Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Switches Workers To 787  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Quote:
Boeingis shifting engineers from other Everett-based airplane programs to do work on the 787.

"There's some reallocation of resources going on, to meet our weight and time targets," said spokeswoman Yvonne Leach.

Boeing wouldn't comment on the number of engineers involved. Leach said the total is fluctuating.

Last week, Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney told Wall Street analysts that the company was beefing up its 787 engineering corps to ensure that the plane won't come in late or overweight.

Boeing plans to spend an additional $300 million for research and development for the 787 and other programs. That's on top of $2 billion already budgeted.

The plan is for "more engineers and overtime" and is "not at all unanticipated," McNerney said.

"I'd rather be paranoid now than deeply disappointed later."

For its part, Boeing has "aggressive commitments for certification and for entry into service," McNerney said. "We're attacking the weight issues aggressively and the associated schedule issues."

The increased spending for engineering help is not a sign of trouble, he added. "We still see the plane delivered on time, within the performance commitments we've made to our customers."
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...1.cfm


23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

I would imagine this is standard practise at this point in a project. When one thinks of a new airliner, it's natural to consider the aircraft design and test people and all the other folks needed for the new airplane. Sometimes we can forget about the manufacturing engineers, the folks that have to build the thing and design all the tooling and production equipment. I would say that things are ramping up for those folks as the prepare for mass production of the 787.

GU



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Good on Boeing for dedicating the necessary resources before these issues become bigger problems than they are now.

I'm sure the Airbus fanbois will have a negative spin on this...



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11912 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

I'm not an airbus fanboy, but it is an engineering truism that adding people to a late project only makes it later, because the old engineers spend a lot of time ramping up and otherwise interacting with the new engineers. It's all explained in "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks...


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3546 times:

Boeing have been quite clear on this. Thye extra engineers are there to tackle the weight & entry into service date problems.

It wil be nteresting to compare the way Boeing handles this problem compared to the way Airbus handled similar problems.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3546 times:

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 2):
Good on Boeing for dedicating the necessary resources before these issues become bigger problems than they are now.

I'm sure the Airbus fanbois will have a negative spin on this...

Why should it be necessary to put any negative spin on this news? (or start an A v B flamewar?)

There's not enough information to say whether this is a reaction borne of anticipated delays/problems, or just routine reallocation of resources. My guess is probably the former mainly because it seems quite late in the industrial ramp-up to be moving around and reallocating significant resources. The test/manufacturing gates and the resources required are usually set a long time before now. So, it seems likely the reallocation wasn't anticipated and it's in response to something 'unforseen'.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11844 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 5):
Quoting Brons2 (Reply 2):
Good on Boeing for dedicating the necessary resources before these issues become bigger problems than they are now.

I'm sure the Airbus fanbois will have a negative spin on this...


Why should it be necessary to put any negative spin on this news?

Well knowing some members they will easily think of something.

I see this action by Boeing as totally worth it considering how much Boeing is investing in this, and because of all the airlines that are needing this airplane, due to sky high fuel prices which is affecting airlines profits.


User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 6):
I see this action by Boeing as totally worth it considering how much Boeing is investing in this, and because of all the airlines that are needing this airplane, due to sky high fuel prices which is affecting airlines profits.

 checkmark 

Exactly, although it essentially reduces to the same issues as for Airbus - Boeing can't afford (literally or metaphorically) to be excessively late with the 787 for the reason of penalty payments, delivering under-spec and the inevitable public flogging that accompanies any hint of a delay.

This action isn't just worth it, from a business point of view, it is probably absolutely vital to keep the 787 program moving on schedule.

[now if only my colleagues in Germany and France weren't taking their 2 month summer holidays and were hard at work on the 380 to recover the delays on that aircraft... hmf.]


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 7):
[now if only my colleagues in Germany and France weren't taking their 2 month summer holidays and were hard at work on the 380 to recover the delays on that aircraft... hmf.]

Pardon my naivete, but you're kidding of course?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
I'm not an airbus fanboy, but it is an engineering truism that adding people to a late project only makes it later, because the old engineers spend a lot of time ramping up and otherwise interacting with the new engineers. It's all explained in "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks...

Revelation,
I am no engineer , trust me .  dopey  However , how would you compare how Boeing is handling there new a/c's [787] -weight/entry into service issue , to how Airbus handled the A380 ?

I do not see Boeing in a form of denial , which seemed to be the case with Airbus [A380]. Do you see any positives with Boeing's actions ?

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
For its part, Boeing has "aggressive commitments for certification and for entry into service," McNerney said. "We're attacking the weight issues aggressively and the associated schedule issues."

Could Boeing's aggressive actions with regard to the 787 , benefit any other a/c currently being designed ?

Halibut


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
engineering truism that adding people to a late project only makes it later, because the old engineers spend a lot of time ramping up and otherwise interacting with the new engineers. It's all explained in "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks...

Yes it isn't as efficient, but could Boeing just now be ready to accomdodate the added staff to finish final design of all of the parts. It has been some time since Boeing announced that 25% of the parts hit final release with no 50% release announcement. It is possible that just now they are bringing in the 777 staff responsible for the galley drains and cart stowage to complete the 787 items.

It is a lot easier to ramp up staff by 20% with 6 months to go when it is behind but not late, than to ramp up 40% with 6 weeks to go when it is really late. That is when the added $ are basically wasted or actually worsen the situation.


User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4674 posts, RR: 48
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

SOP
SOP
SOP
SOP

Typical



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineMSPGUY From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting Halibut (Reply 9):
Could Boeing's aggressive actions with regard to the 787 , benefit any other a/c currently being designed ?

I think we'll see plently of the technology in their upcoming birds!!!

  

[Edited 2006-08-07 02:48:20]


If it ain't broke, DON'T touch it!!!!
User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
I'm not an airbus fanboy, but it is an engineering truism that adding people to a late project only makes it later, because the old engineers spend a lot of time ramping up and otherwise interacting with the new engineers. It's all explained in "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks...



User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Boeing is being pro-active - good for them. Like a lot of programs, they hit crunch time, finding the means to deliver on all their promises on time. If there is one thing Boeing is very good at - it's product management. My hopes are that the extra staff provides the necessary push to get the project done on time and to spec. When I first read Boeing's time table for 787 development, I was sure they'd either revise it, or they'd never be able to meet it - seing how aggressive it is, but they earn serious kudos if they pull it off.

I'm sure when Airbus realized the A380 was going to be late and overweight, they reallocated resources away from somewhere else to work on it - Airbus' challenge however, is that they had troubles in both the A380 and A350 programs at the same time. At the moment, 787 is the only major project going on at Boeing (748 being far earlier in development, and far less ambitious than A350, A380 or 787).

Best of Luck Boeing.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Boeing is a pain to work with....but I would rather they be a pain and get it right and on time than to not be and have certain subs on time but waiting for other subs to finally get there part right. The same would be for internal Boeing task that affect all subs.

Love the company though.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2128 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting Halibut (Reply 9):
how would you compare how Boeing is handling there new a/c's [787] -weight/entry into service issue , to how Airbus handled the A380 ?

I might be stating the obvious, but it's difficult to compare because the two programs are not anywhere near the same stage of development. We have yet to see if there will be any major weight / EIS issues with the 787, but one thing is for sure there's plenty of time left to screw it up. Not that they necessarily will... it's all about execution, execution, execution. Let's hope for Boeing it won't be the head-rolling kind, like it was for Airbus  Smile


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 7):
[now if only my colleagues in Germany and France weren't taking their 2 month summer holidays and were hard at work on the 380 to recover the delays on that aircraft... hmf.]

Pardon my naivete, but you're kidding of course?

Slight exaggeration, it's more like 1 month holiday, not 2.

Some people go to church every Sunday. The French go on holiday every August. Come what may, one month's holiday starting 1st August is more or less sacrosanct. Factories close. Bars close. Shops close. Villages ship in emergency baguette supplies since the boulangerie is closed etc etc


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11912 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting Halibut (Reply 9):
I do not see Boeing in a form of denial , which seemed to be the case with Airbus [A380].

In Airbus's case, I doubt everyone was in denial. The magnitude of the issue had to be known at least by mid level engineering management. Also one would think they would have been monitoring it closely, since the same issue lead to the first six month slip also. I could see how the senior executives could be unaware of the issues, all that needs to happen is the mid level folss either don't communicate the issue at all, or understate it. Interestingly enough, it was the senior level guys who paid for the problems with their jobs, yet the mid level guys presumably are still on the job. It's probably like a sports team: when the team is in trouble, you fire the manager, because ultimately they are responsible, and it's too messy to fire individual team members.

Quoting Halibut (Reply 9):
Do you see any positives with Boeing's actions ?

As others have stated, if it's done early enough in the project, there is enough time to ramp up the new engineers, and once they work independently they add value to the project. One thing they also add is cost.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
I might be stating the obvious, but it's difficult to compare because the two programs are not anywhere near the same stage of development. We have yet to see if there will be any major weight / EIS issues with the 787, but one thing is for sure there's plenty of time left to screw it up. Not that they necessarily will... it's all about execution, execution, execution. Let's hope for Boeing it won't be the head-rolling kind, like it was for Airbus Smile

I'm kind of surprised Mr. Champion still draws an Airbus paycheck.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2642 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):

As others have stated, if it's done early enough in the project, there is enough time to ramp up the new engineers, and once they work independently they add value to the project. One thing they also add is cost.

Agreed. About the cost issue, Boeing believes it is better to take the cost hit ourselves than to pass it on to the customer in the form of underperforming and/or late planes. The program may go overbudget but Boeing's reputation remains intact.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9372 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting Gearup (Reply 1):
Sometimes we can forget about the manufacturing engineers, the folks that have to build the thing and design all the tooling and production equipment. I would say that things are ramping up for those folks as the prepare for mass production of the 787.

Many people don't realize how many problems can occur when designs begin manufacturing. I've worked on such problems. A design team might create a new design for a component that turns out to be difficult to make or manufacture. Also during the testing phase, problems are round with designs and redesigns have to happen. This requires a lot of coordination.

Another thing not to forget is that there are always ways to improve designs. I've seen this personally as an engineer. Sometimes it is worth it to put an engineer to work to lighten a component or to reduce manufacturing cost. Sometimes the effort doesn't make logical sense, but sometimes it does. A lot of work needs to happen as a design for a plane is completed and production is ramped up. Also the fact that there is a worldwide shortage on carbon fibre composites doesn't help anything.

In engineering, work is always done on the "hottest" projects. They take the resources. This is very normal procedure. Companies will skew resources towards programs that have the earliest deadlines. It is a viscious cycle since other programs can fall behind, but it is a fact of life. Having extra engineers sitting around without work isn't cost effective either.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
I'm not an airbus fanboy, but it is an engineering truism that adding people to a late project only makes it later, because the old engineers spend a lot of time ramping up and otherwise interacting with the new engineers. It's all explained in "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks...

Revelation I am familar with the Mythical Man Month, but I would also point out the opposite can be true. For example, One person can not always do a task faster then a whole nunch of people if the tasks are suitable and independently defined.

In this case, Boeing has a history of getting their engineering done right. I am sure that some of these people are coming in as independent auditing teams, some as refinements for problematic areas, and some for planning on the testing.

I highly recommend Joe Sutter's book on the 747 if you want to get a good view into what designing a building a plane looks like.


User currently offlineF14ATomcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
In Airbus's case, I doubt everyone was in denial. The magnitude of the issue had to be known at least by mid level engineering management. Also one would think they would have been monitoring it closely, since the same issue lead to the first six month slip also. I could see how the senior executives could be unaware of the issues, all that needs to happen is the mid level folss either don't communicate the issue at all, or understate it. Interestingly enough, it was the senior level guys who paid for the problems with their jobs, yet the mid level guys presumably are still on the job. It's probably like a sports team: when the team is in trouble, you fire the manager, because ultimately they are responsible, and it's too messy to fire individual team members.

You are right everyone probably wasn't in "denial". However mid-level management, who must have known about the problems, weren't willing to inform senior management that their (senior management) edicts for performance and internal cost for design couldn't be met. So senior management probably did know about the problem(s) and told mid-level to fix it within budget. They passed on the edict to their managers and told them get it done. No protest was made because it would have be futile to "argue with the boss".


User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Quoting F14ATomcat (Reply 22):
No protest was made because it would have be futile to "argue with the boss".

Are you insinuating that Noel Forgeard was as ruthless as the Borg ? Did he " Forgeard " just not want to hear about and/or accept the reality of the delays ?

Hhmm  scratchchin 

Resistance is futile ! You will all be asimilated ! hyper 

Halibut


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Unveils Plans To Reduce Drag/Weight On 787 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 14:59:26 by Leelaw
Boeing Change7E7 To 787 To Accomodate The Chinese? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 19:10:15 by Captaintim
Boeing Officially Renaming 7E7 To 787 Yet? posted Thu Jan 27 2005 21:26:59 by Nyc777
Boeing Deliver B747BCF To SQ posted Thu Oct 26 2006 20:19:30 by 777ER
Boeing Delivers B738 To CR Airways (Hong Kong) posted Fri Sep 22 2006 07:56:31 by 777ER
Boeing Studies 2 Airplanes To Replace 737 posted Thu Sep 14 2006 14:57:30 by DAYflyer
JAL Boeing 777-300er's To Europe posted Thu Aug 17 2006 10:26:42 by Express1
NW Asks Workers To Go Through Trash To Save $ posted Tue Aug 15 2006 23:40:47 by DeltaFFinDFW
Boeing Eyes Fast-Track 787 Training posted Mon Aug 14 2006 20:49:21 by Leelaw
Boeing Shifts 737's To PAE posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:58:16 by Clickhappy