Quote:
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
What is good with all of this is that there are many that want change. Lets not worry about the minutia and worry about making a commitment to do it. Once we get the commitment from the rank and file we can then start to work on all of the details.
Heyas ACL,
Right you are.
Strangely, everyone seems to like to point out the epic fail the 787 program has become. Why? Well, everyone seems to think that "see, that's what you get when you outsource".
In this case, Boeing outsourcing "core competencies"...IE, outsourcing what they themselves do best. Along with that is the loss of job opportunities at Boeing, which, no doubt, pay well and have good bennies.
If the current employees and Boeing sat down and said "Hey, lets all get together, and work out a deal where we can bring everything in house. The company gets a better (and perhaps a more timely) airplane and a better process, and the employees win by getting more people employed".
Most of us on forum would probably cheer this decision, and say something to the effect of "about f'in time".
The ONLY people not cheering, would be the owners of the outsourcing contractors, and perhaps their upper management, who would shortly be taking it in the shorts because their business just went "poof". The employees, the guys doing the work, would probably be OK, since they have actual job skills that are transferable.
So here we have virtually the same situation. DAL WANTS to bring back flying in house, because DCI is not good for "the brand". It's only going to take another Rochester to force the government to do something, and that's something the airlines certainly don't want.
But we have a couple of "middle management" types from the outsourcing contractors here. They see their comfy sinecure potentially disappearing, and it's got them worried. They've made little or no effort to have a plan B, and so if Initech goes bust, they might be SOL because Intertrode doesn't have a need for people with "people skills".
Nu