Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Wins FAA Certification For GEnx-Powered 787  
User currently offlinegothamspotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday granted Boeing an amended type certificate for the 787-8 Dreamliner powered by General Electric GEnx-1B engines.

Japan Airlines is expected to receive the first GEnx-powered 787 in the next week or two.

More: http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/03/f...ith-general-electric-genx-engines/

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Only 3.5 years late. While everyone should be relieved, nobody involved in this should be proud...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
While everyone should be relieved, nobody involved in this should be proud...

I'm involved and I'm proud as hell. 3.5 years late is better than 4.5 years late; a lot of good people busted their ass for years to make this happen as fast as it did, most having nothing to do with what made it late in the first place, and I won't diminish their accomplishment by telling them they shouldn't be proud.

Tom.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I'm involved and I'm proud as hell. 3.5 years late is better than 4.5 years late; a lot of good people busted their ass for years to make this happen as fast as it did, most having nothing to do with what made it late in the first place, and I won't diminish their accomplishment by telling them they shouldn't be proud.


I'm sure you did good work, and I respect your input during all of this, and maybe from the inside you feel proud, but frankly, I think that's a phyric victory and more a feeling of relief.

If everyone at Boeing is honestly proud of this effort, than that points to a major problem at Boeing, and might even explain why it's 3.5 years late (and too slow to ramp up) to begin with.

This program has damaged Boeing financially and by perception, and because of this program, Boeing was not able to launch the 797.

I was a huge fan and defender of the delays when I felt Boeing was being honest, but since have gone cold on it. Though I do want to fly on it, it's lost it's magic for me.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):

Airbus had the same problems with the A380. I fail to see the difference. This is a big accomplishment and the 787 teams deserves kudos!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I'm involved and I'm proud as hell. 3.5 years late is better than 4.5 years late; a lot of good people busted their ass for years to make this happen as fast as it did, most having nothing to do with what made it late in the first place, and I won't diminish their accomplishment by telling them they shouldn't be proud.

Hear, Hear, bro! Congrats to you guys!  



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):
If everyone at Boeing is honestly proud of this effort, than that points to a major problem at Boeing

I worked on the 787 and I'm proud of what we accomplished. I'd love to hear how you think my pride "points to a major problem at Boeing".

If you were limiting your comment to the people who established the program budget, or the schedule, or who set the performance specs for public marketing purposes, or who chose Boeing's public relations approach, it would be hard to argue against you. However, your statement is far too sweeping to be acceptable. You are saying the people who designed the control laws, or the electric brakes, or the floor structure, or the fin attachment cannot be proud of their work. An odd perspective, given each of these parts of the airplane includes important innovations the designers should be proud of and had nothing to do with delays, cost overruns, or public relations debacles.

The people who designed, built, tested and certified the 787 had no control over any of the things which so spectacularly failed for Boeing on the 787 program. While no person at Boeing feels good about the things which went wrong, the people responsible for the airplane itself have a great deal to be proud of. They have produced an airplane which is more capable than in-service aircraft and which by all accounts offers that capability at a double-digit reduction in operating costs. By any measure in this industry, that is an enormous success and something the people responsible can be justifiably proud of.

I firmly believe if the people in charge had advertized the airplane and the schedule which ultimately has been delivered, you would be singing the praises of the Boeing company rather than telling us to be ashamed of our effort.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 5):
You are saying the people who designed the control laws, or the electric brakes, or the floor structure, or the fin attachment cannot be proud of their work.

I don't agree with what he's saying, but I think he was trying to say he doesn't feel anyone should be proud of the program as a whole, not that they shouldn't be proud of their individual accomplishments.

I don't agree not just because only a few are responsible for some bad decisions or actions that caused the major problems, but also the majority didn't even have any input. From what I've read, a lot of people were saying that doing an all-new plane with major changes in technology while taking a new approach to outsourcing/partnering at the same time was a recipe for disaster, but certain decision makers just didn't want to hear it.

My company has some blindingly obvious areas it should change, but of course no that can do anything about them ever asks my opinion, and senior executives who are hired to try to clean up these areas tend to leave within a few months of being hired without leaving behind a trace once they figure out that none of the other senior executives will support any of their efforts.

I just took my annual on-line company survey today. It didn't ask me anything about the issues that matter to me, however it did ask me if I was in the process of changing my gender !!!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
it did ask if I was in the process of changing my gender !!!

LOL! Good to know they are focused on the things which matter!


User currently onlineStressedOut From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Only 3.5 years late. While everyone should be relieved, nobody involved in this should be proud...

You obviously are either ignorant of what they accomplished or just plain stupid. I see you are a writer so maybe just ignorant regarding the wonderful piece of engineering that it is.

Although I did not work directly on the 787 I have a lot of friends that put in 60 hr weeks for several years to accomplish what they did, they have every reason to be proud.

When I think of all the difficulties involved with just the analysis and manufacturing of the composite airframe I am awe struck. Just think of creating the caul plates for Section 41 on the plane.....amazing stuff.



[quote=tdscanuck,reply=2]I'm involved and I'm proud as hell. 3.5 years late is better than 4.5 years late; a lot of good people busted their ass for years to make this happen as fast as it did, most having nothing to do with what made it late in the first place, and I won't diminish their accomplishment by telling them they shouldn't be proud.


Hats off to you and your colleagues Tom. Those of us who have worked in the industry know what a great accomplishment designing and certifying a new plane is.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 5):
The people who designed, built, tested and certified the 787 had no control over any of the things which so spectacularly failed for Boeing on the 787 program.

And that's exactly the problem.

In old days such large scale programs were governed by people who knew what they were doing. Nowadays large programs are governed by the CFO's. And CFO's last a bit longer time than we wear the same shirt, but not much longer. As soon as they have managed to "dress up" one sufficiently stockholder pleasing quarterly report, then they are on the run with a huge bonus cheque.

In the meantime they have fooled the company by shopping around the whole world subcontracting stuff with companies which do not master the job, and/or with incomplete product specifications. Sometimes even outsourcing detailed design efforts to incapable companies.

The next CFO is then left with the job to buy the sourcing partners and spend fortunes on educating their staff to be able to fulfill their contract years behind schedule.

Sometimes it's not just the fault of the CFO, combined with a weak CEO, sometimes it is even the CEO who is just operating like a CFO only.

It is nothing special for Boeing, or for the airliner industry. Sadly many other companies in other businesses suffer from the same illness.

Get the old days back. Let technically knowledged people govern technical projects. Let them delegate the tasks to people whom they know master the job. Then they can TELL the CFO what money they need to do that, and the CFO can negotiate with the bank.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 9):
Nowadays large programs are governed by the CFO's. And CFO's last a bit longer time than we wear the same shirt, but not much longer. As soon as they have managed to "dress up" one sufficiently stockholder pleasing quarterly report, then they are on the run with a huge bonus cheque.

I still believe Boeing made a mistake by not making CFO James Bell the permanent CEO and Chairman instead of just letting him keep those respective chairs warm between Stonecipher leaving and McNerney arriving.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

It didn't matter who was at the helm...once the performance and delivery promises were made and they had their first sales, the die was cast. Nobody could have pulled the 'on time and on spec' 787 out of the hat.

The delivery goals were simply very unrealistic and not one of the boffins at the top had any idea that it would be as late as it has been.

Had the rest of the plane been ready anywhere close to on time, the engines still wouldn't have been on spec.

There was little, in my opinion, that could have sped up the process...what made the development time unpalatable was the unrealistic timetable...and nobody could have changed that once it was in a contract.

It was a case of hope creating the timetable and reality creating the delays.



What the...?
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3460 times:

Wow. It's unbelievable how rude and cynical some people are. Here we have people on this forum who have worked expressly on/with the 787's production through all of it's delays and there's still snipe comments being made. THAT--their dedication and sacrifice--should be commended.

While we're on that, I've always had a gut feeling that the 787 isn't really "late." The people who set the deadlines were just too ambitious. I mean, it was launched in '04 and was supposed to be in revenue service in '08... 747's first flight was 4 years after launch, didn't enter service until 5 years after. The 757/767 saw the same time frame. For the 787 to be in REV. service in 4 years, with the "new" America (all of the new regulations, de-federalisation, etc.), the 4-yr time frame was a joke.

Can we just congratulate the employees at Boeing and move on? Late or not, this is a great achievement.

I've also been dyng to ask: are there any visibly discernable differences between the GEnx and RR engine nacelles, asides from the corp. markings?

[Edited 2012-03-22 22:29:32]


Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
are there any visibly discernable differences between the GEnx and RR engine nacelles, asides from the corp. markings?


The GEnx has a CFRP fan and the exhaust nozzle has an extra circumferential joint.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
I've also been dyng to ask: are there any visibly discernable differences between the GEnx and RR engine nacelles, asides from the corp. markings?

The RR engine also has a breather tube/mast sticking out the bottom of the nacelle (the GE engine vents out the exhaust cone so the tube isn't there).

On the "proudness" topic, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT proud that we disappointed so many customers on schedule. But that's quite different than being proud of getting a new commercial jet certified and in service. That's *hard*, no matter what the original spec/schedule/contracts said.

Tom.


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 968 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Only 3.5 years late. While everyone should be relieved, nobody involved in this should be proud...

If someone was to count the number of your posts on A.net that were at least a bit positive he would still be waiting to count one.

People who worked on B788 deserve every bit of credit and they should be proud of what they accomplished. Sorry, but you have no right to judge who should be proud or relieved. What do you know about manufacturing or certifying aircraft? Would you mind to elaborate?



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
On the "proudness" topic, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT proud that we disappointed so many customers on schedule. But that's quite different than being proud of getting a new commercial jet certified and in service. That's *hard*, no matter what the original spec/schedule/contracts said.

I doubt than customers will be disappointed with the plane...it will live up to all of its promises. The 787 is a heck of a plane...a more realistic schedule from the beginning would have made all the difference in the world in the perception of the program as a whole.

Anyone who worked on the plane should be proud...it's a heck of an achievement.



What the...?
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Congratulatiojns to everybody who worked hard for this major achievement. Your work isn't over yet, and the path still is uphill, but today you have all reason to celebrate it.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
On the "proudness" topic, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT proud that we disappointed so many customers on schedule. But that's quite different than being proud of getting a new commercial jet certified and in service. That's *hard*, no matter what the original spec/schedule/contracts said.

Agreed. The 787 broke new ground on many fronts while still meeting or exceeding the very demanding certification rules that have evolved over a century of flight. It's a huge investment of time, energy and resources (not to mention blood, sweat and tears!) to make that happen.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
I doubt than customers will be disappointed with the plane...it will live up to all of its promises. The 787 is a heck of a plane...a more realistic schedule from the beginning would have made all the difference in the world in the perception of the program as a whole.

Indeed. Schedule making is difficult, but there must have been some clear indications that it was unrealistic right from the start. The fact they had to send employees to partner companies should have shown that the basic premise of outsourcing wasn't working as planned, and the "travelled work" showed issues with rampup in their new manufacturing strategy. The fact that some partners had next to no experience in the roles they were given should have been a big red flag, yet they were expected to deliver on the same pace as the experienced partners. Another huge red flag was beginning assembly of the aircraft with the wrong fasteners. It is said one reason the first three aircraft are write-offs is that no one knows where all the non-standard fasteners are on those frames, and that's evidence of the unrealistic pace the program was being driven to. Many of the unknowables such as the SOB joint issue, the EE bay fire, the various Trent issues, the delamination issue, etc were just that, unknowables that always crop up and for which there should have been some schedule buffer, but not much could have been done about them in advance.

However, the team soldiered on in very commendable fashion and worked through all the issues regardless of source, and the result is a fine aircraft that will make money for its customers and eventually for its maker too.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
The delivery goals were simply very unrealistic and not one of the boffins at the top had any idea that it would be as late as it has been...There was little, in my opinion, that could have sped up the process...what made the development time unpalatable was the unrealistic timetable...and nobody could have changed that once it was in a contract.

I believe one of the real "hurt factors" was Boeing's decisions on outsourcing so much of the design work and then not adequately managing that design work.

If a significant portion of the design had been done in-house and better/closer supervision of the subs had happened, the plane might still have been late, but I don't believe it would have been nearly as late.

Yes, it would have been much more expensive than the original budget planned, but with hindsight, it would have probably been a good bit cheaper, overall. *shrug*


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 3):
If everyone at Boeing is honestly proud of this effort, than that points to a major problem at Boeing, and might even explain why it's 3.5 years late (and too slow to ramp up) to begin with.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4):
Airbus had the same problems with the A380. I fail to see the difference. This is a big accomplishment and the 787 teams deserves kudos!

Tom et al. I am proud of folks on the program. No matter what what all the detractors say about how the 787 or the A380 are how many years late.

After all, if you look around, you can't find many people who are doing what you are doing. There's a reason why there's only two major large commercial aircraft producer in the world. If there is another company out there who can produce a complex, cutting edge, "mass produced" transportation system on time and on budget, they would have knocked Boeing or Airbus out of the duopoly they have right now.

I may live long enough to eat my words, but right now, I will stand by them

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2525 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
On the "proudness" topic, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT proud that we disappointed so many customers on schedule. But that's quite different than being proud of getting a new commercial jet certified and in service. That's *hard*, no matter what the original spec/schedule/contracts said.

Well said Tom. Regardless of what some of the naysayers on here post, it's a great achievement to get a commercial airliner built, tested, certified and into service. Some folks don't seem to realize that t hard to do. Should more heads have rolled in program management? Heck yeah, but that's a topic for another thread.
A tip of my hat to all my friends at Boeing who worked on this project and to those I haven't met except on-line via this forum.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
one of the real "hurt factors" was Boeing's decisions on outsourcing

Yes, but that's a symptom more than the disease. The reality is that Harry Stonecipher (who was averse to doing an all-new airplane) refused to take a proposal to the board which cost more than 'X' and took longer than 'Y' to bring to market. Combine this with the fact Stonecipher was an ardent believer in RONA as a measure for Boeing's production efficiency and you have a recipe for disaster... enormous pressure on the 7E7 leadership who made key decisions about schedule, as well as development and capitalization costs to find a fast and inexpensive way to design and build the most advanced airplane concept Boeing had ever envisioned. The plan was doomed from the start.

The irony is that without the unrealistically low program cost, unrealistically short schedule, and without the overreaching outsourcing philosophy, the 787 looks like a far different airplane. If it exists at all, it is closer to a HGW 767 than the 787, and possesses very few of the truly novel features seen in the 787.

To ikramerica: it wasn't my intent to have people piling onto you about your comment - sorry for that. I just wanted to make the point there are many people working on the 787 program who have done great work and who are justifiably proud of their inventions, innovations, hard work and accomplishments. Nothing more. The people who should hang their heads are the ones who permitted the scenario described in the paragraphs above to exist within Boeing.

CM


User currently offlinebobmuc From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

I didn't know that their was a raffle to "WIN" the FAA Certification...   

Congratulation to Boeing! It was definitely a lot of hard work... and better late than never.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
I believe one of the real "hurt factors" was Boeing's decisions on outsourcing so much of the design work and then not adequately managing that design work.



Some major delays had nothing to do with outsourcing. The fasteners were a huge delay and would have been outsourced regardless. The wing join issue was one of those unexpected testing discoveries. There were also problems with the brakes, flight software and tertiary suppliers which would still have happened if everything was in house.

This was such a massive undertaking that everyone should have known that it couldn''t be done on the original timetable...I certainly bought into the dream. I doubt has there ever been an airliner where so much was brand new technology compared to the previous generation.

It was bound to take a long time to get everything right...and frankly, it just doesn't matter anymore. Ever since I saw that plane at Oshkosh, I've regained my enthusiasm for the program..

Darn you 787...I can't stay mad at you.



What the...?
25 Post contains images Stitch : Agreed. Hence my "one". Yes, but Boeing ignored Alcoa's statements on their production ability and just assumed that Alcoa would somehow, someway, ma
26 pygmalion : Aircraft fasteners have a 72 week lead time, that's the facts. The assumption that the various design "partners" would step up and order (with deposi
27 Post contains images par13del : Unfortunately, it will be years before this bight light overcomes the blackness of the delays. Only when people are able to look back in history with
28 ER757 : That's pretty much the universal reaction when people see her for real and not just in photos and videos. Being in the Seattle area, I was stricken w
29 JoeCanuck : Indeed. If only there were just one,eh...? Thank goodness the specs can and will be achieved. In my opinion, that is the ultimate saving grace for th
30 Post contains images airliner777 : Another milestone reached by BOEING! Let's get the production engine-less frames moving now.
31 rbgso : Congrats to Boeing. I'd love to finally see all those frames sitting at PAE finally get in the air (I realize they all aren't GE powered planes).
32 Post contains images cmf : First thing first. Boeing didn't win the certificate - they earned it. As to the discussion about pride. I do not care if a product comes in on time,
33 blrsea : Congrats to all those involved in the effort! I have heard that many had to work over weekends for long stretches of time to get 787 where it is today
34 laxboeingman : This is fantastic. Congratulations to Boeing and to everyone who played a role in this process. The future of flight continues to become aviation in t
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...
DL/Boeing - 764ERs As Compensation For 787 Delays? posted Sun Oct 11 2009 19:17:50 by 1337Delta764
GEnx-1B Engine Receives FAA Certification posted Thu Apr 3 2008 06:24:04 by Stitch
Boeing CEO Blames Industry For 787 Bolt Shortage posted Tue Sep 11 2007 22:28:19 by Keesje
Boeing, Airlines Reject FAA Plan For B737 Rudders posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:39:00 by PlaneHunter
Another Chinese 787 Goes For GEnx posted Fri Sep 15 2006 23:08:01 by NDSchu777
Contact Number For FAA Certification? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 20:40:26 by Tundra767
Boeing & Air NZ Prepare For AKL-NYC, 777LR, 787-9 posted Sun Jul 31 2005 14:17:12 by Squirrel83
Boeing Wins Order For Five 777s posted Tue Dec 7 2004 19:35:47 by Kalakaua
FAA TFR For ATL Vortac Friday 3/16 posted Thu Mar 15 2012 14:42:14 by aviationbuff08
Omni Air Boeing 777-200 Bound For LAX Today? posted Thu Jan 26 2012 11:49:30 by potus