An additional quote from the "letter never sent" (except to the OIG):
As you can see from the above, Engineering is doing as corruptly directed in the vast majority of cases. They likely have to. No organization wields more power at BCAG than Manufacturing. And Manufacturing has tried and true ways to get what they want, no matter how it affects the quality and safety of our airplanes. Inspector A won’t buy the garbage? Let Inspector B "look" at it—they’ll buy anything! Mission accomplished. They could use that same tactic on Engineers. Engineer A won’t change the inspection witnessed critical torque to merely a "mechanic only" "calibrated arm" torque? Let’s take it to Engineer B. Or Engineer A’s boss, or his bosses boss. Eventually Manufacturing will get what they want, right (very seldom) or wrong (almost always). Hopefully, as I asked you to do, whomever in your office must approve these changes is casting a very critical eye over them, as you know from my report that they are being done for all of the wrong, corrupt reasons. You make us comply with the inspection witnessing critical designated torques. What does BCAG QA Management do? Apologize to you and state they will eagerly comply from now on, ad infinitum? No. They intentionally drag their feet on compliance until they stall just enough to delete the type design data that requires such witnessing, without any "non-value added" witnessing of those formerly critical torques begun that would have "caused disruption and delays" for their "customers" (bosses) in Manufacturing. It’s too bad corrupt BCAG Management is only focused on Cost and Schedule and keeping "value added" organizations like Manufacturing, that solely focus on those two goals, happy. It would be nice if they looked beyond their own corrupt, selfish interests to the interests of our real customers—the airlines—and the passengers that entrust their lives to our airplanes.
The Last Inspector