My observations date from the late 1970s/early 1980s but I would have thought would still apply today. Both mechanic and inspector used to have to be certified for the specific type of work, you couldn't just walk in off the street and start drilling holes and riveting.

Doesn't the machinist/mechanic sign an actual paper worksheet when he completes the job and then an inspector have to inspect the work and work area and counter-sign and stamp the sheet (with a dated, personalised stamp) when he is satisfied with the job ?

(The inspector's stamp was personally issued to him, with the date fixed by the manager, when he started his shift. When the inspector finished for the day the stamp was returned, by his manager, to a locked safe until the inspector's next workday. This way you could pull the worksheet and identify the mechanic's signature and the inspector who was the only one with access to the individual stamp.) At least that was the way it used to be done.

Boing and gm are in cahoots with each other

That sounds like a pretty tight ship!! I wonder how many of these checks and double-checks are done today??

The KC46 were delivered From a different factory. Looks like metal filings are the main culprit on this one.

Hello Captain Parsons . I knew that Boeing is having real financial problems due to the Max and the KC-46 's . Boeing just recently secured a 10 Billion line of credit that covers 4 years from major banks and other Financial institutions . But i always felt Boeing is just to Big to let Fail . But i never felt , or even thought that they may kill off the Commercial Aircraft division . So this is very serious . Thank-you for sharing this .

Mr Parsons , are you related to the Cpt , of the Gimli Glider ? Or is it just coincidence ........

That seems to be a valid comment. Boeing is failing on multiple levels. I don't know if it is the move to nonunion workers, the move to spread out the manufacture to so many subs, or a purely corporate attitude that they can't/shouldn't be held accountable because they are 'too big to fail'.

Sending out planes with 'trash' in the fuel tanks, and elsewhere, is ridiculous. That kind of carelessness wouldn't be tolerated for a surgeon, and the results of the 'trash' being in the tanks could be just as grave. I can't wait for the first plane crash that happens that is found to be due to 'trash' left during manufacturing. Some dirt is probably to be expected, but metal shreds, rags, 'air tools', rivets, screws? It's from a workforce that just doesn't care. So either they are overworked, or just don't care. BOTH, by the way, are marks of a poor corporate ethic.

'Boeing can't even breath without screwing it up' is valid, in the totality of the 'screw ups' that they have had over the last few years.

From satellites, to rockets, to planes; Boeing has a lot of huge failures. Changing the CEO isn't likely to 'fix' Boeing either, sadly...

There is another 'Squawk' article: 'Could Boeing build a 787X?'. Sure. Could they build a 787X that I would feel safe and comfortable flying in is the question. Will it be riddled with haphazard 'fixes', and be piloted by under-trained and unaware pilots? Would it be a plane designed and engineered like the planes of old, or be a 'quick way to profit'; under-cooked, and under-designed (but with a new system of background lighting to simulate a sunset). But Boeing is a symptom of Corporate America's ills. Workers are liabilities, and profit it the only reason they exist. Profit over all is the rule. Proper design and acknowledging serious problems is not profitable resulting in 'fixes' done to spackle over design issues rather than stopping a bad idea, and doing the groundwork to completely fix the problem.

Boeing can be fixed, but it's going to take a lot more than a new CEO.

Marc, no disrespect intended, but almost anything can be fixed without scrapping the program, and I'm sure, that if was mine or your dollars involved we would look for a fix. We have in this country, some of the best trained and experienced pilots and I for one still say, "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."

Had to look up "swarf." Thanks for enlarging my vocabulary. (Seriously.)

Were the clecos actually holding the work together ie had the job not been completed (riveted/screwed/welded) or were they just loose tools left behind (as I assume the bucking bars were) ? They're actually very useful to tack things together when you're working single handed but I wouldn't think you'd want them to hold the skin on an a/c, especially not a monocoque assembly.

So whats your point ?

Kind of short sighted though to screw" the employer by also causing all kinds of potential death and property damage if the FOD brings a plane down

Why bother? Boeing needs no help.

Now, THAT is a very interesting thought. One that needs, well, thought on....

Airbus has already been through it - Air France 447 comes to mind first, but there have been other near misses.