1604

John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nifty@lemmy.world 103 points 9 months ago

How about customers just flat out refuse to fly on Boeing planes?

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 71 points 9 months ago

The fact that several airlines let you filter out plane models indicates people are indeed doing that. Airbus: no fuss; no muss.

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 9 months ago

At what part of the trip. When boarding? You think the airline will accommodate? You already paid.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 33 points 9 months ago

You can filter for aircraft used when booking a plane.

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That assumes there will always be a good alternative to choose from.

From where I live to go back home to my parents there is exactly one provider that flies directly. All other connections have stop-overs. Not even talking about price difference.

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I get wanting to save your time, but if you die there’s no time left to save

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

I am actually at the point where I will avoid Boeing 737-MAX at booking, ask again at check-in to confirm the plane type, and if I saw one at the gate, I would refuse to board and accept the money as a loss. Unfortunately not everyone can afford re-booking like that. So f*ck Boeing and I just hope that Airbus won't ever be that corrupt (chances are they are or will be at some point).

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

You paying not to fly is the optimal result for the airlines.

[-] bluehexagon@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Perhaps the goal is to feel safe, not to damage the company.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

yeah, looks like previous poster didn't understand I value my life more than money :)

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Pilots should also refuse to fly them.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I mean... It takes a bit to learn how to fly a plane. They wouldn't really want to dispose of that skill and learn to fly Airbus instead.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I'm no pilot, but I can't imagine these particular variants have been around so long for retraining to be a serious issue. Not when mass death is on the line and older, reliable Boeing planes still exist.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I am not sure what you are trying to say exactly, however the re-certification that should be required for the 737-MAX was exactly the reason for introducing the MCAS software to prevent the crew certified for older 737 models from pushing the nose into the ground on take-off. That, together with glossing over the major design change so that no pilot would flag "hey, this is a new plane, we should get a proper new certification for this" contributed to the two crashes, murdering 350something people over profit.

Boeing wanted to sell a new plane model with significantly altered aerodynamic behavior as a "variant" of an existing one so airlines could save cost on not having to re-certify pilots.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I'm saying if the newer, problematic planes aren't going to be forced to ground by regulators, pilots should refuse to fly them. Surely there are plenty of planes still flying built by Boeing before they sold souls. Surely those won't require massive retraining. Fly them instead.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If I learned anything in my time on this planet is that there are far too few people in the world willing to stand up for their principles :(

[-] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

If you're going to fly Boeing at all, what is the point in avoiding the 737-max?

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Because most older Boeing models are actually robust aircraft & when the maintenance is in the hand of a capable airline, there's nothing wrong with them from the perspective of safety. But as Boeing continues to fuck this up, and murder whistleblowers - I doubt there will be Boeing airplanes left to safely board in the future.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 9 months ago

The airline will accommodate just fine: “Oh, you don’t want to fly? Too bad, the exit is that way.”

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"I know where the exit is, it's that hole where the door used to be"

[-] brlemworld@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Or refuse to fly all together. Flying is extremely carbon intensive.

[-] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Because its kind of possible to organize such mass boycotts without groups set up to manage it, and none are coming forward on this.

I mean hell, even the republicunt boycott of beer couldn't be arsed to actually make a difference, and MAN the mixture of beer and queerness is the exact trigger to rile those bigots.

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1604 points (99.2% liked)

News

23634 readers
1996 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS