A former Boeing quality inspector has raised serious concerns linking a 2020 Air India Express crash to a potential manufacturing issue involving the plane’s fuselage. John Barnett, a longtime Boeing employee who previously worked at the company’s North Charleston, South Carolina plant, claimed that flaws in the production process might have compromised the structural integrity of some aircraft. Barnett’s theory, while not yet proven or officially recognized, sheds light on deeper issues within the aircraft manufacturing industry, particularly at a time when Boeing is under increased scrutiny over safety lapses.
The crash in question occurred on August 7, 2020, when Air India Express Flight 1344 overshot the runway while landing at Kozhikode International Airport in Kerala, India. The Boeing 737 aircraft broke into two upon impact, killing 21 people, including both pilots, and injuring more than 75 others. The weather was poor, visibility was low, and the runway was wet, contributing to the tragic event. However, Barnett believes that the severity of the crash may have been worsened due to structural weaknesses in the aircraft’s fuselage, potentially tied to known manufacturing shortcuts at Boeing’s plant.
Barnett had previously sounded alarms about what he described as defective manufacturing practices at the North Charleston facility. In interviews and reports, he detailed how components meant for aircraft were sometimes not properly tracked, how critical non-conforming parts were allegedly installed on planes without appropriate documentation, and how management dismissed internal warnings about safety. Specifically, he pointed to the way pressure bulkheads and fuselage sections were handled, suggesting that corners were cut to meet production deadlines, sometimes at the expense of long-term aircraft durability.
Although the exact origin of the Air India plane was not initially disclosed in public crash reports, Barnett’s whistleblower complaints pushed for a reevaluation. He alleged that planes assembled at the South Carolina site could suffer from early structural fatigue due to the questionable practices he witnessed firsthand. According to Barnett, this could include stress cracks developing prematurely in the fuselage under repeated pressurization cycles, a condition that could seriously compromise the aircraft’s ability to withstand impact.
The final report by India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) attributed the crash primarily to pilot error and poor weather conditions. It stated that the pilots continued an unstabilized approach in heavy rain and tailwind conditions, choosing not to go around despite multiple warning signs. The plane landed halfway down the runway at excessive speed, with insufficient runway length remaining to stop safely. The investigation did not assign any blame to the aircraft’s structural integrity, nor did it indicate any technical failure as the root cause of the breakup.
Despite this, Barnett’s theory has reopened discussions about whether manufacturing issues might have played a contributing role, especially in how the fuselage separated on impact. Some aviation experts acknowledge that while pilot error and weather were clearly factors, the clean break in the fuselage raises questions. In most runway overruns, aircraft sustain damage, but full fuselage separation is less common unless there are underlying structural vulnerabilities.
Boeing has consistently denied wrongdoing. The company maintains that all planes leaving its manufacturing facilities meet or exceed global safety standards. Regarding the South Carolina plant, Boeing has stated that the site undergoes regular audits by both internal and external safety inspectors, and that any concerns raised are investigated thoroughly. In response to Barnett’s claims, Boeing insisted that no evidence has ever confirmed that production flaws at the Charleston plant caused or contributed to any aircraft failure.
However, Boeing’s credibility has been damaged in recent years by a series of high-profile incidents, including the two fatal crashes involving the 737 Max in 2018 and 2019, which together killed 346 people. Those accidents led to a worldwide grounding of the 737 Max fleet and uncovered flaws in Boeing’s internal processes and FAA oversight. In the aftermath, whistleblowers like Barnett gained prominence, and public trust in Boeing’s commitment to safety was shaken.
Barnett, who passed away in March 2024, was known for his determination to hold Boeing accountable. He spent nearly three decades at the company and spoke out at great personal cost. His allegations were backed by documentation submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and although not all of his claims were validated, they contributed to a broader reexamination of quality control at Boeing.
The renewed interest in Barnett’s theory comes as global regulators continue to tighten scrutiny of Boeing. The U.S. Department of Justice has launched fresh investigations into Boeing’s safety culture, and the FAA has mandated more rigorous inspections of certain aircraft, especially those assembled at the South Carolina facility. Congressional hearings have also reignited debates over whether Boeing has prioritized profits and production speed over passenger safety.
Families of the victims aboard Air India Express Flight 1344 have expressed interest in any new findings that could help explain the full picture of the crash. Some relatives have joined advocacy groups calling for deeper investigations into all potential contributing factors, including manufacturing quality. Their push is not just about justice but about ensuring that future tragedies can be prevented by learning from past mistakes.
While the official record still points to pilot error and weather as the primary causes of the Air India crash, the resurfacing of Barnett’s claims underscores how complex aviation safety can be. One thing is clear—every link in the chain, from engineering to maintenance to human operation, must hold strong to prevent disaster. Whether or not Barnett’s theory ultimately proves true, it serves as a powerful reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and vigilance in every step of aircraft manufacturing and operation.
