FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this piece was interesting. I am suspicious of the journalistic content but it was a nice recap of modern Boeing history and business practice.
The journalistic content is mostly from anonymous sources and rumours. I am not convinced that the 787 work force would be subject to any more - or less - drug use than the average factory work force. If ten out of 15 people would not like to fly with the 787, I am curious as to why. What, exactly, is it that makes the production workers unwilling to fly? The answer from the "documentary" was "we build them to sell": now, what does that mean? Questions like that was never answered.
I also spotted some creative editing moments especially in the Boeing interview. Tbh, the Boeing PR dep could have managed that interview much smoother than they did though.
To sum up: A nice overview of Boeing company and structure, but don't expect any ground breaking news or earth shattering journalism.
The journalistic content is mostly from anonymous sources and rumours. I am not convinced that the 787 work force would be subject to any more - or less - drug use than the average factory work force. If ten out of 15 people would not like to fly with the 787, I am curious as to why. What, exactly, is it that makes the production workers unwilling to fly? The answer from the "documentary" was "we build them to sell": now, what does that mean? Questions like that was never answered.
I also spotted some creative editing moments especially in the Boeing interview. Tbh, the Boeing PR dep could have managed that interview much smoother than they did though.
To sum up: A nice overview of Boeing company and structure, but don't expect any ground breaking news or earth shattering journalism.
Boeing responds
Boeing press release:
In its statement, Boeing said, "We have not been afforded the opportunity to view the full program, but the promotional trailer and published media reviews suggest that what has been produced is as biased a production as we have seen in some time. It is unfortunate that the producers of this television program appear to have fallen into the trap of distorting facts, relying on claims rejected by courts of law, breathlessly rehashing as 'news' stories that have been covered exhaustively in the past, and relying on anonymous sources who appear intent only on harming The Boeing Company."
The remainder of the statement reads:
"When first contacted by the producers, we accommodated in order for them to produce a fair and objective report, including facilitating factory access, interviews and providing full and open responses to their questions. The 787 is an outstanding airplane delivering value to our customers, but we also have talked candidly in public about its challenging development process. There are no tougher critics about our early performance than Boeing.
"Unfortunately, the outsourced reporting team appears to have chosen to take advantage of our trust and openness and abused their position from the outset by deliberately misrepresenting the purpose, objective and scope of their planned coverage.
"This specious production appears to have ignored the factual information provided by Boeing and instead based the majority of its reporting on unnamed sources pursuing their own agendas and a disgruntled former employee engaged in a legal dispute with Boeing. In one instance, the producers resorted to ambush tactics typically seen only in tabloid-style TV news. Anonymous sources the TV program depends on are clearly working with those who seek to harm Boeing and its workers. They appear to have no real interest in truth, safety or better informing the public.
"Even on-the-record sources seem to have changed their stories for the producers. For example, then–Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace President Cynthia Cole said this in a news release about the 787’s first flight: 'Today’s flight is a testament to the skill, hard work and diligence Boeing employees put in to get this airplane ready to fly. Boeing returned to engineering, and that’s what made today possible and successful.'
"Instead of an objective view of the 787’s development, viewers and our employees will see a television program that is neither balanced nor accurate in its portrayal of the airplane, our employees or our suppliers. This program and those involved with it do a disservice to the hard-working men and women of Boeing and our supplier partners who designed and build the 787.
"Furthermore, the program presents a false impression of Boeing South Carolina and the quality of work performed there. Airplanes, whether delivered from South Carolina or Washington state, meet the highest safety and quality standards that are verified through robust test, verification and inspection processes. Our data of the current 787 fleet in service show parity in the quality and performance of airplanes manufactured in both locations.”
The remainder of the statement reads:
"When first contacted by the producers, we accommodated in order for them to produce a fair and objective report, including facilitating factory access, interviews and providing full and open responses to their questions. The 787 is an outstanding airplane delivering value to our customers, but we also have talked candidly in public about its challenging development process. There are no tougher critics about our early performance than Boeing.
"Unfortunately, the outsourced reporting team appears to have chosen to take advantage of our trust and openness and abused their position from the outset by deliberately misrepresenting the purpose, objective and scope of their planned coverage.
"This specious production appears to have ignored the factual information provided by Boeing and instead based the majority of its reporting on unnamed sources pursuing their own agendas and a disgruntled former employee engaged in a legal dispute with Boeing. In one instance, the producers resorted to ambush tactics typically seen only in tabloid-style TV news. Anonymous sources the TV program depends on are clearly working with those who seek to harm Boeing and its workers. They appear to have no real interest in truth, safety or better informing the public.
"Even on-the-record sources seem to have changed their stories for the producers. For example, then–Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace President Cynthia Cole said this in a news release about the 787’s first flight: 'Today’s flight is a testament to the skill, hard work and diligence Boeing employees put in to get this airplane ready to fly. Boeing returned to engineering, and that’s what made today possible and successful.'
"Instead of an objective view of the 787’s development, viewers and our employees will see a television program that is neither balanced nor accurate in its portrayal of the airplane, our employees or our suppliers. This program and those involved with it do a disservice to the hard-working men and women of Boeing and our supplier partners who designed and build the 787.
"Furthermore, the program presents a false impression of Boeing South Carolina and the quality of work performed there. Airplanes, whether delivered from South Carolina or Washington state, meet the highest safety and quality standards that are verified through robust test, verification and inspection processes. Our data of the current 787 fleet in service show parity in the quality and performance of airplanes manufactured in both locations.”
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hostage to geographical fortune.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing press release:
Well they would say that, wouldn't they.
So Boeing feel injured by the perverse actions of a TV film crew who abused the openness and trust extended for a news scoop exclusive. ( A TV film crew no less: who would have thought it?)
Now in moral outrage Boeing shout shenanigans. The correct response is to put the documentary on the altar of truth (the scientific method) and rip it to shreds. If they can. I'm looking forward to the on-camera, on-record item by item rebuttal.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: us
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if even NASA (see, e.g., Challenger and Columbia accidents) is not immune to this kind of culture as 'exposed' by this documentary, why do we expect/insist for-profit corporations to do better? The fact of the matter is we can 'uncover' these sorts of thing in all human endeavors. Sadly, it is part of the human condition that we stumble along, repeating the same mistakes because of our inherit (insert-your-favorite-human-frailties-here) nature.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@cvg2iln
The rebuttal you wish for is likely not to happen. Most of the accusations and allegations made in this "documentary" are already known. There -were- battery fires. Li-ion batteries -are- a concern. Factory workers of all flavours includes of course even those who may use or abuse drugs of some kind. We know this already. Zooming in on an exploding battery makes for dramatic TV pictures but these are old news!
What may be of great concern are the allegations of "schedule before quality" but it takes just one more battery fire or one hull breakup to ruin the 787 project for the foreseeable future.
The fact that the CEO used very questionable tactics when presenting the 787 die cast 1:1 model was embarrassing for him and the Boeing workers. I can agree on that. But I still don't see how that is big news that needs to be shoved down your throat. OTOH I hear plastic boobs are all the rage now, this might just the be airplane equivalent to Kardashian coverage? ;-D
The rebuttal you wish for is likely not to happen. Most of the accusations and allegations made in this "documentary" are already known. There -were- battery fires. Li-ion batteries -are- a concern. Factory workers of all flavours includes of course even those who may use or abuse drugs of some kind. We know this already. Zooming in on an exploding battery makes for dramatic TV pictures but these are old news!
What may be of great concern are the allegations of "schedule before quality" but it takes just one more battery fire or one hull breakup to ruin the 787 project for the foreseeable future.
The fact that the CEO used very questionable tactics when presenting the 787 die cast 1:1 model was embarrassing for him and the Boeing workers. I can agree on that. But I still don't see how that is big news that needs to be shoved down your throat. OTOH I hear plastic boobs are all the rage now, this might just the be airplane equivalent to Kardashian coverage? ;-D
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@olasek
Well, sometimes there is the need for anonymousity. The whistleblower in Alaska Airlines (name?) that alerted about their awful maintenance did a huge sacrifice to no avail - I can see why you would like to be anonymous in such an environment!
But in this case, this "documentary" is made up -only- with old news, anonymous sources and rumours paired with anecdotal evidence and overly dramatic footage. This makes for a very questionable content.
Well, except for the part that did a little modern history of Boeing. I found that piece very interesting, about McDonnell-Douglas and the clash between two company cultures. That part I would like to know more about!
Typical journalistic trash.
But in this case, this "documentary" is made up -only- with old news, anonymous sources and rumours paired with anecdotal evidence and overly dramatic footage. This makes for a very questionable content.
Well, except for the part that did a little modern history of Boeing. I found that piece very interesting, about McDonnell-Douglas and the clash between two company cultures. That part I would like to know more about!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hostage to geographical fortune.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What may be of great concern are the allegations of "schedule before quality" but it takes just one more battery fire or one hull breakup to ruin the 787 project for the foreseeable future.
Through the test of time it either flies for two decades and saves numerous operators from drowning in red ink along with safely delivering the payload - or it turns out to be a bridge too far.
Drug testing isn't relevant , neither are bullets fired into batteries. In my backyard I can fire bullets into cans of petrol and the result is very unsafe. But all aircraft have fuel tanks. The problem depicted by this documentary is that of shifting standards of safety and actively overriding the safety inspector's concerns. The motive for doing so ( irredeemably behind a reasonable service date schedule) is well documented.
Last edited by cvg2iln; 12th Sep 2014 at 00:03.
"schedule before quality"
They actually messed that up - the saying is "Quality is King, but Schedule is GOD". Except that is nothing new - we were making that joke at least 25 years ago (and I bet it pre-dates that - it's just that 25 years ago is when I got to a position where I was exposed to it - in of all things a class on "continuous quality improvement").
At some point, schedule drives pretty much everything - if it was left up to the designers we'd never deliver an airplane because the designers never stop perfecting their designs (another old Boeing say - 'there comes a time in every project where it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and start production").
But I've never heard of safety being compromised to meet schedule.
BTW, there is a lot of informed speculation around Everett that the anonymous SC employee that was the source of all that hidden camera stuff wasn't really a SC employee, but one of the union machinists sent down from Everett to help the 'new guys' learn the ropes - and he was specifically trying to make the non-union SC guys look bad
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, there is a lot of informed speculation around Everett that the anonymous SC employee that was the source of all that hidden camera stuff wasn't really a SC employee, but one of the union machinists sent down from Everett to help the 'new guys' learn the ropes - and he was specifically trying to make the non-union SC guys look bad
If anyone saw the video, you dont think they would remember who asked those questions?
It was bad form, if it was a Union member, because Boeing is Boeing, and it reflects bad on Boeing, not any one certain location...
I am certain if one went to Everett, one would find very similar responses from a selection, and many of the same issues.
As far as safety, I would have to call you on that one...the RAT issue on the 787 as an example... but really, the battery never had an issue until delivery?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched it. Agreed with comments made so far, but the part that worries me on the long term is the "self regulating" and political lobby part.( Similar in Europe with Airbus BTW ).
The sentence "It is all OK because the FAA ( or EASA) approved it " , gets a completely new meaning when one realize it is the industry regulating itself and all covered by government officials waiting for their post retirement jobs in the industry.
This is not new, but the program reminds us very cruelly of this fact.
I think one day the industry will dearly pay for this.
The sentence "It is all OK because the FAA ( or EASA) approved it " , gets a completely new meaning when one realize it is the industry regulating itself and all covered by government officials waiting for their post retirement jobs in the industry.
This is not new, but the program reminds us very cruelly of this fact.
I think one day the industry will dearly pay for this.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one day the industry will dearly pay for this.
Self regulation is a very hairy business indeed...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With 80% of the large aircraft market dominated by two "too big to fail" companies, we can be absolutely sure that there is only one who will one day pay : the taxpayer.
After all there is still governmental oversight over the "self regulation", so it is quite clear who will take responsibility and who will pay for it.
After all there is still governmental oversight over the "self regulation", so it is quite clear who will take responsibility and who will pay for it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely spot on, but unlike the banks who were allowed to "self regulate" and subsequently made a mess of things that nearly brought down the entire financial system in 2008, the aviation industry will be slightly different in some fundamental ways;
First of all, a single aircraft crash can not bring down other aircraft in a similar way the financial system is interconnected.
Second, there's always the knee jerk reaction to blame the pilots.
Third, there's the friendly media who barely do any real investigative journalism these days. It would take a monumental amount of effort to uncover any design faults.
Fourth, a single crash will not lead to a systemic collapse in confidence, but the production process is very interconnected. There is a lot of potential there for many countries, on a government level, to keep things swept under the carpet in order to keep jobs and prestige.
Just look at this aerotoxic syndrome as an example. Despite many tests and many cases, it seems to be impossible to get any action done on a regulatory and government level. There is simply too much at stake...
First of all, a single aircraft crash can not bring down other aircraft in a similar way the financial system is interconnected.
Second, there's always the knee jerk reaction to blame the pilots.
Third, there's the friendly media who barely do any real investigative journalism these days. It would take a monumental amount of effort to uncover any design faults.
Fourth, a single crash will not lead to a systemic collapse in confidence, but the production process is very interconnected. There is a lot of potential there for many countries, on a government level, to keep things swept under the carpet in order to keep jobs and prestige.
Just look at this aerotoxic syndrome as an example. Despite many tests and many cases, it seems to be impossible to get any action done on a regulatory and government level. There is simply too much at stake...
The reference to "self regulating" is grossly misleading - one could even say deceiving - of the actual Boeing/FAA relationship. In fact the Al-J program was loaded with statements that, while not technically false, were intentionally misleading. Typical tabloid "journalism" 
I've been a DER (now an AR - but it'd basically same thing) for over 25 years. I doubt any of you have gone through or realize what's involved in a new aircraft certification program (I've been through two and am currently involved in a third) - and although Boeing is now a 'delegated' organization, the level of FAA and EASA scrutiny is higher than ever. While "findings of compliance" can be delegated, Safety and Safety related items are nearly always retained by the FAA and EASA. There are countless Issue Papers, Special Conditions, etc. that all must be closed with the FAA/EASA prior to cert.
BTW, the push to make the manufactures "delegated organizations" came from high up in the government, and is intended to relieve the FAA of certifying 'routine' changes and free them up to focus more on the safety aspects and new technology, both during the certification process and in-service.
I've been a DER (now an AR - but it'd basically same thing) for over 25 years. I doubt any of you have gone through or realize what's involved in a new aircraft certification program (I've been through two and am currently involved in a third) - and although Boeing is now a 'delegated' organization, the level of FAA and EASA scrutiny is higher than ever. While "findings of compliance" can be delegated, Safety and Safety related items are nearly always retained by the FAA and EASA. There are countless Issue Papers, Special Conditions, etc. that all must be closed with the FAA/EASA prior to cert.
BTW, the push to make the manufactures "delegated organizations" came from high up in the government, and is intended to relieve the FAA of certifying 'routine' changes and free them up to focus more on the safety aspects and new technology, both during the certification process and in-service.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elon Musk (of Tesla fame) has invented state of the art battery technology and has knowledge/know how to help Boeing create batteries that would not sustain a fire under any circumstances, and they knocked back his offer of help.
Seems Boeing suffer from "Not invented here" syndrome, and has compromised the safety of its aircraft as a result.
Elon Musk (of Tesla fame) has invented state of the art battery technology and has knowledge/know how to help Boeing create batteries that would not sustain a fire under any circumstances, and they knocked back his offer of help.
You do know that 2 Tesla's have had battery fires in-service, right?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the OP who suggested Tesla batteries said "whatever is the cause of the fire, the batteries in the 787 have proven they are prone to catching and sustaining a dangerous and highly uncontrollable fire. Putting the batteries in a steel box hasn't changed that." So his statement is still invalid.
Also, Elon Musk is a CEO. He is a brilliant guy but he did not invent any batteries.
Also, Elon Musk is a CEO. He is a brilliant guy but he did not invent any batteries.