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.

FMI: www.ducommun.com, www.boeing.com