Well quoted! I had the honor of attending one of Dr. Deming's seminars in the 70's. He warned us not to get over-enthusiastic about quality changes. However, my enthusiasm for his teachings has never waned, and he was totally correct. I went back to my company and was generally thought to be a rabble-rouser. Everyone believed you could improve quality by adding QC checkers along the vehicle assembly lines. They also believed that if the part didn't quite fit, "get a bigger hammer".

Later in the 70's, after our plant was nearly closed for quality issues, the management finally got the picture. Ford did finally start its quest for quality improvement by starting at the very beginning of parts design. Management also got installer's involved early-on. When our plant improved and the newly-designed Ford Ranger was assigned to our plant, hourly workers were sent to Dearborn, and involved in all phases of the design, engineering, production. They had to fight hide-bound engineers who thought they knew more about assembly than the assemblers did. One example - On the assembly line, there was a choke point involving stringing a wire harness on the truck frame. The engineer told the assembler that he needed to "stick to the plan" when the assembler couldn't get the routing correct. Our plant manager saw the exchange, told the engineer to listen to the assembler, or go back to Dearborn. Turns out the assembler, from years of working on trucks knew the best routing that not only saved time, but improved the protection of the wiring harness.

I saw a rerun of an episode of "American Greed, Scams, and Scoundrels" about Boeing/Douglas, and the debacle with the Boeing 737 "Max". It showed the absolute incompetence of the bean counters when two of those airliners crashed.

Ford got Alan Mulally, an engineering exec at Boeing, after Mulally was passed over for promotion in 2006. Good thing he got to Ford; he changed the culture and took pride in doing away with the "smoke stack" mentality that pervaded our company.

You almost have to feel sorry for Boeing. Did you know that they no longer manufacture planes? The just assemble them. They buy the parts from companies all over the world, so they don't have the level of control that they used to have.

At one time, they owned Spirit, but they sold it. Now, Spirit makes bodies, wings, and other components for Boeing, AirBus, and smaller companies. Boeing accounts for most of Spirit's income, but they push them to turn out product quickly. Rushing the manufacture of an airplane is never a good idea. There have been so many "escapements" - manufacturing defects! Apparently, it sounds better to say you're dealing with escapements, rather than defects.

Several airlines are reconsidering buying from Boeing, but AirBus is the only other show in town, so there will be a very long wait for new planes.

Boeing has for 60 plus years been a designer and integrator of some fantastic commercial aircraft. They sold off their parts and sub assembly business in KS, to what became Spirit. They sold their giant machine parts and composite facility in St Louis to GKN. They sold off or divested most of their other parts business over many years. In the US Boring is the largest buyer of details and sub assemblies in aviation. Their reliance on subcontractors for everything from washers to complete systems like landing gear and huge structural assemblies. So managing the quality and delivery of these subcontracted parts is nothing new or radical to their business model. The 747 Boeings crowning achievement was largely produced by other companies. Boeing built the 41 section, (cockpit nose section) and the wings. Northrop did most of the detail design and built all the fuselage and floor, shipping them in oversize rail cars to Boeing. The tail a horizontal stabilizers by Vaught. The landing gear etc and many other large assemblies by suppliers.
Boeings current problems are of their own doing. Don’t feel sorry for them. Airbus has been creeping up on Boeing and has surpassed them in a big way. That’s put a lot of pressure on them, but quality and delivery can never be compromised for anything.

There are basically three parts to an aircraft: fuselage, avionics, mechanical equipment

The fuselage is the obvious part we all recognize, but also the least technically challenging (ok…composites…but put that aside).

Most mechanical stuff (fuel system, engines, control actuators, pumps, generators) is bought, as is the avionics as an integrated package. Cost breakdown is approximately 20/40/40.

My company has been outsourcing fuselage work for decades, sometimes overseas. It just makes no sense to use high priced labor to do low skilled work. I remember watching a Taiwan nose get joined flawlessly to a Japanese cabin for the first time almost 30 years ago.

Yes…it is up to the engineers to design a supply chain that minimizes risks from noncompliance, and implement a quality control system that transcends borders and distances.