Preliminary Assessment
Many pertinent factual items are reported in the Reuters article linked above. Considering the intense attention focused on Boeing and its manufacturing problems in particular, this SLF/attorney offers some things to keep in mind, based on a very early assessment of what is known or reported publicly.
1. The whistleblower (Mr Salehpour) filed some type of complaint or report with FAA, according to every published item. I found this odd, because we recently saw much discussion of the whistleblower claims being litigated by the now-deceased John Barnett - claims that were filed with the U.S. Department of Labor under the AIR21 Whistleblower Protection Program. FAA does have a Hotline for reporting safety concerns. Perhaps FAA has a complaint resolution (or adjudication) process parallel or similar to the DOL - if it does, it isn't promiment on the agency website.
Not saying FAA isn't going to investigate and also not saying anything against Mr Salehpour's claims or anything else. Maybe going to FAA first, and then having DOL as a later option, is seen as creating pressure for a settlement - it plainly has created publicity.
2. The press reports mention both 787 and 777. On the former, after the shims issue and "skin-flatness specifications" issues which were subjects of intense attention previously, presumably FAA has a thorough background on the manufacturing process problems and at least much of what to look for.
3. The whistleblower and legal counsel have provided documents to the FAA and a letter dated January19 to FAA chief Whitaker, according to Reuters. If and when these are placed on the public record at the hearing before a Senate Subcommittee, things are quite likely to get very interesting. My guess is that the early January door plug incident could have motivated an actual filing to FAA, as pressure on Boeing had just spiked rather higher. (Boeing reportedly has offered to provide documents, testimony and technical briefings to Senate staff - perhaps showing some insight after delays and omissions in disclosing information about the door plug handling in the shop.)
4. Last and not at all least, there very likely is more to Mr Salehpour's "retaliation story" than the one-word claim of "threats"' combined with "exclusion from meetings" - as to which press reports do not add any detail about either claim. I've seen retaliation claims predicated on perceived exclusion or shunning but then management comes forward and shows pretty extensively that the aggrieved party did not have an assigned or routine role in a group or unit meeting, rather the person wanted to join and participate, but it wasn't part of their job in fact. If the reason the person was not allowed to join or participate was retaliatory - i.e., we don't need no stinking safety concerns - that's one thing. But arbitrary exclusions from some among a large volume of groups and meetings within a large manufacturing facility? I'm shocked.
[Unnumbered] Participation on this forum . . . I try to take it seriously. Thanks very much for all encouragement.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 10th Apr 2024 at 17:39.