3 ms·

Lost in all of this discussion is the fact that Boeing problems began with South Carolina. The fact that politics played a big role in opening that plant should

Lost in all of this discussion is the fact that Boeing problems began with South Carolina. The fact that politics played a big role in opening that plant should not be ignored. MAX wasn’t just designed poorly, the organization process within Boeing was already failing. It’s a corporate culture failure.

hinkley 7y ago
South Carolina and the 787 assembly process both looked like pretty poorly concealed union busting tactics to me. First you made a plane that doesn't require the massive gantry cranes to construct. Smaller portable equipment does a lot of the work. You can build new, cheaper facilities. Then you move things more or less to the opposite corner of the country, but closer to the new headquarters. Yeah, not suspicious at all.
- thehappypm 7y ago
  Any chance you could elaborate on this? I am not following this comment thread, not able to read between the lines.
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    Highly skilled industrial work often requires highly skilled and educated workers, who are more likely to unionize or might already have unions in place. By building facilities that require assembly using less skilled means, you are selecting for a different type of worker and different manufacturing processes. Basically, Boeing tried to turn aircraft manufacturing into something closer to an Amazon fulfillment center. Which certainly helps the bottom line, but maybe not the quality line. The implication about the headquarters is factories closer to the HQ can be easily controlled and execs can fly down and sort out problems. Chicago to Charlotte is < 2 hour flight, Chicago to Seattle is 5ish hours. Also, moving manufacturing out and away from Seattle means the existing unions have a harder time recruiting or setting up sister unions. All of this can be seen within the wider context of the "financialization" of Boeing, with the company moving more towards a business focus and less of an engineering led company. Apologies for the long post, lots going on here.
  - sho_hn 7y ago
    I remember reading South Carolina has among the lowest union representation among relevant workers.
    - briandear 7y ago
      And that has no relevance outside of union propaganda. Consider the Mafia tactics of the unions, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was internal sabotage. Union workers aren’t inherently better (or worse,) just more expensive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dgemm 7y ago
They more likely started with the McDonnell Douglas merger. After which the company's top management relocated itself halfway across the country in order to be less accessible to the people actually building airplanes, opened the SC plant, and eventually built the MAX.
briandear 7y ago
The airplane wasn’t designed in South Carolina. That issue with the unions is one manufactured by the unions and is nonsense. The union PR machine has a vested interest in pushing that narrative.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  You clearly have an axe to grind here. Source for your comments? Unions produced decades of incredibly reliable plans, so it seems like a huge leap to assume that they're the cause.

hinkley 7y ago

South Carolina and the 787 assembly process both looked like pretty poorly concealed union busting tactics to me. First you made a plane that doesn't require the massive gantry cranes to construct. Smaller portable equipment does a lot of the work. You can build new, cheaper facilities. Then you move things more or less to the opposite corner of the country, but closer to the new headquarters. Yeah, not suspicious at all.

thehappypm 7y ago
Any chance you could elaborate on this? I am not following this comment thread, not able to read between the lines.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  Highly skilled industrial work often requires highly skilled and educated workers, who are more likely to unionize or might already have unions in place. By building facilities that require assembly using less skilled means, you are selecting for a different type of worker and different manufacturing processes. Basically, Boeing tried to turn aircraft manufacturing into something closer to an Amazon fulfillment center. Which certainly helps the bottom line, but maybe not the quality line. The implication about the headquarters is factories closer to the HQ can be easily controlled and execs can fly down and sort out problems. Chicago to Charlotte is < 2 hour flight, Chicago to Seattle is 5ish hours. Also, moving manufacturing out and away from Seattle means the existing unions have a harder time recruiting or setting up sister unions. All of this can be seen within the wider context of the "financialization" of Boeing, with the company moving more towards a business focus and less of an engineering led company. Apologies for the long post, lots going on here.
- sho_hn 7y ago
  I remember reading South Carolina has among the lowest union representation among relevant workers.
  - briandear 7y ago
    And that has no relevance outside of union propaganda. Consider the Mafia tactics of the unions, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was internal sabotage. Union workers aren’t inherently better (or worse,) just more expensive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dgemm 7y ago

They more likely started with the McDonnell Douglas merger. After which the company's top management relocated itself halfway across the country in order to be less accessible to the people actually building airplanes, opened the SC plant, and eventually built the MAX.

briandear 7y ago

The airplane wasn’t designed in South Carolina. That issue with the unions is one manufactured by the unions and is nonsense. The union PR machine has a vested interest in pushing that narrative.

jorblumesea 7y ago
You clearly have an axe to grind here. Source for your comments? Unions produced decades of incredibly reliable plans, so it seems like a huge leap to assume that they're the cause.