4 ms·

Very tangential as he didn't work at Boeing for 7-years before this incident (retired in 2017). People seem to be claiming that he was a whistleblower for this

Very tangential as he didn't work at Boeing for 7-years before this incident (retired in 2017). People seem to be claiming that he was a whistleblower for this specific incident, which he was not. Plus I believe he was in a TV documentary where he discussed/disclosed all of the safety issues he witnesses at Boeing's plant/QA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee)

underlipton 3y ago
He was about to testify in a few days.
- Someone1234 3y ago
  About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
  - alias_neo 3y ago
    > About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings I'm no expert, but I'd expect a history of (criminal) negligence would be relevant in a legal proceeding about potential negligence, if only for precedent.
    - Someone1234 3y ago
      The lawsuit has already started on the door incident, and his testimony even if he was alive isn't relevant. The door was a process problem + screw-up, 2016 parts was potentially criminally illegal (and on purpose). Plus in civil court, where the standards are lower, they could bring in his interviews to the FAA/BBC anyway (they won't, because relevance). I feel like a bunch of people online have irrationally decided these two things are directly connected, and are now massaging the facts to meet that narrative. Aside from Boeing, there isn't a lot of reason to connect these two things. But people want to ignore the facts to make this sound like a sexy movie script. Two things happened. They happened around the same time. Even if he was alive today, it is unlikely the two would intersect outside of [bad] Boeing PR.
  - underlipton 3y ago
    I'm not sure why that matters. The public concern with Boeing isn't about a single incident, but that there is a culture of corporate recklessness that has resulted in multiple incidents (and might result in more in the future). The notion that they'd kill a whistleblower absolutely speaks to that.

underlipton 3y ago

He was about to testify in a few days.

Someone1234 3y ago
About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
- alias_neo 3y ago
  > About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings I'm no expert, but I'd expect a history of (criminal) negligence would be relevant in a legal proceeding about potential negligence, if only for precedent.
  - Someone1234 3y ago
    The lawsuit has already started on the door incident, and his testimony even if he was alive isn't relevant. The door was a process problem + screw-up, 2016 parts was potentially criminally illegal (and on purpose). Plus in civil court, where the standards are lower, they could bring in his interviews to the FAA/BBC anyway (they won't, because relevance). I feel like a bunch of people online have irrationally decided these two things are directly connected, and are now massaging the facts to meet that narrative. Aside from Boeing, there isn't a lot of reason to connect these two things. But people want to ignore the facts to make this sound like a sexy movie script. Two things happened. They happened around the same time. Even if he was alive today, it is unlikely the two would intersect outside of [bad] Boeing PR.
- underlipton 3y ago
  I'm not sure why that matters. The public concern with Boeing isn't about a single incident, but that there is a culture of corporate recklessness that has resulted in multiple incidents (and might result in more in the future). The notion that they'd kill a whistleblower absolutely speaks to that.