Case Analysis

The Aviation industry is a highly formally structured industry, where nothing is left to chance. All the
decisions are taken in a structured manner after careful evaluation along with proper documentation
and support. Needless to say it's a highly capital intensive industry and with lives at stake, its
responsibility only increases.
The Problem Analysis here consists of can be done on two grounds- Stakeholders and ethical
issues.
Stakeholders
The Following are the stakeholders in this case.

 McDonnell Douglas represented by its managerial body

 Convair, the contractor
 Airline Companies
 The public
 FAA.

The relations between McDonnell and Convair were unidirectional: There are several indications to
this in case like-

 McDonnell Douglas decides, Convair carries out the decided actions.

 In case of faults Convair suffers the additional repair costs.
 Convair is forbidden by contract to contact the FAA.
 Convair has the design details of the Boeing door(successful and robust)

Ideally, this relation should be that of a cooperation, so that more informed decisions should have
been taken.
Again, there seems to be a Gentleman's Agreement between FAA and Mc Donnell, as it was
favoured by the authorities till the time situation detoriated further.
The Public also was unaware at large that they were putting there lives at stake by flying there
DC10. They trusted FAA and NTSB, who had the fiduciary responsibility to keep a check on the
safety issues. But they also failed in this.

Ethical Issues
The pertinent question is,Given the forseebility of the safety risks and hazards involved, should the
DC-10 be decided fit to fly and be put into commercial service?
The ethical aspects can be viewed from following perspectives

 Public safety :- In aviation industry, public safety is always a concern, but here it was not a
priority and was totally overlooked later despite several indicators
 Responsibility towards company
 Responsibility towards the public:- Not evident in case
 Responsibility towards the client:- Responsibility as per contractual obligation only was there.
 Trustworthiness:- the product DC 10 lost this after subsequent accidents and Mc Donnell only
did minor changes rather than attending to problem.
 Professional integrity and reputation:- It is evident but very Weak.
 Respect of codes of ethics- Here, no where it is evident that any ethical code was followed. It
seems like contractual obligations took priority over everything.

As Mr. Applegate, the Director of Product Engineering was very well aware of the situation, he
should have acted as an whistleblower and should have blown the situation to Public and
authorities.

What should McDonnell Douglas have done?

The company should have been more proactive in seeking technical advice and assistance from
Convair to treat the root of the problem.