How did strike slow production?
Editor, The Times:
In the article “Boeing to duplicate local work for 787” [page one, Dec. 8], Boeing again is implying that the 57-day strike last year by union employees was to blame for the 2½-year delay in production.
I’m curious to know how the strike, which happened a year ago, could have caused the 1½-year delay that preceded the strike. Was it a retroactive thing? Did the strike cause the foreign suppliers to put the wrong fasteners on the first production plane? Did the strike cause management to make the decision to roll out the first plane knowing it was only the shell of the plane in order to save face for their first deadline of July 8, 2007?
I think Boeing management needs to stop hiding behind the easy out of the union being the cause of all things that have gone wrong with the 787 production, and look at their role in this.
— Tamara Martinello, Everett
Who will follow Boeing south?
On Dec. 8 The Times proclaimed the news that Boeing’s 787 production line in Charleston would not depend on supplies from Washington.
Therefore, Boeing guaranteed that the 787 production would not be held hostage to the Washington unions and their propensity to strike.
To survive, Boeing has to remain competitive in the world.
Now, the Democratic Legislature and governor will increase Washington taxes to maintain their unsustainable spending, plus continue imposing onerous regulations as demanded by the all-powerful special-interest groups, unions, environmentalists, etc.
So, the state’s productive businesses, working citizens and retirees will follow Boeing to the south where there are jobs and governments that cater to the people and not to special-interest groups.
— Don Wilbur, University Place
Machinists should be the least of company’s problems
Let me get this straight, Boeing loses a refueling tanker contract in which it is the only bidder and an employee goes to jail. Boeing designs a new plane with serious structural flaws. Boeing subcontracts work for most of the new plane but virtually all of this work is delayed and substandard.
Yet, all Boeing can do is blame the Machinists union for its problems?
My father was a Boeing machinist for 38 years. During that time, the company experienced several long and expensive work stoppages due to labor problems. These disputes were eventually settled and Boeing went on to dominate the commercial airplane market.
The only thing Boeing is known for now is crummy designs, crummy planning and decision making, and crummy executives and their scandals.
It seems to me that the Machinists are the least of Boeing’s problems.
— Clayton R. Brownell, Kent