Just like lines of code, it's a very useful metric.
... As long as you don't do something stupid with it, like using it to evaluate people.
... As long as you don't do something stupid with it, like using it to evaluate people.
When it comes to material goods that dramatically vary in size (ships, planes, bombs), tonnage is usually a good first metric.
On top of a poor personnel culture, Boeing cares more about splitting it's supply chain up around the world (in order to get contracts from different countries) than making airplanes. The scary part of a bad culture is you could fake it with past airplanes, but newer aircraft with lighter composite parts/less parts (which then make each part's integrity more important) there's less wiggle room. Plus with composite, you can't just do a final QA on things and ensure they are good. You have to QA each layer layup, glues, etc. An xray at the end can't really give you the whole picture. I remember friends talking about how a certain (not Boeing) company was experimenting moving composite layup to China and what a cluster that was going to be. They would find razor blades embedded inside and all kinds of FOB crap on the final xrays, and this was on the pre-production showcase pieces.
The general vibe was if you made a shitty product and it got your fellow countrymen killed, someone would track you down and make you pay for it though.