Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

787 Dreamliner production concerns

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

787 Dreamliner production concerns

Old 22nd Apr 2019, 04:37
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Sorry Gordon, but your post is almost a non-sequitur (and I notice your post altered what I quoted in my post). Which aircraft is 'better' is a matter of opinion and debate based on a number of factors - seat mile costs, dispatch reliability and overall reliability, overall cost of ownership. In an era where the vast majority of ticket purchases are based on little more than price, the operators probably don't care that much that the A350 might be more comfortable for the passenger (I have little doubt the 787 passenger experience would be much better if most operators had kept it at the 8 across seating it was really designed for, but then you have to go back to that part about purchase decisions being based on price). BTW, do you have a source for your claim that the 787 sells for 10-20% less than the comparable A350?

What I specifically was responding to was this:
It appears A350 sales are starting to accelerate
which is demonstrably false. In fact, net announced orders for the A350 so far in 2019 are negative (-4 to be specific) while Boeing shows 38 net orders for the 787 so far in 2019. Despite the continued trashing of the 787 by some posters on this form, it's clear that the operators are in fact rather happy with the aircraft and ordering more - to the extent it's outsold the A350 by a factor of 3 to 1 over the last 30 months.
I don't have any data on passenger cost per seat mile, I was merely pointing out that upfront capital costs may have something to do with the difference in sales volumes. The difference in year of first introduction into service (2011 vs 2015) also makes a difference, but I left that out of my comment, since I thought that was obvious to all concerned. Any chart that starts from zero, with a different base-date, will have dips and peaks in growth.

I quoted exactly what the original comment read, since the forum does not copy multiple quoted text:
Originally Posted by B772
It appears A350 sales are starting to accelerate and may in fact be an overall better aircraft than the B787. Passenger satisfaction levels for the A350 are greater than the B787. Watch this space !!!
If you chose to selectively quote only part of that original comment, to advance a narrow argument, and ignored the rest of the context, then you are playing with semantics, and missing the point entirely in your response to me, and to the original poster. I stand behind my comment. Its fine for you to disagree...
GordonR_Cape is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 07:18
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CW247
Noise. They are noisier than a 4 engined 20 year old A340 as a pax (seated right over the wing) which is a shame because on the outside they whisper comparitively speaking. Conclusion therefore is that cabin noise damping is lower standard
I've noticed exactly the same thing, for a modern aircraft, they are certainly very noisy in the cabin....
Dee Vee is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 12:14
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,397
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
tdracer. Airbus has in excess of 927 orders for the A350 with 38 gained during March 19. Keeping in mind the B787 is being produced on 2 production lines and sold cheaper than the A350 I have no doubt the B787 will win the sales race.
B772 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 12:56
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by cattletruck
We had a project where the entire budget was blown on project managers and nobody was engaged to do the actual work.
You could try doing it the other way round - spend 0p on project managers, call the resulting chaos "agile", and see how much you deliver on spec, on time and on budget!

(Answer: actually you don't fail to do these things, because there wasn't any spec and there wasn't any plan.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 13:01
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well the 787 RR engine issues are still a major problem for the operators. Boeing and in fact the US in general have turned into a total cesspit of aviation and country respectively.

I would rather step foot on an aircraft made by a certain Russian manufacturer than onto a Boeing ever again. Fortunately I fly Airbus.
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 15:04
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Answer: actually you don't fail to do these things, because there wasn't any spec and there wasn't any plan
Or no one believed in the plan and fanciful ideas of the clueless management in the first place
Superpilot is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2019, 21:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
  • VNAV mode (especially on descent) The system just doesn't know how slippery the aircraft is and provides some woeful descent profile calculations. To think this got past testing defies belief.
and according to FAA and Boeing, it can still be a CAT C!

Smythe is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 04:32
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lost in Space
Posts: 277
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Sidestick_n_Rudder
You guys forgot to add 787 engine issues. RR’s fault, but still affects Boeing airplanes.
and GE engines. .........
t_cas is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 13:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,397
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I see Japan Airlines has just taken delivery of their first A350 which also happens to be their first ever Airbus. If it were not for the problems Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airlines experienced with the early B787 deliveries I have no doubt Japan Airlines would have remained a loyal Boeing customer.
B772 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 14:19
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CW247
Just some random observations by someone who has flown the 787 as a pax and for a short while as a pilot.
  • Toilet seat lids falling down mid-peeing session. This is a consistent problem across airlines and independent of turbulence.
  • Humidity improvement? Really? Flown as a pax in equal measure on A330s, A340s, 777s. I didnt notice any difference.
  • IFE screens that don't tilt. Virgin and Norwegian have the same problem. Are there any that do tilt? Pax in front tilts seat. Tough luck with the viewing angle
  • Noise. They are noisier than a 4 engined 20 year old A340 as a pax (seated right over the wing) which is a shame because on the outside they whisper comparitively speaking. Conclusion therefore is that cabin noise damping is lower standard
  • Cup holders on the flight deck. Rediculously short in height, in moderate chops of 5 minutes half the tea/coffee has fallen out.
  • Turbulence in general. The flaperons move for sure but whether or not this helps turbulence is a highly suspect claim IMO
  • Yoke clip springs. Impossible to put a note of paper using the clips provided. So weak and ineffectual. Who provided such rubbish to them?
  • Scratches on the internal and external surfaces of the windshield! When a surface scratches this easily you know it's a pretty cheap material. Unbelievable this. We have 6 month old aircraft with so many scratches caused by the wipers (on the outside) and a combination of things (including the mind boggingly stupid idea of using a hard metal wire frame based sun shade) on the inside. I have flown 25 year old A320 on their original scratch free windshields.
  • VNAV mode (especially on descent) The system just doesn't know how slippery the aircraft is and provides some woeful descent profile calculations. To think this got past testing defies belief.
All in all, some wonderful ideas but poorly executed and lots of evidence of cost cutting wherever you look. Boeing have failed on getting the basics right.
Absolutely agree with every point. Especially the VNAV. What an absolute joke. I'm completely certain they slapped the B777 software in and called it done. Very dicey when starting descent from above FL40, will quite happily take you into excessive rates right into Mmo. You can compensate with lower speeds or earlier descent. So why exactly is it even there? Then the speedbrake message comes out, because apparently after multiple years in service it's just too hard to tweak the software to operate correctly to account for the need for drag. It's to the point where I just fly it in manual modes with the calculated path as a rough guide. No problem, but again, how is this proffered by Boeing engineers in 2019 with a straight face? But then when you ask most line engineers what some fault means, they just shrug. They have no idea either. Do a reset, sign the tech log, kick it out the door. "Solved".

I would also add to your list the cursor-driven FMC. Slower and more fiddly than what it replaces yet considered progress. And plasticky, cheap-feeling finish to...everything. Cockpit sunshades same as they give away as promotions at Tesco, says it all.

Incredible really that this is what a couple hundred million buys and is sold as state of the art. Feels more like cheap, gimmicky ****. Complete with water-cooled electronics, like some kid's overclocked gaming computer.

But hey, you can auto-program SLOP in now. So there's that. And the HUD is...cool I guess?

The ultimate example of when a magnificent brand is destroyed by corporatism. Never thought I'd live long enough to see a Boeing product referred to by colleagues as a flying trash can.

Last edited by nolimitholdem; 16th Jun 2019 at 14:29.
nolimitholdem is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 14:56
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dee Vee
[re Al Jazeera doc] Most poignant is the bit where the factory workers on the production line say they wouldn't fly on it!
I found the 32-year-veteran Boeing aeronautical engineer declaring that SHE had been avoiding the 787 pretty thought-provoking.

Originally Posted by 20driver
[...] Given no hull loses or fatalities you can't really fault the safety record. [...]
Dunno. If you have a bunch of drug-addled employees installing fasteners any old way and this going unregarded owing to deadline pressure, does it have to have immediate consequences? Would it be noticed on a D-Check? Could it be that one fine day the Charleston-built ones start falling from the sky?

Originally Posted by B772
I see Japan Airlines has just taken delivery of their first A350 which also happens to be their first ever Airbus. If it were not for the problems Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airlines experienced with the early B787 deliveries I have no doubt Japan Airlines would have remained a loyal Boeing customer.
When was the last time JAL purchased a non-American aircraft?
VFR Only Please is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 14:58
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by nolimitholdem
But then when you ask most line engineers what some fault means, they just shrug. They have no idea either. Do a reset, sign the tech log, kick it out the door. "Solved".
You must have some pretty crap lineys then. The second part of your statement sounds exactly like the 787 fim. Do the system test, if it passes it was an intermittent fault. Return to service. Some tests even tell you to run the test more than once if it fails

Agree with most of the sentiments though. The cabins are dreadfully built. Windscreens are made of cheese and those sun visors need burning. I have to disagree on the noise though having done recent flights on 744 346 773 the 787 is leagues quieter. Although not at quiet as the 388.
Yeehaw22 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 15:06
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by nolimitholdem
Absolutely agree with every point. Especially the VNAV. What an absolute joke. I'm completely certain they slapped the B777 software in and called it done. Very dicey when starting descent from above FL40, will quite happily take you into excessive rates right into Mmo. You can compensate with lower speeds or earlier descent. So why exactly is it even there? Then the speedbrake message comes out, because apparently after multiple years in service it's just too hard to tweak the software to operate correctly to account for the need for drag. It's to the point where I just fly it in manual modes with the calculated path as a rough guide. No problem, but again, how is this proffered by Boeing engineers in 2019 with a straight face? But then when you ask most line engineers what some fault means, they just shrug. They have no idea either. Do a reset, sign the tech log, kick it out the door. "Solved".

I would also add to your list the cursor-driven FMC. Slower and more fiddly than what it replaces yet considered progress. And plasticky, cheap-feeling finish to...everything. Cockpit sunshades same as they give away as promotions at Tesco, says it all.

Incredible really that this is what a couple hundred million buys and is sold as state of the art. Feels more like cheap, gimmicky ****. Complete with water-cooled electronics, like some kid's overclocked gaming computer.

But hey, you can auto-program SLOP in now. So there's that. And the HUD is...cool I guess?

The ultimate example of when a magnificent brand is destroyed by corporatism. Never thought I'd live long enough to see a Boeing product referred to by colleagues as a flying trash can.

What a tale of woe. The VNAV won’t like descent at .85 because it considers its to close to the barbers pole, it always seems to do .838 in the descent so straight away you get “ drag required”. Just start descent 10 miles earlier or up 838 in the cruise just before descent. Hardly taxing is is it ?


incidentally it’s “ chop “ not “ chops” . OP must be from Denmark / Holland as they always refer to turbulence as a measure of a pork dinner.
Meester proach is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 22:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Meester proach



What a tale of woe. The VNAV won’t like descent at .85 because it considers its to close to the barbers pole, it always seems to do .838 in the descent so straight away you get “ drag required”. Just start descent 10 miles earlier or up 838 in the cruise just before descent. Hardly taxing is is it ?


incidentally it’s “ chop “ not “ chops” . OP must be from Denmark / Holland as they always refer to turbulence as a measure of a pork dinner.
Nope, not taxing but you serve my point well - it's just too hard to account for the wing's characteristics in the software? Don't seem to hear many of my AB colleagues with similar complaints, much as it pains me to admit. I didn't even mention the bizarro logic of reducing thrust and pitching down when already far below profile and the addition of thrust when high and fast.

Line techs were (still are, I left) Boeing GoldCare. Freely admitted that many of the obscure fault messages were a mystery to them. To be fair, some of those have since been solved with software updates.

Like the Max, Boeing sells this thing as catering to the lowest common denominator pilot but some of the most basic functions of VNAV are crude at best, just plain wrong at worst. Not an issue for those who understand energy management but in the hands of the many magenta line children out there it's a recipe for tears eventually.
nolimitholdem is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 22:18
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Normalisation of Deviance.

Dianne Vaughan explains how systemic failure saw NASA launch an orbiter it knew was not safe on that day. The result the Challenger loss.

These changes occur an increment at a time.
Nobody thinks their particular corner cut makes the difference.

It begins with endless focus on reduction of cost. Drilled into them at the business school, out they flow with economic orthodoxy. They continue the relentless cost reduction, bonus culture and eventually that permeates everywhere.
Customers of the aircraft, consumers of airline product, managers, pilots and even engineers all hearing the same beat of the drum.

Bit by bit margins are reduced.

Boeing has far bigger systemic problems than the share price.
Rated De is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 05:28
  #36 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VNAV PTH descent:Probably "cut and pasted" from 777 FMC software algorisms, so that explains the lack of understanding (software program) of the "wing design" on the 787 and the differences VNAV has on wing efficiency, betwixt 777 and 787 (both wing designs are super brilliant).The same applies to the 747-8 (over speeds on VNAV PTH descent) leading to VNAV SPD and the impending VMO/MMO!
568 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 13:32
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/business...7-safety-fears
...so, in an aircraft with a history of fires, having a faulty fire suppression system isn't a grounding issue?

Boeing "put passenger safety first" - doesn't sound like it so far this year.
OpenCirrus619 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:01
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
It's by far the worst commercial aircraft currently flying for radio faults that I've noticed at least. Screeching/howling blocking the pilots transmissions or at least making it very difficult to read them, radios getting jammed on one frequency, radios giving up entirely so alternate needs to be used.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 02:49
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,397
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
It appears EK are going to cancel their order for the B787 and go with the A350-9. Announcement to be made after the conclusion of the Paris Air Show.
B772 is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 03:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by B772
It appears EK are going to cancel their order for the B787 and go with the A350-9. Announcement to be made after the conclusion of the Paris Air Show.

part of their escaping some of the remaining 380 orders..
ironbutt57 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.