Boeing worse off than we imagined

[stepwilk]

Business & Technology | Dreamliner's woes pile up | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013713745_dreamliner19.html)

[chrisbl]

No doubt the US military will decide to buy a few wrenches from Boeing for a couple of billion dollars apiece. No subsidies then :E

[rotornut]

Maybe they should have used fabric instead :rolleyes:

[rottenray]

Okay, even though I'm a Boeing fan...

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/19/831183c1-84ba-4eda-be76-4574f66d08c4.png%27%20id=%27_r_a_4277835008http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/19/831183c1-84ba-4eda-be76-4574f66d08c4.png (http://cheezburger.com/View/4277835008)


On a serious note, the article didn't really contain any "news" - it must have been a slow news day...


Cheers!

[6000PIC]

The 787 program is emblematic of American business today. It is built on empty promises , incompetence , disorganisation , lies , greed and a general attitude that past glory ensures success. Lots and lots of lessons to be learned here. Every manager involved in the decision to outsource work to the likes of Alenia and the Japanese should be fired for their total lack of understanding of the world view of logistics in the manufacturing process. I`ve heard several Boeing people say this could doom the company. Time to smarten up America.

[stepwilk]

"On a serious note, the article didn't really contain any "news" - it must have been a slow news day..."

It didn't? So you already knew that the FAA was possibly going to refuse ETOPs certification, which would make the Dreamliner essentially useless?

News to me.

[rottenray]

stepwilk writes:
So you already knew that the FAA was possibly going to refuse ETOPs certification?I wouldn't say I "already knew" it, but it has been discussed here and elsewhere. Doesn't really come as "news" at this point.

Also, for accuracy, the article states:
Hickey, a former Boeing engineer, put Boeing on notice that to get an early ETOPS rating the company will have to do more to demonstrate the plane's reliability, including specifically the reliability of the engine and electrical systems.Bold is mine.

I assume the engine reference is to the T1000 which failed in the test cell. I would assume that RR is working on that issue.

Hopefully, Boeing will be able to model the electrical failure as it happened, as well as being able to demonstrate that the revisions and fixes will prevent that same (or a similar) failure from happening again.


Cheers!

[Machinbird]

And what about "Rain in the Plane". First I'd heard about that problem, but I have to admit not following the 787 program closely.

What is so different compared to an aluminum skinned aircraft to cause condensation. Does the interior structure lag the exterior temperature that much that normal diurnal temperature/humidity fluctuations cause condensation? Or is it something else?

[The Hitcher]

Perhaps in retrospect they should not have been so damming of airbus and their delays getting the 380 in the air...........

[stepwilk]

"I would assume that RR is working on that issue..."

RR is working on the reliability of the electrical system?

The T1000 I can understand, but the rest of that is--again--news to me.

Sorry, but as a writer--though not a "journalist"--I react badly to the all-too-common snark, "Must have been a slow news day." Should the reporter have left out of the article any reference to the ETOPs situation because "It had been discussed on PPRuNe?

[NWSRG]

I'm struggling to remember Boeing being damning of any A380 delays...in fact, I seem to remember Boeing staying quiet on the issue. They did state that they did not see a market for the A380 (something which may be proving true), but that was nothing to do with programme delays. And they also congratulated Airbus on first flight of the A380...

These two companies are like BMW and Mercedes, or Coke and Pepsi...big competitors but mutually respectful. Commercially, there will be no disappointment in either camp at the others suffering, but they both understand the technical pain the other is going through with the respective programmes.

Boeing will get through this...it will be costly, but the 787 will ultimately be a successful machine. And remember, the technical pains of the 787 will be gains when it comes to designing and building the 797 (whatever that may be)...they won't make the same mistakes twice, and will have all the experience of the new technology in the 787 to refer to.

[rottenray]

stepwilk writes:
RR is working on the reliability of the electrical system?I hope not! I was referring to the T1000 issue:
I assume the engine reference is to the T1000 which failed in the test cell. I would assume that RR is working on that issue.
Sorry, but as a writer--though not a "journalist"--I react badly to the all-too-common snark, "Must have been a slow news day."Wasn't intentionally being snarky, but typically these large, highly re-captuary articles don't get written when there is a lot of breaking news to be covered...



Machinbird writes:
And what about "Rain in the Plane". First I'd heard about that problem, but I have to admit not following the 787 program closely.This popped up a few weeks ago...
Even without the fire, Boeing almost certainly would have postponed the initial delivery to Japan's All Nippon Airways, slated for February, as it scrambled to prepare the 787 for commercial flight, sources close to the program said. Among its concerns: meeting Federal Aviation Administration certification requirements and resolving a series of nagging problems like "rain in the plane," condensation that dripped and pooled on some flights.Chicago Tribune, December 4th (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-12-04/business/ct-biz-1205-787-delay-20101204_1_dreamliner-teal-group-richard-aboulafia)

As far as why, I'm not an expert - but the A/C on the 787 is a different type than the typical air cycle packs. My understanding is that this A/C doesn't cool the air as much (read that as "any more than necessary") so perhaps it introduces a little too much humidity in some cases.

Best to find and fix now, rather than later!



NWSRG writes:
And remember, the technical pains of the 787 will be gains when it comes to designing and building the 797True words indeed.


Cheers!

[The Hitcher]

It must be costing boeing a fortune in compensation for the horrendous delays the airlines are suffering.

more gloom.. Business & Technology | Analyst: Boeing's hopes fading for tanker win | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013612153_tanker07.html)

Only right, its a far better option

[fdcg27]

The 787 program was actually built on a new model for Boeing, one which has had mixed results.
Boeing has built an airliner or two over the years, and likely knows how to complete a program.
The 787 program as planned was probably too much, too soon.
A new aircraft, of new construction, with new systems, as well as a number of risk-sharing partners who were given significant design and manufacture engineering responsibility was probably more than Boeing should have attempted.
Hindsight is twenty:twenty, as they say.
There is no doubt that the 787 will fly in commercial service in 2011, and will prove to be a long and sucessful program.
There is also no doubt that Boeing will learn the lessons of this program.
Neither greed nor lying were ever a part of the program, so I'm not sure where you are getting your lines from.
Let us know for whom you are speaking.

[chiglet]

to outsource work to the likes of Alenia

Who build parts for the Eurofighter Typhoon [including composite parts], so where's the problem?

[rottenray]

fdcg27 (http://www.pprune.org/members/221353-fdcg27) writes:
The 787 program was actually built ...[shortened]... are speaking.Very, very true - and I commend you for speaking coolly and with wisdom.

If Boeing is "guilty" of anything, it's optimism.

When the dust settles, the 787 will turn out to be at least as good as advertised but probably a bit better.

Until EIS, we just have to wait.


Cheers!

[Skipness One Echo]

Boeing bet the company on the B747. They won. People who whinge and moan from the sidelines need to remember that business is about inverstment choices and managed risk. Hands up who thinks they could do better?

[Massey1Bravo]

And what about "Rain in the Plane". First I'd heard about that problem, but I have to admit not following the 787 program closely.

Condensation and 'rain in the plane' is somewhat common with normal aircraft, especially during descent when flying in hot and humid days. What's unusual in this case is that although the 787 is designed for higher air humidity, it is highly dependent on electrical supplies which don't really like water.