Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
There's a big flaw in the underlying reasoning here - it proceeds from an assumption of static statuses of Board oversight and control, management incentive, regulatory leadership, presence and involvement, and Congressional attention and focus. On that last item, I'd note that although the Hill as a whole may be writhing in dysfunction, with so many individuals braying like you-know-whats, just try selling cynicism about Boeing, defeatism about Boeing, to a key aviation-minded United States Senator from Illinois, one who served this country with sacrifice, valor, and honor. By itself her commitment doesn't cause change but the progress represented by the legislation which authorized the report, and the report itself, is a significant start.
To write Boeing off as so many do on this forum, one must believe (at least, I believe it is a necessary premise for the defeatism) that no aspiring middle managers want to restore the company. That no rising manufacturing floor leaders who want to restore the company are asserting their presence. Sure, freeze-frame missing bolts in the door plug assembly, and it's pretty simple to cast doubt, even aspersions, on the pending 777X process. Simplistic too.
Because - to repeat an earlier post - what flaw or lurking defect is there in any of the pending T7 variants? There's been so much "content" here about the financial manipulations of the senior management and Board, so, if it's an investment view that's preferred, so be it: past screw-ups do not necessarily guarantee more of the same.
Of course Boeing's agenda is long and will be difficult. Down around the Slab Caster in the BOF Shop, we often said, "first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole, is to stop digging." (Well, it was a little more colorful, being Steelmaking and all that.) Boeing has done that - yes the door plug at higher altitudes could have been Fade to Black, Roll the Credits, but now, here we are.
Oh one more ray of sunshine into the cynicism of defeatism: much ink was spilled and energy spent keeping a man without aviation safety experience out of the top FAA job. Just a point of view of an SLF/attorney but I believe the FAA Boss in office now has every reason to build a legacy worthy of the reputation he justifiably holds for focus AND effectiveness in matters of aviation safety.
I’d love to be optimistic, but I doubt there will be a wholesale change in management personnel who were hired on the basis they would value and work for the business objectives they were told to seek. Consider all those who left the company out of disgust, who had been weaned on the old value set of world class engineering and quality manufacture. They were “too costly” and unnecessary to meet the business objectives and are no longer around to promote and lead the necessary changes under a new regime.
It took many decades for Boeing to create the corporate character it once had, only a few years to destroy it, but it would now take many decades to rebuild it, and that only if the right people were leading the way. So I’m not as optimistic as I’d want to be.