General question here regarding quality control and various brands. Gibson=parent company, Epiphone is the "minor league" player. How much does the QC at the parent company affect the quality at the "minor league" level? If Gibson stresses high level QC, does that filter through to Epiphone or are they pretty much separate companies from a practical perspective? Fender/Squier? Same question. Godin/Seagull? Any others?

Are there any instances where TERRIBLE guitar companies own GOOD guitar companies?

The folks at EG and guitarists from all over the Internet often talk about how Gibson has shit quality control and how people are better off with a lower end Epiphone. That's just people talking, though, so there ya go.
Free Ali
I don't think quality control carries over from Gibson to Epiphone. They're made in separate factories, and they don't even have interchangable parts, which is weird considering they're based on the same designs. This leads me to believe that the parent brand doesn't really interfere too much.

Often with the asian-made guitars, one factory makes guitars for several different brands, which makes it kind of difficult to enforce separate QC standards. I guess the parent company just chooses a factory that they consider reliable and lets the sub-brand handle QC themselves.
That is pretty much what I figured as well, sashki. Separate factories= separate production facilities with different production (and QC) managers. I was wondering if there are QC guidelines regarding production. If Gibson tells Epiphone to improve QC....would Epiphone tell them to take a flying leap? Probably, if what we think is the case, lol.
I'd imagine their decisions are influenced by profit rather than quality. They won't say "improve your QC", they'll say "you didn't meet the earnings target last year. GET ON IT" and leaves epiphone to deal with the sweatshops in whatever way they see fit.