Titanium Plates: A Look At The Latest 787 Dreamliner Issue
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2021
- A new production issue impacting the 787 Dreamliner program has surfaced at Boeing. Reported in mid-October, the plane builder says some titanium parts in some planes built over the last three years are not as strong as they should be. Let’s take a look at the latest issue with the Boeing 787...
Article link: simpleflying.com/boeing-787-t...
Video sources:
787 Air Canada Production assembly • Building Air Canada's ...
787 Assembly timelapse • Boeing's 787 Dreamline...
787 Etihad • Boeing 787 - Air to Ai...
787-9 Air France Air to Air • Le Boeing 787 Dreamlin...
787 El Al in the making • Building EL AL's new ...
787 Vistara • The Making of Vistara’...
787-8 Kenya Airways • Kenya Airways Dreamlin...
787 Oman Air • OMAN AIR I
Leonardo • Leonardo Aerostrutture...
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our second RUclips channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
A *real* 'focus on quality' begins BEFORE manufacture, not after a bunch of product is in customers hands. It is becoming increasingly evident the Boeing has lost the idea of Quality Control.
Even tho it’s the suppliers fault not Boeing’s but ok
So you obviously have a major problem with every auto manufacture in the world to then.
Oh come on !!! When a supplier issue parts they are taken to be at the specified tolerances , they are not all tested again !
Look on the bright side, at least they know before a plane drops out of the sky !
@@justplanecrazy5575 Boeing is the manufacturer, so yes, it is Boeing's fault. Their QA should have picked this up before the parts were used.
@@jennyjohn704 no. It’s not their fault. It’s the suppliers fault. They didn’t produce the parts like usual, and only found out afterwards. If Boeing were to inspect and test every part they get, not only would it make production times sky rocket but it would make the price of the aircraft go through the roof too. And don’t try to say “hur dur Boeing is being cheap by not testing” because going off that logic, airbus are being cheap too. And every car manufacturer in the world are too.
This only works when the FAA isn't Boeing and Boeing isn't FAA.
Unfortunately it is coming out more and more that that sort of regulatory capture is chronic in the USA and I don't see how the FAA is going to exit being a Boeing subsidiary given the problem is rife across other sectors too.
Dont forget... EASA is Airbus Airbus is EASA too
Also dont forget... airbus are also using these parts from Leonardo !
The problem with the FAA is they need power to prosecute and enforce legislation/legislate. If an airline or manufacturer doesnt want to comply with the FAA recomendations they dont have to.
@@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi In what dream did you conjure that idea up? They can ground an aircraft industry with one email if they need to.
I remember a phrase I heard years ago when I toured the Boeing plant in Everette, WA.: “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going.” I am beginning to think it should read, “ If it IS Boeing, I’m not going.”
If it IS Airbus, I am going. :)
@@uhhhwhat918 Scarebus.
@@goyetero hello 737-max
@@alvinloh9068 Hello A330 stabilizer jamming. Airbus has never been held to the same high standards Boeing is. If it had been, the whole A330 fleet would have been grounded after the AF447, and planes would not have left the ground again until the fixes were made.
@@patrickproctor3462 [held to the same high standards Boeing is] Good radiance.
Part of the reason they're experiencing ongoing issues is that Boeing keeps changing the manufacturing process to reduce cost. Even though all the aircraft are called 787, they're not really the same model as Boeing has been changing materials, manufacturing technique, suppliers, and factories over the years.
Given it was the first composite body aircraft of all time, the rapid iteration and improvements were to be expected. The De Havilland Comet was a long time ago, but let's not forget the incumbent Aluminum designs had 60 years of refinement and optimization of manufacturing. The improvements for composite builds will start coming more slowly as we approach 2030.
On the plus side, those improvements (a lot of weight reduction), put together with eventual CMC PIPs in the GEnx, will result in a craft capable of flying New York to Singapore, whereas the original design pretty much maxed out at Sydney to Vancouver.
The bean counters are in charge.....
Boeing has said that it intends to move the production of all aircraft out of Washington state by 2040. They’ve been saying this since 1995. The planes manufactured out side the Seattle area are of such low quality that the airlines say they have to be essentially rebuilt after they receive them just to be sure that they are safe to fly. Some airlines won’t accept planes not built in Washington at all. Airbus is capitalizing on Boeings quality issues to make sales. Meanwhile, Boeing management continues to make mistakes at a record pace. Engineers used to be in charge. Now it’s accountants and salespeople. Not the best combination for a company whose core function is aviation engineering.
I pray every day that a hurricane wipes out the Scab SC assembly facility. Too many friends thrown under the bus by the Chicago management cabal
Boeing's core function WAS aviation engineering, but its top management and major shareholders decided to change that to profit-making over the past 25 years.
What is fascinating is that Airbus and other manufacturers are able to deliver quality and safety while still having reasonable prices. Boeing has a substantial problem here.
I feel like Boeing’s attempts to save money aren’t actually saving them any money
These problems only started after the 787 manufacturing line left Seattle, because this long string of problems started only after moving to Charleston. I think Boeing should put some serious consideration into relocating the 787 production line back to Washington because evidently quality control didn't move cross country with production.
Not to be overtly political, but Washington isn't exactly a business-friendly US state. There may be viability issues with remaining there.
Boeing is too keen on lining investors’ wallets instead of ensuring quality and safety. They won’t move back to Washington. Everett employees are unionized.
@@VisibilityFoggy That's what the original post said. What we are talking about now is coverups and crashed planes aren't "business friendly" either. Or maybe it's a nice words list.
@@BlueMax717 yep but they didn't exactly catch it very early did they...
The Union here stands up for the workers, who care about quality when management can’t be bothered
Sure, when Boeing says there’s no safety issue, the world should believe and forget what’s happened in the past decade. 😂😂. Airlines should take this very seriously
Not only in the past decade because of the 737 max scandal.. Boeing has been notorious denying any responsibility of their faults and refusing to fix a safety issue until it’s too late and many lives are lost. Examples: 747 cargo doors opening mid-flight, 767 reverse thrust uncommanded deployment, 737 rudder hard-over.. etc. All were design errors by Boeing which I guess due to their improper testing procedures.
When issues are raised, it’s a sign that our policy of bribing public officials no longer works.
U are completely right
Is the situation at Boeing that dire? Have bribes become so expensive?
When issues exist, it's a sign that the policy of bribing public officials is working (sorry).
it still works. Just it’s too visible with this particular briber that it had to be suspended until they feel safe again
For years Boeing accepted to build its 787 with some lower-quality parts. The supplier must have been convinced all these years that its quality was according to Boeing's standards as no complaints came in. It is not normal that such parts can be used undetected for years on end. An aeroplane is a high tech device and needs high tech quality control. The troubles with the 787 quality are the result of decades of saving money to make more profit.
Don't you worry. All these problems will be eventually discovered when there are air crashes that kill everyone on board.
They left Everett because they wanna save money and boom straight problems that comes with being cheap. Cheap and quality can never be in the same sentence.
Funny how much money they are having to SPEND due to that decision.
Too many bars in Charleston !
Exactly right. Having worked within the Corporate sector, I bet that decision was based on 1 or 2 Boeing divas wanting to be at their Holiday home more often. Wow what a sad decline of such iconic American icon.
They stopped being an engineering company. McDonnell Douglas used Boeing money to have their management ethos take over. Where are Boeing headquartered now? A city of rampant corruption.
This is because the board at Boeing no longer has any engineers on it. It is fully staffed with people with MBA degrees. The board is ONLY CONCERNED WITH SHARE VALUE AND PROFITS!!!. That's why they opened the
South Carolina plant. no unions and Jimmy John works cheap. Boeing will continue to focus on share value only until it goes out of business.
“Let’s take a look at the latest Boeing 787 issue”
This is becoming routine lol
@wangpie92 it's just more covered because nobody trusts Boeing these days.
@@sls12III The 787 is particularly a dog when it comes to reliability though. Partly it's because it's a "new" plane with a lot of new tech that hasn't been tested on earlier models. Earlier models of course didn't have cabin air compressors and sub ambient cooling systems like the PECS, ICS and FCAC which are not reliable nor easy to service (especially replacing the heat exchangers can be a hand full). The engines aren't reliable either but get better and better and that applies to all new engine designs. In the beginning the engines were replaced more often than the brakes but have come a long way since then. In its defence the brakes are excellent.
But I can't help but think that the 787 is also unreliable because Boeing outsourced so much of the component design and manufacturing to 3rd parties and of course chose the cheapest offerings in the process.
Their fatal failures with the 737 shouldnt be forgotten either.
This is what happens to a company that used to be run by engineers that is now run by accountants.
This is what happens when the founding people retire and the new hire MBA's make the decisions...
It wouldn't be so bad if accountants ran the company. The problem is the predatory Wall Street vultures that run it and squeeze every drop of blood.
Boeing moved its corporate headquarters to chicago - far from its main assembly line in Washington state. Gradually it’s senior executives which were mostly engineers were replaced with business school people who have no clue on how to design and build airplanes. Boeing went from being one of the most respected companies in the US to a joke.
Right you are. The talent is here, the workforce is here, and the Union is here, and that’s something management can’t endure
It's always ongoing at Boeing ;) Unlike some of their parts, they never get a break!
Tell. me again, the benefits of outsourcing. . . Ah, when a company is run by beancounters instead of engineers. . .
There must be some outsourcing in the manufacture of aircraft. Boeing cannot make engines or radios, for example. Outsourcing is appropriate for anything that requires special expertise.
Zero outsourcing is almost impossible for a company the size of Boeing, they'd have to pay billions to be able to have zero outsourcing, and planes would become more expensive and take longer to deliver.
Yes, but since Boeing outsourced almost the entire plane, and since this problem is with primary structure, I think Bram's point stands...
Airbus outsourced since its very beginning. There are methods to control the quality of parts from suppliers and Airbus is applying them all the time. The problem with Boeing's beancounters' mentality is that 'focus on quality' was previously, before the 737 Max crashes, 'focus on profit'. They reduced greatly the costs of quality control, especially in Charleston. Now they are turning the tables by stating that their after-build quality control works! It should have worked since the very beginning of the outsourcing of 787 parts.
Division of labor is the basic principle of economics. There are lots of things at play - each country's competitve advantages (be it a talent, natural resource, optimal geo position), economies of scale you name it. Had not Boeing or other frame makers for that matter outsourced the jobs, they wouldn't have achieved this level of tech advancements. This comment is such a sheer disrespect to other professions and can come from only a clueless person calling him himself an engineer
Cutting corners always comes at a cost.
Based on the 737 Max experience, I don't much trust Boeing statements...
It's NEVER a good thing for bean counters to be in charge of aircraft production or governments!
so you should not trust airbus statements either
Per the question at the end: Boeing still doesn't get it when it comes to safety over money. They want permission from the FAA to consider some 787s as "inspected" by using targeted checks* so they can be delivered and Boeing gets some income. This may have worked 20 years ago, and I understand sampling is used at certain times in industry inspections, but in Boeing, at this point in time, they should have gotten it by now that their processes have been so flawed that 100% checks with no shortcuts are required 100% of the time.
The FAA can't have failed to notice the NASA investigation of the Starliner spacecraft flight test fiasco. Boeing's mismanagement of engineering processes was strongly criticized - ones at a deeper, more detailed level than the 737 decisions.
*I didn't understand if this was about just 3 aircraft, or a sampling that affects all 108. Either is bad, but the latter would reflect even worse inappropriate self-confidence.
The part defects should have been caught in the beginning. Boeing needs to review their quality procedures.
To be fair, these problems are not just with Boeing aircraft. I was in QC at a major US Airline and these type issues were on the A320 type aircraft also.
The A320 was safe operating with these issues as Airbus, EASA and the FAA had issued interval inspections of the parts in question.
This goes on with all aircraft manufacturers.
After working on Boeing and Airbus aircraft for many years, I have the upmost trust in both Manufactures.
Both have had their issues but both worked to make their airplanes very safe and dependable.
I just finished watching 2 videos on the 787, one dealing with the fuselage and one about the engines. This aircraft is so unlike any other commercial aircraft that it is mind boggling. The fact that any large aircraft builder would take the risk and incorporate all the changes into one aircraft is even more amazing. I think the changes Boeing made on identifying and correcting issues is working.
The 787 fuselage is large carbon composite "barrels" held together with Titanium fasteners. Alcoa the contractor had production delays and under Boeing pressure shipped the prototype batch so Boeing could begin the first plane. Alcoa sent Aluminum fasteners instead of Titanium. Noticed after assembly, so the "first 787 rollout was an unflyable plane.
Hello! Al Jazeera released a very powerful report about the lousy job on 787 some 3 years ago. This is no surprise. I follow the aviation news and 75% of pilots currently prefer Airbus.
Are you referring to "The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams"? That was a report they made in 2014 (and is required viewing for those who haven't seen it). Did they make a more recent followup report?
The fact that Boeing tried to "streamline" the inspection process by essentially Not inspecting the planes suggests to me Boeing has learnt nothing, ima choose Airbus where possible.
They didn't say why they tested this one part. Did they find one in service that was cracking?
Mr. William E. Boeing (1881-1956) would be so disappointed at what’s become of his company.
Very sad
Just watch the Mayday (or Air Crash Investigation) episode on the British Airways 777 at Heathrow. I didn't know the tanks have some things inside that shouldn't be there. Those things came from the plane assembly, and it's kinda funny that even at that time, Boeing wasn't caring too much.
Remember, the crash happened after the Boeing and MD merger. It shows that MD destroyed Boeing.
@@sls12III the product was nothing to do with MD, so that’s nonsense.
@@peteconrad2077 the merger incorporated MD's careless and greedy attitude into Boeing's system. It might not have affected the whole incident directly but it's still a huge reason why this all happened.
@@sls12III your claim can be shown as BS thus:
1. It takes many years after a merger for cultures in one company to affect the other.
2. The 777 line would have been well established by the time of the merger and would have taken even longer to be affected. It certainly wouldn’t be affected in a couple of years or so.
3. The issue was a design issue. The design was established before the merger.
Design, Engineer, Build, Test, Train, Maintain - seems Boeing has forgotten how to do.
I remember (not so long ago) when MADE IN USA meant top quality, safest, and most innovative products. Now MADE IN USA means "Partially designed and poorly assembled in USA, with overseas-sweatshop-made sub-parts". A real shame.
Airbus Is Still Laughing in the Background
Just when it looks like stock may be recovering Bam, another Dreamliner issue 😩
Why didn't Boeing's quality control checks catch the problems before the parts were put into airplanes?
If it's 1 problem, it's normally ok. If there are 2 problems, it's usually ok. If there are 3 problems, some questions arise.
If there 4 unsolved problems, an employee is terminated. If there more than 10 problems, Boeing has serious issues!
if there are more than 10 problems the CEO gets a big fat bonus cheque
@@ThaBoss3006 The Boeing CEO who killed 346 people, received more than $60 millions in 2020...
At this point we call the 787 the Borderliner in airline maintenance.
It's a small problem and they haven't had any crashes yet. so the board saved money and got away with it so far!
Not having your planes crash through a fault of your own is a pretty low bar to set for a plane manufacturer.
Just remember, every part of that plane was supplied by the lowest bidder
Boeing isn’t going down the tube, it’s already there. The new CEO switched the company to maximizing profit and ditching the long tradition of supporting its workers and quality
Airlines already are looking to other companies to buy, but Airbus and especially Embraer can’t fill every niché. Lockheed should step in, or Elon Musk could start an airplane company 🤷
Elon Musk?!?! Have you seen the quality of tesla? the qualitiy is more than bad.
It’s a good thing that problems keep being discovered & hopefully fixed. But I feel Boeing is still prioritising profits over safety & what may have changed is the FAA is now doing its job or any quality associated crashes may bankrupt Boeing
They build slats for the 767 as well. They did rework on a handful of jets that took about 2 weeks each.
that's what happens when corrupted people take over a brand. Starliner, 787, 737 max and 787 again.
Don't forget the 777X
Don't forget the SLS rocket.
Surely, It would be better to do a quality check of components before they are fitted to airframes.
Funny how Boeing never had this level of problems when they made them all in one place in Washington. When they started farming everything out is when the quality went to hell.
Even 777 parts have come from manufacturers in other parts of the world… the 787 has had its share of assembly issues but all large commercial jets outsource component production to some extent
Quality begins at NPI stage and not post delivery. Whilst Boeing gets to grips with this maxim they should at the very least drop the suffix "Dreamliner" when referring to their 787. It's an oxymoron of sorts.
Dreamliner giving Nighmares to airlines and travellers.
Dreamliner - the stuff of nightmares!
You have to admire like Leonardo's pass the buck thinking, which sounds amazingly familiar.
I prefer to hear the manufacturer acknowledge and accept faults than wait for problems to arise
The DC-10 strikes back. Cmon McDonnell Douglas- wait I mean Boeing but run by McDonnell Douglas
You missing the word "again" in your opening statement. And I bet more than 1/3 of these plates will be installed
I've got places I'd love to go, but not on a Boeing product!
…I’m begining to think that Chinese and Russian airliners may actually have a shot at capturing market share from Boeing. At least if the quality issues go on like this.
only in Russia and China
The problem is that their quality is more mysterious than that of Boeing's
Yeeeees, everybody knows chinese build quality and after sales service is exemplary. (Cough)
@@watsisbuttndo829 What's happening is that Boeing is now building DOWN to Chinese quality, but China will do it cheaper. China is a monster, and I never like to see them taking over, but if it happens, blame Boeing and blame the modern American economic system where everyone's constantly proping up their stock prices like a house of cards.
Oh for goodness sake I’m going on one tomorrow. Damn
The Dreamliner is turning into a nightmare for Boeing.
Always has been. They are never getting the R&D cost back.
@@ydfhlx5923 the 787 is like the single most successful Boeing aircraft of the last 2 decades… and oddly enough, this is one of the few times in recent events where the issue isn’t entirely Boeing’s fault, funny enough.
Let’s not talk about how the 777-9X has 787-10 specifications in the flight computer or how it has uncommanded pitch deviations, which means your pitch may suddenly vary without warning, let’s just talk about how a single fault means that outsourcing is bad, yeahhhhh…
@@kelly2631 it's the most successful Boeing aircraft of the last 2 decades because the other one crashed!
@@tank-eleven I don't recall the 747-8 crashing, or the KC767 having any major issues, or 777F having any issues, or P-8 suffering from defects, or 737 AEW&C. 737-700ER, 737-900ER, 777-200LR, or the KC46 having too many issues. The C-40A, EA18G, F-15SE, F/A 18E/F, and the YAL-1 seem to perform just fine. Sure, the Boeing X-32 was kinda wonky, but I don't recall it crashing?
The Boeing Board of Directors better wake up and save the company before it's too late.
Remember the issues at the beginning.... An inoperable plane was rolled out at the launch... So much missing I don't think it ever flew
The Boeing board lost all credibility after the first MAX crash.
Don't forget about the lithium ion batteries catching fire.
They don't have to worry about saving the company. American taxpayers will bail them out anyway
Even the starliner is a hot mess.
If systems in-place are able to discover problems and defects and are followed up with safe solutions, then Boeing is moving in the right directions in improving quality.
There only true focus is profit.
Everything else is secondary.
Ofc. "Oh hey. Heres a potentially deadly issue with a part we put on the planes... but were not liable. Sorry."
Oh boy. Stay strong, Dreamliner
At this point i don't wanna fly on a Boeing if its not the 747 or do they have a problem that no one is aware of.....👀
Dreamliner sounds more like Nightmareliner :), I hope they solve it.
Dreamliner is now the nightmareliner .-.
So the undelivered ones aren't safe to deliver, but the ones already delivered are fine for a while?
There is an economic aspect as well as a safety aspect. If the parts need to be replaced, it is more economic to hold back airframes that are still in manufacturing until the upgraded part is available. Those already flying may have to come back for repair.
So Boeing now has FIAT parts? Fix it again Tony.
LOL!
This is the type of bs you run into when bean counters subcontract out as much as they can. Quality control is lost and in the end it costs you more than you saved.
I don't understand. Boeing say that the not up to spec parts are "not a concern for flight"... but planes that were undelivered and had the faulty parts in them "Would have been grounded" had they not received the new parts? Surely then the planes in flight right now are in immediate danger of one of these parts failing? Feels like the 737Max all over again.
@@BlueMax717 Thank you for educating me and not belittling me! Very useful information, and I suppose it makes sense. Letting an aircraft fly with a fault you were not aware of is very different to letting an aircraft fly with a fault you ARE aware of.
Boeing's problems are a continuing sign that they are trying to outsource manufacturing in order to save money but they have so many different suppliers from so many different countries they simply cannot ensure quality anymore. A bad thing when building a plane.
"Does not present an immediate safety of flight concern" PRESS X TO DOUBT
My thoughts are only 1 word: Recall
Good
Oh dear.
I think that it's working an they are finding more issues before the planes goes to the customer's
Once there was a saying.... if its a boeing i am not going...
There’s no better alternative
Quality issues are usually connected with budgeting, when bean counters trump the engineers.
The Dreamliner was to be the be all and end all in civil aviation But its had many various problems from electrical mechanical to build quality. But as we know its about the planes that actually crash that get a real going over by the crash investigators maybe these guys should be able to pull a plane out of service and do a thorough service check to check on any operational flaws in the plane structure. But that would cost money and with bean counters that's the bottom line its easier to have the insurance pay the victims families after the plane hit the ground at 500 mph.
They just can’t get a break. The problems keep happening and there is no sign that they will stop.
I would not be surprised to hear that Airbus and other Manufacturers being forced to look at parts supplied by MPS. Sub-subcontractors usually work on a bunch of contracts for a host of end-builders. The Dreamliner issue was likely found due to MPS being investigated by the government, and Leonardo doing a complete re-audit of the supplied parts. As much as I'm not a fan of Boeing, this issue isn't their fault. Supplied parts from subcontractors have to be taken at face value as standard. Some QA checks are performed as a matter of course, but things like this issue can be missed. I'm willing to bet that the only way to determine if these parts are substandard would be to perform destructive testing, as a visual inspection would not reveal a defect.
when concrete is poured EVERY truck is tested and samples kept. you're making excuses.
The Buck stops with Boeing!!!
Issue after issue after issue.Thats why i like Airbus for their consistency and prioritizing safety above profits
I hate scarebus. And they don’t prioritize safety any more than Boeing
Airbus might have uncomfortable seats, especially on the A380 but you know what? At least I get to my destination in one piece!
Crawl before you walk before you run. Trust is no longer trust here, just observations of facts.
This is good for Boeing, they need to find all these issues now and fix them for them to be a better company in the future.
To be a BETTER company, they need to get rid of all the bean counters from CEO down.
Obviously the a swer to BOTH questions is yes.
We have to let Boeing and the other companies to work out these problems. I continue to hope we will not have a major situation problem!!!
Didn't they find surface buckling a month ago , Paint cracking , leaky ports ?? Now this .
Are you refering to a delimination problem on the Airbus 350 fuselage? That aircraft also has a composite fuselage. You should check you data before posting!
Smh ever since Douglas took over it’s profit over quality .. ex: 777 is an amazing aircraft and they found a way to mess it up 777x … all over saving a few dollars instead of making great aircraft … and also why they are loosing to airbus
Anyone else notice that the quality control issues came about because of Boeing's attempt to "deunionize" production of different aircraft by moving production to South Carolina and outsourcing a lot of parts that they used to manufacture in Washington?
It has nothing to do with being a member of a union. I was a member of the union in Wa. and as an inspector I was "cammed" for doing my job. I was just too good at it for them. I slowed down production and that was not acceptable. The management targeted me, but they couldn't refute my findings, the Engineers agreed with my Non-conformances. so I retired. No surprise to me what the results of "share price" CEO's, quality was a four letter word.
I hope this doesn't turn into another 747 Max fiasco. Please immediately fix these issues this time Boeing.
This company supply airbus as well but yet we here nothing about their parts being faulty? I suspect Boeing went for Cheeper grade of titanium or something like that and it’s backfired. To save face they have to stop using that company so they can shift blame.
The company didn't use MPS parts on Airbus programs. That is why
@@mgsaviation9292: it was all about money.
Quality control issues have plagued this model since day 1.
One wonders what sparked the audit in the first place, was it part of a belated quality check due to their current problems?, as they have a number already flying did that show up the fault?, from the tone of the article it would almost seem their supplier was aware of the problem, I have been following Boeings problems as an interested spectator and find it rather sad that they have let themselves get to this stage, I think without a doubt it was profit over everything, sometimes in business you have to accept costs purely as part of doing it right, hopefully they will learn from this and we can see them as a great company again.
Corporations must learn (re-learn) that the short-term costs associated with 'doing it right' are more than recouped by long-term profits after their product gains an industry reputation for being safe and reliable. That seems so fundamental, and yet why do so few companies seem to realize it?
It's a spectacular bird, of course...but man...the ongoing issues are not ideal.
Leanardo... "our bad"
I just want to own a Dreamliner when I grow up.
Got a death wish?
Boeing’s making the upcoming Comac 929 look like a much better alternative
It's the same with any manufacturer, parts aren't what the original delivery piece was suppose to be.
I just knew it was an Italian supplier.
All accountants think of is bottom line profits and outsourcing if the part can be sourced for cheaper elsewhere. They never think of the consequences of this outsourcing or the cost of ensuring these parts are of the requisite quality. However that is not to say that having a totally engineer led business is the recipe for success or profitability - it isn't!
There has to be middle ground where multi-disciplined upper management listen to their workers, engineers and designers to understand the potential effects of a cost cutting decision, especially in Aerospace, where any such defect can have the possibility of causing death and destruction.
Boeing needs to look closely at these decisions and not just at their EBIT-DAR or share price!
Worrying, Boeing is not checking supplied parts
More importantly, it shows the FAA oversight is totally lacking.
Boeing is all about the money…the stretching of the 737 shows they take shortcuts
so does airbus
A quality manual will determine the defects,why deliver parts if it did not meet specifications and why Boeing accept parts if documents proved it is defective.?
"Active In Service Fleet" sounds like word salad.
Split infinitive. Should be "the fleet in active service". Yet another quality issue..
When you sublet you lose quality and control...
Huge profits one year now go beyond the Virgil like going out of business