Originally Posted by CherokeeDriver
(Post 10563372)
How on earth did American Airlines manage to create such a toxic work environment for their employees?
|
Originally Posted by QuagmireAirlines
(Post 10565008)
For example, I still think it's bizarre how the sabotage happened in July, and obviously discovered, while it took over a month to arrest the crazy person.
|
Originally Posted by AC560
(Post 10565111)
There is only one person to blame for this act, the perpetrator. To suggest environment makes it acceptable which you do despite your caveat is disingenuous. People are responsible for their choices and actions. He will now be responsible for his in a jail cell which is where he belongs. |
Originally Posted by AC560
(Post 10565111)
To suggest environment makes it acceptable which you do despite your caveat is disingenuous.
|
Almost beyond belief!
|
Would this have prevented you from hiring the guy?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/american-...terrorist-ties |
Originally Posted by UltraFan
(Post 10563735)
The guy is an idiot, not a terrorist. Would this even be on the news, let alone on FBI "joint terrorism task force", if his name was Joe Bob Whitaker? I wonder.
How can he be a mechanic for American for 30 years in the U.S. and not speak much English? Even in the Middle East the maintenance manuals are in English as far as I know. Lone wolf, no known ties etc... He may just be a fool but I can see why the FBI and the U.S. Attorney would want him to be kept in custody. |
Airbubba, it seems it's much worse than that.
An American Airlines mechanic was denied bail by a federal judge Wednesday for potential ties to ISIS, after he was arrested for allegedly sabotaging a plane at Miami International Airport.
His being a fool now appears to be an unlikely 'best case'. The more likely worst case is unimaginable bad... |
Originally Posted by CherokeeDriver
(Post 10563372)
What a sad story. A person in a safety critical role deliberately sabotaging a critical aircraft system. How on earth did American Airlines manage to create such a toxic work environment for their employees? I don't in any way condone the actions of this member of staff before anyone suggests otherwise.
I once called in to assist in a long running investigation of a medical imaging device which the customer complained was consistently producing poor quality images but whenever serviced was absolutely fine. This turned out to be a hospital employee who had previously worked for the manufacturer who had a grudge and was deliberately detuning/miscalibrating the system after servicing although he had no responsibility for working with the machine at all. We as the technical team took a little time to realise we were not looking at a technical issue. The whole thing was strange, he was not going to benefit, it could affect patient treatment although the possible impact of this was limited by daily QC checks on the machine, it was never going to make a long term impact on the company concerned and if he continued to sabotage the systems performance he was bound to be caught eventually. The sad fact is that there are a small proportion of people who take such actions and they are not always easy to spot. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10573414)
Airbubba, it seems it's much worse than that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisette.../#7e8254bd177a His being a fool now appears to be an unlikely 'best case'. The more likely worst case is unimaginable bad... |
Some discussion of the safety aspects of the sabotage incident in this Miami Herald article:
But the prosecutor also said Alani admitted to investigators that his tampering with the plane’s navigation system was dangerous. When they asked him whether he would allow himself or his own family to fly on the jet without the system, he said “no,” Medetis said. Medetis said investigators also spoke with the American Airlines pilot of the targeted plane, and he said that without a functional navigation system “it could have resulted in a crash.” The plane’s so-called air data module is a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch and other critical flight data to pilots. Alani is accused of disabling the system that served the pilot. But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash. “We don’t believe he intentionally endangered the safety of people” on that flight, said Dunham, who sought a pretrial bond signed by Alani’s family members in California and Florida. “I think the government is blowing this out of proportion.” https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...235199172.html |
Originally Posted by b1lanc
(Post 10573309)
Would this have prevented you from hiring the guy?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/american-...terrorist-ties |
If this guy's goal was to just inconvenience a flight, I would think there are easier ways to do it.
So |
Originally Posted by QuagmireAirlines
(Post 10573969)
I do wonder how someone like that gets hired though. Guess thats all I'm allowed to say.
From American's website: Celebrating our differencesEmployee Business Resource GroupsWith more than 100,000 team members in 65 countries, our goal is to provide an inclusive environment for all. Our Diversity Advisory Council (DAC) leads diversity efforts across American by fostering company-wide educational, community service and personal enrichment opportunities. The council also supports local Employee Business Resource Groups (EBRGs), which represent many employees and their beliefs, nationalities and backgrounds.https://www.aa.com/content/images/cu...-workplace.jpg PRIDE EBRG (LGBT and Allies)For the past 15 years, the Human Rights Campaign has given us the highest possible rating in the Corporate Equality Index, a nationally recognized benchmark that evaluates top workplaces in the U.S. and their inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees, customers and suppliers. We proudly support the LGBT community and we're taking steps to ensure equality for all employees.https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b156506244.jpg https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/about-us/diversity/employee-diversity.jsp |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10574008)
Under the concept of 'diversity' folks who are 'different' are given preference in hiring.
Promoting equality and diversity means giving the same opportunities to everyone. It doesn't mean biasing recruitment in favour of any particular group. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10574016)
Promoting equality and diversity means giving the same opportunities to everyone. It doesn't mean biasing recruitment in favour of any particular group.
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10574008)
Under the concept of 'diversity' folks who are 'different' are given preference in hiring. How much standards should be adjusted to promote goals of inclusion is a matter of some controversy. From American's website: https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/about-us/diversity/employee-diversity.jsp I'd like to add my request for evidence that American, for instance, adjusts hiring standards due to the "differences" to which you refer. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen and I'm virtually certain it doesn't happen for, e.g., A&P mechs, avionics techs, flight crew members, etc. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10574016)
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Promoting equality and diversity means giving the same opportunities to everyone. It doesn't mean biasing recruitment in favour of any particular group. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10574016)
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Promoting equality and diversity means giving the same opportunities to everyone. It doesn't mean biasing recruitment in favour of any particular group. The principal affirmative action legislation in Australia is the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. This legislation aims to improve the status of women in employment by requiring certain employers to promote equal employment opportunity for women by developing and implementing an affirmative action program.(5)The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 covers all higher education institutions and employers (other than public sector employers) employing 100 or more employees. They are required to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women and to submit annual reports on the progress of those programs. Public sector employers are covered by public sector equal employment opportunity legislation. For example, section 22B of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922 requires federal government departments to implement affirmative action programs in relation to certain disadvantaged groups.There are eight steps to an affirmative action program, as described in the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, which an employer must take, namely:
You can never level the playing field unless you play a little bit of "catch up" first. There are programs and policies in the West Australian mining sector that, if closely scrutinised would be seen to exceed simply ensuring equal opportunity employment, to improve employment rates for aborigines. Nobody of any consequence sees these policies as threatening or unfair. There is room for such policies without anyone being unduly inconvenienced. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10574016)
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Promoting equality and diversity means giving the same opportunities to everyone. It doesn't mean biasing recruitment in favour of any particular group. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.