures out who the OP is they will likely fire him.

My point is proven then.

Your point is illogical. You say you shouldn’t go via the ethics line because retribution, inaction, etc...so your solution is to go via public post where you are guaranteed retribution (any company in any industry will fire an employee over a post like this) and no guarantee of action and possible action against the OP by other companies such as Fiji?

There is a reason why you go through proper channels first. Whistleblower laws don’t protect you if you never actually tried to properly blow the whistle.

Polot wrote:

greendot wrote:

Polot wrote:

once/if Boeing figures out who the OP is they will likely fire him.

My point is proven then.

Your point is illogical. You say you shouldn’t go via the ethics line because retribution, inaction, etc...so your solution is to go via public post where you are guaranteed retribution (any company in any industry will fire an employee over a post like this) and no guarantee of action and possible action against the OP by other companies such as Fiji?

There is a reason why you go through proper channels first. Whistleblower laws don’t protect you if you never actually tried to properly blow the whistle.

Retribution is always the choice of the employer. You're presuming that retribution is guaranteed. If there is merit to this man's claim, then the problem can be corrected without persecution of this person.

"Proper" channels are not necessarily proper, they are merely preferred by interested parties for self-serving reasons. Also, one should not assume that whistleblower laws and systems are actually effective. In the end, there are an infinite number of ways to address a concern and all employees should be aware of this. If an employee feels strongly about a potential safety issue, there are numerous ways to address it. Whether the company sanctions it or not is immaterial. A company is only a company - a legal construct - it has no monopoly on individual thought or action. Individuals are always free to act according to their values, beliefs, and morals. Yes, there could be a personal cost to him, but if he's right, he may be helping countless other people.

Good to see such a "supportive" bunch of people "looking out for the common good" in this thread. Boeing "definitely does not" have a culture problem.

If the OP is a Boeing employee then he had better have covered his tracks well.

kjeld0d wrote:

Good to see such a "supportive" bunch of people "looking out for the common good" in this thread. Boeing "definitely does not" have a culture problem.

It’s less that and more questioning the wisdom of of keeping this thread up when it is clear that even the OP is not 100% sure what is going on. The implications, and consequences, of this post are severe and for the protection of the employee it is probably better that this thread is not kept up. Keep in mind that it is not exactly clear from the OP that it is Boeing’s “culture” that is the problem here- he seems to be suggesting with his last paragraph that it is Fiji Airway’s “culture” that is the problem.

Lets say Fiji has privately canceled the leases on the Maxes. Would you expect them to still perform QC on them? Would you expect them to be happy that a random Boeing employee is claiming Fiji is not committed to safety because they are not performing QC on a plane they do not own and may never operate?

If he has serious concerns he should probably take it to the media who can better vet him and investigate his claims. A.net is not the best venue for something like this.

To be fair smaller airlines do not have their own extensive in house aircraft inspections. Unlike QR and some others such as NH, CX which are reportedly the most stringent when it comes to scrutinizing the new aircraft, an airline like DQ being smaller may not have as many resources to inspect their aircraft. The first time Allegiant took factory-new A320 there was a huge learning curve for them as they did not have the teams in place who could complete this work.

bennett123 wrote:

If the OP is a Boeing employee then he had better have covered his tracks well.

No wonder safety cultures devolve. You have to always watch your back eh?