It was all profit related.
FYI, Boeing's headquarters is in Arlington Virginia, not Chicago.
Regardless of headquarters location, every business corporation MUST make a profit. That profit is demanded by the investors who put up the capital to create and operate the business. If the company doesn't make a profit, it goes out of business. So, profit is essential just to stay in business.
The idea that a business simply chooses between doing quality work and making a profit is a silly daydream. It isn't an either/or. Companies that make junk products in aviation don't survive. Boeing was forced to find ways to streamline operations in order to survive the cut-throat cost-competition from government-subsidized Airbus. But safety was NEVER disregarded.
Research and development of new manufacturing technologies and new materials changed manufacturing processes significantly and were more economical. Eliminating unprofitable product lines [e.g., the MacDonald Douglas MD-90 (AKA Boeing 717), Boeing 727 and 757, certain satellite programs, and the digital video transmission business] along with eliminating the thousands of job redundancies that resulted from major mergers with North American, Hughes Aerospace, and MacDonald Douglas were other sources of cost reductions. And all along the way, Boeing's unions won industry leading wages.
You have no idea how many thousands of people were involved in creating the tens of thousands of pages written to describe all the training, operating, and maintaining instructions for Boeing aircraft. Yes, there can and will always be improvements. But there is a point at which humans cannot absorb and remember everything. And there is no set of perfect instructions that can prevent any possible source of human error.
at any price? Board members should be criminally liable for their actions. If they cost live... they should be charged.
Your point assumes that Board members deliberately violate the law, a fact not in evidence. You also assume that there is a perfectly obvious simple solution to every problem, which is just not the case in highly competitive, very technologically complex reality.
Every major company has to be concerned about liability, because their very size makes them prime targets for greedy litigators. But being sued when not at fault is just as bad as being sued when at fault. Today the cost of litigation is so astronomical, most suits result in some sort of settlement. If you doubt that, just look at your insurance bills. Are they going up or going down?
Dikdik wrote:
at any price? Board members should be criminally liable for their actions. If they cost live... they should be charged.
How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.
Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.
Longshadow wrote:
How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.
Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.
Your original post only mentioned board members, so I responded to that. Do you intend to create separate posts for each type of job among the tens of thousands of people involved in the production of a large commercial aircraft?
Longshadow wrote:
How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.
Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.
They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.
ecblackiii wrote:
Your original post only mentioned board members, so I responded to that. Do you intend to create separate posts for each type of job among the tens of thousands of people involved in the production of a large commercial aircraft?
MY post(s) never mentioned board members. Check your reference.
Y'all realize that the Boing CEO has an open door policy, right.
Dikdik wrote:
They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.
Yea, I know a person who was a supervisor/manager for one hydro concern in Canada.
His responsibility if one of the linemen screwed up and was injured.
No matter how or why he screwed up.
Unbelievable.
Dikdik wrote:
They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.
You obviously do not understand how large, world-class corporations must operate. The "direction for the actions" does not come from the Board. Board member responsibility is established in law. The board meets for a few hours quarterly and reviews program and financial data. It then discusses and votes on major policy proposals brought forth by senior management--things like starting or closing a product line, building a new plant or selling/closing an existing one, major outsourcing or insourcing decisions, changes to pension plans, hiring or firing senior executives etc. It isn't and can't possibly be involved in the day-to-day engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, sales, or administration operations. Between the Board and the first line worker are several layers of management who must daily implement the generalized policies through development of detailed guidelines and job instructions. Every level of management has its specific responsibilities for everything under its control, to include safety.
I'm glad that Canadian construction safety "suddenly" increased when managers became responsible. They should have been accountable all along.
Longshadow wrote:
MY post(s) never mentioned board members. Check your reference.
My apologies. I intended to respond to Dikdik's comment and accidently responded to your post about Dikdik's comment instead. Read Dikdik's comment to see why I commented as I did.
Longshadow wrote:
Yea, I know a person who was a supervisor/manager for one hydro concern in Canada.
His responsibility if one of the linemen screwed up and was injured.
No matter how or why he screwed up. Unbelievable.
There has been a great improvement in companies looking after safety since this legislation. In addition, I don't know what the circumstances were, but there could be negligence.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.