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

Will Boeing Become The Next McDonnell Douglas?

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

Will Boeing Become The Next McDonnell Douglas?

Old 23rd Feb 2021, 18:03
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 150
Todays news on the B787 wasnt all that good....appears that Air Lease has about had it...

ALC tells Boeing to get its house in order."We want Boeing to … get its house right, to get its house in order. The 787 delays are impacting us, as well as the rest of the delivery, the manufacturing process. Boeing has gone through a tremendously difficult time and while they certainly have made a lot of progress, the blunt truth is we need them to fix the remainder of their house first before we have any interest in talking about new aircraft.”

787 issues ‘mushrooming’

While ALC cited both the previous issues with the MAX and the ongoing problems with the Dreamliner products as headaches it is tired of dealing with, Plueger noted that the 787 is by far the most pressing issue now. He said, “It’s clear that the production issues that have arisen on the 787’s seemed to have mushroomed, and there’s just greater and greater levels of inspection going on due to the non-conformity findings.”

The issue, he said, is not so much that the 787 is undergoing inspections which are impacting operations and deliveries of the type, but that there seems to be no clear path out of the situation. He continued, “It is difficult to see a definitive fix that is agreeable by the aviation authorities going forward.”

He noted that, because the issues raised with the current fleet of 787s are very difficult to fix, the only way forward will be to ‘use-as-is.’ He said this would mean engineers and authorities agreeing that the machining issues on the Dreamliner fleet do not negatively impact safety and therefore the aircraft can be flown regardless."

Air Lease noted that the ongoing delays to deliveries of the 787 mean some are now passing the 12 month contract period for pain-free cancellations of the order. Although none have yet, this does open the door for Boeing customers to bolt from their contracts without penalty. Plueger noted,

“This has been dragging on longer than any of us have imagined. In fact, I don’t think Boeing has delivered a 787 to anyone since the end of October. So we have … a number of aircraft waiting, and yes, some of them are coming up on their 12 months, and some have already passed the 12-month point past delivery.”

The last thing Boeing needs now is a swathe of cancellations for its widebody product. As such, ALC is hoping that a resolution to the ongoing Dreamliner issue is reached sooner rather than later."
turbidus is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 20:02
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,418
Sarcasm re 707 v 787...but it's true that I won't fly on a 787 precisely because of the fact that they have Li ion batteries. I would avoid flying on the Max too because I just don't really trust Boeing anymore to do the right thing, whatever that entails.
Pugilistic Animus is online now  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 20:08
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,461
These were mounted inside a fireproof steel box with some overboard exhaust. Just in case. Nothing can happen due to that battery anymore.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 20:54
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,418
​​​​​​Did they test the steel box? Serious question. The Li ion reaction when it runs away is hot! mean it's an exothermic reaction that is pyrotechnics hot. it's definitely hot enough to melt steel.
Pugilistic Animus is online now  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 21:09
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,223
First off, they didn't simply put the battery in a steel box - the entire system was redesigned. The battery was redesigned with increased isolation between the cells to prevent a cell failure from propagating to adjacent cells, the charging system was redesigned to ensure there is no overcharging (which can damage battery cells), and then - just to be sure - they put the battery in a steel box.
And yes, they did a test where they intentionally failed a battery - creating a complete battery meltdown - inside the steel case and confirmed it performed as advertised.
BTW, Airbus had every intention of using Li Ion batteries in the A350 before Boeing ran into problems - at which point they decided that there was too much risk and went with an older battery technology.
tdracer is online now  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 23:31
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 7
Well the military is already done with the f-22 and f-35 they have tried to bled boeing dry to get a cheaper solution and they didnt.
The 737 is the so called cash cow of boeing but is it really ? All parts are outsourced now anyway only boeing puts it together.
So drop the whole 737 and focus on a clean sheet design someone else can keep making 737.
The battery issue on the 787 was stupid but they use the same batteries in tesla's and laptops and know they know to shut down charging when a cell is overheating

maxxer1977 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 03:31
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 265
td: I believe the battery box was tested only for one cell failure - not all cells - because, as you said, they showed cell failures won’t propagate. Are you sure they showed the box good for all cells burning?
Dave Therhino is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 08:22
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 32

The A350 switched to Li Ion batteries about 5 years ago.
Ben_S is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 18:04
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,223
Dave Therhino

Going strictly from memory here, but yes I think they intimated a failure of the type that had occurred previously - i.e. a complete meltdown, not a single cell.

Ben S - interesting - I hadn't heard that.

BTW Maxxer - there are so many errors in your post I won't bother to correct all of them, but:
Boeing is not involved in F-35, a subcontractor on the F-22. Boeing still builds nearly 50% of a 737, and LI batteries in computers and Teslas have spontaneously combusted - sometimes in spectacular fashion...
tdracer is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 19:30
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1

Maxxer1977 said:

"drop the whole 737 and focus on a clean sheet design"

The boat sailed with the A320 in the 1980s and Boeing missed it.

Boeing are not fools but it will take a better team than the 787 bunch to come up with a world beating single aisle.
osborne is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 23:31
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,223

Boeing started working on a clean sheet single aisle in the early 2000's (I had friends working on it) - but when Airbus launched the A320 NEO it caught Boeing far from ready to proceed. Had Boeing committed to the clean sheet 737 replacement, it would have meant conceding the single aisle market to Airbus for about 10 years (not just longer to market, but years get the production rate up to ~50/month) - hence the decision to rush the MAX into production.
As for all the issues with the 787 - it's still outsold the A350 by a wide margin, with nearly 1,000 delivered.
tdracer is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 23:39
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 69
Posts: 434
In a context of 787 when compared to A350 is there any meaning, any significance, in asking whether the innovations of the 787 make some difference in the long run? Wasn't the use of composite structures much more extensive in the design than in anything previous? And the passenger cabin a more comfortable environment?

I recall a one-off report in AW&ST in early 1976 entitled "Aerospace Materials" which contained extensive reporting about composite materials, then presumably less advanced than at the time the 787 design was completed. If the level of innovation present in the Dreamliner is not significant, I'm ready to plead biased memory.

Of course the production glitches and the deeper problems they reveal or at least suggest aren't reduced or minimized by the designers having innovated to get there.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 00:03
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,732
WillowRun 6-3

Absolutely not. The worst flight I ever had was just before lockdown, a BA 789 overnight Washington-London. In Economy, 9 across (not designed for this of course). Front row so tray table in armrest instead of drop in front, taking another inch off seat width. "Window" seat (haha, no window in sight), with the sculptured cabin wall bulging inwards at head height just there for the exit door frame covering, forcing me to sit slanted. Could only eat the meal alternately with pax sat next to me, we could not both manipulate knife/fork at the same time. Never encountered anything like it before, and intend to avoid it in future where at all possible - including different carrier if needed.
WHBM is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 01:10
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,223
You do know that the cabin configuration is selected by the operator, not the manufacturer.
The 787 was designed for 8 across seating coach seating - and the 777 for 9 across coach seating. It was the airline bean counters that insisted on 9 and 10 across, respectively.
If people would shop based on value and comfort instead of ticket price, we wouldn't have this problem.
tdracer is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 06:21
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 140
Not too much surprising when we know that the A350 deliveries started six years after the B787 ones.
Bidule is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 07:02
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 189
There is some limited truth in this - by choice, for example, I would fly a carrier offering an A380-only service long haul. But the routes with this choice are limited (and now declining!)

In almost all other contexts you'd have to ask how easy is it for a customer booking advance to know what equipment will be used on a route on a given day? The most obvious variable presented at time of purchase is price, differences can be substantial and not correlated in any transparent way to seating except in re economy v. business classes. Pax are not given the ability to make the choice you suggest.

As for 'value' - well that term refers to a subjective judgement for which the divisor IS price.
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 10:41
  #37 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,075
The 747-8 program has now ended so they will have to account for the Multi Billion dollar shortfall between what was spent on the program and what Boing realized
Not sure 'Multi Billion dollars' is fair in this case as much of the B747- 800 R & D was carried forward from the -400 series and the B747, as an aircraft, was an overall success for Boeing. I doubt very much that whatever losses Boeing may have suffered through the -800 programme come anywhere near the catastrophic losses Airbus must have suffered from the failure of the A380 programme, which never came close to breaking even.
parabellum is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 11:41
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,732

Having made the outward journey on an A380, light years away in comfort, I can tell you that the fares charged on the two BA flights per day, one of each type, were identical.

And the A380 is certified for 11-across 3-5-3. Nobody however has done it. Same bean counters presumably. And if you would care to look at the marketing material the two manufacturers produce, you will see that the A380 sales team proposed as normal the original A380 seat configuration, while Boeing moved on very rapidly to making the 9-across their standard offering for seat-mile cost examples. And it was Boeing, not the operator, who designed that cabin lining bulge around and behind the door, extending to squish the ears of the passengers sat in the first seat row. I think you will find that was not a customer-selected option.
WHBM is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 13:21
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 184

This is not strictly true, the Boeing marketing people made lots of commitments to airlines that the 787 would deliver a particular seat mile cost at 8-abreast in Y. Airlines bought the plane and factored it into their business models on this basis. However as it turned out after the development fiascos those commitments could only be met if an extra seat per row was added.

If all airlines cared about was the absolute lowest cost in Y then there would be hundreds of A350s with 3-4-3 down the back, whereas in actual fact there are only a couple (with Air Caraibes).
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 13:36
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 69
Posts: 434
Regrettably my earlier post proves (again) that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ..... I seem to have recalled that Boeing claimed the 787 cabin interior would be more comfortable with regard to humidity, noise, and perhaps some vague sense of overall comfort, compared to earlier types--but I hadn't realized anything about the seat/row configurations. Sorry to have messed this up.

Although perhaps asking for another kick, ....what about the extensive use of composite materials and structures?
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.