Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comMore inspections needed, new instruments must be added to test aircraft
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Ally aims to end mortgage woes with ResCap filingAnalysis: Argentines jump through new hoops to get dollarsSNAP Grant Allows Little Rock Homeowner to Replace HVAC Unit After 10 Years Without Central AirThe little things: Managing a micromanagerFive Ways to Tame Your InboxSenior Talent Joins GoPago to Drive Product Development and Expand Sales Multi-Faceted Automotive Mecca Hot Rod City, Home to the World Famous Dezer Collection and Las Vegas Choppers and Tattoo Parlor, Celebrates Its Grand Opening Saturday May 12 From 10-5 Oil price still falling, near $93 a barrelColossus Minerals to Present at Macquarie's "Making the Grade" Mining ConferenceSpain's Repsol sues Argentina over YPF takeover
Leave a Comment:
I made a collegial bet when Boeing 787 project began. I am thousands of dollars ahead betting on managements inability to forecast delivery while working on new technology and when in competition for new orders. Deadlines don't behave according to quarterly reports.
Boeing still does not know if this dream project will ever be productive or adaptive.
Read The TFX project.
It is really important that Boeing gets this right. This is a game-changing aircraft and everyone knows it. The only chance Airbus has is if Boeing creates a failure that is only discovered after the aircraft is in service. Right now the aircraft industry is soft and it is a good time to take your time and get it right. Most airlines with pending orders are only too happy to see a reasonable amount of delay.
Airbus rushed their fly-by-wire into production to compete with a 10-year lead by Boeing. And it has been a true disaster. The Airbus fly-by-wire systems are still grossly inferior and too expensive to completely upgrade.
Now Airbus is facing a 10-year lead by Boeing in carbon fiber technology and again can only try to rush something into production.
And this comes on the heels of the dismal failure of the Airbus choice of the "MegaBus" giant aircraft that require special boarding gates and facilities and are entirely dependent on the discredited "hub" system. Now Airbus has to backtrack to compete.
Boeing made the smart choice, but the devil is in the details. There was simply too much production outsourced and with parts being made all over the world and integrated here, the quality control has become very ragged. But Boeing will straighten it out. This is one of the most disciplined and technologically competent corporations to have ever existed.
If you want to scream about BP and try to tar all corporations with that brush, first take a look at Boeing and see what a first-rate corporation can do when it still has long-range vision and a working moral compass.
Chris-749391
The A320 was the first fly by wire commercial airline, and also the first one built primarily with composites, there are over 3000 of them in service today, and another couple of thousand on order. So I don't see how you can say they are 10 years behind and rushing catch up.
The giant A380 is also a very heavy user of Carbon Fibre and composite for a commercial aircraft, made with about 60% composites, and again it is flying and in service today.
As for the outsourcing, most of the companies building parts for the 787, also build them for every other Boeing commercial airplane. Boeing assembles planes, they build very little really, parts for all of their planes are made all over the world, shipped to Everett, and assembled into flying machines.
Robby, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please do some research before making false claims.
The A320 is made up of 10% composite materials by weight.
The A380 is made up of 20% composite materials by weight. (Not 60% like you claim, LOOK IT UP BEFORE MAKING CLAIMS)
The B787 is made up of 50% composite materials by weight.
Out of the 20% composite materials used on the A380, a majority of it is fiberglass material. On the B787, a majority of the material is carbon fiber. Airbus is far behind Boeing when it comes to composite technology.
You are correct about one thing: The first commercial fly-by-wire was an A320. The first flight was Air France flight 296. It unfortunately crashed as the fly-by-wire system messed up and the pilots were locked out by the system and were unable to do anything about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwYAzqvcrQ
It's unfortunate that Airbus believes that a computer can fly better than a person.
Aero Engineer
You have no idea what I do, did I any where in my post mention Weight?
NO
if I have two bags, one with say 2 cast iron bolts, and another with say 8 composite bolts then 80% of my my bolts would be cast composite, correct? However if I was to weigh them would I still have 80% composite, absolutely not, that is why I use composite. Bean counters count the beans they don't weigh them.
Why is that? Is that not exactly what Boeing and every other builder is doing today? even are cars are now drive by wire.
I didn't know this was a game changing aircraft. Everything I've read indicates that the trend is towards smaller, more fuel efficient airplanes.
The only game it might change is Microsoft's Flight Simulator.
I must agree with Chris here. An additional few month delay at time like this may actually benefit both Boeing and the airlines with which there are pending 787 orders.
Recent Airbus-related problems have been compounding, particularly with the (eventually realized) abysmal failure of the A380 and even their other long-haul planes like the A346. Electronic and mechanical issues with these aircraft have crippled the long-term brand growth of carriers like Quantas. The few successes in the airline industry as of late have been from carriers who realize you can't make money by cramming 50 billion sardines into a tube and scheduling 2-4 flights /week between major hubs.
Boeing needs to make absolutely certain the QC issues are dealt with permanently before this product is rolled out en masse. Learn from the current Apple debacle...learn from the mistakes Airbus has made. Take your time. Do it right. Given the delicate financial status of virtually all carriers out there in today's economy, I'm sure a minor delay here or there won't be too big a deal to the Boeing 787 customers.
With all due respect, I think Airbus' fly-by-wire system, it's A380 and obviously it's sales have been trumping a rather stoic and inflexible Boeing for a while now. I strongly disagree that the A380 has been a failure; judging by orders, the delays they had - which certainly were bad for image and revenue - are no worse in the long-run than the 787 which is no competitor (the A350 will be).
The A380 is a much better plan than even the upgraded 747. I want Boeing to succeed and innovate, but lately I have only seen this from Airbus. The German-French conglomerate did many things wrong, but all in all, I see Boeing as the ones catching up; the 787 delays are not less (or more) of a joke now than the 380 or 350.
Not sure how you can say the A380 is not a failure... orders have been nearly stagnant for the last couple of years, and they are estimated by industry analysts to be only half-way to the breakeven point. Airbus will lose billions on that airplane, but they don't care because they got launch aid from the European governments that they won't have to pay back.
As for innovation, Boeing has a multi-year lead over Airbus in using composites to build airplanes. This is one of the biggest innovations in commercial aircraft in decades; just building a bigger one (A380) is not.
Sorry but the A350 was a strategic and manufacturing error. I predict that it will go the way of the Concorde- a novelty that will prove its unsuitability over time. It is difficult to get through customs, etc. now and this monster will only worsen the experience of getting passengers on board, losing baggage and deplaning and through customs. The 787 is built for flying comfort while the A350 is built for mass movement regardless of comfort. It may work in China but not many other places.
I do think you meant to say the A380, that is the giat double decked airplane.
While Airbus developed the gargantuan A380 for expensive international flights which have become less popular, the Boeing philosophy of making an extremely efficient mid-sized plane which might actually be used for mid range domestic flights is the right move. The Boeing design also has an advantage when fuel prices inevitably spike again in the future. I'm looking forward to seeing the 787 in action.
The article says that the delays are caused by global suppliers. This is another American company that has turned their back on its home ground. I'm not saying keep it all in the US but at least close to home, like North America. Half the plane is probably made in China and India. Just like many industry's in the US they got comfy with what they had while Europe and Asia surpassed us technologically. Many of the long haul flights are Airbus's now. Its Boeing's fault for dragging their feet instead of being innovative. The only thing that the US gets first that has it five seconds of fame is the new iPhone (made in Taiwan) every June. Big whoop! But I really don't care about the delays of their new plane because flying has become such a hassle that I now take the train when I can. Hey Boeing there is an innovative idea for you! Develop newer and faster trains. Oh wait that's outside your comfort zone. :(
Scott-718781
Boeing has been building planes globally for years, but they also sell them globally. Airbus does the same thing, in fact they just opened anew plant in NC, that will build a number of sections for the new A350, that same company also build parts for every single Boeing airplane in the air today.
BTW iPhones are made in China not Taiwan.
Check your facts Scott, Japan and Italy are the major foreign partner locations. Don't you think if the technical capabilities existed here in the US that Boeing would have sourced domestically? It's awfully expensive to transport those parts across oceans.
As for newer and faster trains, there are too many obstacles (including costs in the tens of billions of $) for that to be successful anywhere in the US except for the densely populated Northeast. And "comfort zone"? It's a matter of experience, not comfort. You wouldn't try to get a job in a field in which you have zero experience, would you?
Derek-317802
While the largest parts being made in Italy and Japan, many others are also involved, both India and Moscow now have large Boeing R & D centers, and China is building a number of parts for the 787 and other aircraft. Airbus has even built an assembly line in China, because they need so many planes, Boeing estimates that India will need in the area of 1000 more in the next 10 to 20 years. You build where the market is.
It has nothing to do with technical abilities as much as it does, getting the most bang for the buck. Most of these companies can make make parts for both Boeing and Airbus, so they can afford to invest in very expensive parts and machines, because they can get the work.
Take when Boeing sold off its manufacturing plants in the midwest. Onex a private invest company grabbed them, after look around, and talking to other aircraft companies, they decided to take it public and go for it. From that SpiritAero was born, today they build parts for Boeing, Bombardier, Airbus as well as many military planes and other government programs. That is why you outsource, a company that can keep its investments going 24/7 can do better work, gain experience, and improve quality, while reducing costs.
I see Boeing just announced the location of another plant in SC, it will be about 10 miles from the 787 final assembly plant, and will build interiors for the plane.
As an aviation observer and documented expert of over 40 years, Boeing must get it right! Failure to do so would have serious industry and economic consequences!
Better to arrive late, with a winner, than to arrive with an industry question mark (?)on time (Airbus's big failure)!
That is what happens when you have 25 countries making parts for the plane that have to fit together and due to poor manufacturing in other countries, fail to do so. Boeing tried to save a buck and screwed themselves. You cannot have one fifth of a plane in Japan and another fifth in England, etc.
It seems to work just fine on all their other planes now doesn't it, so why not this one?
Two words why Boeing is outsourcing - Politics and Unions
How about one word.
SALES.
The primary problem is the decision to build the 787 globally, where different sections of the airplane are built in a variety of foreign countries and then are flown to the US for final assembly . . .
And while one might suggest that this was Alan Mulally's "gift" to The Boeing Company for not making him the CEO, which apparently was the reason he abandoned his job and jumped to The Ford Motor Company, the only general information I have is that all this stuff happened around the time the company moved its headquarters to Chicago, which also made little sense . . .
In some respects, the "globalization" problem is remarkably subtle, since it involves different cultures and their unique perspectives on everything, including their views on precisely who actually is in control with respect to ultimate authority and responsibility . . .
For example, something so simple as color-coding electrical wires can be a potential problem when the particular culture and attitude of a foreign country and its workers puts special emphasis on something like Feng Shui, which has a very specific set of rules regarding colors . . .
Perhaps the Boeing aerospace engineers in Seattle determined that it is best to have a blue and white striped wire next to an orange and black striped wire for reasons that have very little to do with the colors of the wires, since this is the electrical circuit design pattern used in other Boeing airplanes, hence will be consistent with long-established reliability and safety standards, but if in Feng Shui putting blue and white next to orange and black maps to a decade of cosmic incongruity and negative psychic energy, the Red Chinese engineers might arbitrarily decide to reroute the orange and black wire so that it is next to a green and purple wire in a completely different wiring bundle for aesthetic reasons, without taking the time to tell anyone, which makes everyone on the Red Chinese team feel good about themselves in a self-confirming superiority type of way but electromagnetically creates the highly dangerous condition where electrical arcs are generated by otherwise easily avoided trace circuits, or whatever . . .
Whatever!
Or it might be a matter of something like what happened when a German contractor decided sua sponte to alter the chemical composition and size of the armored ceramic tiles for the Stryker vehicle, since they apparently believed that German technology was superior to American technology, with the result that approximately one-third of the German-modified armored ceramic tiles failed catastrophically in field tests, which delayed delivering the Stryker vehicle for months . . .
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030916&slug=stryker16m
An example of this type of American design overriding occurred with the 787 horizontal stabilizer installation in Italy by Alenia, where Italian workers apparently decided that they knew more about installing horizontal stabilizers than the Boeing aerospace engineers who designed the airplane . . .
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1988761
Another instance of misfits already has occurred with some of the fuselage sections, and while the various news reports do not indicate clearly where the problem originated, the inference is that the problem was caused by the American subcontractor rather than the Japanese subcontractor, since at the dawn of the early-21st century one certainly wants to avoid suggesting that any foreign country that never has made a commercial passenger airplane and continues to be unable to design and to build a big truck is a bit clueless, but regardless of where the mistake originated, the fact of the matter is that the problem was identified and corrected by the Boeing aerospace engineers and workers in the Puget Sound area during the final assembly, which provides a few significant clues regarding where the true expertise and virtually fanatically diligent attention to detail resides . . .
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20070612&slug=787gaps12
The reality is that in its nearly century of its existence, The Boeing Company and its American workers have learned in the most physically and emotionally difficult ways the consequences of making even the tiniest of mistakes, and this has created a culture that is unique in its constant focus on avoiding mistakes, where in contrast to other industries and businesses one's best friend in aerospace work is the person who routinely identifies your mistakes in time for you to correct them and vice-versa, since part of the reality is that people make mistakes, hence everything that reduces and eliminates human mistakes is good, which is something that became a part of the culture at NASA very early, although this aspect of NASA's culture is under attack, as well . . .
Stated another way, this is the primary problem with globalizing the manufacturing of highly complex systems, and it makes the entire effort a huge challenge, since it decentralizes both authority and responsibility and spreads it nearly randomly across distinctly different cultures that have widely disparate views regarding the value of human life and everything else . . .
And as an example of how an apparently insignificant part can have significant consequences, the fatal crash of the McDonnell Douglas MD-83 in January 2000 (Alaska Airlines Flight 261) was the consequence of the failure of a piece of elliptical metal disc approximately the size of a silver dollar but thinner, which once The Boeing Company acquired McDonnell Douglas was redesigned and made with titanium rather than the cheaper and weaker metal that McDonnell Douglas used, with this piece of metal being the last resort safety protection for the horizontal stabilizer, which in the event of failure of the jackscrew keeps the horizontal stabilizer attached in a way that allows the pilot to continue to control the airplane, which if nothing else provides a few clues to my perspective regarding the Red Chinese manufacturing the 787 composite rudder (also a key component of the tail section), especially considering what the Red Chinese did by making a few changes to the chemical formula for Aqua Dots and Bindeez children's toys that transformed them from being entirely non-toxic to being the chemical precursor for gamma hydroxl butyrate (GHB), all to pinch a few pennies by substituting less expensive 1,4-butanediol for more expensive 1,5-pentanediol with the consequence that when the Red Chinese manufactured Aqua Dots and Bindeez were ingested by children, the resulting chemical reaction in the children's gastrointestinal tracts produced GHB, which is a life-threatening Class I Health Hazard (FDA) sedative even in small quantities . . .
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08074.html
On paper in an Utopian world, it might appear to be a spanky idea to have a global team where everyone feels good about themselves but basically does whatever they individually want to do regardless of whether it is good science . . .
Yet the reality is that when multiple cultures and attitudes are involved, even the most simple things become exponentially difficult with respect to ensuring that there always is ruthlessly maintained authority and responsibility, which in the grand scheme of everything is the only way to have any possibility of designing and building safe and reliable products . . .
Pinching pennies and changing design specifications sua sponte nearly always results in a catastrophic failure of one type or another, with the BP "Macondo" well blowout disaster being an especially disturbing example, for sure . . .
For sure!
And one certainly cannot avoid wondering how much money Boeing actually has saved by offshoring most of the 787 "Dreamliner" . . .
Over the long run, the 787 "Dreamliner" might become an outstanding airplane but only after American aerospace engineers and workers rebuild everything and correct all the offshore mistakes, which tends to be the way everything is happening at the dawn of the early-21st century, where the goal appears to be to discover in the most difficult possible ways the fact that offshoring and outsourcing generally is not the brightest idea, especially when the work is offshored and outsourced to countries and workers who more than anything hate America and want to destroy us and our way of life--noting that this is just another instance of the same patently goofy "thinking" that led to redefining NASA's foremost mission as being to make Muslims feel good about themselves, when at the dawn of the early-21st century the nearest thing any of them have to a space program is a bottle rocket and a pack of firecrackers, both of which probably were made in a Red Chinese sweatshop by adolescent and child slave laborers, really . . .
Really!
Baldenario
The only thing different between the 787 and all the other Boeing airplanes, is that more people have the Internet now, than when they launched their last new plane, and you have become a cut and paste master. Rather spending all your time, with the flag shoved up your, trying to incite hate, no wonder others hate Americans, it is folks like you. I know American who would hate you, in fact most of the good ones would.
I have done some cut and paste of my own. Here is one from 1997.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970527.html
Here is another from 1997.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_971029a.html
It is not until you show some respect for those around you, that they will show you any respect. All of the folks building the 787 have worked on many many different Boeing airplane, you just did not know about it. I would guess you are a union member, so that could explain it, but as the folks in SC showed, even that can be changed.
Two more things Boeing has R & D center in India & Moscow so perhaps it was not American designs being changed. And the Stryker was based on a Canadian design which was based on a Swiss design, and they are still built at the same plant in Canada as the original Canadian design was.
@robby:
In addition to the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" being the first Boeing commercial airplane designed and built with a primary focus on advanced composites, it also is the first one where major sections of the fuselage are built as essentially complete assemblies in foreign countries, which should be abundantly clear by the need to design and build specially modified 747 "Dreamlifter" cargo planes to transport the fuselage sections to the final assembly areas (currently Everett, WA and perhaps in two years North Charleston, SC) . . .
Major structural sections of wings have been built for a number of years, with a lot of this work being done in Canada, but doing nearly complete fuselage sections is new . . .
Regarding what I know about The Boeing Company, the first time I was inside a Boeing wind tunnel was circa 1957-1958 when the company was building B-52 Stratofortress long-range strategic bombers, which was around the time they bet the company on what had been called the "Dash 80" but by then had evolved into the Boeing 707 . . .
Everything is important, and I certainly did not intend to diminish the importance of all the companies and workers who build individual parts and smaller assemblies, but the 787 is a major shift in the manufacturing of a commercial airplane, and I continue not to be the least bit surprised when a new delay happens, because in addition to the airplane having a virtual festival of new technologies, it also is built in major sections in geographically dispersed parts of the world by companies and workers whose attitudes, cultures, and values are very different, which overall adds a significant set of complexities, nearly none of which generally have been considered to be a standard aspect of aerospace engineering . . .
It is a grand experiment, and I think that everything will come together sooner or later, but my concern is focused on whether spreading the work in major pieces all across the globe decreases or increases the overall complexity of the work with respect to quality and safety . . .
From a related perspective, this appears to have curious similarities to the outcome of Microsoft's "temper tantrum" in response to the Department of Justice's anti-monopoly case victory, where Microsoft became enamored with the idea of doing significant software designing and programming offshore in India, where the most obvious result was the fiasco called "Windows Vista", which at least for the time-being essentially handed Microsoft's metaphorical head to Apple on a silver platter, with the Zune tagging along as an amusing Hors d'œuvre . . .
Regarding the Stryker and General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada, I suppose "an American company" depends on the perspective one has of General Dynamics and its customer, which in this instance is the U. S. Army insofar as I am concerned, although it is not the only customer, for sure . . .
For sure!
Regarding the Swiss, my perspective is that everything I need to know about them is contained in the fact that there certainly appear to be plenty of gold teeth from WWII Holocaust victims in their Swiss francs and Swiss banks, really . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress_lawsuit_against_Swiss_Banks
Really!
And while it is not so easy to find specific information about the unique Boeing culture, if one does a bit of focused Googling, there are a few clues, as evidenced in this statement by Pat Shanahan, Vice President of Airplane Programmes (Boeing):
[SOURCE: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/11/343845/farnborough-challenges-ahead-for-boeings-787.html ]
Regarding Boeing India and Boeing Moscow, historically it is difficult to beat India and Russia when it comes to mathematics, and Russia certainly is the current leader when it comes to heavy-lifter rockets, although in some respects this is due in part to their having had sufficient sense to keep the perhaps surreptitiously obtained copies of the Saturn V heavy-lifter Apollo rocket specifications, which appears not to be what the NASA folks in the US did, where as you probably know Boeing built the first stage (S-IC), really . . .
Really!
OH, yes I agree the 787 is a major change in aircraft and the way they are built, there can be no denial of that. What I am sick of hearing is all this talk that the problem are because the outsourced it, which is not true as one Boeing memo I pointed out above says, the Japanese have been building parts for every airplane since 1969.
The idea of Japanese, Koreans, Italians, and even Chinese might be new to many people, but it same same old to Boeing, who has used the skills and factories of these countries for years.
Just as many Americans don't know that thousands of people in this country build parts for Airbus.
Mr. Baldenario,
What was your last job? Sorry to say but you have no clue about aircraft design, fabrication, integration and testing cycle. I will recommend that in your free time, please visit a aircraft manufacturing plant in Wichita, KS or Seattle Washington.
Until then, please focus on your day job flipping burgers in McDonald.
Cheers!
TTR
These delay's is what you call globalization, if they did all their consrtuction at their plant this would have not happen? If part's that are critical made in China this new plane will crash soon because we all know China cannot build anything with quality!!!!!
Another delay for the B787...?
Maybe assembling the aircraft/jigsaw puzzle would go more smoothly if all the part/components were manufactured in the USA! I doubt that Boeing has actually saved much money by outsourcing considering the shipping cost and delivery delays. With 9% unemployment ,and we still wonder why there are no good jobs left in this country!!!!
I wonder how many good payng jobs could be added if this aircraft was manufactured and assembeld in the USA. I wonder if the shipping cost and delivery delays have exceeded whatever savings that were gained by outsourcing? Yet, we wonder why our unemplyment is persistantly so high!
Richie-2018068
Or here is another question, how many Boeing Airplanes would Asia cancel, were they to see all those jobs leave?
Boeing builds a great airplane...I should know, I flew them....but---lets build them with american labor......