Dan Rather Reports - Boeing 787 composite concerns (1 of 4)

it's not plastic, thats what they want you to think, this video is probably paid for by a rival of boeing. composite is a blend of two materials, it similar to an alloy

After posting this video I came to the conclusion that Boeing engineers would not put profits over safety. The design team, mechanics, and executives at the company have children also and I highly doubt they would put their kids on an aircraft if composite structures are really this fragile. The entire tailplane of the 777 is made of composite as well and no serious issues have developed in the 14 years it has been flying. Boeing really needs to get this plane off the ground and soon.

All very true, this report is just a bunch of fear mongering as usual by the media.

A conclusion of safety based on conjecture about the moral or ethical positions of decision makers (not engineers) at Boeing ? Let me see you bet your kids life on that. eg; Private sector solid rocket booster engineers, were over ridden by their corporate managers, when they recommended NASA go for launch with challenger. That turned out to be a business decision.

Challenger turned out to be a NASA decision. The O-Rings were manufactured by Thiokol, a privately held company in Alabama. Rockwell didn't become a Boeing subsidiary until 1996, 10 years after the Challenger disaster. Boeing had nothing to with the loss of the Space Shuttle. Please get your facts straight.

Get your own facts straight, my reference to the challenger disaster was an example of careers and schedules before human life. The decision to launch turned on a THIAKOL recommendation. Preidential Commision Testimony showed that NASA's Lawrence Malloy told THIAKOL manager Lund to put his managers hat on and not his engineers hat. Malloy pressured Lund and Lund gave Malloy the answer he sought.He ignored his engineers. This example could easily apply at Boeing or anywhere else.

The fallacy with your argument is that NASA is a government entity, not a business. It can't be sued out of existence. If 2 or 3 787s crash due to Boeing putting profit ahead of safety then it's very likely we'll all be flying on Airbus in the future. It makes no sense for executives to put the entire company at risk simply for short term profit. If you think Boeing doesn't have the moral fiber to deliver a safe plane then the financial risks should push Boeing down the right path.

your whole argument comes down to a conclusion for good corporate behaviour based on, 1) A Moral Ethical judgement with no clear precident. 2) A market driven incentive as a definite predictor, in an age when CEO's with golden parachutes are filling our skies. Ideologies are not explanations.

"in an age when CEO's with golden parachutes are filling our skies." Generalizations of corporate behavior steeped in cynicism are no more valid as an explanation.

You call me cynical.I prefer guarded.currently manifesting trends in corporate behavious support my position.