GAO won't throw out Boeing tanker appeal
By ERIC ROSENBERG AND JAMES WALLACE P-I AEROSPACE REPORTER
P-I WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday denied requests by Northrop Grumman and the Air Force seeking dismissal of an appeal by The Boeing Co. over the award of a lucrative tanker jet project to Northrop and Airbus parent EADS.

But even this latest developed touched off a war of words between Northrop and Boeing.

Northrop, in a statement, said the denials came after a supplemental filing by Boeing that "streamlined its original protest and eliminated many of the elements that were central to the Air Force and Northrop Grumman motions."

"Boeing's decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications.

"We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman's selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO."

Boeing issued a statement shortly after Northrop's, saying it has not streamlined its original protest.

"We have no idea of the basis of the Northrop Grumman statement," Boeing said. "We continue to press every ground in our original appeal. We have neither abandoned nor narrowed any ground. In fact, our supplemental filings have added additional grounds to our original filing based on the information we have received from the Air Force since filing our protest on March 11. Any assertion to the contrary is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts."

On March 1, Boeing asked the GAO to overturn the contract award to the EADS-Northrop team. In motions filed with the GAO last week, Northrop Grumman and the Air Force asked the agency to dismiss elements of Boeing's request.

The agency has until mid-June to rule on Boeing's complaint.

Michael Golden, a GAO spokesman, declined to comment.

The Air Force in February rejected a Boeing bid to build the new midair refueling tankers and instead chose a team of European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman. The initial program is valued at around $35 billion but could grow to $100 billion.

In its appeal to the GAO, Boeing accused the Air Force of switching airplane size requirements in the middle of the bidding contest. Initially, the service had sought bids for a medium-sized tanker but ended up picking a much larger aircraft, Boeing maintains.

Boeing also alleged that the Air Force "repeatedly made fundamental but often unstated changes to the bid requirements and evaluation process" in an effort to keep the Airbus tanker in the competition.

The EADS team, maintaining that it won the contract because its aircraft was superior, has denied Boeing's charge that the Air Force stacked the deck in its favor.

Northrop Grumman said that Boeing's complaints are "untimely" and that the Chicago-based aerospace giant should have complained sooner in the process, not after the Air Force made the contract award.

The issues Boeing has raised "should have been questioned, or perhaps protested, before Boeing submitted its final bid," Northrop Grumman said.

P-I aerospace reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or jameswallace@seattlepi.com. Read his Aerospace blog at blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/357609_eastman04.html

Jurors told not to consider whistle-blowing laws
Last updated April 3, 2008 11:18 a.m. PT

By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

A King County Superior Court judge told jurors who are deliberating the fate of Gerald Eastman, a former Boeing quality assurance inspector, that whistle-blowing laws should not be considered.

Jurors continued into their third day of deliberations Thursday. They had asked the judge the day before, "May we consider whistle-blowing laws as they pertain to this case?"

Judge Monica Benton told them that they couldn't consider other laws, nor do outside research.

Eastman faces 16 felony counts of computer trespass, after having downloaded Boeing documents and providing some of them to a Seattle Times reporter.

He said he did so to highlight corruption at Boeing and a shoddy inspection process for new planes. The King County prosecutor has charged that some of the resulting articles had nothing to do with airplane safety.

Defense attorney Ramona Brandes told the judge on Thursday morning, "I felt the court's instruction went beyond what was necessary."

Judge Benton also raised concerns to the attorneys about national news regarding "inflammatory discussion about airline safety."

While the jury deliberates in Seattle, a Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., has revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration looked the other way even after inspectors found cracks in Southwest Airlines planes. When FAA inspectors complained about the safety problems, they were threatened with dismissal, according to a report Thursday by the New York Times.

Delta, American Airlines and United Airlines have recently grounded scores of Boeing planes. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who has charged that the FAA has a "culture of coziness" with the carriers it regulates, leads the hearing.

Benton brought jurors into the courtroom to again remind them not to consider outside evidence or information when deliberating the case. The jurors are not allowed to read or watch any media reports regarding Eastman or Boeing.

Eastman said he felt somewhat vindicated by the national reports about poor FAA oversight. One of his complaints as a Boeing employee and after his arrest was that the FAA overlooked faulty inspections at Boeing.

While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing's airplane inspection process.

"With everything that's going on, you'd think somebody would be interested that the same thing is going on at Boeing," Eastman said. "It's nice it's coming out now -- no matter what happens to me."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This report includes information from Bloomberg News. P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

What do you think?
#403207

Posted by nullbull at 4/3/08 12:11 p.m.
Please rule on this matter, oh jury of his peers, cornerstone of our system of justice.

But only consider these few laws, and don't do any research to become more informed about the decision, and ignore any legal protections the defendant may be granted by our laws.

And then give us your ruling.

That's like asking a referee to fairly ref a game of basketball where one team has their arms tied behind their backs. What a crock. I smell an appeal, and for good reason.

#403209

Posted by nullbull at 4/3/08 12:12 p.m.
That said... perhaps the whistle blower protection laws require a SEPARATE legal proceeding, only after the initial verdict is given? Anyone have time to research this or know off the top of their heads?

#403246

Posted by Pedro_the _Lion at 4/3/08 12:56 p.m.
My understanding it that the whistleblowing laws are meant to protect employees from retaliation by their employers. The issue in this lawsuit is not retaliation by Boeing, but whether the employee committed a crime by stealing documents from his employer. I agree that his actions may appear justified, but that issue would not likely implicate the whistleblowing laws and instead would fall under the general rubric of public policy.

#403259

Posted by Green Party at 4/3/08 1:12 p.m.
If guilty, APPEAL!

#403290

Posted by themodpoet at 4/3/08 1:46 p.m.
Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do? Is it any surprise that a federal judge is biased towards multinational corporations and against democracy? Not in Seattle. Remember, cops beat and arrest people all the time for exercising their constitutional rights and then, years later, the City of Seattle pays out the victims. Impeach this judge and let citizens make the rules, not corporations.

#403306

Posted by Deano59 at 4/3/08 2:08 p.m.
To have a whistle blower status, he has to report it to a government agency, usually the DOL, EEOC or OSHA. He didn't contact any of these. He contacted the press to make his employer look bad period.

They can't consider whistle blower laws because he was trying to report as a whistle blower.

Case closed and he gets the punishment he deserves.

#403326

Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 2:27 p.m.
He *broke into* computer systems and *stole* documents. He broke the law. This is different than just talking to reporters.

#403327

Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 2:31 p.m.
Posted by themodpoet at 4/3/08 1:46 p.m.

Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do?

So you're saying it's OK for the guy who mows your lawn or comes in to clean your drains to rile through your personal papers? Really?

#403332

Posted by D_P at 4/3/08 2:39 p.m.
Let's hope for jury nullification. If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn't see all the information, I would not vote to convict. It would be unethical.

#403345

Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 3:06 p.m.
Posted by D_P at 4/3/08 2:39 p.m.

Let's hope for jury nullification. If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn't see all the information, I would not vote to convict. It would be unethical.

It would be "unethical" to allow this guy to get away with breaking the law simply because you hate "Big Corporations".

He broke into systems he had nor right to be in. He stole documents he had no right to give away. He broke the law.

#403375

Posted by beirdo at 4/3/08 3:54 p.m.
to Deano59 - As evidenced by the paragraph below, which is from the article, this guy did try reporting to the gov., but they looked the other way. Obviously money means more to them than safety. (and in this election season I have to note that the 2 senators he reported this to were both democrats - just as corrupt as the republicans). I applaud Gerald's heroic actions (from what I know of them).

"While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing's airplane inspection process."

to jbottero - your lawn mower analogy hardly compares to this when the discussion is about whistleblower status. sheesh!

#403377

Posted by equalibrium at 4/3/08 4:00 p.m.
Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do?

I was unaware of my right to steal from people and business'.

Also, if whistle blower laws applied, would the defense not try to go that route to begin with? I would hope so.

If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn't see all the information

What do you mean? One of the corner stones of our judicial system is eliminating outside influence. Evidence is either allowed or it is not. We can't have gray areas where each jury picks and chooses their information.

#403396

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/3/08 4:37 p.m.
Nullbull, It appears the company has a number of issues they were trying to address with this attack on former Quality Assurance Inspector, Eastman.

I have been told that the company has had little patience for anyone who voices concerns about problems they see evidenced while doing their jobs. It appears they are trying to make a BIG example of Mr. Eastman. If they pull this off, they will certainly exact a new level of terror among their employees, particularly anyone who even remotely considered making whistleblower complaints.

Mr. Eastman tried first of all to resolve the problems he saw occurring in is place of employment by going through the proper and designated channels within his company. Achieving no success, he then went to the federal oversight agency, which was supposed to be policing Boeing's safety and manufacturing processes, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Surely, after last night's breaking stories nearly everywhere, no one could doubt FAA has been having their problems and has been failing the government and the American public in that mission. Then Mr. Eastman, went to the DOT OIG, and also met with ambivalence to his complaints. Considering the emasculation of the Justice Department, and other oversight agencies recently, it is no surprise he was not successful in getting the problems addressed there in a timely manner either.

Mr. Eastman, it appears was trying to get his claims of fraud, filed as a whistleblower addressed, when his former employer filed charges against him. They filed these charges approximately two years after they had temporarily had him arrested, long enough to seize all of his computers, documentation and evidence, all of which was needed to support his claims of fraud. Also, it is notable that apparently Boeing also refused, upon filing charges against Mr. Eastman, to release the information they had seized and locked away that Mr. Eastman and his attorney needed in order to prepare a defense of his case in the trial being quickly funneled through the King County Courts as we speak.

Boeing has done everything it can to try to narrow the scope of the trial to keep Mr. Eastman's whistleblower activities out of consideration. It is to their advantage to paint him as a common criminal. If they allowed him to have his legitimate whistleblower status, they would have to also allow him his rights as a whistleblower. Although whistleblower protection laws are far from sufficient, there are a number of protections, including Sarbanes-Oxley, and others mentioned in comments to other PI articles on this topic earlier this week.

Retaliation by Boeing? Yes, indeed, it appears that way to me. I imagine they don't want this camel's nose under the tent, especially with other investigations in progress in various three and four acronym agencies. I have been told that the company is quite frantic about what employees might say to federal investigators. Perhaps the example they want to set is "See what happens to you if you dare!" And with that lovely work environment, it becomes more understandable the poison we have read over the past week or two in posts from some, claiming to be Boeing workers. It sounds like a pretty terrible environment.

Thanks for your comments beirdo. This whole thing is outrageous and an embarrassment to everyone.

FAA: Airlines 99% Compliant on “Air-Worthiness”



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The first phase of an audit by the Federal Aviation Administration shows that airlines are 99 percent compliant with mandatory air-worthiness directives, the agency's acting administrator said Wednesday.

The FAA is seeking a $10.2 million penalty against Southwest Airlines, one of the nation's busiest airlines.

Four U.S. airlines are under investigation for failing to comply with federal aviation regulations, Robert Sturgell said.
"The special audit that began March 13 showed us that the system we have in place is effective," he said at Reagan National Airport.
Sturgell noted, however, that improvements could be made, and said he is proposing several initiatives to strengthen the reporting role and regulatory process.
The audit began after the air safety watchdog ordered its inspectors to reconfirm that airlines are complying with U.S. regulations in the wake of revelations that Southwest Airlines continued to fly more than 100 aircraft without certain mandatory inspections.
"We had a breakdown in the system with Southwest Airlines. It was a two-way breakdown," Sturgell said without elaborating.
Sturgell spoke on the eve of a congressional hearing looking into the Southwest revelations. He and representatives from Southwest will testify at the hearing, along with two FAA inspectors who made the initial allegations and said that the agency was aware of the problems.
Don't Miss
FAA takes risks with shoddy oversight, experts say
FAA looking to see if airlines made safety repairs
Southwest resumes normal operations
Southwest grounds 44 planes
FAA inspectors: Southwest tried to hide safety problems
Every year, the FAA issues about 250 air-worthiness directives on more than 83 airplane and engine models, requiring airlines to correct potential safety problems, according to the agency's Web site.
According to Sturgell, inspectors examined almost 2,400 directives in the first phase of the audit, including those addressing maintenance programs, and found a rate of compliance of about 99 percent.
That makes this the "safest period in aviation history," he asserted.
The other 1 percent involved record-keeping errors and seven instances with four airlines in which compliance could not be established. He didn't list the airlines, saying the incidents are under investigation.
The audit, which involves 117 carriers, has been focusing on improving communications and tracking mechanisms, Sturgell said.
Among the improvements is a safety issues reporting system that will give inspectors and employees a "new avenue" for raising safety concerns, he said. The system will be in addition to the hot lines that allow administrators and employees voice complaints anonymously.
The new reporting system is to be in place by April 30, he said.
Nicholas Sabatini, the FAA's associate administrator for aviation safety, said the agency's inspectors found 34 discrepancies during phase one of the audit. Of those, 27 were resolved, and work is under way to resolve the others, he said. E-mail to a friend
All About Federal Aviation Administration • Southwest Airlines Inc.

By Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston
CNN Special Investigations Unit




FORT WORTH, Texas (CNN) -- Regulators have largely ignored a series of dangerous incidents in which cockpit windshields in commercial airliners shattered in midflight, sometimes forcing emergency landings, according to an American Airlines pilots' group.

A pilot who spoke to CNN said the cockpit window on his plane two years ago "shattered like a spider web."

Since 2004, at least 10 windshields have had problems on Boeing 757s, mostly the result of wiring problems with windshield heaters that cause smoke to fill the cockpit and sometimes make those windshields crack, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Four incidents have been on American Airlines planes, the NTSB says.
An American Airlines flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, made an emergency landing January 30 after the cockpit filled with smoke.
The inner pane of the co-pilot's window shattered as the plane came in to land in Palm Beach, Florida. One of the crewmembers was injured by glass, and six passengers were treated for smoke inhalation.
Another pilot said he had a similar experience on a 757 more than two years ago but did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. Watch a report on the pilots' claims »
"Our entire windshield shattered like a spider web, and at that point in time, my other pilot and I donned our smoke goggles and oxygen masks for fear that the pane on the window was going to fail," he said.
Members of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots, say the company and the FAA have known for four years of this problem and done nothing.
"In 2004, there were two 757 incidents," said Todd Wissing, a pilot and APA safety committee member. "The NTSB investigated and made safety recommendations to the FAA."
But he said those recommendations were not acted upon, and he charged that safety lapses are occurring because the FAA is too close to the airlines.
"We depend on the FAA to have oversight of our company's operation and, in fact, the whole operation," he said.
"And we're disappointed when we see evidence that they haven't."

Shattered Windows

Anderson Cooper explores all the angles
Tonight, 10 ET

see full schedule »

The evidence they point to is a February 1 e-mail from an American Airlines executive saying the January incident was the first he knew of involving an "internal window pane failure." Read the whole e-mail »
"We should gather the FACTS of how many failures we had and in how many flights very quickly to counter the NTSB and give us and the FAA some ammo to counter this,'' Robert W. Reding, executive vice-president of operations at American, wrote in the e-mail in response to an alert by then-spokesman John Hotard entitled "PBI incident to be NTSB poster child."
But American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner said the e-mail simply meant: "Let's get our facts together. We [American] believe this way and it appears the FAA believes this way too."
Wagner said the union is complaining publicly because it is in contract negotiations. The pilots say that safety should come first and that any repairs would probably be costly, so there is no financial incentive for them to blow the whistle.
He said it is still unclear whether windshield incidents before the January Palm Beach emergency were caused by the same problem with the windshield heater.
Don't Miss
NTSB: Safety recommendations
Air marshals missing from most flights
Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes
"American is intent on providing information to ensure that the precise cause of the incident, which may differ from other similar events on other 757s, can be addressed and remedied appropriately. When the FAA has determined a remedy, we will comply with its directive."
The FAA, only now, has issued a proposed airworthiness directive for inspection and corrections to windshield heaters, not just on 757s but also on Boeing 767s and 777s.
"We will work with the manufacturer to provide a solution for operators, if the existing solution is not adequate," the FAA said in a statement to CNN.
But the FAA did not address why it has taken this long to address the problem since Boeing flagged it as an issue as early as 2004, the first time the NTSB also took notice.
A safety recommendation sent by the NTSB to the FAA in September gives details of the problems, many linked to the wiring of the windshield heaters. The recommendation also mentions promises by Boeing to send out service bulletins and pledges by the FAA to make the Boeing suggestions mandatory.
But NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker wrote, "The Safety Board is very concerned that the [directives] originally scheduled to be issued as early as September 2004 still have not been issued. The Board considers any kind of fire and/or smoke in the cockpit to be a serious issue that could affect other aircraft systems, lead to a loss of visibility, provide a distraction, or incapacitate the crew and possibly lead to an accident."
Boeing said it was looking in to the matter. "It sounds like a maintenance item," a spokeswoman said. Efforts by CNN to get additional clarity on Boeing's statement were unsuccessful.
Critics in Congress have claimed that the FAA is too cozy with the industry and too confrontational with the NTSB.
The latest concerns about planes follow a CNN report last month that an FAA supervisor allowed Southwest Airlines to postpone required safety inspections. After that report, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, questioned whether FAA had changed from a watchdog to a lapdog.
He said there was "a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance, toward a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines."
Oberstar is holding a hearing on FAA oversight Thursday.
CNN's Todd Schwarzschild contributed to this report.
All About American Airlines Inc. • Air Travel • Federal Aviation Administration • U.S. National Transportation Safety Board

FAA Inspectors: Southwest Tried to Hide Safety Problems

From Drew Griffin and Scott Bronstein
CNN Special Investigations Unit



(CNN) -- Southwest Airlines tried to keep serious problems with its maintenance program hidden and pressured the Federal Aviation Administration to keep out an inspector who noticed the problems, according to two FAA inspectors who blew the whistle on the airline.

The FAA is seeking a $10.2 million penalty against Southwest Airlines, one of the nation's busiest airlines.

Bobby Boutris and Douglas Peters told CNN Wednesday they brought information about Southwest's lack of compliance with mandatory inspection protocols to their supervisors, but the FAA did nothing.
Boutris said the airline tried to have him removed from the inspections.
"My supervisor called me into his office ... and told me he had had a meeting with the director of quality assurance and the AD [airworthiness directive] compliance leader from Southwest Airlines, and he had requested my removal from the inspection," Boutris said.
Linda Rutherford, Southwest's public relations vice president, wouldn't comment on the inspectors' allegations, noting that company Chairman Herb Kelleher and CEO Gary Kelly would be testifying Thursday before a House panel convened to look into the issue.
"Out of respect for the congressional hearing process, we will present testimony there, both oral and in writing, that addresses many of the questions being asked," she said. "Out of respect for the committee hearing process, we need to let those questions wait for the committee."
Don't Miss
FAA takes risks with shoddy oversight, experts say
FAA: Airlines 99% compliant on 'air-worthiness'
FAA looking to see if airlines made safety repairs
Southwest resumes normal operations
CNN was unable to reach the FAA for a comment Wednesday night, but earlier in the day, acting administrator Robert Sturgell would not discuss specifics of the Southwest matter.
"We had a breakdown in the system with Southwest Airlines. It was a two-way breakdown," Sturgell said, without elaborating.
Boutris and Peters, along with representatives from the FAA, are also scheduled to testify at Thursday's House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which conducted an investigation after the two inspectors brought forward their concerns.
Peters said he doubted anything would have changed if he and Boutris had not spoken up.
"Bobby and I were not happy with the state of Southwest Airlines' maintenance program," Peters told CNN Wednesday. "We weren't happy. And we saw the airline was at risk due to the lax oversight. And because of this, we just weren't willing to accept anything other than sweeping change." Watch Boutris ask: Why didn't FAA ground Southwest planes? »
In early March, CNN obtained documents from the House committee investigation that alleged the discount airline kept dozens of aircraft in the air without mandatory inspections -- and in some cases, with defects the inspections were designed to detect.
Boutris and Peters said FAA managers knew the Southwest planes were flying illegally and did nothing about it, according to the documents.
The inspectors wrote that Southwest, which carried more passengers in the United States last year than any other airline, flew at least 70 planes without a mandatory inspection on the rudder unit, part of the steering mechanism, some of them as much as 30 months beyond the mandatory rudder inspection.
The airline also flew at least 47 planes beyond a mandatory inspection of the fuselage, or skin, of the planes for possible cracks, the inspectors said. When the inspections were carried out, six of the planes were found to have possibly dangerous cracks, they said.
Speaking with CNN Wednesday, Boutris questioned why the airline did not immediately ground those 47 planes when they learned they were out of compliance.
"It is sad that an FAA inspector has to become a whistle blower in order to do his job," Boutris told CNN. "And the job is -- that we were hired by the taxpayers -- to ensure the airlines provide safe transportation for the flying public. It shouldn't have to come to this."
Boutris and Peters are seeking protection via the federal whistle blower protection program.
After the initial revelations, the FAA proposed a $10.2 million fine -- its biggest ever against an airline -- against Southwest for flying Boeing 737s without mandatory checks for fuselage cracking. Later, the agency ordered its inspectors to ensure airlines were complying with 10 airworthiness directives -- orders to check or correct a known unsafe condition -- and to expand the review to include more directives thereafter.
Sturgell, speaking at a news conference Wednesday, said the audit showed 99 percent compliance with federal airworthiness directives. There is room for improvement, said Sturgell, adding he is proposing several initiatives to strengthen the reporting role and regulatory process.
The new reporting system is to be in place by April 30, he said.
All About Federal Aviation Administration • Southwest Airlines Inc.