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

Is 787 done for?

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

Is 787 done for?

Old 25th Feb 2021, 22:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 149
Is 787 done for?

"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-b...on%3Abody_link
turbidus is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 00:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada/Malaysia
Age: 80
Posts: 129
...first on the agenda should be scrapping the Dreamliner moniker...
BlankBox is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 06:06
  #3 (permalink)  
BRE
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 223
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?
BRE is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 08:25
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 430
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.

Magplug is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 11:58
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 149
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...
turbidus is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 14:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 62
Posts: 299
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?
Momoe is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 16:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Age: 29
Posts: 44
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.
appleACE is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 16:14
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 1,704
I think you missed the part where it stipulates that the fine has to be paid from the personal account of the executives...

🤔
atakacs is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 18:07
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 149
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.
turbidus is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 23:18
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 957
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?
etudiant is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 13:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 705
You have to wonder what’s going on at Boeing!
the B737MAX issue, the B777 engine and other issues and now the B787.
Jonty is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 19:44
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In an ivory tower
Posts: 22
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.

$$$$$ or $$$$$$$$$$$
armagnac2010 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 16:35
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1
"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 .
osborne is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 17:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 4,005
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.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 17:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 67
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.
Joejosh999 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 23:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,176
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.
krismiler is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 00:31
  #17 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 901
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.
fdr is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 06:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 169
I now see Boeing losing out to Comac within 10 years across much of Asia.
CW247 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 07:58
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
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/busines...may-be-needed/

Joe_K is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 09:40
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,302
How many of their commercial programs are left being profitable?
Less Hair is online now  

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.