Is 787 done for?

[turbidus]

"SEATTLE/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co will pay $6.6 million to U.S. regulators as part of a settlement over quality and safety-oversight lapses going back years, a setback that comes as Boeing wrestles with repairs to flawed 787 Dreamliner jets that could dwarf the cost of the federal penalty.
Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so, a third industry source said.
The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved, the person said."

The 88 were aircraft constructed, but not yet delivered. Boeing has not delivered a 787 since October. Then there are the aircraft already delivered to consider.
What about the 787 line...has that been indef stopped?

Air Leasing was saying they are trying to come up with a solution that regulators can agree to for delivered aircraft...that is likely a reduction in MTOW....That alone will probably involve even more compensation to the airlines...

Ouch!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-exclusive/exclusive-boeing-faces-faa-fine-and-a-much-bigger-787-repair-bill-sources-idUSKBN2AP2SL?il=0&source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Anews%7Csecti on%3Amain_content%7Cbutton%3Abody_link

[BlankBox]

...first on the agenda should be scrapping the Dreamliner moniker...

[BRE]

Those M$ 6.6 barely pay for a stabilizer on one 787. What kind of fine is this, especially compared to what banks are fined?

[Magplug]

It is alleged that the new Boeing plant in Charleston SC was purposely set up with local non-unionised labour and a minimum of personnel (and expertise) from Seattle in order that costs could be kept to a minimum. Fast-forward to mid 2020 and airlines start refusing deliveries from the plant on quality grounds. There have been with allegations of poor workmanship, internal damage to structures, build swarf & debris found inside assemblies and pressure on employees not to report safety violations.

Business is..... whatever you can get away with. When you allow companies to regulate their own safety - This is what you get.

Why Are Airlines Refusing 787s From Charleston S.C.

[turbidus]

This is not a problem with the assembly...it is a problem with the manufacture of the parts. The pieces did not fit together properly, no matter built in Everett or Charleston.
If it takes a month to fix each aircraft, and almost 900 have been delivered???

The latest I heard was rather than repair, they are trying to get a reduced MTOW...that should go over well...

[Momoe]

Forget the total delivered, 88 airframes affected.

For a company trying to rebuild their reputation, this isn't good. Still trying to get my head around why it took 88 airframes (and probably external pressure) before this was flagged, how big is the QC dept at Boeing?

[appleACE]

Boeing shares extended losses in the final hour of trading, closing down 5.6%, after Reuters first reported the settlement with the Federal Aviation Administration over the planemaker’s failure to comply with a 2015 safety agreement.The penalties include $5.4 million for not complying with the agreement in which Boeing pledged to change its internal processes to improve and prioritize regulatory compliance and $1.21 million to settle two pending FAA enforcement cases.

“The FAA is holding Boeing accountable by imposing additional penalties,” FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement.

Boeing paid $12 million in 2015 as part of the settlement.

Wow so Boeing was investigated over safety in 2015 but got off with a $12 million slap on the wrist and a safety agreement, but then ignored the agreement. So now the FAA is giving them an even smaller $6.6 million penalty as if that is going to change their behaviour?
$19 million spread over six years is pocket change to Boeing.

[atakacs]

I think you missed the part where it stipulates that the fine has to be paid from the personal account of the executives...

🤔

[turbidus]

Forget the total delivered, 88 airframes affected.

For a company trying to rebuild their reputation, this isn't good. Still trying to get my head around why it took 88 airframes (and probably external pressure) before this was flagged, how big is the QC dept at Boeing?

It will affect ALL 787...It started out with 9 that were in service, with an issue with a tail section shim. They were able to quickly repair 8 of them, but then found other problems with the 9th one.
Boeing then stopped further deliveries of the aircraft in October. ALL 787 manufactured from that point on were not delivered.
Upon further inspections, they found issues with all of the fuselage section joints.
This is not an issue with joining, but an issue with the manufacture of the parts. Doesnt matter where joined, the parts are the issue.

Currently, they are trying to figure what to do...so far it looks like using them "as is". This means the ones in service will likely have a reduced MTOW.

how big is the QC dept at Boeing?

Therein lies the rub. Since inspections were going so well with automated testing equipment, BA petitioned the FAA to reduce the number of inspectors needed. and were successful. The laid of hundred of inspectors.

[etudiant]

Surely the lack of inspectors is not the source of the problem, but rather the inadequate quality of the parts being produced.
Why did the 'automated testing equipment' fail to inform the operators that the product was deficient? Perhaps it did, but management opted to ignore the message.
Guess the virtue of having inspectors is that they may blow the whistle, unlike the 'automated testing equipment'.
Ianal, but is there not a clear cut case for corporate malfeasance here?

[Jonty]

You have to wonder what’s going on at Boeing!
the B737MAX issue, the B777 engine and other issues and now the B787.

[armagnac2010]

Let's say it is much easier to see unlatched fan cowls than badly sized shim in a composite structure, the original subject of this thread.

I wonder if the MTOW limitations will be permanent or temporary, pending a rectification work party.

$$$$$ or $$$$$$$$$$$

[osborne]

"You have to wonder what’s going on at Boeing! the B737MAX issue, the B777 engine and other issues and now the B787"

There's a plague of 'B's changing the product names, that's what .

[Big Pistons Forever]

The key to identifying a problem is not the “what” it is the “why”. The “why” sadly is the broken corporate culture at Boeing. 20 years of prioritizing short term profit over engineering and production excellence is at the root of this problem, just like virtually every other Boeing failure.

The shim issue wasn’t caught until many flawed aircraft were produced because Boeing successfully argued with the FAA that a computerized QA process could replace the work of 220 QA personnel. This move was wholly designed to reduce costs and appeared to be implemented without, and boy does this sound familiar; a full risk analysis and over the objections of mid level management.

Another triumph of clueless MBA bean counters in the C Suite being penny wise and pound foolish. Sadly I think the rot is so deeply entrenched in the DNA of Boeing that it is too late to fix the company as it is currently organized.

[Joejosh999]

Was there ever a more stark comparison between the construction of the 777 and the construction of the 787?
The 777 was the last airframe built under the old Boeing engineering culture.
Then they succumbed to the MD culture, outsourced all their knowledge capital...and Boeing’s own engineers won’t let family fly on the 787.

A very sad, but instructive tale.

[krismiler]

We don’t see these sort of issues with Airbus, there were problems with wing cracks on the A380 a few years ago but I can’t recall anything significant since. The A350 has been relatively trouble free and the A320 family soldiers on in its latest form.

Boeing seems to have lost the plot after the first generation B777.

[fdr]

Long time since it was a topic, but my recollection is that for a bonded joint, the insertion of mechanical fasteners reduces the effectiveness of the adhesive bond. The fasteners provide component keying for alignment, but that is possible by keyways in the components. The addition of mechanical fasteners would presumably localise stresses from imperfections in the mating surfaces which could be removed by a bedding epoxy fill as is done in moldless fabrication. Curious. Re A380.... the demise of the fleet removes the question as to how long it will take to have GLARE compromised by interstitial corrosion events. The material is dependent on keeping moisture out from the fastener holes through the multilayered material.

[Joe_K]

Why did the 'automated testing equipment' fail to inform the operators that the product was deficient? Perhaps it did, but management opted to ignore the message.


We know this much: "the flaw arose when “software notification designed to alert when a shim exceeded the maximum thickness per engineering specifications was not being used.”"

From https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/eight-grounded-boeing-787s-were-built-last-year-rework-on-more-jets-may-be-needed/

[Less Hair]

How many of their commercial programs are left being profitable?

[etudiant]

Joe_K

BigPistons noted above that Boeing was able to eliminate inspectors based on persuading the FAA that automated testing would do the job.
Perhaps they did not also promise the FAA that they would actually use the automated testing. That oversight cannot be blamed on the bean counters at Corporate in Chicago.
Seriously, the rot here goes pretty deep.

[esscee]

Nearly all of Boeing's problems over recent years has been cutting costs, some may say "corners", to save money and improve the company share price. FAA needs to do its functions properly and if it cannot/will not then legislation needs to put through for the FAA providing the law/rules/manpower/cost to do so. Apart from B747 and B777, most other aircraft programmes have had problems and some far more serious then others.

[Hartington]

I'm tempted to suggest the problem isn't Boeing but the USA. My ex employer (software) was much more interested in the cost of a program than the outcome.

[hoistop]

Unfortunatelly, this type of thinking has spilled over to this side of the Pond too - that is what worries me. Just look at Smartwings single-engined flight across half the EU and many more of similar. I can only keep fingers crossed that EASA will not go the FAA way, but... almost all of the CAA job was already transferred to industry - Quality managers and internal auditors are pretty much doing what CAA used to do, CAMO organizations performing Airworthiness inspections and issuing ARC - all perfect opportunities for cost-cutting, shares/incentives increasing oriented management.

[etudiant]

esscee

That seems fairly easily fixed, just raise the cost of failure. The problem is that failure has become the cheapest option, which wrongly sets the corporate incentives.
If any crash automatically incurs a $1 billion penalty, safety would attract the kind of loving scrutiny that engineering oriented companies are happy to provide while also keeping Wall Street on board.

[Less Hair]

They pay the costs of two program setups now. The problem seems to be those costs are high enough to hamper new program financing. The longer they wait the more expensive this gets already.
What they need is a serious long term investment and product strategy which they had before. Like reuse existing 787 technologies for NMA and NSA or whatever they call new small widebodies and the 737 follow on.

[568]

Also additional costs with delays and other issues hinder new R&D.
I would like to know if Boeing has even "broken even" on the 787, which I doubt.

[Less Hair]

Not yet it seems. The current shims issues and new delays will not help it but on the long run it should be fine. But this Dreamliner created financial gap seems to be what halted their smart project Yellowstone family.

[Alty7x7]

..and Boeing’s own engineers won’t let family fly on the 787.


Do you have a source for this claim?

[tdracer]

568

Published numbers say that Boeing would break even at ~1,500 deliveries - which BTW is about what they currently have on the order books.
The current problems will no doubt affect those numbers, but again published reports say that - pre-pandemic - Boeing was netting over $20 million per 787 delivery. So not exactly the black hole that some have suggested.

[Chris2303]

Alty7x7

It was widely quoted at the time that an engineer from Charleston would not let his family fly in one built in his factory

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/boeing-safety-issues?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

[568]

TD,
Thanks for the answer.
Up until the pandemic Boeing was making good headway with 787 and MAX sales. The unfortunate closing of international borders due to Covid and the MAX accidents obviously hurt Boeing, customers, suppliers et al and this obviously includes Airbus.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Reporting in Wall Street Journal for March 18 print edition and on website now states that FAA has taken over the final airworthiness inspection duties for four 787 aircraft prior to delivery.

First two paragraphs of news item (byline, Andrew Tangel):"Federal air-safety regulators have stripped Boeing Co.’s authority to inspect and sign off on several newly produced 787 Dreamliners, part of heightened scrutiny of production problems that have halted deliveries of the popular wide-body jets.

"The Federal Aviation Administration said its inspectors, rather than the plane maker’s, would perform routine pre-delivery safety checks of four Dreamliners that Boeing has been unable for months to hand over to its airline customers while it grapples with various quality lapses."

Article also states that WSJ had reviewed an FAA summary dated March 12 of its regulatory actions. And that "the agency said it would hold on to its Dreamliner approval authority 'until it is confirmed all shimming issues are resolved and airplanes conform to the FAA-approved design.'”

Whether or not this adds or detracts from basis for viewpoints about whether the 787 is "done for", SLF/atty here does not know.

[SerriaFireFly]

the 78 may be okay yet. In these times it may find a use as the larger aircraft are now too big for their roles.
That said the 78 is increasingly a damaged good in comparison to something like A330NEO.
If Boeing do the 79 project, it'll likely take out the lower end 78 and the upper end 73. But we shall see, they have to keep giving the airframes away

[FullMetalJackass]

etudiant

The question would then become a legal battle as to who was liable for this penalty with the airline trying to prove it was the fault of the aircraft whilst the manufacturer going hell for leather proving it was human error as to what brought it down - the pilots will always be the losers.

I'm shocked to read that Boeing were fined in 2015 yet continued on, pretty much as previous and the current fine is still significantly lower.... reminds me what an astronaut was reportedly to have said when asked how he felt about going into orbit:

"How would you feel, knowing you are going to be blasted into space, in a rocket made from hundreds and thousands of components, all built to the lowest possible price".

Seems that Boeing has lost its way in it's determination to chase $$$ rather than excellence....

[etudiant]

Agree entirely to all of the above.
However, I think if there is a big disincentive for potential liability, it would change behavior for the better.
Right now, kill a few hundred non US passengers, liability is at most $1MM per head. That needs to change, stat.
What we need is serious ambulance chasers in the commercial air transport sector such as we had in US general aviation.
Admittedly, they also killed that industry in the process...
Is learning possible in this business??

[Big Pistons Forever]

I would suggest we at an inflection point for the 787 program. Continue the deny, obfuscate, dissemble strategy which to date is Boeing’s go to plan for dealing with all their F* Ups, or get serious about addressing the production problems, especially at Charleston.

So far it is not looking good. We now have 4 programs that are unlikely to hit production break even, 737 Max, 747-8, KC46, and now the 787.....

[ZFT]

It would be somewhat surprising if the Max didn't turn a profit. Despite the problems, the orders are not insignificant.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The 737 Max program budget was 3 Billion. The Max’s cost to this point is an estimated 17 Billion to settle all claims against Boeing and get all the grounded Max’s flying. They have also lost almost 1000 orders plus they are in a very cost competitive market and are undoubtedly going to have to offer an extra price incentive on new orders given the fact that it is damaged goods.

Bottom line it is hard to see how they can ever generate enough per unit profits to ever hit break even. It is important to point out that before the Max crashes the 737 Max program was setting up to be a massive cash cow for Boeing and was going to fund the NMA and 777X programs.

The only bright spot for Boeing is supporting the legacy 737 fleet. They used to do well on the wide body side too, but a lot of that legacy fleet is now in the desert and unlikely to fly again as well as representing parts that Boeing won’t be supplying.

[etudiant]

Thank you, Big Pistons, your post highlights the real costs of Boeing's management failures most effectively, in language Wall Street can understand.
Sadly I've not seen a similarly succinct summary in any of the Street analysts reports. Guess no one there wants to bite the hand....

[GrandPrix]

Big Pistons Forever

Don't forget the pickle fork cracks on NG 73s.
Matters not what the cost to Boeing is. The American taxpayer will be paying corporate welfare for years to the largest military supplier.
Move along move along. Nothing to see here.

[WillowRun 6-3]

News reports today indicating production problem detected involving forward pressure bulkhead. Appears reasonable to ask to what actual extent this new problem with the 787 is the same in nature as previously reported problem with joinder of sections of fuselage -- Wall Street Journal article today indicating similarity, two key paragraphs follow.

"The new problem surfaced on part of the aircraft known as the forward pressure bulkhead at the front of the plane, people familiar with the matter said. It involves the skin of the aircraft and is similar to a previously disclosed Dreamliner issue found elsewhere on the planes, one of these people said. It surfaced as part of the FAA's review of Boeing's quality checks on newly produced undelivered planes, this person said.
The new problem hasn't raised any immediate safety concerns, but engineers at Boeing and the FAA are trying to understand the defect's potential to cause premature fatigue on a key part of the aircraft's structure, people familiar with the matter said."

As Danny Kaffee says at one point in the Hollywood movie, A Few Good Men, "And the hits just keep on coming."