Just days after another Boeing investigation was announced, one of the famed whistleblowers spoke about the galling number of issues at production facilities, and why the people who make the fuselages are scared to fly on them.

Former auditor claims he was threatened, asked to not report defects

Quote:

---

He was accustomed to finding "anywhere from 50 to 100, 200" defects on fuselages - the main body of the plane - that were due to be shipped to Boeing, he said.

---

Quote:

---

"I was finding a lot of missing fasteners, a lot of bent parts, sometimes even missing parts."

Boeing declined to comment.

---

Quote:

---

Spirit AeroSystems and Boeing have both come under intense scrutiny after an unused door came off a brand new 737 Max shortly after take-off in January, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the plane.

---

Quote:

---

"They just wanted the product shipped out. They weren't focused on the consequences of shipping bad fuselages. They were just focused on meeting the quotas, meeting the schedule, meeting the budget… If the numbers looked good, the state of the fuselages didn't really matter."

---

Quote:

---

A second former quality auditor, Josh Dean, whose claims were also to form part of the lawsuit, passed away last week after contracting a serious bacterial infection.

---

Quote:

---

Matters came to a head for Mr Paredes personally, he claimed, when he was ordered by his manager to change the way in which defects were reported, in order to reduce their overall number.

After he protested, he said, he was demoted and removed to another part of the factory.

---

Quote:

---

"I'd never met a lot of people who were scared of flying until I worked at Spirit," he said.

And then, being at Spirit, I met a lot of people who were afraid of flying - because they saw how they were building the fuselages."

---

I just flew round trip over the Atlantic in a 777. The fuselage did not explode and I did not die. Really makes you think.

Boeing subcontracts the building of their fuselages? They don't QC them on arrival and reject those that don't pass?

Seems strange as the above problems are going to reveal themselves, most likely in a catastrophic way that's going to cost both companies a helluva lot more than the time it would take to do it right the first time.

If the defects are at Spirit, then Boeing should either find a different manufacturer, or start making the fuselages themselves like they used to.

And despite all these claims, we're not seeing planes fall out of the sky every few days.

The media desperately wants to see Boeing go out of business as does much of the political right in this country, mostly because of "muh DEI."

I always heard "There is the right way, the wrong way and the Boeing way"

flakrat said:

---

Boeing subcontracts the building of their fuselages? They don't QC them on arrival and reject those that don't pass?

---

Yes, the 737 fuselage is built in Wichita, Kansas by Spirit AeroSystems and moved by train to Renton. Spirit used to be Boeing's Wichita division.

They are all checked when arrive at Renton, and probably before they leave as well.

And for the record, Spirit makes a lot of parts for Airbus as well.

Rapier108 said:

---

If the defects are at Spirt, then Boeing should either find a different manufacturer, or start making the fuselages themselves like they used to.

And despite all these claims, we're not seeing planes fall out of the sky every few days.

The media desperately wants to see Boeing go out of business as does much of the political right in this country, mostly because of "muh DEI."

---

The kilns needed to make the carbon fiber wings, fuselage etc. are huge and there are only a few of them in the world. Spirit, in Wichita, has them.

That's frightening. It sounds like Spirit is the main problem and Boeing is at fault for not catching and correcting Spirit's errors earlier.

I invested in Transdigem TDG about a year ago. They put together and install the most critical components on aircraft for most of the free world. Their clients include Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Textron, Sikorsky, etc. . etc. Commercial, private and military.

I think TransDigm is the best and they may pick up business while Spirit may lose business.

flakrat said:

---

Boeing subcontracts the building of their fuselages? They don't QC them on arrival and reject those that don't pass?

Seems strange as the above problems are going to reveal themselves, most likely in a catastrophic way that's going to cost both companies a helluva lot more than the time it would take to do it right the first time.

---

The only thing they produce is the wing and they do final assembly, IIRC.

Logos Stick said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Boeing subcontracts the building of their fuselages? They don't QC them on arrival and reject those that don't pass?

Seems strange as the above problems are going to reveal themselves, most likely in a catastrophic way that's going to cost both companies a helluva lot more than the time it would take to do it right the first time.

---

The only thing they produce is the wing and they do final assembly, IIRC.

---

The 737 fuselage is built by Spirit.

Rapier108 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Boeing subcontracts the building of their fuselages? They don't QC them on arrival and reject those that don't pass?

Seems strange as the above problems are going to reveal themselves, most likely in a catastrophic way that's going to cost both companies a helluva lot more than the time it would take to do it right the first time.

---

The only thing they (Boeing) produce is the wing and they do final assembly, IIRC.

---

The 737 fuselage is built by Spirit.

---

OK?

pfo said:

---

That's frightening. It sounds like Spirit is the main problem and Boeing is at fault for not catching and correcting Spirit's errors earlier.

I invested in Transdigem TDG about a year ago. They put together and install the most critical components on aircraft for most of the free world. Their clients include Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Textron, Sikorsky, etc. . etc. Commercial, private and military.

I think TransDigm is the best and they may pick up business while Spirit may lose business.

---

Blue horseshoe loves Anacott Steel, eh?

Rapier108 said:

---

If the defects are at Spirit, then Boeing should either find a different manufacturer, or start making the fuselages themselves like they used to.

And despite all these claims, we're not seeing planes fall out of the sky every few days.

The media desperately wants to see Boeing go out of business as does much of the political right in this country, mostly because of "muh DEI."

---

I don't think people want to see Boeing go out of business. They want to know that the planes they are flying in are safe and aren't impacted by decisions such as DEI and instead by sound-engineering principles.

And it isn't people 'making this up.' This is from insiders at Boeing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13273811/Boeing-insider-claims-failing-executives-working-home-slams-DEI.html

"A Boeing insider has claimed the aviation giant is failing because profit-hungry executives are all working from home and the manufacturer has become too fixated on DEI.

The anonymous source described Boeing as a 'company under caretakers' who have lost touch with its workforce"


don't look now... here's 3 more in 2 days (that has nothing to do with Boeing of course):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13399941/THREE-Boeing-crash-landings-two-days-Terrified-passengers-scramble-escape-burning-jet-Senegal-tyre-explodes-737-landing-Turkey-24-hours-nose-gear-failure-caused-767-slam-runway.html

Yes, the media does, especially Fox News.

Every single time a Boeing built plane has any kind of problem, it is front page news with the title "Boeing Plane" included. Never mind the problems have nothing to do with the manufacturing, but either pilot error, weather, or maintenance issues.

When it is an Airbus built aircraft, either there is no reporting on it, or the type of plane is never mentioned.

That doesn't mean they want them to out of business - it could just as easily mean they want to highlight exactly what the people from INSIDE boeing are complaining about and see things change so they can become a better company. Both seem like likely options: they are reporting to kill their business or they are reporting to make them a better company. You obviously see it as them wanting to kill the business.

Rapier108 said:

---

Yes, the media does, especially Fox News.

Every single time a Boeing built plane has any kind of problem, it is front page news with the title "Boeing Plane" included. Never mind the problems have nothing to do with the manufacturing, but either pilot error, weather, or maintenance issues.

When it is an Airbus built aircraft, either there is no reporting on it, or the type of plane is never mentioned.

---

I can go to Wikipedia or Google as an initial source, but what source do you recommend for seeing the airbus incidents not reported or stories about airbus that don't identify the manufacturer? Thanks.

Rapier108 said:

---

Yes, the media does, especially Fox News.

Every single time a Boeing built plane has any kind of problem, it is front page news with the title "Boeing Plane" included. Never mind the problems have nothing to do with the manufacturing, but either pilot error, weather, or maintenance issues.

When it is an Airbus built aircraft, either there is no reporting on it, or the type of plane is never mentioned.

---

Yep, like a fire on an A321 a few days ago that caused an evacuation. Sounds to me like it wasn't related to the plane, rather the ground power cord. There wasn't a whole lot of reporting on that one.

https://simpleflying.com/fire-induced-emergency-evacuation-delta-passengers-flee-airbus-a321neo-seattle/

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Yes, the media does, especially Fox News.

Every single time a Boeing built plane has any kind of problem, it is front page news with the title "Boeing Plane" included. Never mind the problems have nothing to do with the manufacturing, but either pilot error, weather, or maintenance issues.

When it is an Airbus built aircraft, either there is no reporting on it, or the type of plane is never mentioned.

---

I can go to Wikipedia or Google as an initial source, but what source do you recommend for seeing the airbus incidents not reported or stories about airbus that don't identify the manufacturer? Thanks.

---

https://avherald.com/

Some days it is more Boeing aircraft, other days Airbus, and usual a mixture of all manufactures.

Exclude anything such as a bird or hail strike, runway excursion, rejected takeoff due to something on the runway, tail strike, weather related problem, and anything else clearly caused by human error or weather. Those have zero to do with the aircraft, any aircraft.

Also, many incidents reported are either sensor failures/bad info or bad odor in the aircraft which rarely is an actual problem.

https://instagr.am/p/C6mxfcnuQ0n

Logos Stick said:

---

I just flew round trip over the Atlantic in a 777. The fuselage did not explode and I did not die. Really makes you think.

---

And it happens like that thousands of times every day.

Rapier108 said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Yes, the media does, especially Fox News.

Every single time a Boeing built plane has any kind of problem, it is front page news with the title "Boeing Plane" included. Never mind the problems have nothing to do with the manufacturing, but either pilot error, weather, or maintenance issues.

When it is an Airbus built aircraft, either there is no reporting on it, or the type of plane is never mentioned.

---

I can go to Wikipedia or Google as an initial source, but what source do you recommend for seeing the airbus incidents not reported or stories about airbus that don't identify the manufacturer? Thanks.

---

https://avherald.com/

Some days it is more Boeing aircraft, other days Airbus, and usual a mixture of all manufactures.

Exclude anything such as a bird or hail strike, runway excursion, rejected takeoff due to something on the runway, tail strike, weather related problem, and anything else clearly caused by human error or weather. Those have zero to do with the aircraft, any aircraft.

Also, many incidents reported are either sensor failures/bad info or bad odor in the aircraft which rarely is an actual problem.

---

Thank you

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

https://instagr.am/p/C6mxfcnuQ0n

---

This got me.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

That doesn't mean they want them to out of business - it could just as easily mean they want to highlight exactly what the people from INSIDE boeing are complaining about and see things change so they can become a better company. Both seem like likely options: they are reporting to kill their business or they are reporting to make them a better company. You obviously see it as them wanting to kill the business.

---

You mean like this headline on Fox today?

At least 10 passengers injured after Boeing jet's fiery malfunction during takeoff

A 20+ year old plane, flown by a third world airline, and yet again Fox makes sure everyone who sees the headline will think it was Boeing fault.

It almost made 30 years old (first flight 10/13/94)

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-300-6v-aje-transair/3xoxl3

I agree btw, any kind of 'blame Boeing' talk here is just stupid. Nobody blames GM when something goes out on their '94 Sububan because it's 30 years old and the item in question has been maintained and overhauled who knows how many times since it left the factory.

I wasn't able to google how many hours and cycles it had on it but at that age it's got to be getting up there.

If you're posting on this thread and work for Boeing, please identify yourselves.

maybe it's a concern. maybe it's like when a home inspector finds 20 pages of observations, all of which are generally inconsequential.

just depends on the facts and ultimate implications on risk of incident. does a floor hand generally know all the engineering risk factors baked in? probably not. so at best saying they wouldn't fly is anecdotal and not based on actual risk, but at worst, maybe it should scare the heck out of us. get the facts if we can keep the fact finders alive.

not to pile on boeing but just saw this on IG.

https://instagr.am/p/C6ytlJSLwjp

Isn't part of the reason we have a bloated, bureaucratic federal government that we are taxed to feed, to protect us from greedy corporations that only care about profits? FDA rubber stamping drugs and now this coming on the heels of CCD COVID incompetence. Where's the return on those tax dollars??