Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dreamliner's woes pile up
The Seattle Times ^ | December 18, 2010 | Dominic Gates

Posted on 12/19/2010 8:27:52 AM PST by buzzer

As Boeing prepares to announce yet another delay for the 787 Dreamliner — at least three months, possibly six or more — the crucial jet program is in even worse shape than it appears. The problems go well beyond the latest setback, an in-flight electrical fire last month that has grounded the test planes.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 787; aerospace; boeing; dreamliner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
It seems that boeing won't have enough time in the near future to build the new tanker. They gotta fix this thing first.
1 posted on 12/19/2010 8:27:56 AM PST by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: buzzer

For those knowledgeable, a question:

Were these problems birthed on Mulally’s watch
or did they occur after he left for Ford?


2 posted on 12/19/2010 8:32:04 AM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

...and they also have the 737NG thingy hanging over their heads due to the possibility that it is flying under specs it doesn’t meet due to a sub-contractor hand-making parts instead of machine-making. And it is possible that sub-contractor was using illegal alien labor as well.

=8-)


3 posted on 12/19/2010 8:38:30 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

I think it all started when MD bought Boeing with Boeings money.


4 posted on 12/19/2010 8:38:30 AM PST by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buzzer
Is the Boeing tanker project based on the 787? (I'm too lazy to look).

And if so, did Boeing know it and try to bribe the Air Force into accepting what is increasingly beginning to appear to be a pile of crap?

5 posted on 12/19/2010 8:39:20 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

There’s only two kinds of plastic, .........


6 posted on 12/19/2010 8:39:44 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buzzer
"With the Dreamliner nearly three years overdue — and a postponement of the mid-February target for first delivery expected to be announced by Christmas"
7 posted on 12/19/2010 8:45:08 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=
It's not as if Boeing doesn't have lots of experience in building commercial airliners...so, what the heck is going on here?
8 posted on 12/19/2010 8:48:59 AM PST by JPG (A new sheriff is on her way and she's ready to cleanup Dodge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

“Is the Boeing tanker project based on the 787?”
No it’s based on the vintage 767. But lazy B will need every engineer they can get to get the 787 into service.

“And if so, did Boeing know it and try to bribe the Air Force into accepting what is increasingly beginning to appear to be a pile of crap?”
I don’t have evidence, but my belive is, that: Who ever will loose the current tanker competiton had at least a couple of good friends at the DOD and/or at the USAF to mix up the paperstuff, so they have a good reason to protest.


9 posted on 12/19/2010 8:49:16 AM PST by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Sheese, it seems our aeronautical industries are going down the chutes to sewerland. With the stupid problems with the F-22 and the ongoing idiocy with the JSF we now have a design and manufacturing force equal to a “chinese fire drill”.

The once unequaled industry has fallen to inept engineering and the worldwide outsourcing theme.


10 posted on 12/19/2010 8:50:53 AM PST by biff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buzzer
Looks like Boeing's computer models work about as well as the IPCC's. Hope they get it ironed out.
11 posted on 12/19/2010 8:51:56 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

“Looks like Boeing’s computer models work about as well as the IPCC’s. Hope they get it ironed out.”
Who ? Boeing or the treehuggers ?!? :-)


12 posted on 12/19/2010 8:56:21 AM PST by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

No mention of the labor trouble from the local press.


13 posted on 12/19/2010 8:58:22 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Is the Boeing tanker project based on the 787? (I'm too lazy to look).

And if so, did Boeing know it and try to bribe the Air Force into accepting what is increasingly beginning to appear to be a pile of crap?

No and yes. :)

14 posted on 12/19/2010 8:59:15 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Computers make cool Power-Point presentations for the suits to show each other. Actual design of an airplane? Maybe humans should do it. The DC-3, designed by humans nearly 80 years ago is still flying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3


15 posted on 12/19/2010 8:59:29 AM PST by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

someone needs to be fired for such a disgraceful delay


16 posted on 12/19/2010 9:06:21 AM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

It all stems from the obstacles the labor union placed in the path:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_46/b4155034784354.htm


17 posted on 12/19/2010 9:07:13 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

One of the main reasons that Boeing has had the problems is the way they conceived how they were going to build the plane to begin with.
Why in the Hell would you want to have different locations laid out all over the world planning and designing, then try and assemble the plane the same way?
It would have made more sense and cost less money to have had the whole operation in one place and to communicate in one language.
Whatever person or persons thought up this Logistics Nightmare should be fired.


18 posted on 12/19/2010 9:07:42 AM PST by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckworth

You’re right. Assuming Boeing ever gets the 787 into mainstream service, and assuming the DHS and TSA ever back off their idiocy enough that I decide to fly again... I wouldn’t fly on a 787 for oh, 5 to 10 years - until they get the bugs ironed out.


19 posted on 12/19/2010 9:11:25 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: duckworth

The B-52 is still apparently a functional weapon delivery system after 50 or 60 years. Amazing.


20 posted on 12/19/2010 9:15:15 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: biff
With the stupid problems with the F-22 and the ongoing idiocy with the JSF we now have a design and manufacturing force equal to a “chinese fire drill”.

If Boeing is being managed like GM, Chrysler, AIG, Merril-Lynch, and all the other examples of poor management, I'd say this was a problem that took time to bubble up to the surface. And it is probably a BIG problem that goes deep and wide by the looks of it.

Many managers are given power based on connections, MBA's, or lower positions being vacated because the manager was so bad and the people talked them up to get rid of them. Others are promoted because of Affirmative Action.

Especially in complex detailed process and procedure oriented industries with high liability products, managers should be promoted from within based on real demonstrated management skills and familiarity with the product, procedures, and processes.

After all, management can screw everything up. In the 1980's, that was actually a goal of managers. Companies would hire management from a dissimilar industry and expect the toy maker manager to run a mining machinery making company. Then the managers would intentionally create chaos and say that "chaos is good". Then they would bail out after 3 years.

I know nothing about Boeing or their management, but it is a hunch.

21 posted on 12/19/2010 9:18:06 AM PST by SteamShovel (Beware the RINO-VIRUS...It will kill the TEA Party movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Read the comments to the article (many from insiders and ex-Boeing people) to get a broad sense of everything that is dysfunctional inside Boeing — Management, outsourcing, RIFing the team that built the last aircraft, HQ in Chicago, new factory in South Carolina.


22 posted on 12/19/2010 9:22:54 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Didn’t a lot of the design work go to a Russian outfit ?


23 posted on 12/19/2010 9:28:45 AM PST by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
Read the comments to the article (many from insiders and ex-Boeing people) to get a broad sense of everything that is dysfunctional inside Boeing — Management, outsourcing, RIFing the team that built the last aircraft, HQ in Chicago, new factory in South Carolina.

Still...If it ain't Boeing...I ain't going!

24 posted on 12/19/2010 9:29:30 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

They don’t call it the Lazy ‘B’ for no reason. At least they have enough government work they won’t go broke like with the 747 fiasco.


25 posted on 12/19/2010 9:31:46 AM PST by italybub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteamShovel

I completely agree and will throw in about engineering. Our engineers coming out of school are entirely nursed on computers. A computer is a nice tool but it does not replace common sense and creativity. It should just be a tool to aide engineering.

Just to think back when the US was the world leader in aerospace. We put men on the moon from essentially zero knowledge and experience to success in 9 years. To repeat the same feat today they say 20 years or so? Well, I hope I don’t have to wait for them to re-engineer the pencil.

Boeing may “lose the farm” on the 787 bet. They have rolled the dice before such as the 747 and won. Today may be a different story. Will the Chinese buy the remnants of the greatest aircraft manufacturer has ever seen for a song and a dance?


26 posted on 12/19/2010 9:48:39 AM PST by biff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
I like the first POD RACERS.


27 posted on 12/19/2010 9:48:57 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Not much different from what has happened to all of our industries in the past 15 years...including big dot.com business...

1. Newer generations of management are in charge. They see all that capital lying around and can’t help but wonder how to get it into their personal pockets - as opposed to using it to refurbish the business’s productions methdods, facilities...etc...

2. The same management sees all the “necessary” expenses that occur as part of operations for quality control and regulatory compliance purposes - and beleives them to be “unnecessary” and tries to treat them as any other regular expense via outsourcing, cutting corners, substituting material and specs, etc...

3. The same management lobbies government as a big business with lots of pocket money that needs “proctection” from competition, suits, investigations, etc. When the lobbying is successful - the government does exactly that.

The problem here is, when an airplane “falls” out of the sky or breaks into major sectional pieces even in the most minor runway overuns, people die.

=8-)


28 posted on 12/19/2010 9:49:22 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: biff

Actually you are wrong about the zero knowledge part.

Once of the misconceptions about the early space program succcess was that the funding provided during the 60s put folks into college who then graduated and came out and put the Apollo on the moon.

22 year olds didn’t build our space program - 30, 40, and 50 year olds with existing degrees - the vast majority of which payed their own way through college - did. Quite a few were imports from Germany shortly after WWII when the Allies moved in.

In other words - we didn’t go from zero knowledge.

=8-)


29 posted on 12/19/2010 9:55:01 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

The distributed and outsourced supply chain is not the problem. Look at Airbus they do it this way since 40 years. Boeing simply tried to copy but failed, because they missed the most important point: “You can outsource manufacturing and assembly but you never ever outsource engineering.”


30 posted on 12/19/2010 9:56:17 AM PST by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: buzzer
My engineering friends to a man, and all are, vow over and over the worse thing that has happened to American technical production is MBA's in management.

Even ex-engineers who have become MBA's have diverted their focus.

31 posted on 12/19/2010 10:01:54 AM PST by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

True

The F-16 was produced worldwide with various sections of the airframe, wing, and cockpit divided among several nations tightly with tight coordination. It was slow and difficult intially - but eventually picked up working out the bugs and surpassed 2000 units.

=8-)


32 posted on 12/19/2010 10:03:41 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
I'm back...

VISA and MasterCard? [ducking!]

33 posted on 12/19/2010 10:06:55 AM PST by Petruchio (I Think . . . Therefor I FReep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buzzer
“I think it all started when MD bought Boeing with Boeings money.”

I'm dying for an explanation on this one.

34 posted on 12/19/2010 10:10:58 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
I wonder if that pic is of the fuel leaking. ;-)

Definitely a cool plane, but not in service - likely because of not wanting to show up more "modern" designs.

35 posted on 12/19/2010 10:16:41 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

I found it! I think I found the problem! It’s the globally-distributed manufacturing model.


36 posted on 12/19/2010 10:17:13 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteamShovel

Part of Boeing’s problem, well, a large part IMHO, is that, not only are their machinists unionized, but most of their engineers!

If that were not the case, Boeing would not have attempted to outsource so much of the Dreamliner’s build around the world.


37 posted on 12/19/2010 10:26:23 AM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=

I was not talking about that. What I meant was going to the moon or space flight had never been done before. Virtually all of it was engineered and build from point zero.

No, I am not wrong.


38 posted on 12/19/2010 10:47:12 AM PST by biff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=

Thanks for that.


39 posted on 12/19/2010 11:08:39 AM PST by JPG (A new sheriff is on her way and she's ready to cleanup Dodge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: buzzer

Boeing is farming this project out all over the world.
Hate to say it but had they simply kept it in Washington state it would have gone much smoother.


40 posted on 12/19/2010 11:20:23 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Says a lot about their maintenance program.


41 posted on 12/19/2010 11:22:14 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: biff
"What I meant was going to the moon or space flight had never been done before."

Uh, I think Buck Rogers did it a few decades earlier.

42 posted on 12/19/2010 11:29:44 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
"Says a lot about their maintenance program."

I think there may have been at least a couple of upgrade programs too.

43 posted on 12/19/2010 11:32:03 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I have a sneaking suspicion they are having big problems with the integrity of the composite fuselage.


44 posted on 12/19/2010 11:34:32 AM PST by TruthFactor (The Death of Nations: Pornography, Homosexuality, Abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthFactor

I read that they had some issues assembling the “big” pieces. The “rain in the plane” doesn’t sound too good either.


45 posted on 12/19/2010 11:38:31 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TruthFactor

I understand that they made the first ones with the old modeler’s trick of using enough force to bend the parts to get the edges to match up, and then strong enough glue to hold it.


46 posted on 12/19/2010 11:43:56 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

As part of their maintenance program, each or the B-52’s have been taken apart and put together better.
Each part has a time limit and it is replaced.
Still an incredible flight machine.


47 posted on 12/19/2010 12:07:24 PM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: biff
"No, I am not wrong."

Of course you are wrong.

Building a hybrid car is very technical, uses lots of new technology and engineering. But it still is just a modification and extension of those who invented engines, vehicles, etc.

The Apollo program was certainly the same, NOT a start from zero.

48 posted on 12/19/2010 12:56:52 PM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=

You’re correct.
Without “our” Germans it would have taken a lot longer.


49 posted on 12/19/2010 1:01:39 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

“Why in the Hell would you want to have different locations laid out all over the world planning and designing, then try and assemble the plane the same way?”

Reminds me of the Tower of Babel!!

BTW - I think part of the reason was cost (to avoid our high union labor wages), and also to get promises of orders from the countries that they subbed things out to.


50 posted on 12/19/2010 1:10:52 PM PST by 21twelve ( You can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust ... another lost generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson