Whistleblowers Say Planes Contain "Bogus Parts"; Earlier Case
Tossed
Three former Boeing
employees have filed a federal lawsuit against that
company and Ducommun, claiming the Los Angeles-based supplier
sold defective and nonconforming parts, and falsified records to
cover it up.
Former Boeing employees Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt, and
James Ailes claim the parts made their ways into more than 32
Boeing military aircraft sold to the US, Japan, Italy and other
nations. The employees -- all former members of an internal
auditing team -- also allege Boeing retaliated against them for
voicing concern about their findings.
Smith and Prewitt were both laid off in Fall 2003. Ailes kept
his Boeing job, until he was hired at Spirit Aerosystems after
Boeing sold off the commercial operation last year.
Their case isn't new: the three also filed a nearly-identical
case in 2002 under federal seal through a different law firm. That
case was voluntarily dismissed after the FAA and the Department of
Transportation's Office of Inspector General found no significant
cause for alarm. The original complaint was made known when the new
case -- filed in May 2005 -- was refiled without one of the
original plaintiffs.
For now, government agencies are distancing themselves from the
allegations, as US District Judge Wesley Brown considers various
motions in the case -- including one from the companies to dismiss
the charges as the allegations aren't specific enough.
The Associated Press reports Ducommun did not immediately return
a call for comment. As for Boeing, company spokeswoman Cindy Wall
said the company stands by their aircraft, and the parts in them --
adding there are several layers of protection in place to screen
out substandard parts.
The FAA also stated its earlier investigation found no evidence
of wrongdoing by Boeing and Ducommun -- and even if the parts were
substandard, said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown, the 2002
investigation showed they were not flight-critical components.
"The parts involved in this case are not flight-critical," Brown
said, adding that even if the allegations are true, "even if the
parts failed, they wouldn't compromise the integrity of the
aircraft."
Since no evidence of wrongdoing was found in the earlier case...
why did the US Attorney in Wichita agree to take the new case? No
one would comment directly on that... but office spokesman Jim
Cross told the AP the suit doesn't show the government is
expressing an opinion on the matter -- nor does it mean it's giving
up its right to recover damages should the former employees be
proven correct.
Chicago labor attorney Jane McFetridge, who has followed the
earlier case but is not involved in the lawsuit, said it will be a
"pretty big leap" for the plaintiffs to convince the court that
they were targeted for layoffs, as n hundreds of people lost their
job during the recent downturn in the aviation industry.
"It is an empty claim," McFetridge said.