It has seemed like all of Boeing Executive management has wanted to get in on the action of my retaliatory termination. While Jerry Calhoun, V.P. of H.R. for BCA signed off on my termination, which meant his boss and close personal friend Alan Mulally, CEO of BCA, was in on the action, Boeing Headquarters personnel piled on too.

My termination was one of the last major accomplishments of Doug Bain, Chief Counsel of the Boeing Company, who may have resented not only my turning of some of BCA’s most egregious fraud into the FAA, but also may have resented the couple times he had to travel from his cushy office in Chicago to help local BCA attorneys in figuring out what to do with me. At least one of those trips he had to visit my worksite itself as noted elsewhere on my main site, something someone who likely rarely stepped out of his mahogany lined Boeing World Headquarters offices other than to golf might not have wanted to even contemplate, much less do.

His other major accomplishment of the time was to get Boeing off extremely lightly for the 767 Tanker procurement fraud scandal and the EELV Lockheed competition sensitive data theft scandal.

Career Justice Department officials (not the political hacks appointed by the current administration which have been demonstrated to perjure themselves before Congress while under oath) deciding what sanctions to apply to Boeing in those cases recommended a purported 750 million dollar fine and requiring Boeing to plead guilty to criminal charges in order to keep their government contracts.

The noted Justice Department politically appointed officials then overruled what the knowledgeable and arguably much less biased career Justice Department attorneys wanted, and instead imposed a 50 million dollar fine and a 565 million dollar restitution for the cost of the fraud to the government and nixed the requirement of a fitting criminal plea for the Boeing corporation as a whole.

The U.S. Attorney General’s politically appointed deputy who arranged this favorable deal for Boeing later perjured himself before Congress in the current U.S. Attorney Scandal, then resigned because he said he needed a better job to pay for his kid’s college (too bad his kids apparently did not distinguish themselves in high school athletically and/or academically enough so they could get full rides to universities to spare their dad to have to resign from his prestigious job at DOJ so he could pay for their education. Of course, they cannot be blamed, as we all know some children can’t achieve the excellence required for such full rides, no matter how hard they try. Plus, some children want to be children, and not study enough just to achieve such full rides to spare their parents Ivy League college expenses, no matter how smart they are). (A Link about the situation: http://www.popandpolitics.com/2007/05/1 ... -clueless/ .)

I heard a very obvious observation that no one else seemed to pick up about this Deputy A.G.’s resignation to pay for his kids college which just happened to coincide with his implication in the U.S. Attorney scandal The wry observation (from Comedy Central, I believe) went something like this: “What Deputy United States A.G.wouldn’t resign his $200,000 a year job without another job lined up if he needed to pay for his kid’s college? Funny, but true, unless he had a promise of a position somewhere that would meet his financial goals and still allow ample time off between jobs for a nice respite from the pressures of being at the center of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal that some think, after reviewing the evidence, was an attempt to rig the 2008 elections for Republicans like the three elections before were arguably rigged. Supposedly this is because Republicans don’t believe they can win Congressional and Presidential elections without such fraud. I was watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos recently in which George Will seemed to confirm that elections going forward would be difficult for Republicans, as he said a “Democratic explosion” seemed to be coming up, meaning the party would expand to far more than the 53% or so of the country party it has been in past elections. But enough of politics.

Anyway, the DOJ’s Boeing GSA (Global Settlement Agreement) was a coup for Boeing, and another feather in the hat of Boeing’s legal team led by Bain, who necessarily became very good over the years at getting Boeing out of numerous such self corruption induced jams at minimal cost to the bottom line, and kept as many executives as possible involved in corruption out of prison and on the golf links.

Boeing CEO Jim McNerney almost surely knew of my termination as well as he was closely briefed by Doug Bain, who he rightly called “Dr. Death” (at least right in terms of what he did to my career as the last inspector at Boeing).

But, even lesser Boeing Executive management got intimately involved in “sizing me up” for termination, one of which was Carolyn Corvi, I strongly suspect, who was (and may still be) V.P of Airplane Programs for BCA, who also seemed to double as Private Investigator for Boeing in my case. Read about the encounter I had with her that follows, and you can be the judge. This occurred in late 2005 or early 2006. I can’t narrow it down more than that due to Boeing had my records on the event confiscated during my false arrest and coinciding similarly unjust seizure of my property:

The “Corvi Experiment” began with a visit from my ethically challenged boss, who told me that in a week or so that I was being volunteered to be part of Carolyn Corvi’s entourage during her visit to PSD to teach Lean techniques to key personnel at Boeing that could spread her teachings throughout their organizations.

Corvi, who sprung to her current position from being V.P. of the Propulsion Systems Division of Boeing where I worked, spent a few hours each week at a BCA site acting as a sort of Zen Master of Lean, where she helped guide sites’ Lean implementation efforts they already had underway through her apparently vast knowledge of Lean Manufacturing.

Of course, Lean didn’t just apply to manufacturing. Boeing was implementing lean throughout the organization, including in white collar jobs such a Engineering as well.

I got my marching orders from my boss on what I was supposed to cover for our organization, QA, in my meeting with Lean “Zen Master” Corvi.

I was supposed to tell her of the project I had been working on at the direction of my boss in which I was going through every job paper at PSD and documenting inspection points on the paper and the basis of those inspections, in my management’s hopes of finding inspections on jobs that could be deleted ASAP to save the company money and make the production process more efficient without us “non-value added” inspectors (as our management saw us, sadly) slowing down production to inspect our critical airplane component assembly work. I guess you can tell how gung-ho I, the last inspector, was about this project. I did as I was told, however, even though I knew the more urgent need was to add the inspections that were missing to the paperwork rather than just look for reasons to delete the inspections that were already there for pure efficiency, who cares about quality and safety reasons.

The day Corvi arrived soon came. Starngely, I was the only non-management person involved in the exercise. I assumed my management was just chicken about taking part with Corvi in the event, and was just passing the buck on to me so they didn’t soil their pants during the exercise with such a senior Boeing Executive.

However, I was mistaken. These excercises were supposed to be for managers who would flow down Corvi’s teachings throughout their organizations after the event.

Why was I, a lowly of the low hourly worker in a “non-value added” inspection job made part of the exercise? As they say, hindsight is 20/20. The fact that just months after this meeting I would be arrested and fired at Boeing Executive management request brings some focus to the true reason they broke the rules of such an event to include me and not my boss instead, who I had sent the data to from my assigned project frequently per his request, so he knew as much as I did about the project and so could have taken his part in the event, if he and Corvi wanted him to.

I think, in hindsight, the true reason the bent the rules to ensure I took part is quite obvious—Corvi wanted me to be a part of the exercise not to be a part of the exercise, but instead wanted me to be there for a similar reason Boeing Chief Counsel Doug Bain personnally investigated what kind of person I was. I don’t believe that Bain suspected I was a person that had leaked info on Boeing to the press at the time of his visits, although he knew I had told his legal department at the time that I would go public if Boeing did not put its quality system back in working and compliant order even though the corrupt part of the FAA whose job it was to ensure Boeing QA system compliance had refused to make Boeing do so.

I believe the reason Corvi wanted to meet me under the pretense of the exercise was because Boeing was in retaliation mode by then, and they suspected I did go public as I promised to do if Boeing didn’t take any action to end their fraud (which they did not), albeit in an anonymous way, and they suspected that I had leaked (among other stories) the 787 BCA site selection choice to the press, before that decision was officially decided by the Boeing BOD (Board of Directors), whereas they thought it was a Boeing Executive that had done so to pressure the BOD to go with BCA’s recommendation of giving Everett final assembly of the 787, prior to deciding I must be the culprit.

I believe that Boeing had already deemed me guilty of being the notorious leaker by then, after a corporate investigation “with hunt” that I suspect did not involve just legal methods of investigation. Of course, if they suspected me as I think they did by that time, it would have been an embarrassment for them. Bain had apparently deemed me to be not a threat to the way they wanted to continue to do business, so I was ignored, apparently. When they decided later that I leaked the 787 site selection story, among others, after they had suspected one of their own, they likely became P.O.ed. that I apparently had not ceased my efforts to bring them to justice and that I was apparently a much greater threat to their plans than Bain and Co. had deemed me to be before.

That meant they had to decide how to handle me yet again. As Bain’s read of my threat to “business as usual” was apparently wrong, they had to do the same exercise over again, except much more directly than Bain’s failed stealth visit to my workplace.

Hence, I was picked for the Corvi Lean exercise. Who knows, they may have even scheduled that week’s Lean exercise at PSD just so Corvi could “size me up” and recommend what to do with me to her superiors.

Corvi arrived that day with her “Lean expert” at her side, and we had a preliminary meeting in a conference room in which she explained to the managers and me who were part of the exercise what we would be doing that day. Needless to say, I was nervous. Corvi, I believe, was the highest BCA manager I had been in such a close setting with. I believe there was talk at the time of her being a candidate to succeed Mulally when he decided to call it quits, and one would have to believe she would still be one of the few considered when the current BCA CEO, Carson, calls it quits.

Once we had been briefed on what we were doing that day, we went to our respective areas to see what Lean projects were underway there. The manager would describe what they were doing and then Corvi would offer her suggestions on how to improve and expand those efforts. We all were allowed to offer our thoughts on possible improvements, as well.

When it came time to show what I was doing, I was extremely nervous, as Corvi is an imposing figure, and I was talking directly to her, even though presenting to the other managers as well did not help my nervousness. I got through the description of my bosses project, about as nervous as I was during the 6-12-06 Q13 news story of the corruption I witnessed at Boeing and of the FAA that is on my home page. A few of the managers offered suggestions, and my part was over.

After everyone was done describing their projects and having them critiqued in efforts to improve them, we all went back to the conference room where we discussed what we had seen and had action items assigned that might improve our lean projects, then we had lunch together.

This is where it really got fishy. Of course, I am not a big fan of Boeing management as you may know, and even if I was I am not the type that looks for any way to get near the most senior managers possible so they can suck up to them in hopes that that will help their careers. The last place I wanted to sit at this huge conference table was next to Corvi. But despite my attempt to sit anywhere but by her, Corvi and I ended up facing directly across each other at the table while we ate our lunches.

The last way Corvi could be described in my opinion is as a laid back person that tries to put people at ease despite her position. She was all business in her talk. Signs she was a person that had a life outside Boeing were nonexistent. So it wasn’t easy to converse with her during the lunch, which I avoided doing as much as possible.

One thing that surprised me at the lunch was the things she and her Lean cohort broached at the lunch. It was as if they were trying to drop as much Boeing Limited information as possible. She talked negatively about 787 supplier performance, and lamented the fact that BCA had to send their own engineers to help the suppliers with the design work that was supposed to be the supplier’s responsibility, which was info I had not heard of publicly.

Somehow the 737 RS (Replacement Study) was also brought up, a very publicly sensitive subject at the time as well. I don’t remember specifically any juicy details of that program given out during the lunch. I did use the opportunity to ask Corvi if they were thinking about doing a one piece composite fuselage for the 737 replacement like some regional jet supplier had done. She said they still were in the very early planning stages at that time, and they hadn’t progressed that far yet, as I remember. Her and her “Lean expert” also discussed details of the 747 Advanced program that I didn’t think were public at the time, although I rarely read the newspaper.

That was pretty much the event, less the action items we would have to do later absent Corvi. After the lunch at which those details were disclosed by Corvi and her assistant, I got the distinct feeling I was being tested for some reason, perhaps to see if I or someone else at the meeting would give the information to the press.

In hindsight, I believe my feelings were correct. Even though I disclosed none of that info to the press, and Boeing (I believe) later admitted to the press it had to send engineering help to 787 suppliers who were having trouble, I think that Corvi was in fact experimenting with me and/or attempting to entrap me by giving me that information to see if I would disclose it to the press, and confirm her and her boss’s suspicions that it was me that was the “leaker.”

You can be the judge, I guess, now that you know about this event. You may agree with my suspicions that my inclusion in the event and being spoon fed such info was an effort to entrap and/or “peg” me as a leaker of such info to the press, or you may think it was just a Lean exercise where I just happened to be the only non-manager allowed, I just happened to end up being seated against my will directly across from Corvi, and I just happened to be given such sensitive info by Corvi and her assistant. I admit that latter is possible, but I believe events both prior and after that meeting all point to Corvi using the meeting as a way of personally assessing whether I was “the one” or not for the BCA management she reported to—Mulally, and perhaps those above him.

Unfortunately, perhaps, it was my physical appearance that led Bain to not take me seriously in my attempts to get Boeing Legal to stop the fraud I witnessed. There is prejudice against those like me that are overweight. Perhaps when he saw me in person he doubted someone like me would persist in trying to end Boeing’s fraud as I wrote him I would do if Boeing did not act. If nothing else, Bain and Corvi now know that the saying to not judge a book by its cover is indeed true. Another good axiom for Corvi to pay attention to in her efforts to implement lean throughout BCA is that, “haste makes waste.” Eliminating waste through Lean so production flow is faster does have very negative effects if that immutable axiom is ignored, as I have witnessed many times. So much for the “Corvi Experiment.”

I saw a news story yesterday on the Mukilteo dock that Washington State is building which was part of their package to lure 787 Final Assembly to Washington State (which ultimately failed, and per Boeing, I saved the arses af those who had an interest in 787 Final Assembly being in Washington State as you can read about on one of the pages on my main web site). It was a sad story, indeed. I also read a print article on the subject that was similarly wrong.

If you want to know why Boeing wanted the Mukilteo dock so badly they put it on the list of things they would like that might site "snapping together" of "built anywhere but Washington" outsourced sections of the 787 in Washington State, you only have to look at previous reporting on the issue:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ide11.html

I don't believe the Dock was ever seriously considered for 787 section delivery as the latest little researched reporting states. I think Boeing always intended on using LCFs to transport the sections. Why? The 787 production model is based upon the Airbus production model, and Airbus transports sections by their own special freighters, except for the A380 sections, which the new larger Boeing LCFs aren't even big enough to transport.

At one time, Boeing considered outcourcing 767 barrel section assembly to those suppliers who currently just build panels of those barrel sections and ship them to Everett. It was for that outsourcing of work and similar outsourcing of the same barrel assembly work on the 777 program that I believe Boeing wanted the Mukilteo dock for--not for 787 logistics.

And it's there where the "Boeing is the most arrogant company on the face of the planet" apt description given to me by a Boeing manager as noted on my site comes in--Boeing was trying (and succeeded) to get Washington State to pay for facilities to outsource work on current production programs so that Boeing would insource 787 Final Assembly. If Boeing had gone ahead with that outsourcing, I think you would have a net loss of jobs at Boeing because the jobs eliminated in barrel assembly on that 767 and 777 programs would exceed the measly number of jobs the "snapping together" of the final assembly of the 787 would provide. If Boeing had also outsourced Systems Installation work to suppliers in addition to the barrel assembly on the 767 and 777 programs, the loss of jobs would be catastrophic, just as the loss of jobs on the 787 program has been for Boeing workers here due to the anti-union business model of the 787.

But, that would make sense. Boeing would then be building all three programs under the same minimal IAM and SPEEA union job "snap together" outsourced components model now used on the 787. It makes sense from a Boeing management pro stock options, damn the little Boeing worker people point of view.

But it didn't happen as Boeing envisioned it. Patty Murray and Norm Dicks put a stopper on the 767 barrel section outsourcing plans by telling Boeing they would withhold their crucial support for a 767 Tanker program if Boeing outsourced all of that work. I don't know what stopped the plans to outsource 777 barrel sectiona assembly and "stuffing" that was not widely reported.

Anyway, those decisions by Boeing to postpone such outsourcing on the 767 and 777 programs make the Mukilteo port moot, and is probably why Boeing doesn't seem to care if it gets done on schedule.

So this is the little known background on the purpose of the Mukilteo dock. Boeing will use it, I've read, to streamline a little currently outcourced component delivery from ship to the Everett plant, but that doesn't take away from Boeing's true reason for wanting the dock as reported elsewhere--it, as the 787 program is, was to be a catalyst to "drive a stake" through the heart of unions at Boeing by outsourcing their work in the name of Lean Manufacturing.

I don't think 787 barrel assembly will ever be outsourced because such a move would kill political support fir the KC-X program in this state.

But the 777 is another story. There are many years left on that program, and Boeing could revive plans to outsoure barrel assembly and systems installation and all of the ancillary jobs such as Engineering, stores personnel, etc. at any time. I don't know Boeing's plans on this. You could ask them, but the won't tell you the real answer.

So, if you are a union person and think you have it made because you are on the 777 or 787 program which look prosperous enough to support your job until retirement, I wouldn't be so confident of your job security. Boeing could revive plans to outsource 777 work at any time, and if they do do so, don't expect five years notice. they will likely wait until the last minute when changes in the production system that make such outsourcing obvious occur to announce their plans so as to make the bad morale period (yes, I'm intimately aware it is bad, but it can get much worse) because after announcement of this outsourcing of thousands of jobs mostly to Japan as short as possible so production flow is disrupted as little as possible. It's strange how you begin to think like a typical anti-Boeing worker Boeing manager when you have spent years studying these manager's corruption like I have. It's unpleasant because these are as selfish and greedy people as ever existed in human history in some cases, in my opinion. Learning of these manager's heartlessness and seemingly infinite greed is not as bad as coming to grips to the fact these kind of people exist.

Anyway, 787 workers should also not be confident of their job security. It is my humble opinion that before or during a protracted strike, Boeing may threaten to fly 787 production out of state "overnight" in their shiny new LCFs if workers don't cpitulate to Boeing's demands in order to keep their jobs. They may do similar things with 777 outsourcing as well, using it as a bargaining chip in negotiations whether or not they actually intend on going through with it if crossed by workers wanting decent benefits maintained in the face of ever growing Boeing profits.

I believe my take on the Mukilteo dock's true purpose (whether or not it ever comes to pass) is more accurate than the lousy reporting I saw yesterday that only mentioned pre-LCF 787 section delivery in relation to the dock. This lousy reporting is what commonly passes for reporting in today's media--just listen to what Boeing PR says and assume it is true and report it verbatim. It's certainly easier than doing your reporting the way real reporters taught you to do so in college--by getting independent confirmation of facts, looking up prior reporting by reporters on the subject that do their jobs by the book, and digging deep for sources besides Boeing PR that may know the true facts, and not what Boeing PR releases and/or spins. Until this lazy reporting is stopped, government and corporations who lie or withhold the truth will be given a free ride in almost all cases, and you will see more reporting of Paris Hilton than you will see of the rampant corruption in government agencies and corporations that is going on today that only for the most part is reported (if at all) in ways like this.

As a side note, Boeing's copying of Airbus's production system is not a good copy, by far. Boeing's system is much leaner and meaner. Airbus's sections are flown in from Airbus plants that assemble and stuff them, which are all located in Eurpoe, and the subtier supplier work is also largely kept in those countries, even on new programs, such as the A380 program. Airbus managers do appear to have consciences, and do care about their countries and workers, and not just their own pocketbooks.

However, Boeing does not keep this barrel production and stuffing in house like Airbus does--they outsouce it all to other companies--most of them foreign. Boeing managers don't care about their country and workers like Airbus does--they only seem to care about the person I don't know how they look at in the mirror every morning.

That brings another subject up in this much too long blog that has probably bored you to death prior to this so you won't read this part. It is about my thoughts on other kinds of these people at Boeing--no, not Boeing management, but the numerous people at Boeing who only draw their paychecks because they spend all their time trying to outsource former Boeing work to the lowest non-union bidder. It is these people I also wonder about why they are able to look themselves in the mirror at all. Why did they even get into that line of work? The excessive pay? Because they like power, and eliminating your fellow American's job is the ultimate way they get their feelings of power, albeit arguably evil "power"? How do these people go to church on Sunday and look the families in the eye they try every day to put out on the streets by outsourcing their jobs? I don't get how these kind of people have any sort of respect for themselves. However, I believe they for the most part are happy to do their company's bidding and outsource their neighbors' jobs and their country's future. They have no conscience. That's why they do that kind of work. There is one positive, however. Once this miscreants have outsourced all worker's jobs and all of America's future they possibly can, their similarly heartless and overly bottom line driven manager will gleefully kick them out on the streets. A fitting end for a person with such a heartless job. Analogy wise, these people are like Jews at a WWII German "concentration camp" who save themselves and make themselves fat and happy by gaining favor with their German captors by doing the job of throwing similarly imprisoned innocent women, children, and men's bodies into the ovens for disposal as part of the German's "ultimate solution" to their hatred of the Jewish people. To make the analogy perfect, when this cowardly Jew who made his "living" by disposing of people like him in the ovens threw the last of the Jew's bodies in the oven, the S.S. guard overseeing the operation just grabbed him and threw him, screaming at the top of his lungs, into the oven alive, and closed the door, having thereby completed his mission. This is a fitting analogy for another reason, for if you are a religious person, one would might think people that made their high living by taking away people's livelihoods would end up in a similar fate, burning in hell for eternity.

I guess you can tell I believe in unions and have some common views with Lou Dobbs.

Another anecdote that may fit this blog: One day on a break from my week long class on Lean Manufacturing, the V.P. of the Propulsion Systems Division of Boeing was looking out the windows over the PSD factory when the subject of Airbus's employment levels and Boeing's came up in the casual conversation. The V.P. said that Airbus employed about 30,000 people, and that one day Boeing would be like Airbus in that regard. He said that they wouldn't lay off people to get to that level of employment, but that as people retired they would not be replaced. It was kind of interesting unofficial info, but the only way they could get down to that level of employment would be to outsource barrel assembly and stuffing as noted above. I doubt Lean itself could do it.

Another "funny" thing from the same class was when all the QA people in the class were working at a table trying to "Lean out" the engine receival process by using a large piece of paper tacked to the wall to record the current and proposed flow of the process. My QA supervisor and one of our QA planners were part of our small group. During the exercise, Both my manager and the QA planner proposed letting shop people "verify" the engine for correct configuration upon receipt, eliminating QA from the process. Ensuring the engine was the correct configuration before mecahnics started installing things on it had always been inspected by QA. I was astonished they made such a proposal as I think it showeed ignorance of the process. One of QA's primary duties was to ensure that every part of the airplane was built to the correct configuration. This change would eliminate that essential inspection on the engines, which were major and essential parts of the airplane. In addition, if shop made an error and built up the wrong engine configuration for the particular airplane they were building up the engines for, it would incur a major expense for the company, as all of the parts would have to be removed and put on the correct configuration engine, or the engine would have to be rebuilt by the vendor to the correct configuration at Boeing expense because it was our error. I politely disagreed with their idea for the noted reasons, and surprisingly another line inspector like me who was at the table and was once one of the few inspectors like me that liked to do their jobs instead of rollerstamp sided with their idea of deleting the configuration inspection. We discussed it several times during the excercise, in which we had a facilitator who knew Lean who guide us, but I steadfastly stuck to my opinion it was an essential inspection, even though I knew that the rampant rollerstamping going on by inspectors had let engines of the wrong configuration deliver to our customers. I didn't think that inspector rollerstamping was an acceptable reason to eliminate the essential inspection. Ay some point during the discussion, my QA supervisor said to me, "Don't you think that shop can build a conforming airplane without inspectors?" It was an inane question, especially from a QA supervisor who should have known why his department existed in the first place, and why inspections of mostly hand built aircraft was essential for safety, not to mention that such inspection was required by our quality system the FAA was supposed to ensure we worked to, but didn't. I replied to his question by telling of him of a statistical illustration I had heard once (from where I don't remember) that I thought at the time was a good analogy of why inspections were necessary, albeit a bit over the top to make a point. I told them that I had heard once that, "Given a billion years, a group of monkeys could at random be expected to assemble an object as complex as an airplane by pure chance alone." Of course I think I misquoted it a bit from the above in the spur of the moment, but I think my point got accross, even if some jaws dropped to the floor and it angered a few people at the table. I believe some statisticians had proved such a point at one time, and/or it was an axiom for their profession. It was simply a point where I wasn't saying that mechanics who built our airplanes were monkeys, but that they did make mistakes too, albeit not the billion years of mistakes noted before they got it right as in the monkey scenario. Elimination of that natural human error that exists in every human because we have not evolved from those monkeys yet enough so we are perfect and never err is why quality assurance of critical to safety products like airplanes is required by laws and regulations. Anyway, the QA planner particularly seemed to take offense to the remark and he continued to push for elimination of the configuration inspections on the engines. After that day's class, the QA planner managed to "buttonhole" me in the hallway. He was livid. He said he resented me questioning his judgment he compiled from his 30 or so years at Boeing. I told him I wasn't questioning his judgment by my remarks, but was just voicing my opinion and giving my views on the matter. Needless to say, he remained peeved I didn't roll over to his self-described perfect judgment. This incident I think shows yet again the hostility even QA professionals have against QA, even if they should know the importance of their jobs and not let Lean get rid of QA processes they should know are essential. However, as I've noted before many times, Cost and Schedule Goals trump Safety.

Anyway, I just wanted to get my two cents in on the Mukilteo dock story.

It's interesting to note that Tom Brokaw is going to emcee the 7-08-07 787 rollout ceremony. I wonder if he knows who he is going to be on stage with? Maybe he would have declined the event if he knew what Boeing management was really like. I suppose, then, he hasn't seen my website yet. Getting Tom Brokaw to do the event was a good move on Boeing's part. However, whatever credibility he lends Boeing management by being on stage with them, he will subtract the same amount of credibility from himself. I hope what he was paid for this was worth it to him. Some celebrities are very careful who they perform such associations with.

I was at the 777 rollout ceremony put on by Dick Clark productions. It was a big thing, but nothing as big as the 787 PR extravaganza. Someone told me I appeared on the slide show they put on during the ceremony. I was distracted at the moment and apparently missed it. Alan Mulally spoke, of course, the guy who would wage a one sided war against Boeing's unions and outsource almost all of 787 production. He was the one that told us union workers that we "didn't have a divine right to our standard of living." Things went down hill from there. I've never heard, however, his opinion on whether God gave him his kingly station in life, or not.To be fair, I guess he would have to say also that he had no such right to his standard of living. Curiously, however, he tried to take much away from union workers like me, while getting more and more compensation for himself. People that say life is fair are indeed idiots.

During our last IAM contract negotiation with Boeing when we went on strike, I did something I had wanted to do during previous strikes, but had not. The day we voted on the contract offer that would end the strike, I drove to Jerry Calhoun's (the chief negotiator for Boeing and V.P. of H.R.) house in Seattle and picketed briefly in from of his house. I knew I may never have such a chance again as strikes are not predictable. It was one of those things you had to do to just say you did it. CEOs and such high corporate managers never seem to suffer at all for all the misery they impose on their workforce during a strike they forced by trying to take more benefits away in good times for the company. If someone picketed their housee, maybe the strike they forced would seem more relevant to them personaly. However, that assumes a conscience exists in these managers, which is another blog in itself.

Anyway, I strolled back and forth down the sidewalk in front of Jerry Calhoun's (who would later be the one who personally signed off on my termination) house holding my official union and my homemade for the occasion picket signs in the ultra well to do Lake Washington view neighborhood. He had a nice front yard, with white picket fence and well manicured landscaping. His house reminded me of the Amityville horror house in style. Anyway, I stayed very little time, and had my picture taken in front of his house picketing, then left for Alan Mulally's house on Mercer Island to do the same thing. It was getting dark, but I got there, surpised he didn't live in some gated community. Curiously. there was a mounaineering style tent pitched in his front yard for some reason. I picketed in front of his mailbox and had my picture taken, however I don't think his house is in the shot as it was using flash at dusk, and the house was set far back from the mailbox. I don't think Calhoun or Mulally were home at the time as they were probably at BCA HQ waiting for the union vote on the contract to be announced. Oh well, at least I can say I picketed their houses, although I'm probably not the first union worker at Boeing to do so. On the way home I heard on the radio that we voted to accept the latest contract, and the strike was over. Maybe other union workers at Boeing can make this a tradition in the future, although 24/7, and not just a "do it to say I did it" walk by picketing. Dory Monson was/is a local radio talk show host who I used to listen to until he seemed to have a stroke one weekend and his whole personality seemed to change from a person whose opinions were well reasoned out to a person who all of a sudden had an extreme right wing agenda based on class warfare against the poor (likely a ratings driven change). He had a "100 things to do before I die" list he would accasionally do things off of during his broadcasts. Anyway, picketing the houses of BCA Executives during a strike, was, I guess, one of those "hundred things" for me I can cross off.

Boeing has just announced their big P.R. event for the rollout of the 787, which (just a coincidence, of course) is going to take place on 7-8-07 to celebrate the culmination of the outsourcing of the vast majority of 787 production to other countries and companies.

Surprisingly, they will celebrate on that day with representatives of the second and third world countries and areas of this nation that really manufacture this new "Boeing" jet, who will no doubt hold back snickers when they see the Boeing logo on the 787 as it rolls out. I look forward to seeing that kid from "Deliverance" from North Carolina where much of the 787 is built by suppliers for Boeing playing the Banjo during the ceremony. It will be interesting to see what he looks like after all of these years after he became famous through that film.

I have never been to the South, so my knowledge of that place is strongly influenced by such films. I know Boeing management must visit vendors there who actually build the 787, as news just surfaced that Boeing's unhappiness caused the firing of a supplier executive there that was on the job for a brief time. I don't suppose those visiting Boeing executives go rafting down the rivers there much in their free time bow hunting, but you never know, as they may not have seen the movie that would make any heterosexual male cringe at the thought. I can think of some corrupt Boeing managers that may be deserving of such an apparently life changing (if you survive it) rafting adventures, but they may not be the ones going down to check on their Southern Folk vendors.

I guess that's enough analogies and sarcasm for today. Anyway, Boeing is renting Qwest field, the home stadium of the Superbowl XL Champion Seahawks (that is, if the refs hadn't acted like they were on the Steeler's secret payroll) so that Boeing retirees and current workers that work on Boeing programs where Boeing actually manufactures the jets they sell and a significant other can sit and sob and have their faces rubbed in the Astro-turf while watching Boeing's outsourcing of their and their progeny's futures off to the lowest non-union bidder.

Of course, many of those current and former Boeing workers may get caught up in all the spectacle and forget they are watching an event meant to make it seem like Boeing builds this jet with local and loyal labor as it has historically done for the most part over the years, and may be made to feel some sort of pride in this jet built by anyone but Boeing, and just "snapped together" and having the Boeing logo disingenuosly slapped on it before all the foreign (to Boeing) built parts of the plane exit the Boeing factory in formation in order to lend a some little legitimacy to the Boeing logo on the jet.

Why did Boeing retain only 35% of the airframe manufacture at the time of the announcement of airframe Make-Buy decisions by Boeing or the Seattle Times (whichever one first disclosed this info), the same percentage as the next airframe supplier, Japan, and why didn't they reatain 34% or less and give a correspondingly higher share to Japan? It should be obvious. It didn't just magically end up at those numbers where Boeing was listed as the largest maker of the airframe even though they di the same amount of work as Japan. Obviously they made sure Boeing didn't have any more or less of the airframe than the next largest supplier just for P.R. purposes. If Boeing hadn't let possible public outcry of it building less of the airliner than other suppliers, I believe the 35% Boeing share would have been much, much less.

But, we forget something that Boeing wanted us to forget--that 35% figure is bogus. Whether it was accurate at the time is open to its own conjecture as, as this site has shown, Boeing and the truth part company frequently. But what is not disputable is something Boeing has never acknowledged--that due to the sale of thw Wichita plant and other factors, that 35% Boeing announced back then is now much, much less. Boeing hasn't announced revised and up-to-date figures since the bogus 35% claim, so we'll have to speculate on what Boeing's share of 787 airframe production now is. I think a 10% "guesstimate" would be plausible, but it could also be 5%. Are you still thinking Boeing builds most of (or the same amount as the largest supplier on the program) the 787? Right, I didn't think so.

So what will be people be celebrating on 7-8-07 as the Japanese dancers cavort around with their paper dragons celebrating the rollout of what is really an airplane built mostly by them and therefore deserves not the "Boeing" logo, but the "Made in Japan" logo? They will be the largely unwilling participants in a celebration by Boeing executives of the death of the company as an airpane manufacturer, as well as unwittingly celebrating with executives one of the attainment of Boeing's long sought goals--the death of unions at Boeing.

So, I'd advise any current or former Boeing employee who goes to this event to not be played by Boeing this P.R. and marketing event. There is no reason for anyone at Boeing who were not one of the few hundred actual workers who "snapped together" the outsourced components of it to feel any pride or celebrate. If there is any celebration, it should be in remembrance of the dead Boeing of the past that actually built airplanes, whose coffin is in fact the 787 that will cemoniously rollout of a Boeing factory door on 7-8-07. It is not a Boeing jet, and any "Boeing workers" in Engineering who designed parts of this airplane were not really Boeing employees. They were just Boeing supplied "temps" who actually worked for the suppliers performing design work so they could also their airplane. Less of these "Boeing" temp Engineers will be needed on future "Boeing" airplane development projects as the suppliers have been taught how to do that work themselves by this program, so they won't have to use Boeing's Engineer temp service as much, by far.

And if you are at that event and want to celebrate the Boeing built components of the 787 rather than all of the other parts of the plane that weren't built by Boeing, just stare at the vertical fin at the back of the plane while you cheer, ignoring the shiny leading edge of it and the rudder at the back of it, which were built elsewhere. The rest of the plane you can ignore, as Boeing didn't build any major components of any other section of the plane.

You can bet, however small the part of this program is that you can feel Boeing pride in, that the Boeing executives that are behind this pyramid scam-like business model will be celebrating, unbridled by any conscience, celebrating what they did to exterminate U.S. aerospace workers by the business plan of the 787. After all, it is a program they designed to benefit themselves and by chance other large stockholders of the company like them at the expense of anyone below their golden spoon born station in life.

Just to make the 787 seem like a Boeing produced plane, Boeing will have Frank Schrontz, CEO of Boeing when Boeing actually manufactured the vast majority of each airplane it sold and rightly sported the Boeing logo, make an appearance at the event to attach Boeing nostalgia to a plane that isn't built by boeing, for the most part, literally.

Bob Watt will also be there, fittingly. I think he was the guy tasked with damage control locally for all of Boeing's anti Boeing worker outsourcing decisions on this program so Boeing employees wouldn't riot or quit building the legacy airplanes Boeing still needs to produce to finance the 787 and provide pay and stock options for executives, which proves the true reason for this event.

Bob Watt can thank me, however, for making his job much easier. If not for me this event would be taking place in North Carolina, and Bob would have a huge job to do of quelling the bad feelings of Boeing workers here so production could go on until those employee's jobs were ultimately outsourced when the next new A/P program came along. I doubt he would have succeeded at such a huge task. But I his job a breeze from what he expected it would be. As, per Boeing's belief, I am the only reason the 787 is rolling out in Everett instead of North Carolina, he has me to thank (my main site explains this accomplishment of mine and how Boeing credits me ("blames" is actually the correct term) for the 787 being "snapped together" here with union labor, rather than in non-union, Banjo and family loving North Carolina.

It's too bad they don't come to terms with their anger towards me for being (per them) the reason they couldn't site 787 final assembly as planned. Then they could at least thank me at the ceremony for being instrumental in Boeing deciding to stay in Washington. A good cheer from a crowd in Qwest stadium for my saving their jobs and airliner production in this state may do my ego (or what's left of it) good. It's too bad that this will likely be the only "harm" against Boeing I supposedly inflicted that they will demonstrate in court when they have me prosecuted. Even if they prove I did this, I don't think any local jury will fault me for it, even if they can demonstrate the lower cost of non-union Banjo playing workers in North Carolina would add a few tenths of a percent to their already ungodly profits. But then there is the all important (to Boeing) P.R. that holds up the Boeing house of cards. Even though they told me in private that I was the reason for the 787 being sited in Washington, why would they want to confirm that in a public courtroom? It certainly wouldn't reflect well on them, crying in court they were stopped from "outsourcing" even final assembly of the 787, in additon to every other thing than the galley sink that they had already outsourced at the time.

Hopefully current and former Boeing employees and the public will see this charade for what it really is. If they do, they certainly won't be celebrating.

I guess I should start off by correcting the last sentence of yesterday's blog, which doesn't read like I intended. The sentence:

"You may want to apply for this job if you are corrupt and/or incompetent. It is hopefully one of the few places where those traits are handsomely rewarded."

Should be as follows:

"You may want to apply for this job if you are corrupt and/or incompetent. It is, unfortunately, a place where those traits have been handsomely rewarded, although hopefully these type of corrupt organizations get fewer and fewer as time goes on."

That's essentially what I meant to write.

Now on to today's blog:

One thing you have to wonder, at least since I made this corruption public, what Boeing's customers think about this fraud. Does it bother them? Or are they unconcerned? If I was an airline executive or government procurement agent, I would be very concerned.

Of course, my computer ineptness has hampered the possible audience for this site until just the last few days.

I am finally learning some of the basics of webmastering that I should have known when I started this site if I wanted people to find it on the web, which I did want very much to happen. I have begun promoting my site at least minimally over the last few days. I don't expect the full results of this effort to produce great results for a few more weeks. A good thing you can do to help the public find out about this site and protect your loved ones from the fraud documented on my main web site is to email a link to www.thelastinspector.com to everyone you care about.

I expect I will learn more in the next few weeks as I am finally understanding this stuff and I will be able to employ more advanced promotion of my main web site. By doing so, in addition to informing the public of this "working together" corruption at Boeing and their government, I hope to get in touch with more of the good people I have already been hearing from across the nation that have witnessed the same corruption I have witnessed. I guess Boeing imposed misery loves company.

I am still amazed, even though I have been intimately aware of it for years, that this kind of fraud exists at corporations and in our government today, in the 21st Century. In the 1930's and before I could understand it. Not now, however, as we have supposedly advanced so much since then.

However, greed, which is one of the chief things behind the fraud I have documented, has the same appeal today as it always has had. I have seen people do surprisingly criminal things just so they could get a 5% bonus in pay at the end of the year. Crimes that will place the public at risk for decades to come. And this lust for a promised and comparatively tiny amount of money I have seen motivate many people to do things you wouldn't think someone would lower themselves to do even for vastly greater amounts of money. And the leaders of some corporations know this, and use these very effective "carrots" to get their employees to do what they want them to do, which, unfortunately, is to use any method, legal or not, to meet financial (greed driven) goals.

Even though we have progressed far technologically over the decades, human nature remains the same, even at some of the most technology driven companies out there.