FAA To Investigate 787 Dreamliner 237
Dupple sends word from the BBC that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will be conducting a safety review of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner after a number of incidents have called the aircraft's hardiness into question. "An electrical fire, a brake problem, a fuel spill and cracks in the cockpit's windshield have affected Dreamliner flights in the past week. ... The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most advanced aeroplanes ever created. Much of it is made from very strong, light carbon-fibre composite material. However, a spate of technical issues has hurt its image. On Friday, two new problems were found, adding to Boeing's woes." A spokesman for Boeing said they were "absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the 787," and were cooperating fully with the FAA's investigation. The 787 went into service in 2011, and 50 have been delivered to various airlines since then, with hundreds more on order. Qatar Airways has received five of them, and it has criticized Boeing for manufacturing faults.
Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly. But a lot of cars are built that way too, and while a process change for a business invariably has kinks to work out, that doesn't mean the move was the wrong one. Boeing was hemmoraging cash up until recently, and this switchover may save them a lot of money at the cost of some run-up problems.
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly. But a lot of cars are built that way too
True, but note that in fact there are many many "recalls" for critical problems with autos every year. Yet there is a difference between an auto traveling on a surface road with 2 or 6 passengers, and a jet at 30,000 with 200 passengers. When one catches fire, it's going to be a little more catistropic than the other...
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but note that in fact there are many many "recalls" for critical problems with autos every year. Yet there is a difference between an auto traveling on a surface road with 2 or 6 passengers, and a jet at 30,000 with 200 passengers. When one catches fire, it's going to be a little more catistropic than the other...
An apples to oranges comparison. I'm referring to the efficiency of the manufacturing process. You're referring to problems with the engineering and design process. Airplanes like this are built one part, one section, one plane, at a time. There's numerous qualifications and tests done at each stage of assembly. And the models don't change year over year, unlike cars. The 787 is being produced with interchangeable parts and have the same general appearance, function, and specifications, as the ones 5 or 10 years from now will.
Re: (Score:2)
"Airplanes like this are built one part, one section, one plane, at a time."
no they aren't. Many parts are built at the same time and then assembled.
Re: (Score:2)
no they aren't. Many parts are built at the same time and then assembled.
*facepalm* part does not necessarily mean discrete component, dude. As in "part of a plane".
Re: (Score:2)
Normal mode of operation for cars doesn't include flying.
That extra degree of freedom is a big difference.
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:4, Informative)
Comparing airliners to cars is a terrible, terrible comparison, and not for the reason that many would think.
Airliners are just ridiculously safe. Statistically speaking, you are safer on your standard 737 jet than you are sitting on your couch, in your living room. Comparing their safety to a car is like comparing the safety of going for a walk in a park to playing with hand grenades.
In this environment, *any* kind of problem is just intolerable. As much as anything could be, airliners demand perfection, and given peoples' general fear of flying (damn the numbers) it makes sense why.
BTW: The reason why a jetliner is statistically safer than sitting on your couch is because people near death due to age/disease don't typically fly but they are likely to sit on their couch.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing was hemmoraging(sic) cash up until recently, and this switchover may save them a lot of money at the cost of some run-up problems.
Does the cost of those run-up problems remind anyone else of this little bit of dialog?
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Define "interesting".
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing has been making parts in one place, from small ones like doors or control surfaces all the way up to entire fuselages, and shipping them to another for final assembly for many years now.
They started assembling 737 fuselages in Wichita and then shipping them by rail to Renton for final assembly back in the 80's. The production of smaller bits (doors, seats, empennage, etc...) overseas (notably in China and Israel) started back in the 90's. (And was a huge issue in one of the machinists strikes.)
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that the 787 is the first aircraft Boeing has attempted to build pre-stuffed fuselage sections off-site for, and assemble them into a completed aircraft at the FAL. Airbus has been doing this since the early 1980s, but Boeing still used their on-site build process for the 777 in the 1990s.
Boeings mistake was in changing the production methodology at the same time as changing the technologies involved - a switch to a higher aluminium content electrical wiring and the differing tolerances of such a move, new ways of grounding, new materials etc etc. suddenly the same assembly workers have to adjust not only their working practices but their skill set as well.
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if the manufacturing and quality problems has anything to do with the change on this plane that it is made all over the world, by tons of suppliers, then all moved to a common location for final assembly.
I think an even bigger problem is the way that the engineering was outsourced (whether domestic or foreign outsourcing). Even Boeing management eventually admitted they screwed the pooch on that one. In many cases subcontractors that were capable of manufacturing good parts were suddenly given the responsibility of designing them - an area where they had little expertise. There was also poor coordination between Boeing and these subcontractors. The only way they got this pig up in the air is by finally bringing in a bunch of engineers who had deep expertise in designing airliners. Surprisingly they found almost all of them at a company called "Boeing". Perhaps they should have used that company's engineering services all along.
Many of the mistakes made in the 787 design were downright amateurish, such as improper design of the wing attachment points (and extremely critical part of the design that Boeing had figured out decades ago). Though they got enough of these biggies out of the way to get certification, it doesn't surprise me that there are still lots of "little" problems left over.
Re: (Score:2)
This article highlights some of the things you mention.
As the author points out, Boeing was forced to keep pushing the delivery date on the 787 for over 3 years
Boeing Has An Airplane Problem, Not a PR Problem
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/boeing-has-an-airplane-problem-not-a-pr-problem/ [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(and extremely critical part of the design that NACA had figured out decades ago)
FTFY. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Everything about this plane is new. It is also probably had the most anal QA process that any airliner has ever had. With the hundreds of thousands of parts, it was inevitable that there would be some issues.
At least is hasn't flown into a forest and crashed and burned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing (Score:4, Insightful)
It think it has more to do with the MBA culture that has infected businesses in the US like a cancer. The environment this creates cuts out any will to perform better than what is needed to stay employed promoting mediocrity. When this goes on long enough, good talent tends to look for a better habitat.
Re: (Score:3)
Talking with some Boeing guys from Seattle, I asked what is their take on lengthly delay of 787. They answered it was outsourcing many items which Boeing had to buy back some of these subcontractors to complete many subassemblies. They also said Boeing management admitted mistake in outsourcing too many items.
I wonder if 787 will be the last new airplane series Boeing will build. Likewise with the A380. From here on, it will all be stretched, re-engined or what not. It seems much of Boeing's infrastructur
Re: (Score:2)
Which totally can explain the fuel, brake, and cockpit window issues...
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel was probably just a case of overfilled tanks.
Shit happens with brakes in every airliner from time to time, same goes for cockpit windows.
Re: (Score:2)
The A in CAD stands for Aided. The computer is a tool which still requires a human to use it properly. Computer models can in some cases be worst that useless too.
Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that most revoloutionary aircraft have nearly sunk the parent company. The 787 hasn't come close to sinking Boeing, so one can conclude that it's not good enough.
Sillyness aside, new aircraft always have teeting problems (the A380 blew up an engine during flight) and this is a particularly new and unusual aircraft. So, expect lots of teeting problems.
They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.
That said, I've never seen an explanation as to how to do the equivalent of replacing a skin panel when the skyfood loading truck reverses into the plane.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Funny)
They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.
Or in other words; wait for the first service pack before flying...
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but that's not actually that far from the truth.
After a few years, they'll start making the 787-2 or some equivalent which will fly fine out of the factory. Many of the critical changes will be retrofitted on to the original 787s as well.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Informative)
Thats not what happens. As problems are found and corrected, the FAA issues airworthiness directives (AD) that require the fleet to undergo fixes in a certain amount of time. Sometimes they ground the fleet until all aircraft are fixed.
Different model numbers usually refer to stretched versions of the same airframe. It cuts costs as stretching the fuselage isn't considered a new aircraft type, so you don't need to go through the whole type certification again. The 787-200 or whatever will carry more people. Airliners are designed with this in mind, engines and wings are oversized for the smaller models, and the type will grow eventually.
You can see this in the 737. there are 8 or 9 models, all of them are flown under the same type certificate.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I glossed over some bits.
There will various directives issued which will be fixed.
Probably reasonably soon, the base model wil be phased out. A new versionwill be introduced will all those fixes plus some new extra features. Like the 747-400, versus the original. It has all the older AD stuff integrated, plus new wings, instrumentation etc.
I's a different certificate but not that much different from 747 service pack4. Basically they've figured out how to get the most out of that basic airframe now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhm, no. The 747-400 is a derivative type of the 747-100, introduced by Boeing for the specific reason of updating the design, and it has now been superseded by the 747-8. AD based improvements make it onto the next plane in the construction process that can take it, regardless of the version - a 777-300 built today is a lot different to a 777-300 built a decade ago, it incorporates all AD changes and incremental design changes made to the baseline model in that time, but it's still a 777-300.
The 787-8 wi
Re: (Score:2)
However unfamiliarity with the changes Boeing had made with the 737-400 were factors in the crew of G-OBME shutting down the wrong engine.
IIRC all 747s are the same type. Even though the 100, 200 & 300 have a Captain, First Office and Flight Engineer whereas the 400 & 800 have only a Captain and First Officer.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.
Or in other words; wait for the first service pack before flying...
...and don't ever book a flight on Patch Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Or service pack 2 or 3 for me. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think they make you close all the windows and reopen them during a flight? It's because the pilot's control panel has frozen up
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, I was stationed at Dover when the first C5-As were rolled out. You wouldn't believe the trouble they had... landing gear not coming up/down, engines falling off, fires, hell even one of the giant cranes that serviced the aircraft's tailsection fell over at another base and killed two guys, grounding the whole fleet of C5s for a few weeks.
A year or two later they pretty much had all the bugs ironed out. After that the worst that happened was one poor guy I worked with was towing one and hit a hangar door with a wing and did ten million dollars worth of damage (he got off the hook, the wing walker got the blame).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I only flew on one once (although I did get to play with the simulator, that was one cool computer) but it was on the way back from Thailand. Bugs were pretty much worked out by then. The navigation did go out in Japan where the pilots didn't want to stay, they were pissed. It touched down so softly I couldn't tell when we were on the ground.
They wanted to stay in Alaska (had to do with per diem), they bounced it three times on landing but weren't able to break it. All us passengers got bumped for a fire tr
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the engine that fell into some farmer's field. A classic.
Though not at Dover, don't forget the Operation Babylift crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Tan_Son_Nhut_C-5_accident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse the engine with the aircraft. Generally the manufacture recommends an engines, but the customer can pout whatever engine they want' into it.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Informative)
Don't confuse the engine with the aircraft. Generally the manufacture recommends an engines, but the customer can pout whatever engine they want' into it.
Only up to a point. The planes are genrally available with only a very small number of engine options. Also like with many big new aircraft the trent 900's were made specially for the A380. Though of course RR will hope for new customers, too.h
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
.
My friend's dad was good at that sort of thing. Another time he lost 2 of the 4 engines flying over the UK and was told to dump most of his av-gas to lighten the load so he could land in France for repairs. That involved opening valves that let the gas pour out over the wings. It was bad enough he dumped most of his fuel over a populated area (nice, greasy, thanks mate) but he also had to do it in the middle of a raging thunderstorm. He got struck twice whilst doing the dumping. Amazingly, he and the plane survived to fight another day,
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Informative)
You don't use duct tape, you use speed tape, and it is qualified for these kinds of purposes.
Fuel dump evaporates before it hits the ground.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough but what's all the greasy residue you get all over your house, car etc if you live near an airport? General exhaust gunk?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly that.
A note about the tape, too: of course that's only good if the skin is damaged. The frame is the important part, the skin just flows the air around the frame. The tape can do the same job, temporarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Alegendly it was about 4 feet of damaged area. Can't ask him now, he died a few years ago,
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unbelievable at all.
Another related anecdote: I know of a structural engineer (friend of a friend) who wanted to photograph an old concrete shell hangar at Heathrow(?) before it was demolished, as it was an excellent example of tension shells.
Being from Cambridge, he was able to actually get to talk to people who would be able to allow such a thing.
They refused.
The reason is that it was full of aircraft in peices. Apparently, the policy is to not let on to the public that aeroplanes come apart and are in fact safe monolithic flying machines. They didn't want the risk of the photos getting out.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL wow. There's what looks like a "small aircraft junkyard" at the airport nearest me. You can't see it from the terminal but you can drive by it or see it if you look out the right of the plane during takeoff.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Informative)
I think you fell victim to a BS-artist's tall tales.
1) You might want to look into the differences between duct tape and speed tape. The former may make a better storey. But the latter is far, FAR, more likely.
2) Boeing 707s didn't burn avgas. (They may have been theoretically able to do so. Turbine engines are amazingly tolerant about what they burn, at least in the short term. But certainly no 707/engine combo was rated for avgas.) Like all other civilian turbine-driven aircraft, they were fueled with Jet A in the US, Jet A-1 in most of the rest of the world, and Jet B in extremely cold climates.
3) The fuel-dump outlets on the 707, and on pretty much every aircraft that has a fuel-dump system (Not all aircraft do.), are on the trailing edge of the wing. Fuel could not be pouring "out over the wings" unless the wing tanks were actually punctured and leaking.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely "speed tape", which is
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you being a little obtuse? The aircraft manufacturer works with the engine manufacturer and certifies only certain engines. Boeing didn't make the battery that caught fire, but they are still responsible for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP has been reading too much Crichton [wikipedia.org]. Crichton goes to great lengths to describe the plane/engine relationship in that book [amazon.com] (page 116 or so).
Re: (Score:3)
2 inches of legroom? Oh Mr. Fancy-pants business class has come to brag about his legroom.
Not a big deal. (Score:3)
It's really not that big of a deal. I've had all of those problems on a SINGLE TRIP in the embraer. (Ok, the electrical issue was caught before it was an actual fire, but still). It's a new type, this kind of stuff happens.
This was to be expected (Score:4, Informative)
They'll no doubt find the problems, but more are likely to occur. Whether Boeing is able to maintain a good image for the airplane is another question.
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever you introduce new technology on an aircraft design, you open the door for problems you haven't seen before.
This is very true for many things.
The problem with applying your premise to this situation is that the aspects these craft are having problems with (brakes, fuel lines, windshields, electrical wiring) are old, well-established technologies.
Re:This was to be expected (Score:5, Informative)
If your A320 comment is related to the famous crash video, that had nothing to do with the aircraft - it was the pilot which screwed up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather pilots. There were two of them in the cockpit of that plane.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same for computers too. ;)
Nothing in the new stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
The really new technology is the carbon fibre used in the aircraft. Not seen any reports of faults with that yet though.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod+1
787 is safe. When composite burns it releases... (Score:5, Informative)
U.S. regulators say Boeing 787 is safe but needs review. [reuters.com]
FAA Orders Review Of Boeing 787 Dreamliner [npr.org] quote: "... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."
A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons. I haven't seen any discussion of Boeing's view of that. Here is a PDF file: Postcrash Health Hazards from Burning Aircraft Composites. [aviationfirejournal.com]
There is NO intent in saying that to imply that a 787 might crash. But if there is a runway or other accident, would passengers be less likely to survive?
Re: (Score:3)
"When composite burns it releases poisons. "
unlike everything else?
Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I start my day by inhaling the fumes of jet fuel and aluminum, myself. Would never touch that composite smoke, unless it came from carpet, upholstery, and cabin interior plastics.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that goes on a plane is made not to burn. I'm sure they tried to light a mock fuselage on fire to see what happens.
I'm not sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Releases poisons - misrepresents the design (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be under the impression fires in composite aircraft pose a risk of poisoning or harming passengers.
It's not that simple though. Composites (FRP) are made from a fiber and a resin, which can be thought of like a glue. Most plastics can be used as a resin. On an aircraft, they use many different resins in different places as they are tailored to the local requirements. Also, these plastics are subjected to a number of tests that are used to determine toxicity in a few reasonable ways; most of them concentrate on what happens when we burn the plastic.
Near passengers, they have requirements ensuring the parts are self-extinguishing in a short (1 minute) time frame and have no toxicity in their smoke (The flammability test is UL 94, V0 is a typical requirement; I forget the smoke and toxicity test numbers I've used). So the plastic that holds your luggage above your head is made of a less weight-efficient material because it must meet design requirements focused on passenger safety in the event of a cabin fire. And of course, in the middle of the wing, it doesn't much matter if the smoke from a fire would make a passenger sick--passengers aren't anywhere near there--but fuel is probably nearby, so the design requirements and fail-safe measures for flammability and smoke are different there and in other zones of the aircraft.
In the paper you cited, note that the focus was on emergency response personnel. If as a passenger you're exposed to such an explosion, respiration of the fibers that carry potentially toxic plastics isn't the top concern - if you're inhaling that, I would be wondering what punched a hole in the fuselage and how many people are dead. The respiration and other hazards are a big deal to a ground crew or fire department who would put out non-crash-related fires. But the words in bold, "A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons," are easy to misinterpret as a major passenger safety hazard unique to this aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly would not be unique as of course Airbus also uses composites in the A380.
Re: (Score:3)
"... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."
Unless the wings were about to fall off they couldn't say anything stronger. That's the way it works when your biggest national aircraft manufacturer has a problem. The FAA don't want to cause panic or lost sales, but at the same time need to cover themselves if something does happen.
So basically we can't tell anything from their statement, and assuming their obviously biased opinion is "balanced" isn't so
Stating the obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do they ever bother with these quotes - what else are they expected to say? As Mandy Rice Davies once said when asked to comment about a Lord denying he had anything to do with her, "Well, he would, wouldn't he"
Re: (Score:3)
Corporate spokespeople would be among the easiest to replace with a small shellscript. In fact I'll start right now with this piece based on part of a disk status checking script I use on my home server:
DANGER=`echo -n "$1" | grep -i 'break\|broke\|caught fire\|failure\|fell off\|no signal'`
if [ -n "$DANGER" ]
then
echo "We are absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the $PRODUCT"
fi
Re: (Score:2)
Classic 2nd system effect (Score:3)
Management response (Score:2)
to Dreamliner's problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_P77VEPKA [youtube.com]
Choose your plight (Score:2)
Between those and cracks in the Airbus 380 carbon wing, I'm not sure which is safer.
Another outsourcing fail (Score:2)
With the 787, Boeing went from being an engineering firm to an assembly firm. They outsourced the various pieces to a bunch of third parties and then assembled them in house to create the final product. Oddly enough, the various parts that were never tested as a complete system are now having problems.
Nobody could have seen that coming....
I am almost certain that if they do an after the fact accounting of what they will end up spending on fixing all of these issues, they are going to realize that they spe
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course your post is both a troll and falimbait.
The 787 is built from components made around the world, mostly by non-union workers. The Boeing plant in South Carolina that does 787 assembly is non-union.
You are an idiot.
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, several months of the original 787 delay was down to the IAM union strike in 2008 which shut down the Seattle FAL (although the strike lasted just 8 weeks, the FAL took 3 months to come back up to speed) - the SC FAL was only chosen and built after this strike.
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering all of the aircraft that have thus far had issues came from the Seattle FAL, I'd say that the union product isn't much better - the fuel system is installed by union workers, it has had several major QA issues, the electrical equipment which was at the centre of the recent issue is installed by union workers.
I'm not particularly pro or anti union, but the arguments for and against unions in this thread are ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe slashdot should order comments by score rather than by time as default. Even youtube does that these days.
Re: (Score:3)
So, tell me... If this is a "union labor" issue, why don't we see these problems with the 767, built in Seattle by your dreaded union labor? Probably because the issue has nothing to do with union vs non-union.
If anything beyond a "bleeding edge" technology issues, it's outsourcing major components that should be looked at.
But thanks for your red herring political screed⦠Howâ(TM)s the Tea Bag holding up?
Re: (Score:3)
One thing we can agree on in union vs. non-union debates, is that it's always management's fault.
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of unions vs the reality of unions just end up being very different things in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unions are like communism, it sounds good in theory but is impossible to get it to work in practice. I used to be deputy FOC of a print union so I do have some background with them.
Re: A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unions are like communism, it sounds good in theory but is impossible to get it to work in practice. I used to be deputy FOC of a print union so I do have some background with them.
Disclaimer
The above comment is bollox.
It is bollox, indeed. The particular implementation in the us seems defective, it does work very well in many other places (unlike communism, see).
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:4, Informative)
I assume by "Elsewhere they tend to do rather more good" you're not including the UK. Over here in the UK they are also all about protecting lazyness and weird working practices such as holding back modernisation, reinstating bullies, etc
(I know this is a generalisation, and therefore I'm sure there are exceptions, however the biggies such as train staff in particular and public sector unions fall into this category)
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you're in the US where the role of unions seems a little more unhelpful. I get the impression over there they're all about protecting lazyness and wierd working practices.
Let me tell you a recent union-related story, and the public perception of it:
1. Management goes to the union and says "We need to cut your wages 30% in order to keep the company afloat."
2. Union agrees.
3. Management celebrates by giving themselves large bonuses.
4. 2 years later, management goes to the union and says "We need to cut your wages 50% in order to keep the company afloat."
5. Union threatens to strike.
6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)
6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.
The public arrives at this conclusion, aided in no small part by the conservative media, as part of it's lesson that the noble class is to be catered to in every whim, because that's the only way anyone has jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Management celebrates by giving themselves large bonuses.
You can bet those bonuses amounted to far less then the amount saved by a 30% pay reduction to all employees. I'm not saying it is right, but had management not taken the bonuses, the company would likely still fail. In this scenario, it is the union who deserves most of the blame while management is only guilty of antagonizing the union.
Re:A true union built aircraft (Score:5, Informative)
Before concluding that Unions support laziness, consider that workers in the U.S. are generally expected to work more hours with less vacation than the vast majority of the free world. So according to employers, trying to achieve parity with the E.U. is promoting laziness.
As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./
Re: (Score:2)
As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./
From personal experience in workplaces I've been at trying to unionize, and from people I know that work for the unions, the number one cause of getting people to unionize is bad management. Pay rarely figures into the equation these days. What a union might get the company to increase is easily lost to the union by the workers. Rather it's being told they have to work back to back shifts again because the manager decided to change the schedule without notice, have to come in on the weekend because somebody
Re: (Score:3)
.
Granted, I've never even worked in a union myself. But honestly, if a German union and all its workers were suddenly transported here, wi
Reversion to mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, I've never even worked in a union myself
Nor have I but I'd dealt directly with them almost daily at times. I've had wrenches thrown at me because I dared to produce a stopwatch. (I'm an industrial engineer - that's what we do) I don't hate unions but I think they've forgotten their real purpose and have become far too adversarial with the companies.
But honestly, if a German union and all its workers were suddenly transported here, with all the time off and other benefits they receive, can you imagine anything but mortal conflict with US management?
The benefits any pay for workers in certain unions such as the UAW are second to none. I've seen guys with no college degree who make upwards of $80-100K+ for an assembly line job. Until very recently average wages of a GM worker was $39.69/hour [yahoo.com] and benefits tacked another $33.58/hour on top of that. We're not talking about specialty skilled labor here either. Guys with little to no special skills used to be able to get jobs that paid far better than the requirements of the job dictated. That has proven to be unsustainable.
Blue collar America has taken an incredible beating with a huge decline in standard of living over the last 30 years, today's auto workers are lucky to make half of what their fathers did.
Their fathers got a deal that was out of line with what could actually be sustained by the profits of the companies. Blue collar america is simply experiencing a reversion to the mean. They've had a good run for a while and now the bill has come due.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I could. Unbeleivably, the ILA and ILWU have it even better than the UAW. I'm not going to get into details that I'm not privy to divulge, but the recent strike that crippled shipping in December had plenty of details on CNN that you can dig up if you'd like (hint: a pay raise to $192k wasn't good enough because the industry balked at them requiring featherbedding guarantees).
Re: (Score:2)
http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/ceos-got-a-big-raise-how-about-you-brush.aspx
goes a long way towards explaining the current antipathy towards the 1 percent and the growing resentment of the shrinking middle class (not that this has much to do with Airline Production and Safety except that there were probably some big executive bonuses at stake in getting the Dreamliner ou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm, unions are generally a good thing. They protect the worker's rights and keep employers in line. You must be thinking of the neutered version of unions you guys have in the US. Then again, the US is a shithole when it comes to work, so it's not surprising for you to think that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha? Did I miss Airbus releasing their first carbon fiber aircraft? No? Then they can shut up until they do. I seem to remember there being a couple of Airbus crashes in the past few years. Perhaps Airbus can focus on fixing their planes instead of laughing at Boeing.
Don't get so worked up about this. For a long time we patiently listened to our American cousins gloating about the Airbus 380's problems and how well everything is going with their Dreamliner, then production delays happened and now this... and alluvasudden the gang on the other side of the grew awfully quiet. It's our turn to enjoy some schadenfreude you guys have been going to town with that since the A380 wiring fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine not very well if they add fire retardant to the resin.
Aluminum burns nicely, too - and can't be put out with water. Thing is, usually people are more concerned about the jet fuel, which makes up a large percentage of the weight of the plane itself and is meant to burn.
Re: (Score:2)
You either build a radical new airframe with cutting edge materials and do it in-house OR you radically outsource your operation to cut costs building a traditional airframe. Boeing chose to do both. This is the result.
Why is it better to build up knowledge and processes for cutting edge technology in-house rather than using a vendor that already knows how to do them?