Boeing Finds New Defect in Ongoing Struggle To Produce Dreamliner 787 (reuters.com) 35
Boeing and U.S. regulators said Thursday that some titanium 787 Dreamliner parts were improperly manufactured over the past three years, the latest in a series of problems to plague the wide-body aircraft. From a report: The quality issue does not affect the immediate safety of flights, the company and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said. Boeing said the parts were provided Leonardo, which bought the items from Italy-based Manufacturing Processes Specification (MPS). MPS is no longer a supplier to Leonardo, Boeing said.
The parts include fittings that help secure the floor beam in one fuselage section, as well as other fittings, spacers, brackets, and clips within other assemblies. Undelivered aircraft will be reworked as needed, Boeing said, adding that any fleet actions would be determined through its normal review process and confirmed with the FAA. The defect was found as the planemaker grapples with other problems in its 787 that have caused it to cut production and halt deliveries since May.
The parts include fittings that help secure the floor beam in one fuselage section, as well as other fittings, spacers, brackets, and clips within other assemblies. Undelivered aircraft will be reworked as needed, Boeing said, adding that any fleet actions would be determined through its normal review process and confirmed with the FAA. The defect was found as the planemaker grapples with other problems in its 787 that have caused it to cut production and halt deliveries since May.
Let me guess...` (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going with the defect was pointed out by some engineers but the execs overrode the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No big deal. We don't need airplanes anyway... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ffs. So I assume that if you got a paper cut, then three months later you notice a new mole, the only possible cause of the mole would be the paper cut? Do I have that right?
You forgot the part where Big Paper secretly poisoned the paper because they're in cahoots with Fauci. To learn more subscribe, follow me, and check out my merchandise. It's made by the most pro-American laborers in China!
Part of me feels sorry for people who think that way, but another part of me wants to shear them like the dewormed sheep that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ridiculous anti-vax propaganda has led to a kind of backlash where potential issues get kind of covered up. In reality there is a risk of some cardiovascular damage from current COVID vaccines since they lead to production of the same spike protein that the virus has, which causes poor blood pressure regulation in places it appears, as well as inflammation of cardiovascular tissue.
Of course the limited amount produced by a vaccine is far, FAR less damaging than the unregulated exponential growth in the
Re: (Score:1)
Monoclonal anti-bodies is another treatment that seems to be working and hasn't shown anywhere near the negative side effects of the current jabs.
Sure Luckyo. why spend $5 on a vaccine when you can wait to get sick and spend 10's of thousands on treatments instead...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A flight attendant reportedly said that earlier this month a recently vaccinated pilot flying out of Los Angeles died during a commercial flight, leading the co-pilot to make an emergency landing.
Which is about as good as something my brother-in-law's friend posted on Facebook, but the same idiot is still pushing ivormectin and still trying to convince people that they used it in Uttar Pradesh like the total cockwomble he is, so prepare yourself for further idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let me guess...` (Score:2)
Re:Let me guess...` (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of observable precedent in other industries and companies where this has happened, sometimes repeatedly.
Re:Let me guess...` (Score:5, Interesting)
Alright, first, yes, I 100% agree that...
1) Boeing is responsible for what they produce, and...
2) Boeing royally messed things up putting profits over quality of production.
Now, that being said, I think what's equally important is acknowledging that Boeing 787 is pioneer in brand new engineering technology never before seen in a commercial aircraft. Majority-carbon-fiber body; carbon-fiber-and-titanium fan blades; swept wings; if you want additional details, feel free to watch these [youtube.com] two videos [youtube.com] on the engineering of the aircraft.
Boeing is in never-been-done-before territory, so I think they deserve at least a little respect for what they accomplished, and a little empathy for the challenges they are experiencing as they refine this aircraft design.
Because once this design and manufacturing process gets polished, this will be the model design for airplanes for a generation to come. There's a reason why it has nearly reached 1,500 orders [wikipedia.org]. (For comparison, its closest competition, the Airbus A350, .) [wikipedia.org]
Boeing v Airbus (Score:5, Informative)
Shame on me for not reviewing my post before posting. My HTML tag clipped that last sentence. I was trying to say that the Boeing 787 has nearly 1,500 orders, while the Airbus A350 has 913.
Re:Boeing v Airbus (Score:5, Insightful)
Its worth noting that while Boeing does have nearly 1,500 orders for their 787, they have yet to actually make a profit despite delivering over two thirds of that number - and there is still a mountain of debt ("deferred production costs") to chew through before Boeing will start making an actual profit. Theres some doubt that Boeing will actually make a profit at all with its current order book.
Airbus, meanwhile, broke even on the A350XWB in 2019 and is now making money, after delivering only 400 aircraft. I know which position Airbus would rather be in on this one (and Airbus had their own issues with the A380, so they know how hard it can be).
Boeings issues with the 787 have nothing to do with how advanced it supposedly is, and everything to do with mismanagement, bad decisions and poor quality control - management decisions dominated it from day one, which is why Boeing pushed the engineers to roll out the first airframe on 7/8/07 despite it being nowhere near ready to fly and had to be partially dismantled again to continue the production process.
Boeing wanted a world-wide distributed just-in-time production system like Airbus, which is why the 787 became one of Boeings most widely partnered programmes in its history - its also what led to a lot of production issues early on, and also what led to Boeing spending a tonne of money buying up most of its partners production lines and bringing production back in house.
Boeing went big on the 787 - new technology (CFRP fuselage originally designed for the Sonic Cruiser etc), new production processes, new partnership and profit sharing models - unfortunately, none of the gambles paid off and the fact that they changed everything at the same time just compounded their problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Your other points are probably quite right, but because it is too big to fail Boeing can go right on being terrible.
Re:Let me guess...` (Score:5, Interesting)
I wasn't aware what an interesting plane it is.
Boeing is screweing up a lot of things (737 MAX and the Starliner, whose delays are almost comical at this point), but can cut the 787 some slack.
Re: Let me guess...` (Score:2)
G d & t.
Hey Boeing.
Who wrote the specs
outsource everything (Score:2)
Likely Quality Inspection conversation (Score:2)
Boeing: We are good.
FAA inspector: Boeing says we are good, so we are good.
Just took my first flight on a 787 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can confirm, the air quality on a 787 is leagues ahead of any of the other 7x7 models I have used. Only the AirBus A380 matches it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it is so much nicer than any plane I have been on before. Made crossing the Atlantic much easier, felt rested afterward instead of feeling like I was getting over the flu. Much better air quality. Hope they get all the issues fixed.
I think we've found the Boeing marketing department.
As someone who travels trans Atlantic at least 8 times a year, transpacific at least once and UK-AUS (back in normal times) once a year... I actively avoid the 787 if I can. It hasn't picked up the moniker "squeezeliner" for nothing. I'll pay extra to go on an Airbus or B777/767 just to avoid how bad they are to fly on. They're half a metre narrower than the B777 but have the same cabin set up (3x3x3), that space is coming out of your seat. No window sh
Say it ain't so! (Score:2)
Boeing? No way!