1. Case + Ethical Dilemma

The problem with Boeing has progressed from an accident or ‘manufacturing defect’ to a trend. In fact, on January 5, 2024, there was an “aircraft door plug panel that blew out” on an Alaska 737 Max 9 plane during flight, causing damage to the fuselage, requiring an emergency landing. Then doubts about “missing bolts” and “shortcomings” found in Boeing’s manufacturing process quickly surfaced. The FAA responded with audits and production restrictions. Then reports began to come in about loose hardware and other problems with other airplanes. This follows the two crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max 8 models that resulted in 346 fatalities due to ‘design flaws’ and ‘management’s review’ and ‘exchange’ of ‘information with the FAA in 2018-2019.’

The ethical problem is straightforward: Boeing depends on operating as “a company with safety as its first operating value,” but key company choices prioritize on-time delivery and financial gain over sound engineering fundamentals and transparency. Following the MAX aircraft crashes, Boeing committed to “a safety culture transformation.” In this context, however, inspections made possible by the MAX 9 episode and other inspections that followed found that “there are fundamental workmanship deficits” and “key documentation” deficits at Boeing’s Renton production facility and key suppliers.” The question here is direct and straightforward: Will Boeing be willing to necessarily increase the risk to passengers and personnel in flight to meet company production quotas, with the understanding that most flights land safely anyway?

Several elements sharpen the conflict: 

• Weakened areas vs. continued production. Internal results and outside data pointed to systemic quality problems, yet production and shipments continued with significant commercial pressure. The risk to passengers and customers in choosing to get these jets out the door with such fundamentals in question rests with those innocent parties.

• Oversight dependence vs. risk of capture. Historically, regulators have delegated significant certification activity to Boeing. From an ethical perspective, Boeing's responsibility is to exceed the requirements and not exploit them. Going through loopholes to go faster erodes the social license that the company requires.

• Public messaging vs. internal reality. While Boeing’s management boasts “safety is our top priority” and “we put transparency first,” investigators and whistleblowers point to failed processes, fear of retaliation, and management's obsession with timelines and stock price. When brand messaging doesn’t correlate with behavior, it’s no longer PR; it's mere deception.

In other words, the question presented by this crisis is whether the entity that produces commercial airplanes, products that can potentially result in the immediate death of hundreds of people because of one manufacturing error, can ensure that its corporate culture and compensation processes tolerate preventable risk. The Boeing crisis raises questions such as whether it is acceptable to consider the worst-case event outcomes as mere operational variables or whether safety needs to be set as an immovable constraint that might resist profitability.

SOURCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-boeing-737-9-max-aircraft

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID122693486620240106201913.0001?modalOpened=true

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-door-plug-ntsb-report/story?id=106992184