Does S. Carolina know how to build a Boeing?

Editor, The Times:

Though I never built a Boeing aircraft, I did fly them. Because of the dedication, knowledge and expertise of Washington state craftsmen and women, many of those well-designed and constructed airframes are still flying.

Consider that the 707, 737, 747, B-52 and even some B-17s are still aloft. For nearly a century, Washingtonians knew how to build airplanes.

I can appreciate Boeing involving potential buyers in building new aircraft. However, it appears, Boeing has sacrificed quality for a kumbaya feeling. It seems that almost every day I read about some offshore partner -- whose workers do not have the history, the experience or know-how of the Washingtonians who bleed Boeing blue -- erring in their responsibilities.

But it is not only foreign builders and suppliers, but Americans as well. Who ever said South Carolinians could build an airplane? Who installed the wrong fasteners in the wrong places and caused damage to the composite structure?

Again, without the historical background and skill found in the Puget Sound area, the Gamecocks have stumbled. It seems to me that if I ran Boeing, I would want the best product at the best price. And that does not mean the lowest price -- paying a worker $40 an hour for the job done correctly and professionally is less expensive than paying someone $30 an hour for a shoddy job that has to be done twice to get it right.

I guess I am not seeing the big picture because Boeing must know what it is doing and be going in the right direction -- it's too big to fail.

-- Richard A. Virant, Bothell

Threats of strikes, then a final departure of 787 from Washington

The unions and government in Washington state should heed the knell of the vote to throw out the union at the Boeing facility in Charleston ["Boeing Charleston votes to oust Machinists Union," Business, Sept. 11].

As one who grew up in western New York and watched businesses move manufacturing out of state due to the union and government attitude toward business, I see a dramatic parallel with the events of the past year. First, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Idiots Against Management) strike on the only busy business in the nation; second, the shuttering of all the U.S. Marine plants while shifting that production to business-friendly states like Tennessee and Florida.

We should all remember: "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

-- Gary M. Schmidt, Seattle

Albaugh will respect Boeing's skilled workers

With the appointment of Jim Albaugh as CEO of Boeing's Commercial Airplane Division ["Boeing fix-it guy leads airliner unit," page one, Sept. 1], a mending process can now begin to right the division and get the 787 Dreamliner flying.

Quoting Albaugh from a Times column: "In its soul, Boeing has always been and remains an engineering company." He continues to say, "the heart of this company is the skilled machinists, technicians and mechanics -- true craftsmen and wizards -- who deliver on their promises everyday."

Albaugh thus recognized the truism that a company's greatest asset is its workers, and it appears the 787 is in good hands. Bon voyage, Boeing!

-- Anthony E. Pomata, Maple Valley

Boeing built by region, owes much in return

Editor, The Times:

Those Boeing officials who are considering manufacturing the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina should study the company's history.

It was the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest out of which Boeing was created and built. Early on, it was the spruce forests of Oregon and Washington. Then it was the region's abundant and low-cost water power that generated the large amount of electricity needed to make aluminum when that became the basic material in airplane manufacture.

Throughout, it was the local intellectual, educational and governmental infrastructure, largely paid for by Washington taxpayers, that trained and nurtured a work force capable of designing and manufacturing great airplanes. South Carolina cannot take credit for any of this. Boeing, having capitalized on these resources, owes something in return.

-- Fred Granata, Lake Oswego, Ore.

Union members need to be team members

When will Everett's Mayor Ray Stephanson and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union understand why Boeing is seeking permits for a 787 Dreamliner final-assembly plant in South Carolina? ["Boeing expansion: permits not required," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 28.]

Boeing doesn't want to deal with striking union members. IAM members are being lead down a dark path with no future. IAM's leaders are relics from the past, and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome.

Consider these things: Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, you're encouraged to do the bare minimum; a company needs team members working toward a common goal, you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public; Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike; the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with the IAM anymore, they'll just move away. IAM members have a chance to think for themselves and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Boeing going elsewhere doesn't produce results

I think the point has been proven that Boeing aircraft manufacturing must not move from the Seattle area. See what is happening when other parts of the nation and world try to build parts for the new Dreamliner 787? Wrinkles in the fuselage? Come on.

It looks like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union strike didn't have much to do with the delay of first delivery, although I hope the union and Boeing can work out a deal to avoid such hassles in the future.

Keeping it all here will build the best airplanes available.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

Thanks to The Times, staying off Boeing's Play Doh plane

The Seattle Times has, for many years, done a great job of untangling complex details of aerospace manufacturing without making its highly readable articles seem dumbed down. This goes back to Byron Acohido's outstanding investigative series on the mysterious 737 rudder control problem, the notorious MD-80 jackscrew story and now the perils of baking the composite pastry that will be the 787 Dreamliner ["787 fuselage work halted," page one, Aug. 14].

I wonder how many other readers share my reaction to these latest events: What a screwed-up way to build an airplane!

Will Boeing outsource the legal defense work necessitated by lawsuits launched by angry customers and shareholders to five foreign nations as well? You know, so everybody gets their fair share of the work.

Just to be on the safe side, it will be many years before I strap myself into one of these Play Doh comets.

-- Charles Pickel, Seattle

If it's a Boeing, I'm not going

My god, what next for Boeing? Now there are more delays in the 787 Dreamliner program. Gee, who's at fault now?

The Machinists Union gets blamed for everything, but they're without fault when it comes to the corporate decisions concerning problems building the 787. None of it is the unions' fault -- not the strike, not anything.

Every decision made about the building of any Boeing product comes from management, period. The workers have no say. Which idiot manager dreamed up this ridiculous idea of farming out virtually all the work on the 787?

It was management's idea, and they made the decision. Will this screwed-up plane ever fly? Who would want to risk their life trying?

There used to be a saying: "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going." Obviously, that should be changed to: "If it's a Boeing plane, I'm not flying."

-- Richard B. Ellenberger, Normandy Park

Just follow the signs to see why Boeing may leave

A recent visit to the Boeing plant in Mukilteo provides a poignant metaphor for the relationship between Boeing and Greater Seattle. Many other visitors and I got lost on the way to the Boeing tour due to insufficient signs.

Boeing advised us that the government highway authorities thought there were too many signs already and refused to allow Boeing to put up signs directing visitors to their tourist facilities. I can assure you South Carolina will ask Boeing, "How many signs?" and "Where shall we put 'em?"

Sam Howe Verhovek ["Boeing and Puget Sound -- shared DNA," Opinion, guest columnist, July 19] engages in some wishful thinking in hypothesizing that Boeing rocket scientists have overlooked important factors in their move.

What is surprising is that they have waited this long. Boeing gives me the same feeling that Caterpillar did in the '90 s when they were dealing with labor unrest. They made the tough decisions and have been the darling of Wall Street ever since.

Boeing is appropriately responding to Seattle's tepid embrace.

-- Bob Bell, Brooklyn, New York

Unions aren't team players for Boeing success

A word of advice to Boeing unions, specifically the International Association of Machinists: As an outsider looking in, I can tell you that you're being led down a dark path with no future.

Your leaders are relics from the past and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome. Consider that Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, yet you are encouraged to do the bare minimum. A company needs team members working toward a common goal, but you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public. Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not to be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike, and the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Get your heads out of the sand, guys and gals: Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with you anymore. They will just move away. You've got a chance to think for yourselves, and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members, and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Plastic bags for plastic wings?

Could it be that, secretly, Boeing is behind the plastic grocery bag ban because it needs plastic bags for the wing repair on the 787 Dreamliner?

-- Ed Anderson, Kirkland

Washington senators vote foolishly on military spending

The vote by Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to spend $1.75 billion to buy seven more F-22 fighter jets ["Senate roll call: Washington state's senators vote no," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, July 21] was a disappointing reminder of how badly hooked they are on the drug of pork-barrel military spending.

Fortunately, the majority of their colleagues did not agree with them, and the Senate cut the proposed F-22 funding from the defense budget. While there were jobs at stake, there are ways to create jobs that do not involve wasteful spending.

Currently we are spending at a rate of around 25 percent of the gross domestic product while we raise less than 20 percent of it in taxes. This is unsustainable -- increases in taxes and spending cuts are inevitable.

The severity of the cuts and the tax increases will depend on whether or not responsible legislators take advantage of good opportunities to cut spending and cutting the F-22 was one of them. It is a shame Murray and Cantwell did not see that.

I hope in the future we can count on them to look out for the financial well-being of this country instead of defense contractors' interests.

-- Lee Daneker, Seattle

Murray and Cantwell giving in to pork-barrel politics

As a longtime Democrat and supporter of Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, it pains me to see them cave in to the lowest form of pork-barrel politics they have long claimed to be above.

By voting for nearly $2 billion in funding for just seven new F-22 fighters, planes the secretary of defense and the president have long claimed we don't need and can't use, they have fed directly into the opposition, who continue to charge -- this time justifiably -- that Democrats can't find a spending program they won't support.

We didn't elect our senators to bring home the bacon; we elected them to make smart decisions that increase our national security, and their votes did neither. The opportunity cost of continuing the F-22A program is enormous.

Undoubtedly, they or someone will claim they had to vote this way to support jobs at home. This is a lie.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a state that also directly benefits from the F-22 program, voted with his conscience to kill the useless and costly program. Why can't we expect the same from our senators?

I would like to see Cantwell and Murray re-elected but not if they continue making misguided votes like this one.

-- John Lederer, Seattle

Despite F-22 cut, still too much spent on military

Since I'm opposed to wasteful military spending, I'm happy the Senate voted to save $1.75 billion in the coming military authorization bill by stopping the F-22 fighter program ["Senate votes to kill fighter-jet program," News, July 22].

But looking at the bigger picture, I'm not happy with the $679.8 billion still left in the bill, more than double what it was when George W. Bush took office. And it doesn't count the roughly $50 billion in the intelligence budget, the $15 billion to protect and upgrade nuclear weapons or the billions spent by Homeland Security. Shouldn't all these be called defense programs, too?

It seems we're spending almost $1 trillion a year on defense and then wondering why we can't keep our schools open, have real health care and give our wounded veterans the care they deserve.

We can redirect our spending and not a single defense worker has to lose their job. We can shift from making jet engine turbines to wind turbines, from cruise missiles to solar panels.

I'd be glad to see my taxes go toward retooling and retraining for sustainable energy needs, for peace instead of war.

-- Bill Distler, Bellingham

Concessions must be made to keep Boeing here

Editor, The Times:

Jon Talton may be correct in his contention that executive blunders have had a bigger effect on Boeing's competitiveness than the strikes ["Washington may benefit from Southern strategy," Business, July 12]. But as we look ahead, whether he is or isn't correct is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the question of what it will take to persuade Boeing to locate the second Dreamliner 787 line -- and probably the 737 replacement line -- here. And then the question of whether the state and the unions are willing to pay the price. Boeing, just to survive, must continually improve its competitiveness. This means building airplanes wherever they can get the best overall cost, schedule and quality performance. Clearly, a no-strike commitment would be a major incentive for them to remain here, and the lack of one would be a major incentive to move.

Strikes and overly generous and restrictive contracts were major reasons for the collapse of the U.S. auto industry. If Boeing workers don't want to end up as United Auto Workers members have, they will need to help, not hinder, Boeing in its efforts to improve its competitiveness.

This applies to Washington state as well. If the state wants to continue to enjoy the payrolls, taxes and other economic benefits brought by Boeing, they need to give Boeing incentives to stay.

-- Clark B. McKee, Anacortes

Union already has a simple no-strike clause

I wonder if Jim McNerney's job as the CEO of Boeing is to run the company into the ground --if it is, he should get a raise.

I also think that the machinists union already has a no-strike clause: If the machinists are offered decent contracts without removing benefits they've already fought for, they won't strike.

-- Dan McCafferty, Naches

Some empathy for light-rail noise victims

Editor, The Times:

I can almost empathize with those suffering the noisy trains ["Tracks' din stirs Tukwila outcry," NWSunday, July 5].

However, there is a large number of us being subjected to 100 decibels on a constant basis due to the third runway at Sea-Tac. The Port of Seattle has said there will be noise studies someday.

The results of the noise studies for the second runway would more than suffice. Just move the western boundary and begin the noise mitigation process.

-- Mike Adams, Des Moines

Rail priority shouldn't be on buying art

I just read the article "Making a big deal of it" [NWArts&Life, July 12] and was so relieved knowing that I'm not one of the taxpayers footing the bill for light rail's public art.

I can only imagine how much it must have cost for all of these "works of art." But I can imagine how much more bang for the buck taxpayers might have gotten from those same dollars had they been used in, perhaps, a more practical way; like working on the noise problems we're reading about or building the parking that's needed so that people riding the rails will have a place to park those cars they're not driving.

I live on Whidbey Island where we don't have the traffic problems seen in the Seattle area. It's just a shame that all that money was spent to make a few people feel good, but that's the liberal way, it seems, and the voters voted for it.

If it feels good, then it must be the right thing to do. Glad it's not on my buck!

-- Carolyn Hendry, Oak Harbor

Charging for parking would help light-rail stations stay afloat

As happy as I am about the opening of the Tukwila light-rail station, I'm at a loss to understand the free parking.

Why free? Even if we're charged a dollar for 24-hour parking -- which should hurt nobody -- a 500-car average for a year would net $182,500. No great fortune, but it would help in maintaining the station itself.

Free parking is largely a myth anyway. The concept is touted at shopping malls nationwide. But the cost, in truth, is passed along to buyers at the register. Even a customer who walks to the mall (a bizarre concept, I know) or arrives by bus, is burdened by the same higher costs, all to provide for that great American obsession -- the automobile.

-- John Lyons, Seattle

Dreaming of open roadways

Hooray, light rail has opened. No more congestion on Interstate 5!

Then I woke up.

-- Donald F. Padelford, Seattle

Light rail no louder than third runway

It was good to see The Seattle Times' article on light-rail noise ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11] as well as Sound Transit's response to the complaints.

But where was the coverage when the Port of Seattle opened the third Sea-Tac runway, with an impact on far more citizens of King County? The Port might learn from Sound Transit's ability to realize the detrimental effects their work has on the community.
The Port's response to date is that it will do some new noise monitoring and will release the information this coming November. The Port's lack of foresight to realize the third runway compounded with the "unexpected" closure of another runway would cause such disruption is unconscionable.

-- Mark Maurin, Des Moines

Negotiating away right to strike is not an option

Editor, The Times:

The Boeing Machinists Union's recent strike is a proud example of hardworking Americans' efforts to protect themselves from the unadulterated greed of increasingly wealthy management.

Boeing routinely pays its CEOs tens of millions of dollars annually in salary, bonuses and severance. Union workers are routinely asked to make concessions, presumably so the increasingly wealthy can become obscenely, grotesquely wealthy. The union has a strong voice in the process only by having the right to strike.

Politicians like Norm Dicks and columnists like Danny Westneat ["Don't let Boeing slip away," NWWednesday, July 8] who suggest that any union even consider negotiating away the right to strike are only hastening our return to the robber-baron era when concepts like workplace-safety standards, minimum wage and weekends off were but a dream.

-- Jim Trimbell, Shoreline

Maybe Puget Sound should just let Boeing go

So Boeing has decided that unless the union agrees to never again strike, they are moving out of the state ["Key lawmakers warn of Boeing ultimatum," page one, July 8]. What a bunch of manure!

Why not just return to slavery? It would be good for business. No more pesky contracts, no more benefits.

There is a special place in hell reserved for the executives who are making millions and blaming the unions for any problems they encounter.

I, for one, am disgusted. Any politician who does not remind the company and themselves of the numerous tax incentives and benefits Boeing has already received is remiss. And as we can see from past agreements, Boeing is never going to have enough to ensure that it will stay in this area.

I say we let them go, and don't let the door hit them on the way out.

-- Carol Barber, Kent

Delays are result of Boeing outsourcing, not strike

Boeing and Norm Dicks blame the machinists' strike for the delay of the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing wants a no-strike clause, or it will pick up its jobs and move them to South Carolina.

In truth, all the machinists have done is provide livable-wage jobs with decent benefits to thousands in the Puget Sound area. Boeing, on the other hand, has outsourced its production inefficiently and "cheaply," and it has gotten what it paid for:

• Sept. 6, 2007: Boeing announced its first delay of Dreamliner.
• Oct. 11, 2007: Boeing announced at least a six-month delay.
• Dec. 11, 2007: Boeing announced it was working through "wrinkles" that would delay the Dreamliner until "late 2008."
• Jan. 2, 2008: Boeing listed "unresolved production problems" had pushed delivery until 2009.
• Feb. 2, 2008: Boeing transferred two executives to a "special assignment" involving production problems.
• Sept. 7, 2008 to Nov. 1, 2008: The machinists' strike stopped production.
• June 23, 2008: Boeing released information that the problems were related to parts manufactured by Fuji and Mitsubishi that don't meet properly in 36 separate places where the wings meet the body.

Boeing will move to South Carolina if they can't break the union, but we all know that it is Boeing's "doing things on the cheap" that was responsible for the delays, not the machinists.

-- Thalia Syracopoulos, Seattle

Charleston 2, Seattle 0

Editor, The Times:

We gave you our superintendent of schools. You gave us the assembly of the 787 Dreamliner. It's a win-win for Charleston, S.C., on all counts.

-- Richard Lennon, Charleston

Boeing to Washington: leaving on a jet plane

I read your editorial ["Change the tone to keep aerospace jobs," Opinion, July 8], and it ranks right up there with listening to a crackhead talk about sobriety.

Watching Boeing do business in Washington has been like seeing an alternate episode of "The Sopranos." Apparently, Boeing decided it was done paying protection money. Does anyone really believe Boeing will be in business here in Washington five years from now? I think anyone with eyes could see the signal sent when headquarters moved to Chicago.

Can our local and state governments respond to this upcoming loss? I expect continued spending like drunken sailors. How long will it be before a bloody ear is sent to headquarters? It shouldn't really matter whose it was because nobody in Olympia or King County has been listening for years.

-- Bob Boren, Tacoma

S.C. move latest in series of Boeing blunders

Boeing senior management has embarked upon a series of disastrous decisions in recent years that are damaging its reputation beyond repair.

Management outsourced far too much 787 Dreamliner design and manufacturing to companies such as Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (which has a proven track record of ineptitude), resulting in years of delays on the aircraft's delivery. Boeing has admitted the same publicly.

Management mishandled negotiations on the 2008 contract with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), resulting in a 57-day strike that was ended by agreeing to terms that should have been offered during initial contract negotiations and would have avoided the strike in the first place. Boeing then blamed the more than two-year delay of the 787 program on the unnecessary 57-day strike. But 57 days does not equal two years.

Management extracted billions of dollars in concessions from Washington state in exchange for assurances that 787 final assembly would remain in Washington. It has changed these terms and now demands further concessions in the form of reduced labor and unemployment benefits as well as a no-strike agreement with the IAM for the same agreement. What guarantee is there that there will be no further demands upon the state of Washington and the unions?

Management is now considering a ruinously expensive investment to construct a duplicate final assembly facility in South Carolina in an area lacking the skilled pool of aerospace talent necessary to operate it.

Is Boeing management deliberately following the path of General Motors and Chrysler?

-- James Patrick, Lynnwood

Tankers shouldn't be built in the first place

Connie Niva suggests Boeing is best suited to build a new Air Force tanker in her guest column ["Boeing is the best company to build the Air Force tanker," Opinion, June 30].
Before anybody does so, I believe the Pentagon needs a full-blown review of its military strategy. It should be clear to our officials by now that the public is fed up with the U.S. engaging in foreign military ventures.

We are not the world's policemen. So why do we need new tankers if we no longer send armies overseas? Furthermore, who is going to attack us? Admittedly, the military-industrial complex provides jobs, but if that is what we are after, we can certainly create jobs without producing military goods.

-- Thomas R. Craig, Bellevue

At least Boeing is keeping us safe

Editor, The Times:

How refreshing when a company reveals it has uncovered unexpected defects in its product and will delay delivery until the defect can be corrected ["787's stunning delay," page one, June 24]. How reassuring that a company is putting safety ahead of meeting a deadline, ahead of what Wall Street might do to its stock price and what bad press it might get from the local newspaper.

Boeing deserves to be criticized for poor planning, management and implementation of the outsourcing-production model it has used to build the 787 Dreamliner, which has led to multiple delays.

But in this instance the company should be commended when we learn that it is still adhering to the highest standards of testing and safety in constructing its airplanes. How is this display of honesty and integrity damaging to Boeing's credibility ["Boeing's cred takes a beating," page one, column, June 24]?

-- Barbara Banfield, Seattle

Delays 'stunning?' More like expected

Jon Talton and your headline writer characterize the 787 Dreamliner delay as "stunning." Really? The word I would have used was "expected."

Now don't get me wrong. I think Boeing's decision to go with a plastic plane was the right one. But Boeing management has been spectacularly incompetent in all other respects of this project. To come close to how big a change this is you have to go all the way back to the 707. It marked the transition from propeller to jet. That was a big deal.

Given this, Boeing management should have tried to minimize risk in other aspects of the program. Instead they completely changed the assembly process. They went from "bolt a part on at a time" to a "snap together large subcomponents" methodology. They also outsourced most of the subcomponents. These were not risk-minimizing decisions.

The 787 has been delayed before. Each time, Boeing has been surprised and promised a new final schedule -- until the next surprise delay comes.

The Times needs to stop being a cheerleader and start doing some honest reporting. If I want 787 praise I can just go to the Boeing Web site.

-- Patrick J. Russell, Seattle

Delays page one, while real news is buried

Instead of repeating the headline about Boeing's 787 delays ["787's stunning delay," page one, June 24, and "787 delay: months, not weeks," page one, June 25] perhaps you should have put the news brief in small print on page two about a U.S. drone killing 80 at a Pakistani funeral on the front page ["Drone attack," Newsline, June 25].

Make the public aware of how the military operates. Is it any wonder that some countries hate the U.S. government?

-- John Roomes, Coupeville

Sending gratitude to a hero on his last flight

I was saddened to learn of the death of Rhohelia "Bob" Webb ["Rhohelia 'Bob' Webb was 'super volunteer,'" NWFriday, June 5]. America is a lesser place for his passing. He was a true American hero.

What else can you say about a man that was fighting two wars -- at home and abroad. I had the privilege of hearing the Tuskegee Airmen speak at the Seattle Museum of Flight and was touched by their gentle spirits, humor and camaraderie. These men are true American heroes and deserve our gratitude and respect.

We'll miss you, Bob, as you make your last flight into eternity. God bless you.

-- Owen Williams, Seattle

Flight attendants complied with federal regulations

I read with interest the article in Thursday's Seattle Times about Talat Tahaira being removed from an exit-row seat on JetBlue ["Hearing begins involving FAA, JetBlue and local woman," NWThursday, May 28]. The FAA regulation governing exit-row seating -- or how it impacts this case -- was never mentioned in the article.

The rule is very clear about passengers seated in exit seats being able to use both hands, both arms and both legs, as well as having the ability to maintain balance and be strong and flexible enough to operate an exit and any slide mechanism. This, of course, in addition to being able to speak English and comprehend any instructions/commands provided by flight attendants.

The exit-seat rule was promulgated on the strict basis of safety of all passengers, in addition to the in-flight safety professionals (the flight attendants) who have the primary responsibility for such passenger safety. When and if the assistance of exit-row passengers were needed in a non-routine situation, there can be no debate regarding physical abilities and/or the comprehension of instructions provided.

In Tahaira's case, there were other seats available to allow her to lie down. If she were allowed to occupy the exit-row seats, those safety-conscious JetBlue flight attendants would have extreme difficulty in getting Tahaira out of the seats if an emergency situation would present itself.

Flight attendant Leah Stevens' comment that "all I was doing was my job" is absolutely correct, and to state otherwise is a false interpretation of the federal regulation and the vital safety role of flight attendants.

-- Jeanne Elliott, Northwest Airlines, Bellevue

Low fares do not equal living wage

As soon as your readers have finished bemoaning the fact that many airline pilots do not make enough to live in their domicile cities ["Upstate N.Y. plane crash," Northwest Voices, Opinion, May 18], they will quickly turn to the travel ads to seek out the lowest fare for their next trip.

-- Robert E. Gardner, Renton

Similar accidents in trucking due to fatigue

My heartfelt condolences go to all the families of the victims of the tragic plane crash in February near Buffalo, N.Y.

A recent report concluded that fatigue and inadequate training were contributing factors ["Pilot fatigue probed in air-crash hearing," News, May 14]. The same factors cause many of the 5,000 deaths and 100,000-plus injuries in truck crashes every year in the U.S. My husband and a colleague were two of those who died in a 2005 crash near Humptulips.

Many truckers drive exhausted. Some resort to stimulants like as methamphetamines to stay awake. Many suffer from work-related health problems.

Medical studies confirm that performance suffers drastically under conditions of fatigue, in whatever work setting.

Safety is supposedly the primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Yet truckers can legally work up to 88 hours in eight days -- an increase from prior hours limits. Safety groups have twice successfully challenged these limits in court, yet under the Bush administration the higher hours limits remained in place and still stand.

Truck drivers should be paid for all time worked and safety should be paramount in the workplace.

-- Kathleen Ellsbury, MD, Seattle

A worker deserves his pay

Flight 3407 had a sleep-deprived pilot and an underpaid co-pilot. This is very familiar to Washington state's adjunct faculty ["Adjunct faculty at state's two-year schools deserve equal pay for equal work," Opinion, Keith Hoeller guest commentary, May 8].

Sleep deprivation and lack of pay won't kill students as in a pilot's airline crash. But due to our poor work conditions, education suffers. Our employers are, figuratively speaking, attempting to squeeze blood out of a turnip and students suffer.

I know we're in a budget crunch. This is also very familiar to adjuncts. Adjunct faculty have been in a budget crunch for decades. We can earn more flipping burgers, and with better job security and more opportunity for advancement.

Why do we stay? Many of us don't -- statistics show 25 percent get fed up and leave within five years. For others it is truly a second source of income. For the majority of adjuncts, myself included, it is a stepping stone to the full-time position -- the golden ring that seems forever out of reach.

One message from the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 was written in the Bible long, long ago: "A worker deserves his pay."

-- Jim Sizemore, Bremerton