Turbine D - thanks much for the Atl article about the culture changes brought on by and through the McD-D combination.
It provoked a question and, though this could end up adding nothing but a show of ignorance about aeronautical engineering, manufacturing and flight ops (on my part), here goes. Boeing had been an enterprise where engineering was dominant, and then that got lost because of the McD-D combination. Okay, and McD-D designed and built the DC-10 airplane, with the improperly designed components which led to the Turkish air crash disaster outside Paris. And which also had the configuration of hydraulic lines and slats (IIRC) which, when the engine tore off the port wing from American's Ten on takeoff from Chicago, caused the stall speed to decrease without any conceivable way for the aviators to know that the flying qualities of the airframe had changed. (Another thread some months ago contained a knowledgeable post which pointed this out - that's the basis I have for stating it here.)
So is there a connection, a way to make cause-and-effect sense, between the fact of McD-D Ten design flaws, and the way in which the "culture-change" at Boeing led to air crash disasters again? I've tried to recall something similarly wrong with Boeing commercial aircraft design, like the Ten had (if my understanding is correct) but if there was something like that, it's eluded me.
I tried to convince myself, at the time of the corporate headquarters office move, that it had to do with being awestruck over the quality of the airspace architecture for the area under Chicago ARTCC. But no, that wasn't it.