The letter from the leaders (both political parties) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, requesting the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation conduct a review of FAA oversight of the "manufacture and production" of the 787: It's straight from the Committee webpage. The redactions are the same as on the webpage - the names of Committee staff members.
2021-11-18 LTR to DOT OIG 787 Production Issues FINAL.pdf (house.gov)
Big Pistons Forever (thanks for your post, btw)
I don't disagree with anything you've said - and that's even if previously I had a more credulous view of Boeing party-line dishonesty. (If I had to defend my earlier credulity, like in the film "Defending Your Life", I'd plead that I really wanted to become an aeronautical engineer when "I was a kid" - and the world would not have despaired over one fewer attorney.)
And something in your post might be interesting for more comment. Moving the production physically back to the location where the better workforce is located, as has been shown, isn't at all realistic. So, instead, what if someone were asked to advise the Boeing Board, along with the relevant USFG (U.S. Federal Government), authorities about what "should" be done to return the 787 program to a status the same as what "OldBoeing" would have had in place? I know this is a "what-if" speculative question -- but..... is there some viable proposal for fixing this mess that somehow Seattle Times, Air Current et cetera have missed?
I'll seize upon the very useful dichotomy your post drew, OldBoeing cf. NewBoeing -- Engineering Primacy cf. Engineering on-the-Cheap. What if the company - okay, so by magic - were forced to hire significant cadres of engineers, some destined to be seconded to subcontractors whose performance on subassemblies for the 787 obviously has left much to be desired; some sent to North Charleston to take charge; some with college minors in Industrial Relations sent to air thoroughly the grievances every single whistleblower in that plant; and some to oversee all the company-level engineering work?
I realize some people, some folks very, very knowledgeable about travel by air aboard airliners, find the 787 to leave a lot to be desired. But isn't the use of composite material a bona fide technological or engineering (or both) advance? and isn't it a worthwhile aircraft program to get back on track? and not only as a matter of financial survival for a major company?
Is it not the case that somebody somewhere, somehow or another, has to devise a game plan to rescue the 787 aircraft program from the awful mess it has become?
(I guess my limited, substandard undergraduate education is showing, so pardon me.... I was taught, repeatedly, that something to accomplish the given goal or objective or purpose must be added, before one can drop the corresponding something one wants to get rid of. You have to add before you can drop. (Ann Arbor, circa 1970-1972))