4. External Commentary

Beyond Boeing, there are three other elements that drive the story. These are regulators, investigative journalists, and technical experts. These elements form the background storyline that shows that the company has failed to keep pace with its rhetoric.

Government and regulators (official reports)

A 2024 review by the FAA and DOT, and other government statements, concern Boeing’s safety culture that was “broken” due to “lapses in internal controls” and “overreliance on delegated self-approvals.” The implication is that Boeing must be compelled to comply rather than allowed to correct itself.

Department of Transportation

A memo from the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations outlines the internal evidence that employees still feel pressure to optimize for speed and productivity and that critical flaws and documentation issues weren't isolated incidents. The memo draws direct connections between safety issues and management incentives.

These sources consider Boeing more as an offender who has repeated such mistakes rather than an unlucky producer, since Boeing’s culture needs to be tamed.

Investigative and Analytical Media (Print and Web)

Sources such as PBS Frontline, Reuters News Video, Seattle Times News, among others, identify that there has been a continuation from the original 737 Max crash incidents to the failure of door plug 1282 in Alaska, with aggressive schedules and a lack of accountability.


Observations in trade magazines, such as those in accountancy and engineering media, consider Boeing to be a cautionary tale about failed corporate culture, whereby there is a conflict between its “safety first” brand values and its internal motivations to prioritize “cost-cutting and on-time delivery.”

Their summary is that technical solutions are almost irrelevant without fundamental changes to how Boeing determines success and approaches risk:

Until the company fundamentally changes the way that it determines success and approaches risk management, Broadcast and expert voices (video and interviews), Video segments aired on television featuring NTSB officials and experts in aviation safety question the sufficiency of Boeing’s assembly procedures and accountability in light of the MAX 9 accident. These segments point to such things as missing bolts as evidence that there was a process failure rather than an anomaly. They consider Boeing’s public commitments to be essential but untested until proven through consistent action and external monitoring.


SOURCES

https://www.reuters.com/world/faas-proposed-31-million-fine-boeing-inadequate-senator-says-2025-09-24/

https://www.transportation.gov/faa-oversight-boeings-broken-safety-culture-0

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-senate-committee-faults-boeing-safety-practices-faa-oversight-2024-09-25/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/boeing-737-max-jet-alaska-airlines-flight-1282-faa-safety/

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/aviation/2025/07/10/boeing-work-instructions-were-inadequate-for-years-before-blowout-on-alaska-flight-ntsb-finds/

Comments

  1. Noah PawlowskiNovember 11, 2025 at 7:55 AM

    I think that you did a good job showing what the journalists think and how they have helped shape the narrative about Boeing. I also like how you describe Boeing as a company with a cultural problem which is resulting in these ethical issues. The point that you made about having technical solutions but not changing the culture was very insightful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sam BuschNovember 11, 2025 at 1:20 PM

    I really like how you structured this post. The use of headings to easily navigate those commenting on the issue is very beneficial, especially because of how many people have likely commented on this particular dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ReddyNovember 12, 2025 at 11:27 AM

    It’s clear that without fundamental changes in how the company defines success and manages risk, technical fixes alone won’t prevent future failures.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

3. Company’s Response

Image
Boeing has one clear public stance here. The company puts safety and quality first and is repairing itself. Posted after the door plug accident involving Alaska Airlines flight 1282 and subsequent review by the FAA, the statements by Boeing officials acknowledged “a quality escape,” took responsibility, and vowed to use “full transparency” in working with investigators and regulators. The company correlates the event to a process failure rather than to an affront to safety values. In its official safety pages, annual reports, and “Strengthening Safety & Quality” resources, Boeing highlights various commitments such as: Expansion of Its Safety Management System Across Programs & Facilities. A structured Safety & Quality Plan with emphasis on staff training, simplified and managed production processes, defect minimization, and internal reporting. More inspections within 737 production, greater surveillance over suppliers, and collaboration with the FAA’s strengthened monitori...
Read more

1. Case + Ethical Dilemma

Image
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. Follow...
Read more

5. Your Recommendation (Ethical Analysis)

Boeing makes products that are susceptible to one failure, causing the death of hundreds in mere seconds. This should immediately settle whether safety should be one variable up for discussion during negotiations. It isn't. The mere application of ethical reasoning to consider safety as one side to be balanced with either production or numbers wouldn't be ethical to start with. First, the facts. The results are clear in the investigations about the door plug blowout on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282: there are missing bolts, poor documentation, and poor training and monitoring at Boeing and key suppliers. The NTSB insists that this is no isolated problem but rather “multiple system failures.” The FAA halted production increases in 737 MAX airplanes, greatly increased direct monitoring, imposed financial penalties on Boeing, and only recently began to loosen production limits after further review. This is no way to treat a company that trusts. Concrete recommendations: 1. Hard-wire...
Read more