Does S. Carolina know how to build a Boeing?

Editor, The Times:

Though I never built a Boeing aircraft, I did fly them. Because of the dedication, knowledge and expertise of Washington state craftsmen and women, many of those well-designed and constructed airframes are still flying.

Consider that the 707, 737, 747, B-52 and even some B-17s are still aloft. For nearly a century, Washingtonians knew how to build airplanes.

I can appreciate Boeing involving potential buyers in building new aircraft. However, it appears, Boeing has sacrificed quality for a kumbaya feeling. It seems that almost every day I read about some offshore partner -- whose workers do not have the history, the experience or know-how of the Washingtonians who bleed Boeing blue -- erring in their responsibilities.

But it is not only foreign builders and suppliers, but Americans as well. Who ever said South Carolinians could build an airplane? Who installed the wrong fasteners in the wrong places and caused damage to the composite structure?

Again, without the historical background and skill found in the Puget Sound area, the Gamecocks have stumbled. It seems to me that if I ran Boeing, I would want the best product at the best price. And that does not mean the lowest price -- paying a worker $40 an hour for the job done correctly and professionally is less expensive than paying someone $30 an hour for a shoddy job that has to be done twice to get it right.

I guess I am not seeing the big picture because Boeing must know what it is doing and be going in the right direction -- it's too big to fail.

-- Richard A. Virant, Bothell

Threats of strikes, then a final departure of 787 from Washington

The unions and government in Washington state should heed the knell of the vote to throw out the union at the Boeing facility in Charleston ["Boeing Charleston votes to oust Machinists Union," Business, Sept. 11].

As one who grew up in western New York and watched businesses move manufacturing out of state due to the union and government attitude toward business, I see a dramatic parallel with the events of the past year. First, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Idiots Against Management) strike on the only busy business in the nation; second, the shuttering of all the U.S. Marine plants while shifting that production to business-friendly states like Tennessee and Florida.

We should all remember: "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

-- Gary M. Schmidt, Seattle

Albaugh will respect Boeing's skilled workers

With the appointment of Jim Albaugh as CEO of Boeing's Commercial Airplane Division ["Boeing fix-it guy leads airliner unit," page one, Sept. 1], a mending process can now begin to right the division and get the 787 Dreamliner flying.

Quoting Albaugh from a Times column: "In its soul, Boeing has always been and remains an engineering company." He continues to say, "the heart of this company is the skilled machinists, technicians and mechanics -- true craftsmen and wizards -- who deliver on their promises everyday."

Albaugh thus recognized the truism that a company's greatest asset is its workers, and it appears the 787 is in good hands. Bon voyage, Boeing!

-- Anthony E. Pomata, Maple Valley

Boeing built by region, owes much in return

Editor, The Times:

Those Boeing officials who are considering manufacturing the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina should study the company's history.

It was the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest out of which Boeing was created and built. Early on, it was the spruce forests of Oregon and Washington. Then it was the region's abundant and low-cost water power that generated the large amount of electricity needed to make aluminum when that became the basic material in airplane manufacture.

Throughout, it was the local intellectual, educational and governmental infrastructure, largely paid for by Washington taxpayers, that trained and nurtured a work force capable of designing and manufacturing great airplanes. South Carolina cannot take credit for any of this. Boeing, having capitalized on these resources, owes something in return.

-- Fred Granata, Lake Oswego, Ore.

Union members need to be team members

When will Everett's Mayor Ray Stephanson and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union understand why Boeing is seeking permits for a 787 Dreamliner final-assembly plant in South Carolina? ["Boeing expansion: permits not required," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 28.]

Boeing doesn't want to deal with striking union members. IAM members are being lead down a dark path with no future. IAM's leaders are relics from the past, and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome.

Consider these things: Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, you're encouraged to do the bare minimum; a company needs team members working toward a common goal, you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public; Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike; the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with the IAM anymore, they'll just move away. IAM members have a chance to think for themselves and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Boeing going elsewhere doesn't produce results

I think the point has been proven that Boeing aircraft manufacturing must not move from the Seattle area. See what is happening when other parts of the nation and world try to build parts for the new Dreamliner 787? Wrinkles in the fuselage? Come on.

It looks like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union strike didn't have much to do with the delay of first delivery, although I hope the union and Boeing can work out a deal to avoid such hassles in the future.

Keeping it all here will build the best airplanes available.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

Thanks to The Times, staying off Boeing's Play Doh plane

The Seattle Times has, for many years, done a great job of untangling complex details of aerospace manufacturing without making its highly readable articles seem dumbed down. This goes back to Byron Acohido's outstanding investigative series on the mysterious 737 rudder control problem, the notorious MD-80 jackscrew story and now the perils of baking the composite pastry that will be the 787 Dreamliner ["787 fuselage work halted," page one, Aug. 14].

I wonder how many other readers share my reaction to these latest events: What a screwed-up way to build an airplane!

Will Boeing outsource the legal defense work necessitated by lawsuits launched by angry customers and shareholders to five foreign nations as well? You know, so everybody gets their fair share of the work.

Just to be on the safe side, it will be many years before I strap myself into one of these Play Doh comets.

-- Charles Pickel, Seattle

If it's a Boeing, I'm not going

My god, what next for Boeing? Now there are more delays in the 787 Dreamliner program. Gee, who's at fault now?

The Machinists Union gets blamed for everything, but they're without fault when it comes to the corporate decisions concerning problems building the 787. None of it is the unions' fault -- not the strike, not anything.

Every decision made about the building of any Boeing product comes from management, period. The workers have no say. Which idiot manager dreamed up this ridiculous idea of farming out virtually all the work on the 787?

It was management's idea, and they made the decision. Will this screwed-up plane ever fly? Who would want to risk their life trying?

There used to be a saying: "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going." Obviously, that should be changed to: "If it's a Boeing plane, I'm not flying."

-- Richard B. Ellenberger, Normandy Park

Concessions must be made to keep Boeing here

Editor, The Times:

Jon Talton may be correct in his contention that executive blunders have had a bigger effect on Boeing's competitiveness than the strikes ["Washington may benefit from Southern strategy," Business, July 12]. But as we look ahead, whether he is or isn't correct is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the question of what it will take to persuade Boeing to locate the second Dreamliner 787 line -- and probably the 737 replacement line -- here. And then the question of whether the state and the unions are willing to pay the price. Boeing, just to survive, must continually improve its competitiveness. This means building airplanes wherever they can get the best overall cost, schedule and quality performance. Clearly, a no-strike commitment would be a major incentive for them to remain here, and the lack of one would be a major incentive to move.

Strikes and overly generous and restrictive contracts were major reasons for the collapse of the U.S. auto industry. If Boeing workers don't want to end up as United Auto Workers members have, they will need to help, not hinder, Boeing in its efforts to improve its competitiveness.

This applies to Washington state as well. If the state wants to continue to enjoy the payrolls, taxes and other economic benefits brought by Boeing, they need to give Boeing incentives to stay.

-- Clark B. McKee, Anacortes

Union already has a simple no-strike clause

I wonder if Jim McNerney's job as the CEO of Boeing is to run the company into the ground --if it is, he should get a raise.

I also think that the machinists union already has a no-strike clause: If the machinists are offered decent contracts without removing benefits they've already fought for, they won't strike.

-- Dan McCafferty, Naches

Negotiating away right to strike is not an option

Editor, The Times:

The Boeing Machinists Union's recent strike is a proud example of hardworking Americans' efforts to protect themselves from the unadulterated greed of increasingly wealthy management.

Boeing routinely pays its CEOs tens of millions of dollars annually in salary, bonuses and severance. Union workers are routinely asked to make concessions, presumably so the increasingly wealthy can become obscenely, grotesquely wealthy. The union has a strong voice in the process only by having the right to strike.

Politicians like Norm Dicks and columnists like Danny Westneat ["Don't let Boeing slip away," NWWednesday, July 8] who suggest that any union even consider negotiating away the right to strike are only hastening our return to the robber-baron era when concepts like workplace-safety standards, minimum wage and weekends off were but a dream.

-- Jim Trimbell, Shoreline

Maybe Puget Sound should just let Boeing go

So Boeing has decided that unless the union agrees to never again strike, they are moving out of the state ["Key lawmakers warn of Boeing ultimatum," page one, July 8]. What a bunch of manure!

Why not just return to slavery? It would be good for business. No more pesky contracts, no more benefits.

There is a special place in hell reserved for the executives who are making millions and blaming the unions for any problems they encounter.

I, for one, am disgusted. Any politician who does not remind the company and themselves of the numerous tax incentives and benefits Boeing has already received is remiss. And as we can see from past agreements, Boeing is never going to have enough to ensure that it will stay in this area.

I say we let them go, and don't let the door hit them on the way out.

-- Carol Barber, Kent

Delays are result of Boeing outsourcing, not strike

Boeing and Norm Dicks blame the machinists' strike for the delay of the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing wants a no-strike clause, or it will pick up its jobs and move them to South Carolina.

In truth, all the machinists have done is provide livable-wage jobs with decent benefits to thousands in the Puget Sound area. Boeing, on the other hand, has outsourced its production inefficiently and "cheaply," and it has gotten what it paid for:

• Sept. 6, 2007: Boeing announced its first delay of Dreamliner.
• Oct. 11, 2007: Boeing announced at least a six-month delay.
• Dec. 11, 2007: Boeing announced it was working through "wrinkles" that would delay the Dreamliner until "late 2008."
• Jan. 2, 2008: Boeing listed "unresolved production problems" had pushed delivery until 2009.
• Feb. 2, 2008: Boeing transferred two executives to a "special assignment" involving production problems.
• Sept. 7, 2008 to Nov. 1, 2008: The machinists' strike stopped production.
• June 23, 2008: Boeing released information that the problems were related to parts manufactured by Fuji and Mitsubishi that don't meet properly in 36 separate places where the wings meet the body.

Boeing will move to South Carolina if they can't break the union, but we all know that it is Boeing's "doing things on the cheap" that was responsible for the delays, not the machinists.

-- Thalia Syracopoulos, Seattle

Charleston 2, Seattle 0

Editor, The Times:

We gave you our superintendent of schools. You gave us the assembly of the 787 Dreamliner. It's a win-win for Charleston, S.C., on all counts.

-- Richard Lennon, Charleston

Boeing to Washington: leaving on a jet plane

I read your editorial ["Change the tone to keep aerospace jobs," Opinion, July 8], and it ranks right up there with listening to a crackhead talk about sobriety.

Watching Boeing do business in Washington has been like seeing an alternate episode of "The Sopranos." Apparently, Boeing decided it was done paying protection money. Does anyone really believe Boeing will be in business here in Washington five years from now? I think anyone with eyes could see the signal sent when headquarters moved to Chicago.

Can our local and state governments respond to this upcoming loss? I expect continued spending like drunken sailors. How long will it be before a bloody ear is sent to headquarters? It shouldn't really matter whose it was because nobody in Olympia or King County has been listening for years.

-- Bob Boren, Tacoma

S.C. move latest in series of Boeing blunders

Boeing senior management has embarked upon a series of disastrous decisions in recent years that are damaging its reputation beyond repair.

Management outsourced far too much 787 Dreamliner design and manufacturing to companies such as Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (which has a proven track record of ineptitude), resulting in years of delays on the aircraft's delivery. Boeing has admitted the same publicly.

Management mishandled negotiations on the 2008 contract with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), resulting in a 57-day strike that was ended by agreeing to terms that should have been offered during initial contract negotiations and would have avoided the strike in the first place. Boeing then blamed the more than two-year delay of the 787 program on the unnecessary 57-day strike. But 57 days does not equal two years.

Management extracted billions of dollars in concessions from Washington state in exchange for assurances that 787 final assembly would remain in Washington. It has changed these terms and now demands further concessions in the form of reduced labor and unemployment benefits as well as a no-strike agreement with the IAM for the same agreement. What guarantee is there that there will be no further demands upon the state of Washington and the unions?

Management is now considering a ruinously expensive investment to construct a duplicate final assembly facility in South Carolina in an area lacking the skilled pool of aerospace talent necessary to operate it.

Is Boeing management deliberately following the path of General Motors and Chrysler?

-- James Patrick, Lynnwood

Tankers shouldn't be built in the first place

Connie Niva suggests Boeing is best suited to build a new Air Force tanker in her guest column ["Boeing is the best company to build the Air Force tanker," Opinion, June 30].
Before anybody does so, I believe the Pentagon needs a full-blown review of its military strategy. It should be clear to our officials by now that the public is fed up with the U.S. engaging in foreign military ventures.

We are not the world's policemen. So why do we need new tankers if we no longer send armies overseas? Furthermore, who is going to attack us? Admittedly, the military-industrial complex provides jobs, but if that is what we are after, we can certainly create jobs without producing military goods.

-- Thomas R. Craig, Bellevue

Times editorial misses the mark by ignoring math

Your editorial ["Strike won't fly at Boeing," Opinion, June 19] stated, "The 787 is behind schedule. This is partly -- not entirely, but partly -- because the Aerospace Machinists went on strike for 56 days last year."

The 787 is two years late now for a total of 731 days. Do the math: The Aerospace Machinists can be blamed for 7.7 percent of the delay. Who's responsible for the rest?

-- Gary M. Raymond, Seattle

Workers' best weapon to keep local jobs

Editor, The Times:

Your editorial ["Strike won't fly at Boeing," Opinion, editorial, June 19] suggests the unions at Boeing should give up the only economic weapon, the weapon of last resort, in order to ensure that jobs stay here in Puget Sound.

They can give it up, but it will in no way ensure that the jobs stay here. You fail to recognize that a strike is harder on the union members than it is on the company, that some past strikes have been precipitated by the company for the company's advantage.

I will give up my right to strike when corporate executives tie my total compensation to theirs. When I take a cut in wages and benefits, their compensation is reduced by an equal percentage. When they get a bonus I get a bonus. I want to see Boeing succeed, but not at my expense and certainly not by giving executives millions of dollars from people who are making five-figure incomes.

-- Rob Snyder, Seattle

Employee Free Choice Act will restore middle class
We need secure jobs, health and retirement benefits and fair wages. Whatever else we do to help the economy, it won't result in broadly shared, lasting prosperity unless we also restore workers' freedom to bargain with their employers for a better life by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act.

In these perilous economic times, we must restore workers' freedom to bargain for secure jobs, health care and retirement benefits as well as fair pay. It's time to rebuild the middle class and help struggling working families. The Employee Free Choice Act will restore that freedom and help us rebuild the middle class.

We need the Employee Free Choice Act because the current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken beyond repair.

Corporations routinely harass, intimidate, coerce and fire workers just because they want the freedom to bargain for a better life -- and even if companies get caught, they get little more than a slap on the wrist. This is counter to the intent of U.S. laws and must be changed.

Every day, corporations harass, intimidate or fire working people who try to form unions so they can bargain for a better life. Even when workers form a union, more than 40 percent of the time they can't get contracts. Penalties for companies that break the law are so minimal that they're just a cost of doing business.

We must restore workers' freedom to form unions and bargain by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

-- Tanya Stock, Seattle

Key asset to national security

I just left a short presentation on the F-22 Raptor airplane at Boeing. Before going to this presentation, I was in the position of, "If we really do not need them, we need to quit making them" ["Defense cuts may add to growing unemployment lines," seattletimes.com, Local News, April 10].

That was a tough position for me, as I own a small machine shop in Renton and the F-22 program is the bulk of our work. Without it, we go from 24 people to 10 or fewer. It also means that the equipment we purchased to produce the parts for this airplane will sit idle while I still have payments to make on them. It also means less manufacturing in the U.S. But, as a concerned American, I did not think we should spend our money on something that was not necessary.

Then I went to this presentation and listened to "the rest of the story." The information we received today showed us what an asset this airplane is to the security of our country. It is leaps and bounds ahead of every other military plane produced here or anywhere in the world. The strength of this plane would deter countries from waging an air war with us. It was also explained that this plane is a key component in protecting our ground troops and for destroying enemy facilities that target our ground troops.

As the mother of a former Marine, and after talking with him, it would seem to me we would not even contemplate stopping production of the F-22 Raptor. Perhaps we should do some more homework on this decision.

-- Marjorie Langton, Renton

Update labor relations

I read with interest the editorial "Keeping Boeing here" [Opinion, April 12]. I am all for Boeing remaining in Washington. Boeing has a highly skilled work force that has "bailed" them out on the 787 program, given the dismal failure of their new business model of outsourcing. The jobs in question are truly family-supporting. Additionally, Boeing contributes in many, many ways to the quality of life we all enjoy in Washington.

What I find a bit tedious is Boeing's claim that labor costs will force them to move in order to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Boeing should look at their philosophy and the principles they invoke when negotiating labor contracts.

Boeing has the most archaic labor-relations model in the U.S. While other companies have long ago recognized and moved on to a more collaborative relationship with their labor force, Boeing continues to perpetuate the long-outdated advisorial approach to labor relations.

The editorial mentions 202 days of lost work due to employment strikes in the past seven negotiations. What other industry in the past 20 years has even had a labor strike, let alone one as long as those Boeing experienced?

It's time Boeing entered the 21st century and talk adult-to-adult with their highly skilled production and technical team members.

-- Nancy Kuehnoel, Des Moines

Wine also a pride of Washington

I take umbrage to Douglas Mays ["Keep operations in Washington," Northwest Voices, April 13]. While I agree with him about the quality of our local airline production, I feel the quality of Washington state wines is also world class. Mays and the Italians are welcome to open a bottle and decide for themselves.

-- Jim Musielewicz, SodoVino, Seattle

PHOTOGRAPHER/SOURCE

Boeing workers assemble the 787 Dreamliner in Everett.

Editor, The Times:

Gov. Christine Gregoire seems to have the same opinion I developed after the last Boeing strike ["Governor: Keep state a force in aerospace," page one, April 10].

My concern is about Boeing moving some operations to somewhere else. That is not good for our economy and cultural pride.

Building the best airplanes in the world is many generations into our culture. We know how to do it better than anyone. Current employees with parents handing down their skills and knowledge for generations make a better aircraft. Those who are new to Boeing are learning from the best.

Good wine? Italy. Good jets? Seattle. There is nowhere else to go.

Keep it here, Boeing. Keep the quality tops. It will reflect in quality product and sales.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

Layoffs may be unnecessary

The blaring headline in Friday's Seattle Times ["Job cuts will follow Boeing jet slowdown," page one, April 10] troubles and even almost irritates me because it has been my opinion that opinions belonged on the editorial pages, not page one.

If "may" had been used instead of "will," it would have been more newsworthy. In these troubling times, why not slant toward optimistic views in the news section? Many developments in future aeronautical business may make the layoffs unnecessary in the near future.

As a long-ago aircraft employee, I never have liked to hear about cuts or layoffs. Let's be optimistic.

-- Bob Dunn, Seattle

Pay up, get the deal in full

Why exactly was U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., in town earlier this week to review the Boeing deal ["John Murtha at Boeing," Bizline, Business, Feb. 17]?

The conclusion he drew was the deal could be split between Boeing and Airbus. Did no one think to ask why an American company, in the midst of a recession, with high-paying jobs on the block, would have to share a military contract with a foreign company?

Is it possible that Boeing didn't give enough to the campaigns of Murtha and Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash.? Pay up, and Boeing might get the deal in full.

Dicks is a large recipient of campaign donations from the PMA Group, which is connected to Murtha and has been investigated by the FBI for illegal behavior. It might now be closing its doors. Many are giving back the tainted funds. Dicks is not among them. Why not?

Why isn't this local angle to a big story being reported?

-- Janet Suppes, Bellevue

Descending down a peak

I'm writing concerning the problems with Boeing. The Boeing Company has already lost 4,500 jobs. It is the largest private company in the region and it's starting to shrink again, while the economy spirals downward.

The Seattle Times reported Boeing would cut more than 5 percent of its 76,400 work force. Gov. Christine Gregoire said the announcement was "sad and disappointing."

In earlier times, Boeing downturn became a giant economic bust for the whole region. In 1971, the collapse in Boeing employment affected between 100,000 and 400,000.

The Boeing Company is going down a peak; they have more than enough people losing their jobs this year. I really don't think Boeing should be cutting more than 4,500 jobs. They should think of a different way to solve this.

-- Matthew MacLachlan, Port Townsend

Learn from the silent, selfless ferry workers

In all the furor of what is going on with the economy, I thought someone would jump up and yell, "Congratulations," to the ferry workers who decided to forgo a raise this year in the interest of everyone keeping their jobs. While I didn't hear much of a peep from anyone, it certainly begs the question: Are the Boeing machinists paying attention?

Boeing just got a tongue lashing from Richard Branson of Virgin-everything Airlines saying if Boeing and the machinists can't put their disagreements behind them, he's going to Airbus.

All you heard was Boeing saying it was the machinists fault and the machinists saying it was Boeing's fault.

We're in real financial trouble here and not one more person should lose their job. It's time to realize that you don't always get what you wish for. The machinists make more than most and sometimes hard economic times dictate waiting. At least at this point, they have jobs.

If Boeing takes more hits, they probably won't. Take a lesson from the ferry workers who were actually looking out for their fellow workers and not feathering their own nests.

-- Jill Eshenbaugh, University Place

American-made, always

I read The Times article, "Airbus could build next Air Force One" [News, Jan. 18]. I believe the presidential plane, Air Force One, should always be "American Made." It would be a grave mistake to award the contract to any foreign entity, not only from a standpoint of American pride in workmanship, but also from a national security standpoint.

My late father worked for Boeing for many years. While he did not work on any projects involving presidential aircraft, he was always proud that Boeing built the airplane that transports the president of the United States of America. I personally believe that if the current 747 version of Air Force One has to be replaced, it should be replaced with a slightly smaller Boeing airplane with more versatility in landing at smaller airstrips. Bigger is not always "better." I'd rather see the president travel in a mid-size aircraft that was sleek and secure than lumbering around in an Airbus that looks more like a whale that swallowed a school bus.

The president doesn't need reporters or politicians hitching a ride on his plane. The refueling-in-midair feature is nice, but I'd rather see it armed as if it were a miniature B-52. The public surely wouldn't be offended by onboard weaponry to protect the commander in chief of the armed forces.

A streamlined Boeing plane serving as the new Air Force One would help maintain American jobs, maintain technological secrecy of the plane's components and enable the president to use the plane in more locales that cannot presently be served.

-- James Marples, Longview, Texas

Sold out again

I have been with Boeing for 35 years and an IAM [International Association of Machinists] 751 member for 35 years.

Once again, I think the union sold us out.

I am hoping the members see this and vote "no" to this contract. We have not gained one thing in this contract. They saved a few jobs but all we got was money moved around.

-- Jim Hoover, Edgewood

Unions were for the old days

There's no question unions were necessary when working conditions were deplorable.

However, allowing unions to strike against a company for their self-serving interests is archaic and our society shouldn't tolerate this action any longer.

I don't know if Boeing's union-workers view themselves as team players, but they shouldn't, since they take their ball and go home whenever they're unhappy. After the strike, the union must work on repairing the damage it has caused.

Are these the actions of employees to be valued? Wouldn't it be better if union employees focused on keeping a company competitive for everyone's benefit?

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton