Boeing is facing scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over allegations made by a whistleblower that sections of fuselages on its 787 Dreamliner planes are improperly fastened together and could weaken over time.
The engineer who raised these concerns, Sam Salehpour, has been working at Boeing for more than a decade as a quality engineer. He alleges that in order to meet production targets, the company took shortcuts such as failing to follow its own procedures for ensuring pieces of the plane's fuselages were properly fitted and joined.
Boeing, a major aircraft manufacturer, is facing scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over allegations made by a whistleblower that sections of fuselages on its 787 Dreamliner planes are improperly fastened together and could weaken over time. The engineer who raised these concerns, Sam Salehpour, has been working at Boeing for more than a decade as a quality engineer. He alleges that in order to meet production targets, the company took shortcuts such as failing to follow its own procedures for ensuring pieces of the plane's fuselages were properly fitted and joined. The FAA is currently investigating these claims.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating new allegations by a longtime Boeing engineer that sections of fuselages on the company's 787 Dreamliner planes are improperly fastened together and could weaken over time.
Sam Salehpour, a Boeing quality engineer, alleged Tuesday that in the push to meet production targets, the company took shortcuts such as failing to follow its own procedures for ensuring pieces of the plane's fuselages were properly fitted and joined. He also described instances where workers placed excessive stress on major airplane joints to make it look like gaps did not exist.
After raising concerns, Salehpour said he was ignored and faced retaliation, including threats of physical violence from a supervisor. In January, several weeks after the Alaska Airlines accident, he took his concerns to the FAA.
Boeing shaken up its executive ranks in an effort to address criticism, with Calhoun recently announcing he would step down as CEO and Deal retiring after decades at Boeing.
The company is facing a FAA-imposed deadline in May to come up with a plan to address quality control and assurance issues in its manufacturing operations.
Salehpour began his career at Boeing in 2007 as a contractor before being brought on as a full-time employee. As a quality engineer, his job involved monitoring Boeing's production activities, investigating and analyzing defects, and developing strategies to prevent them from reoccurring.
After raising concerns with his supervisors, Salehpour said he was left out of key meetings and eventually involuntarily reassigned to work on the company's 777 aircraft program. There, he also encountered issues including instances where workers forced misaligned parts to fit together by force even jumping on parts.
Boeing has continued to refine and improve the 787 program since it launched 20 years ago, resulting in higher quality with no impact on durability.
Accuracy
Boeing has pushed back against Salehpour's claims, saying it has full confidence in the 787 Dreamliner. It also said that retaliation is strictly prohibited at Boeing.
Salehpour is scheduled to testify next week at a hearing before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Boeing has pushed back against Salehpour's allegations but fails to provide any evidence of this. Secondly, the author states that retaliation is strictly prohibited at Boeing yet provides no information on what action was taken against Salehpour for raising concerns about safety issues. Thirdly, the article quotes a statement from Boeing stating that it has full confidence in the 787 Dreamliner but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The author claims that Boeing pushed back against Salehpour's allegations but fails to provide any evidence of this.
The author states that Boeing has full confidence in the 787 Dreamliner but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The article quotes a statement from Boeing stating that retaliation is strictly prohibited at the company yet provides no information on what action was taken against Salehpour for raising concerns about safety issues.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating new allegations without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author presents a dichotomous depiction of Boeing as both being confident in its planes and facing criticism from regulators and lawmakers over safety concerns. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric by stating that Salehpour's allegations are another blow to Boeing's reputation without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating new allegations
Boeing has shaken up its executive ranks in an effort to address criticism
Salehpour's allegations are another blow to Boeing's reputation
The whistleblower claims that Boeing took shortcuts when manufacturing its 787 Dreamliner jets.
Salehpour's complaint raises two quality issues that may reduce the lifespan of the planes.
Accuracy
Boeing made changes to its manufacturing process, but Salehpour’s attorneys allege that crews still failed to properly fill tiny gaps when joining separately manufactured parts of the fuselage.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of both ideological and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the whistleblower by referring to him as a 'whistleblower' rather than acknowledging his role as an engineer who raised concerns about safety issues with Boeing planes. Additionally, the author implies that Salehpour is motivated solely by fear of retaliation from Boeing and not genuine concern for public safety.
The article refers to Sam Salehpour as a 'whistleblower' rather than acknowledging his role as an engineer who raised concerns about safety issues with Boeing planes. This is an example of ideological bias, which often involves demonizing those who challenge the status quo.
The author implies that Salehpour is motivated solely by fear of retaliation from Boeing and not genuine concern for public safety. This is an example of religious bias, which often involves attributing motives to individuals based on their beliefs or affiliations.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest with Boeing as they are reporting on a whistleblower complaint and quality issues related to the company's 787 Dreamliner. The FAA is also investigating these issues which could affect Boeing's reputation and financial stability.
The article mentions that the whistleblower, Sam Salehpour, has raised concerns about structural integrity of the 787 Dreamliner.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a potential conflict of interest on the topic of Boeing and its quality issues. He is a member of the New York Times, which reported on the whistleblower complaint that sparked the FAA investigation. This could compromise his ability to report objectively and impartially on this issue.
`Sam Salehpour, who worked as an engineer at Boeing for more than a decade before becoming a safety consultant, told CNN Business that he was fired in February after raising concerns about the quality of the 787's electrical wiring. He said he later filed a whistleblower complaint with the FAA and other agencies, alleging that Boeing knowingly misled regulators and airlines about serious flaws in its most advanced plane.
Engineer alleges that aircraft giant took unsafe shortcuts in the production of the 787 Dreamliner
US aviation authorities have begun investigating new whistleblower claims accusing Boeing of poor safety standards
Salehpour has accused Boeing of retaliating against him after he identified engineering flaws that affected the structural integrity of the company’s wide-body 787 Dreamliner and 777 jets
He has also alleged witnessing safety problems in the production of the 777, including cases of workers jumping on misaligned parts to get them to fit together
Accuracy
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating new allegations by a longtime Boeing engineer that sections of fuselages on the company's 787 Dreamliner planes are improperly fastened together and could weaken over time.
Boeing has pushed back against Salehpour's claims, saying it has full confidence in the 787 Dreamliner. It also said that retaliation is strictly prohibited at Boeing.
Salehpour began his career at Boeing in 2007 as a contractor before being brought on as a full-time employee. As a quality engineer, his job involved monitoring Boeing's production activities, investigating and analyzing defects, and developing strategies to prevent them from reoccurring.
The FAA halted deliveries of new Dreamliners for nearly two years while it looked into gaps in the fuselage.
Boeing made changes to its manufacturing process, but Salehpour's attorneys allege that crews still failed to properly fill tiny gaps when joining separately manufactured parts of the fuselage.
Salehpour's complaint raises two quality issues that may reduce the lifespan of the planes.
The allegations are not entirely new as for nearly two years starting in 2019, the FAA and Boeing halted deliveries of the new Dreamliners while it looked into quality control during jet assembly process.
Salehpour's attorneys said that they were surprised to discover through his complaint that the gaps were still an issue.
Boeing retaliated against Salehpour after he raised another concern about a different plane model and transferred him out of the 787 program to the 775 program.
In his new role, Salehpour discovered subpar work with aligning body pieces and pressure on engineers to green-light work they have not yet inspected.
The issues involve more than 400 Boeing 785s.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the claims of a whistleblower as fact without providing any evidence to support them. Secondly, it quotes Boeing's statement denying retaliation against whistleblowers despite previous reports suggesting otherwise. Thirdly, the article does not disclose sources for its information.
The article presents the claims of a whistleblower as fact without providing any evidence to support them.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating the claims and a US Senate subcommittee has summoned Boeing CEO David Calhoun to appear next week. However, this does not necessarily mean that the FAA or senate will find against Boeing. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that if these issues are not corrected they will impact the entire aviation industry and all who fly, which is a dramatic overstatement of the potential consequences. Additionally, there are several instances where the author presents information as fact without providing any evidence or context to support it. For example, when discussing Boeing's safety record since an incident in January 2019 involving a missing door panel on a Boeing 737 MAX plane and other incidents that have occurred since then, the author does not provide any data or statistics to back up their claims.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating the claims
if these issues are not corrected they will impact the entire aviation industry and all who fly
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Boeing and its employees by referring to them as 'retaliating against whistleblowers'. This is a clear example of ideological bias. Additionally, the author quotes Salehpour's allegations without providing any context or evidence for his claims, which could be seen as an attempt to discredit Boeing. The article also uses language that implies that all safety concerns raised by Salehpour are accurate and valid, despite the fact that some of these concerns have been subject to rigorous engineering examination under FAA oversight and found not to present any safety concerns. This is a clear example of religious bias.
The article quotes Salehpour's allegations without providing any context or evidence for his claims, which could be seen as an attempt to discredit Boeing.
The author uses language that dehumanizes Boeing and its employees by referring to them as 'retaliating against whistleblowers'.
The author uses language that implies that all safety concerns raised by Salehpour are accurate and valid, despite the fact that some of these concerns have been subject to rigorous engineering examination under FAA oversight and found not to present any safety concerns.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Al Jazeera has a conflict of interest on the topic of Boeing and its safety standards as it is owned by Qatar Airways which competes with Boeing in the aviation industry. Additionally, Al Jazeera's coverage may be influenced by David Calhoun who was appointed to lead FAA after being CEO of Boeing.
Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar Airways which competes with Boeing in the aviation industry.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Al Jazeera has a conflict of interest on the topic of Boeing as they are reporting on whistleblower claims against the company. The article mentions that Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar Airways, which competes with Boeing in the aviation industry.
Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar Airways, which competes with Boeing in the aviation industry.
The FAA is investigating claims made by a Boeing engineer who says that sections of the fuselage of the 787 Dreamliner are improperly fastened together and could break apart mid-flight after thousands of trips.
Boeing conceded those manufacturing changes were made, but a spokesman for the company said there was no impact on durability or safe longevity of the airframe.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there are no safety issues with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner despite evidence to the contrary from a whistle-blower who has detailed allegations of improper fastening and potential structural weaknesses. Secondly, Boeing's response is misleading as they claim extensive testing was done on the plane but fail to disclose any specific findings or concerns regarding safety issues. Lastly, there are no sources cited in the article which raises questions about its credibility.
The author claims that there are no safety issues with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner despite evidence to the contrary from a whistle-blower who has detailed allegations of improper fastening and potential structural weaknesses. This is deceptive as it presents an incomplete picture.
Boeing's response is misleading as they claim extensive testing was done on the plane but fail to disclose any specific findings or concerns regarding safety issues. This is deceptive as it implies that there are no safety concerns when evidence suggests otherwise.
Fallacies
(70%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the whistle-blower by referring to him as a 'Boeing engineer' rather than using his name. Additionally, the article mentions Boeing's profits from selling 787 Dreamliners which could be seen as an example of monetary bias.
Additionally, the article mentions Boeing's profits from selling 787 Dreamliners which could be seen as an example of monetary bias.
The author uses language that dehumanizes the whistle-blower by referring to him as a 'Boeing engineer' rather than using his name.
