Pilots Speak Out to CNN

WingNaPrayer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,742
0
EYW
Visit site
Pilots: Cockpit dangers being ignored

FORT WORTH, Texas (CNN) -- Regulators have largely ignored a series of dangerous incidents in which cockpit windshields in commercial airliners shattered in mid-flight, 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. Four incidents have been on American Airlines planes, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

An American Airlines flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, made an emergency landing on January 30 this year 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 told CNN 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 pilot describe cockpit window shattering »

"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 told CNN.

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 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."

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 (sic) 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 safety should come first and any repairs would likely be costly so there is no financial incentive for them to blow the whistle.

He said it is still unclear whether windshield incidents prior to the January Palm Beach emergency were caused by the same problem with the windshield heater.

"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, meanwhile, 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 last 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 told CNN 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 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.

[Ad: advertisement]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 FULL STORY/VERIFICATION
 
Well we should always believe the news and union leaders...they never sensationalize anything. Somehow it has become the norm for unions to portray the airline they work for as unsafe when it fits their needs. As if the management of the company is some group of mongers of death. I could read that email a thousand ways...including as some agent of death. I actually read it as saying that it's been internally investigated, isn't a problem and needs to be counteres before, as the email suggests, it becomes some poster child of making AA or airlines in gerneral some terible industry.
 
Of course....this will be.."POO-POO'd" by management, saying it's because the pilots are in contract negotiations.


ENOUGH is ENOUGH.........with these safety concerns !!!!!!!!!!!

This current FEDERAL administration should be INDICTED on several fronts !!

From Iraq,...........To......... (a) "wink and a nod" to these a/c safety concerns, to a Federal (flying) Marshall program that is virtually NON EXISTENT(via percentages of flights UNCOVERED), to ($$$) cutbacks(not replacing agents who move on/retire), for the program as a whole !!!


Capitalism......."AT ANY CO$T(s)"..1st COUSIN :down: :down: :down: :down:
 
Well we should always believe the news and union leaders...they never sensationalize anything. Somehow it has become the norm for unions to portray the airline they work for as unsafe when it fits their needs. As if the management of the company is some group of mongers of death. I could read that email a thousand ways...including as some agent of death. I actually read it as saying that it's been internally investigated, isn't a problem and needs to be counteres before, as the email suggests, it becomes some poster child of making AA or airlines in gerneral some terible industry.

Fortunately they provided photos and have passenger accounts for back up. I just wonder what took them so long to speak up and they are right, aircraft in this country is falling apart.
 
american.airlines.gif


I do believe the "us and the FAA" is exactly the problem with oversight of the airlines. The only poster child that they need to very about is this e-mail being the poster child for lack of oversight.
 
Well we should always believe the news and union leaders...they never sensationalize anything. Somehow it has become the norm for unions to portray the airline they work for as unsafe when it fits their needs. As if the management of the company is some group of mongers of death. I could read that email a thousand ways...including as some agent of death. I actually read it as saying that it's been internally investigated, isn't a problem and needs to be counteres before, as the email suggests, it becomes some poster child of making AA or airlines in gerneral some terible industry.

I guess the same customer service level that has threatened Congressional intervention, isn't reflected in other areas of the operation either?

Call up the FAA. Get some stats from ATC regarding "Declaring an Emergency" calls for certain silver aircraft. Compare them with 10 years ago. Public information, no union involved.
 
Well we should always believe the news and union leaders...they never sensationalize anything. Somehow it has become the norm for unions to portray the airline they work for as unsafe when it fits their needs. As if the management of the company is some group of mongers of death. I could read that email a thousand ways...including as some agent of death. I actually read it as saying that it's been internally investigated, isn't a problem and needs to be counteres before, as the email suggests, it becomes some poster child of making AA or airlines in gerneral some terible industry.

Of course we should never blame the benevolent and well meaning corporations, who are run by good, honest business men. These poor business men are just trying to earn an honest buck. Its those damn unions and their ungrateful members who always get in the way. They should be grateful they have a job. If they don't like it they should quit....
Even though I jest, my own words make want to puke; because I know there are people out there who feel this way. The most despicable defenders of the capitalist are the ones who themselves are working class, yet they boot lick in the hopes of having some crumbs trickle down to them. The "I got mine" syndrome.
The reality is that the capitalist always put their profits first and foremost above all. If it is more cost effective to keep producing an unsafe product than to fix it, they will continue making that product no matter who gets hurt or dies.
The lackey courts and their judges have enabled the capitalists to usurp the 14th ammendment, giving the corporation "person" status. The corporation has the same rights of a person, without the responsibilities of one. Capitalists can do as they please because they hide behind the veil of the corporation, and are rarely held accountable for individual actions. Nice scam. :down: :down:
 
This on the web as posted by the Union Representing the Flight Standards Inspectors:

WASHINGTON, DC – Tom Brantley, national president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO (PASS), released the following statement regarding his upcoming testimony on April 3 before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on FAA oversight of air carriers:

"The FAA has become so focused on working well with the airlines that it has allowed its safety mission to suffer at times. FAA safety inspectors are on the front lines of enforcing aviation safety standards. Yet, on far too many occasions, the FAA has labeled its own safety inspectors as troublemakers for simply reporting violations or allowed airline management to demand the reassignment of an inspector trying to hold a carrier accountable.

"The FAA has not only promoted an internal culture where safety is given second billing, but it has manipulated every aspect of the enforcement process in order to encourage and maintain a positive relationship between the agency and the airlines. Safety inspectors are on the frontline protecting this country's aviation system and trust should no doubt be placed in their professionalism and expertise. Punishing safety inspectors for discovering violations or impeding them from making safety of the system their priority should not be tolerated.

"Safety inspectors have been relegated to auditors who inspect more paperwork than airplanes, the records obviously do not tell the whole story. Without robust physical inspections, there is no way to know if the data is accurate or complete since it is provided by the airlines. Given the importance of safety to air travel, the FAA is in no position to rely solely on a data-driven system. The process must be reintegrated as a combination of data reporting and physical inspections. With nearly half of the inspector workforce eligible to retire in the next five years, the FAA must address severe understaffing to ensure that it can give proper oversight to the industry. And FAA managers should be rotated on a regular basis to prevent the cozy relationships that appear to be clouding judgment.

"While the announcement last week by FAA management to create a system to make it harder to dismiss issues raised by inspectors is appropriate, it reveals an FAA culture gone awry. Even the FAA recognizes that it is not listening to its inspectors when it has to create new safeguards to do so."

A copy of PASS’s testimony will be available on April 3 at www.passnational.org.
 
Have passengers suddenly replaced highly qualified mechanics and inspectors?
No but mechanics have known for a long time that the FAA is there to "promote Aviation", not to insure the safety of the passengers. The NTSB is supposed to do that but they can only make "recommendations" to the FAA, which they routinely ingnore, especially if it costs money.
 
I do not own any interests in any Aviation Related Industries outside of investments made by my 401(k) without my active participation.

Item posted to AA thread of US Aviation Forums Due to Inclusion of AA/AE Inspectors: Peters, Cotti and Andrews.

This on the web as posted by the Union Representing the Flight Standards Inspectors:

Briefing Memo

Oversight and Investigations Hearing on Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory Partnership Programs.

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

2167 Rayburn House Office Building

Thursday, April 3, 2008

10:00 a.m.



The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to review the results of an oversight investigation of Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory "Partnership Programs". Among the witnesses will be two FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors, Mr. Charalambe,"Bobby," Boutris and Mr. Douglas E. Peters. Their testimony will raise serious questions of conduct violating the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) in the inspection and maintenance program of FAA’s Southwest Airlines Certificate Management Office (CMO).

According to the United States Office of Special Counsel and documents provided to the Committee, the whistleblowers’ disclosures, if substantiated, show that FAA management employees have engaged in conduct, “which constitutes a violation of Federal law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, an abuse of authority and a substantial and specific damage to public safety.†The evidence supplied by Mr. Boutris and Mr. Peters documents that the Supervisory Principal Maintenance Inspector (SPMI) for Southwest knowingly allowed the airline to operate aircraft in revenue passenger service in March 2007 (and possibly beyond), and well after the inspection deadlines on a mandatory FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) and an unrelated required service interval check. Federal regulations require the immediate grounding of any aircraft that is past due mandatory AD requirements or required maintenance checks. There are no exceptions to this rule.

The evidence also points toward a systematic pattern of FAA failure to exercise the required regulatory oversight in the Southwest CMO and to ensure carrier compliance for years prior to this occurrence.

Beyond the Southwest cases discussed above, there is evidence that there may be a pattern of regulatory abuse and that these regulatory lapses may be more widespread. On March 6, 2008, just prior to the originally scheduled date for this hearing, FAA notified Southwest of a $10.2 million civil penalty action for 46 aircraft that had over-flown the fuselage inspection AD for up to 30 months. On March 10, 2008, FAA Assistant Administrator for Safety, Nicholas Sabatini, who will also testify, sent a special team of FAA inspectors to do a thorough examination of Southwest’s regulatory compliance. On March 11, 2008, Southwest announced that it had placed three employees on “administrative leave†as a result of their own internal investigation of this matter. On March 12, 2008, Southwest announced it was grounding 41 more aircraft for “inspections.†On March 13, 2008, the FAA issued a national order (N 8900.36) instructing all FAA regional Flight Standards Offices to conduct a “special emphasis validation of AD oversight.â€Â

The FAA maintains oversight of airlines through its Flight Standards Division. The head of this division reports to the Associate Administrator for Safety at FAA Headquarters. The Associate Administrator for Safety reports to the FAA Administrator. Flight Standards is organized into Regional Offices and Certificate Management Offices (CMO). Each major airline is assigned a CMO that is responsible for overseeing a particular airline. The CMO reports to a Regional Flight Standards Director, who reports to the National Director of Flight Standards.

FAA issues regulations such as ADs that require certain mandatory aircraft inspections at specific intervals. These ADs and mandatory inspections are specific to each type of aircraft, and the CMO for the airline is responsible for seeing that these mandatory inspections take place. However, the FAA relies heavily on “partnership programs†such as the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) and the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) to motivate airlines, mechanics, and other operational personnel to self-disclose violations as means of identifying non-compliance with the regulations that the FAA otherwise might not have detected. There are incentives to airlines and certificate holders (in the form of immunity from the finding of a violation) for self-disclosing as a means of correcting compliance problems and detecting important safety-related trends.

On March 15, 2007, Southwest notified, by telephone, the FAA SPMI in the Southwest CMO of a voluntary disclosure that potentially up to 100 aircraft were overdue the required inspection and compliance for at least one AD. Under the voluntary disclosure guidelines, it was mandatory that the airline’s non-compliance should have immediately ceased on the date of disclosure. This clearly did not occur. The number of aircraft involved was later revised to 47 aircraft.

On March 20, 2007, another 70 Southwest aircraft were self-disclosed as having missed a mandatory rudder check. Overall, one hundred-seventeen aircraft were allowed to keep flying with full knowledge of the FAA SPMI for a number of days until Southwest could schedule them for inspections without disrupting their commercial schedule. Grounding these aircraft immediately, as required by federal regulations, would have cancelled hundreds of Southwest commercial flights.

The Manager of Regulatory Compliance for Southwest was a former FAA safety inspector in the Southwest CMO until his resignation from the FAA in 2006 to assume his current position with Southwest. He was the Southwest official who self-disclosed the violations to FAA. It is alleged that this person had a close working relationship with the FAA SPMI overseeing Southwest. There are numerous allegations that the SPMI was too close to the management of Southwest, and these allegations gain credibility from the number of surveillance investigations that were interfered with by the SPMI.

FAA AD 2004-18-06 requires the inspection of the Boeing 737 fuselage for cracks every 4,500 cycles after the aircraft reaches 35,000 cycles. (A “cycle†is defined as one takeoff and one landing.) This AD is one of a series of directives pertaining to aging aircraft that require mandatory inspection procedures at specific intervals. This series of ADs was issued as a direct result of the 1988 accident of an Aloha Airlines Boeing-737, where the entire top of the fuselage separated due to cracking and metal fatigue. Subsequent inspections after that accident found a large number of fuselage cracks in aging B-737s.

The mandatory maintenance interval check required inspection of the standby rudder power control unit (PCU) for leakage every 12,500 hours and was issued as one of several related mandatory checks in response to two fatal B-737 accidentsâ€â€United Airlines at Colorado Springs in 1991 and US Airways at Pittsburgh in 1994â€â€as well as multiple reports of un-commanded rudder movements on 737 aircraft.

For the fuselage AD alone, after the date of voluntary disclosure, Southwest conducted at least 1,451 flights, potentially transporting as many as 200,000 passengers, on at least 47 aircraft. Under Federal law, the 47 aircraft should have been grounded. Additionally, 70 aircraft were overdue the rudder PCU inspections, but the number of flights conducted after airline disclosure is unknown, although many of them flew in commercial service up to 9 days past disclosure.

Some of these aircraft involved were overdue for 30 months before the airline self-disclosures. It should be noted that these are the aircraft for which airworthiness violations at Southwest have been documented at this stage of the investigation, and others could have been affected. In November 2007 (about 8 months following the disclosure by the airline), FAA senior headquarters management asked the FAA Southwest CMO for the follow-up inspections on the Southwest aircraft in question.

It is important to note that the Southwest CMO did not have any records showing that follow-up inspections were ever performed on the 47 aircraft. Neither the Southwest CMO, nor FAA Regional, nor headquarters organizations took any action to check that the aircraft had been brought into compliance with Federal law until nearly eight months after the self-disclosure was filed by the airline.

The FAA headquarters follow-up inspection inquiries were made only after FAA headquarters became aware of investigations initiated by this Committee, and after our requests to the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General to further investigate these matters. FAA initially refused to cooperate with requests for information by Committee staff. The FAA internal investigation was only obtained by the Committee under threat of subpoena in an October 5, 2007 letter from the Chairman of the full Committee and the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee.

Documents supplied by both Boutris and Peters strongly suggest that the maintenance and inspection record-keeping systems at Southwest were deficient and did not meet regulatory standards, and the evidence demonstrated that Boutris and Peters had been warning regional FAA management about these record-keeping and inspection deficiencies for years. They alleged that efforts to increase the surveillance of Southwest and to discipline the carrier were repeatedly either undermined or not acted upon by FAA Flight Standards management. Boutris provided 38 examples of problems communicated to regional FAA management, and he reports receiving no answer to any of his communications to the Regional Director of Flight Standards, Mr. Thomas Stuckey, who is also scheduled to appear at the hearing.

Under so-called “regulatory partnership programs†such as the VDRP and ASAP, airlines and employees are encouraged to come forward and share violations in exchange for some level of immunity from the finding of a violation. Once an FAA inspector has begun an investigation, those incidents under investigation are supposedly not eligible for such self-disclosure protection. However, FAA inspectors in offices across the country complain that airlines have been warned when surveillance efforts are underway, and that the VDRP and ASAP programs are often utilized in ways that were not intended and that are not in accordance with FAA policy guidelines or FARs.

Committee investigators conducted interviews with a number of FAA inspectors and retired FAA inspectors who are, or have been, assigned to CMOs overseeing other airlines. Most of these individuals were reluctant to provide their identities or evidence, but many did speak on condition of anonymity. The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), which represents 11,000 FAA employees, including approximately 2,800 FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors, also conducted numerous interviews with its FAA inspector members. Mr. Tom Brantley, President of PASS, will testify at the hearing.

FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors are responsible for performing surveillance on aircraft operations and maintenance procedures for air carriers. FAA inspectors must perform in a role of “safety enforcer†taking appropriate actions against violations. Both PASS as well as many of the inspectors interviewed in this investigation alleged that the “safety enforcer†role has become increasingly overshadowed by the relationship between the FAA and airlines. PASS is expected to testify that the FAA culture, at the highest levels, is more concerned with maintaining close relationships with airline managements, and they express concern about a “revolving door†that has developed where FAA Flight Standards managers aspire to more lucrative positions with the airlines when they leave the agency. PASS claims that FAA inspectors are being impeded from performing their jobs to the best of their abilities by FAA Flight Standards managers and that regulatory “partnership programs†such as ASAP and VDRP, are often used as “get out of jail free cards.â€Â

Many inspectors allege that there is pressure from management not to identify too many problems with airlines, suggesting that there may be retribution or reassignment as a result. PASS alleges to have several cases where an inspector has identified a violation and is then counseled by FAA management that they are straining relationships with a certificate holder.



Witnesses

Panel 1

Mr. Charalambe (Bobby) Boutris

Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 737-700 Partial Program Manager for aircraft maintenance Southwest Airlines Certificate Management Office (CMO)

Mr. Douglas E. Peters

Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 757 Partial Program Manager

American Airlines Certification Unit, AMR CMO

Mr. Michael C. Mills

Assistant Manager, Dallas Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)

Mr. Paul E. Cotti

Supervisor, American Eagle Airworthiness Unit, AMR CMO

Mr. Robert A. Naccache

Ret. Assistant Manager, Southwest CMO

Mr. Terry D. Lambert

Manager, Safety and Analysis Group, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region



Panel II

The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel, III

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Transportation

The Honorable Scott J. Bloch

Special Counsel

U.S. Office of the Special Counsel

Mr. Nicholas A. Sabatini

Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety

Federal Aviation Administration

Mr. James J. Ballough

Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration

Mr. Thomas Stuckey

Manager, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region



Panel III

Mr. Herb Kelleher
Executive Chairman, Southwest Airlines Co.

Mr. Gary Kelly
Chief Executive Officer, Southwest Airlines Co.

Mr. Vincent Larry Collamore

Aviation Safety Inspector, Southwest CMO

Mr. John Bassler

Principal Avionics Inspector, Dallas Fort Worth FSDO



Panel IV

Mr. Tom Brantley

President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists

Accompanied by

Ms. Linda Goodrich

Region IV Vice President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists

Mr. Richard A. Andrews

Aviation Safety Inspector, American Eagle Operations Unit, AMR CMO

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists

Mr. Joseph P. Thrash

Ret. Aviation Safety Inspector, Continental Airlines CMO

Mr. Bill McNease

Ret. Aviation Safety Inspector, FedEx Certificate Management Unit
 
Interesting post Boomer...a sad reality of an industry outpacing oversight. I think most people with half a brain would say that about many of our regulatory bodies...FDA being the most notable before this but recent issues in the toy industry show a similar pattern.

I'm not saying the union and this pilot are completely wrong...heck, for all I know, they are completely right. What amazes me is that if the situation were the something from the company that the union disagrees with, so many of you blindly follow what the union leader say because somehow they are more honest. Remember, they won an election...when is the last time you really trusted a politician? I've never met an executive in this business, and I've met my share, who is truly willing to overlook safety. Are there some supervisors or line managers who ask you to sign the log when there is a no go item...sure. If you're signing the book, you're just as guilty.

There's no doubt in my mind that this should be investigated. There's also no doubt in my mind the Bob Redding meant nothing other than let's not let the NTSB get out in front of this and make sure we don't all look like idiots when we know what the problem may be...
 
Interestingly enough, it will do one of two things, either this is going to get extremely ugly for all those involved or, all issues raised will find themselves conveniently swept under the nearest rug runner.

The only thing missing here are accusations of bribes and blackmail which the way things sound, most likely both happened at one time or another.

The FAA is desperate at this point to restore its credibility (not that it had any to begin with) as quickly as it can, be damned the heads that may roll! :cop:

Best wishes to any of y'all who are going to get caught up in this mess one way or another! I smell lots of underling blame and a royal screwing to boot! :mf_boff:
 
Of course we should never blame the benevolent and well meaning corporations, who are run by good, honest business men. These poor business men are just trying to earn an honest buck. Its those damn unions and their ungrateful members who always get in the way. They should be grateful they have a job. If they don't like it they should quit....
Even though I jest, my own words make want to puke; because I know there are people out there who feel this way. The most despicable defenders of the capitalist are the ones who themselves are working class, yet they boot lick in the hopes of having some crumbs trickle down to them. The "I got mine" syndrome.
The reality is that the capitalist always put their profits first and foremost above all. If it is more cost effective to keep producing an unsafe product than to fix it, they will continue making that product no matter who gets hurt or dies.
The lackey courts and their judges have enabled the capitalists to usurp the 14th ammendment, giving the corporation "person" status. The corporation has the same rights of a person, without the responsibilities of one. Capitalists can do as they please because they hide behind the veil of the corporation, and are rarely held accountable for individual actions. Nice scam. :down: :down:


Excellent post. And, until these battles are fought in the halls of Congress with REAL changed laws, or in the streets with complete industry shut down, it will continue.
 
There will never be change as long as we have the one party system. The Republicrats will do nothing that upsets their corporate masters.
The solution to our problem is simple, and can be found in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
:up: :up: