Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Makes Public Apology for 787 Problems  
User currently offlinetioloko100 From Australia, joined Jul 2012, 134 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 23519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In very industry reputation comes first and as the saying goes "aint Boeing; aint Going". Boeing has been able to overcome its turbulent time and apologise for the inconveniences caused by the battery issues of the Dreamliner.
Once again Boeing makes it up to its customers.

http://flyingactive.com/content/131-...pologies-over-dreamliner-woes.html

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23397 times:

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
Once again Boeing makes it up to its customers.

In the litigious world we now live in, if only life were that easy. This error will cost Boeing dearly as it has cost the airlines dearly.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinefalkerker From Seychelles, joined Apr 2012, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23347 times:

They won't get off the hook with a "we're sorry" and newspaper ad gimmick. The airlines paid for frames they could not use for over three months, that is a LOT of liability. Even if insurance companies pay the airlines, I don't know how much this issue will impact sales, only time will tell. What I am almost sure is it will take a lot more from boeing than a hollow excuse.

User currently offlinetioloko100 From Australia, joined Jul 2012, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Its is expected as often new products come with glitches and as time goes by it will be over and by using the reliability bathtub curve one can easily understand issues like this.

http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue22/hottopics22.htm


User currently offlinetioloko100 From Australia, joined Jul 2012, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
They won't get off the hook with a "we're sorry" and newspaper ad gimmick.

No one is perfect, Boeing remains the strong brand in the industry and if we cant show understanding to the situation then who can we spare?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23094 times:

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
Once again Boeing makes it up to its customers.

That seems an odd thing to say. You mean, Boeing has to do this kind of thing on a regular basis?

But I think some of you are missing the point.

These ads aren't an apology to "the industry"or to all Boeing's customers. They are very specifically aimed at reassuring customers in one particular market. I lived in Japan during the introduction of the 787 (and flew on it whenever I could). You couldn't move at airports and elsewhere for posters, banners and models of 787s.

"First to Fly!"

Both airlines (but especially ANA) made a huge song and dance about it. ANA of course had '787' painted in enormous letters on the sides of their planes.

So what must have been a frustration for Ethiopian, Qatar and others with a couple of planes in service was a disaster for the two Japanese carriers. There was ample evidence from the arrival of the first planes that customers were actively seeking them out. (I was.) Now how many Japanese will think about it and say, "787? Er, maybe not this time..."

My guess is that ANA and JAL demanded something like this from Boeing.

And, of course, there is a deep tradition of apologising in Japan. And doing so very publicly. And Boeing do owe ANA and JAL apologies. Yes, they owe United,Air India, LOT and others apologies too but they'll no doubt do that in other, culturally appropriate ways.

These ads must be seen in a very specific cultural context.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22935 times:

And the vote for fanboi of the day goes to....

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 4):
if we cant show understanding to the situation then who can we spare?

Oh, I can show understanding, but I didn't invest billions to buy these aircraft. Then again, if I bought a car that broke down on the first day of use I couldn't use for four months, and had to rent a car at the last moment from Avis I would be seriously pissed and an advert wouldn't stop me making a claim.




The 787 is a great aircraft, built by a great company that lost its way on a very complicated project by trying too many new processes and procurement practices.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5736 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22653 times:

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 3):
Its is expected as often new products come with glitches

Well... personally I'd say that it is "expected" that "new products" are fit for purpose, which the 787 battery wasn't.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):
I can show understanding, but I didn't invest billions to buy these aircraft

  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6357 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
Boeing has been able to overcome its turbulent time and apologise for the inconveniences caused by the battery issues of the Dreamliner.
Once again Boeing makes it up to its customers.
Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 3):
Its is expected as often new products come with glitches and as time goes by it will be over and by using the reliability bathtub curve one can easily understand issues like this.
Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 4):
No one is perfect, Boeing remains the strong brand in the industry

Hmmm. Strange thread and phrases. Reads like a cheap public relations stunt by someone planted. Trolling?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22366 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
Hmmm. Strange thread and phrases. Reads like a cheap public relations stunt by someone planted. Trolling?

I don't see why. Of all the problems with the 787, this is one that airlines have been least critical of...at least publicly. Everybody knows that batteries are outsourced and the companies involved with the batteries were well experienced and reputable.

Boeing chose the chemistry based on consultation with these companies and tested the batteries extensively before they got certified. As it turns out, there were failure modes not thought of or tested for and the batteries failed in some such ways.

As it is, Boeing has a fix certified in a relatively short period of time, has received no public complaints from customers or certifying agencies about the solution and is no doubt working with the airlines on compensation.

Airliners have recovered from much more severe problems than this battery issue; there were no fatalities or even serious injuries, no airframes were lost, the solution seems to satisfy all who need satisfying and the grounding was relatively short lived.

So while those comments might be perceived as 'cheap public relations', they are also fairly realistic.



What the...?
User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22308 times:

Here is a quote from the AD posted in reply #3

"If any trouble such as heating emerges, new casing and exhaust systems will prevent any impact on the safety of flights and passengers and allow the plane to complete a safe flight to its destination," it said.

Note they don't plan to "divert" for another battery incident - it says "safe flight to its destination".

So in the future if there is a battery incident the pax and press won't know - it will just be business as usual and a maintenance issue.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22136 times:

An apology is only useful if you are sincere about it. Anyway we westerners have forgotten about apology when we mess up, not at least banks and all rats in finance..

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22117 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
this is one that airlines have been least critical of...at least publicly.

Because if the airlines jumped up and down about the aircraft, future passenger confidence would be further dented. A delay is different, as safety is not questioned.

I can only imagine the anger behind closed doors.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
Everybody knows that batteries are outsourced

If an outsourced check-in agent for Delta is makes me miss my flight due to incompetence, who do I complain to?

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
Now how many Japanese will think about it and say, "787? Er, maybe not this time..."

Even if only 1 in one hundred switches to a competitor for six months, the impact is large. Hence the airlines being quiet in their anger - not wanting to flame consumer anger. Even the Indians, who have demanded delays because of everything have said very little. They cannot kill their golden goose.

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
Even if insurance companies pay the airlines

All that does is increase next years insurance bill.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 22006 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 12):

Because if the airlines jumped up and down about the aircraft, future passenger confidence would be further dented. A delay is different, as safety is not questioned.

I can only imagine the anger behind closed doors.

Airlines haven't been particularly shy about criticizing Boeing or the 787 loudly and in public before...I don't see why this issue would be the straw that makes them nervous about scaring off the public.

Airlines have ordered something else without worrying about public perception, if they are unsatisfied with a product. AA orders from Airbus and Boeing and not a single passenger will care that they are no longer an all Boeing airline. If ANA decided to order 350's instead of 787's, not a passenger will care...or even notice.


Quoting BestWestern (Reply 12):
If an outsourced check-in agent for Delta is makes me miss my flight due to incompetence, who do I complain to?

Nobody said Boeing shouldn't take care of it, (which they did)...but nobody is naive to think that Boeing actually manufactured the batteries either.



What the...?
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 21802 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 12):
Even if only 1 in one hundred switches to a competitor for six months, the impact is large.

'One' is only one per cent, BestWestern.  

Tell you what - years back, as an 'enthusiast,' I often used to ask friends and acquaintances who'd recently been on a trip what aeroplane they'd flown on. As far as I recall, very few of them knew. They tended to have favoured airlines, not favoured aeroplanes. The only slight exception in those days was the 747, which of course was revolutionary in its time, as a huge 'double-decker.' Probably the A380 still gets some sort of reaction nowadays.

Most people still probably book their flights on 'time rather than type' - ones where the departure and arrival times suit their needs best. And, of course, the price of the ticket...........

So, hopefully, there won't be any huge boycotts of 787s.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3955 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 21746 times:

I note that Boeing says : ""If any trouble such as heating emerges, new casing and exhaust systems will prevent any impact on the safety of flights and passengers and allow the plane to complete a safe flight to its destination," it said." But wait.. *IF* Boeing has fixed the issues then surely they'd be confident to state this and that no such issues will occur again in the future, right? As a potential passenger I don't want to hear about what will happen when your plane catches fire again, I want to hear you tell me that you've fixed the issues and there's no way they'll happen again... which you are not doing.

(awaits comments from the usual suspects about using buses and trains)


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 21694 times:

This is something you have to do. Corporations aren't people, but they have to act like them sometimes. Yeah, it will be shockingly expensive, but there is a ****load of cash flow waiting outdoors at Paine Field right now.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21372 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Airlines haven't been particularly shy about criticizing Boeing or the 787 loudly and in public before...I don't see why this issue would be the straw that makes them nervous about scaring off the public.

Because this issue was caused by a safety scare. If our friend in Doha jumps up and down too much, he will frighten people off his aircraft.

Prior to this is was due to delays, not safety.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
'One' is only one per cent, BestWestern.

wow, really? And the profit margin of an airline is how much - three to five?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
So, hopefully, there won't be any huge boycotts of 787s.

I don't see any boycotts occurring.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21250 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 11):
An apology is only useful if you are sincere about it. Anyway we westerners have forgotten about apology when we mess up, not at least banks and all rats in finance..

This apology is dedicated especially to the japanese public.

In Japan it is expected and common practice that companies/individuals who "fail" apologize for their shortcomings.
This does not have an effect on solving the financial issue but is simply "proper behaviour" towards the public - and is generally accepted.
This apology gives Boeing the possibility to restore its credibility in the general public (including airline executives !)

Boeing is still subject to liability as before but the negotiations will be possible in a much better talk environment.



I miss the sound of rolls royce darts and speys
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21124 times:

Boeing should apologise- it has caused a massive inconvenience to its customers and affected passengers the world over. It's not good business practise not to. I understand that the airliners were grounded as it was in the best interests of safety but why weren't any of these faults picked up before the aircraft went into mainline service?

Anyway, I suspect it won't affect business too much for them as otherwise it is a very good aircraft but apologising is really the least they could do.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9153 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20938 times:

Quoting MHG (Reply 18):
This apology is dedicated especially to the japanese public.

In Japan it is expected and common practice that companies/individuals who "fail" apologize for their shortcomings.

I would agree, this in normal Japanese culture, the reason it seems strange to many is they are not aware of this culture.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20671 times:

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 16):
Corporations aren't people, but they have to act like them sometimes.

Corporations are people, my friend!!!

even if the 47% doesn't believe so 



sorry ... couldn't help it! :P
mods, please delete.

[Edited 2013-05-01 01:58:27]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20253 times:

Quoting RobK (Reply 15):
I want to hear you tell me that you've fixed the issues and there's no way they'll happen again... which you are not doing.

Nothing in the world is 100% safe so you might be waiting a while for that.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 17):
Because this issue was caused by a safety scare. If our friend in Doha jumps up and down too much, he will frighten people off his aircraft.

Prior to this is was due to delays, not safety.

Actually, the delays were as safety oriented as reliability or supply oriented. Bad fasteners, improperly coated fasteners in the fuel tanks, brake software, side of body wing join, the 'is CFRP safe to use on an airliner' talk...all are quite related to safety, and there was no shortage of public dressing down for Boeing then.

It's not exactly a secret that the planes were grounded or why. Since every news organization on the planet headlined the battery fires at some point, most people are probably aware of the issue...regardless if any airline exec mentioned it or not.



What the...?
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20054 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Actually, the delays were as safety oriented as reliability or supply oriented. Bad fasteners, improperly coated fasteners in the fuel tanks, brake software, side of body wing join, the 'is CFRP safe to use on an airliner' talk...all are quite related to safety, and there was no shortage of public dressing down for Boeing then.

Come off it -

The airlines can jump up and down and demand compensation because of delays...... Just like AI did - not one mention of safety concerns....

When an aircraft fleet is grounded because of a, let's call it a snafu, airlines are more cautious, because now they cant jump up and down and say 'you delivered me a dangerous aircraft' as that is manna to the media. So the airlines are now cautious, and demands are done behind closed doors.

You have already seen airlines state they will be demanding compensation, but nothing like the usual wrath of our friends in Doha, or the scheming antics of our friends in Mumbai - all too afraid to mention the safety card.

I have full confidence in Boeing producing a safe aircraft. The 787 will be a profitable aircraft for most airlines that buy it. However the groundings will cost Boeing a lot more than a few newspaper adverts.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19769 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 23):
You have already seen airlines state they will be demanding compensation, but nothing like the usual wrath of our friends in Doha, or the scheming antics of our friends in Mumbai - all too afraid to mention the safety card.

Until Al Baker or anyone else comes out and admits why they do or don't say anything, any perspective any one of us has is conjecture and guesswork...including mine.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter in the long run.



What the...?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15665 times:

Quoting MHG (Reply 18):

Boeing took out a huge page ad in the papers today to formally apologize. Also I remember my friend saying at an investors or board meeting (he said he didn't figure out which) the Boeing exec personally apologized in a typical Japanese way, which included bowing...apparently.

A few of my Japanese contacts have said they were a little annoyed at Boeing for not apologizing for the issues earlier than they did. If you all noticed, NH and JL immediately broadcasted apologetic press conferences in order to keep their customers-- and Japanese society itself- happy.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3285 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15485 times:

The people who matter are not interested in Boeing saying sorry, words are the cheapest form of currency in business. My concern is what you do rather than what you say. The project management of part of the B787 dropped a ball with serious conseqeunces. Bear in mind the DC10 cargo door was designed by Convair, and a whole lot of people died needlessly because McD and Convair did not act properly in a bid to save money.

Nobody outside the industry and on these boards makes the differentiation between who designed the battery and Boeing. Boeing ran the show, that's the bottom line. Anything else is peripheral fluff.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15401 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
A few of my Japanese contacts have said they were a little annoyed at Boeing for not apologizing for the issues earlier than they did. If you all noticed, NH and JL immediately broadcasted apologetic press conferences in order to keep their customers-- and Japanese society itself- happy.

From a legal perspective, it is a very fine line as to when, or even if, corporations should apologize. The act of apology can demonstrate a legal responsibility for the problem (otherwise why apologize?). Because of this, lawyers will strongly recommend against any sort of admission of guilt.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15088 times:

I guess the last two posters didn't read MHG's, PHX 787's, or Zeke's posts about apologizing in Japanese culture. Either that or they just don't care about the facts in that particular market/country.

It's a way of life there guys, and just like the operators of Fukushima apologized on their hands and knees to the Japanese public, so too did Boeing to its direct and indirect customers in this market. Words may be cheap in the UK and Ireland but they aren't in Japan.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3318 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14837 times:

Boeing is not the only one to get it wrong first time out.  
wheel



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14523 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):

It's a way of life there guys, and just like the operators of Fukushima apologized on their hands and knees to the Japanese public, so too did Boeing to its direct and indirect customers in this market. Words may be cheap in the UK and Ireland but they aren't in Japan.

Exactly. All of this.

People may not give a damn in other countries, but in Japan, when someone is heavily inconvenienced (or even slightly) it becomes a huge thing, in a nation which operates on the fact of convenience. When you have 127 million people crammed in together like this, courtesy is huge. I applaud Boeing, therefore, for apologizing. I'm going to try and find a copy of the apology tomorrow if it's still in the paper.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17659 posts, RR: 46
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14279 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 26):
The project management of part of the B787 dropped a ball with serious conseqeunces

It's been a textbook case of gross mismanagement that will be discussed in case studies for years to come.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14019 times:

As costly as the 787 groundings were to the airlines and manufacturer, I wonder if the battery failure/grounding happening in the 1st Qtr was more fortunate for everyone than had the airplanes been grounded during the latter half of the 2nd or beginning of the 3d Qtr, when the airlines make their most money. JAL states its earnings were down 8% in the 1st Qtr - what would that figure have been had the grounding occurred during the summer months?

User currently offlinecyeg66 From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 13902 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):
I guess the last two posters didn't read MHG's, PHX 787's, or Zeke's posts about apologizing in Japanese culture. Either that or they just don't care about the facts in that particular market/country.

It's a way of life there guys, and just like the operators of Fukushima apologized on their hands and knees to the Japanese public, so too did Boeing to its direct and indirect customers in this market. Words may be cheap in the UK and Ireland but they aren't in Japan.


Well said. And without any doubt, the Japanese flying public has been the most inconvenienced by the grounding of the planes. Personally, with the ample coverage of the 787 "issues" given by the worldwide press to date, I don't think Boeing needs to make any more public amends. They'll have atoned for their sins over time if the airplane now goes on to fly with little-to-no unexpected maintenance snags, and most importantly, safety issues.



slow to 160, contact tower, slow to 160, contact tower, slow to....ZZZZZZZ......
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3285 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13467 times:

Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 33):
They'll have atoned for their sins over time

Have they a proper project management procedure in place to prevent this sort of disconnet happening on the B777-X project? Do they know what the problem with the battery is yet? Er no.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13484 times:

Has anybody noticed that many Japanese likely see the 787 as a Japanese plane? Which is a reasonable view.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13207 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):

I guess the last two posters didn't read MHG's, PHX 787's, or Zeke's posts about apologizing in Japanese culture. Either that or they just don't care about the facts in that particular market/country.

I fully understand the power of apology in Japan. Just read other threads where I have commented on this. My original comments were specifically around Boeing doing more than just apologizing for this delay.

Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 33):
I don't think Boeing needs to make any more public amends.

There will be compensation paid to the airlines.

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):
just like the operators of Fukushima apologized on their hands and knees to the Japanese public,

You cant compare the level of grovelling required because of nuclear meltdown and the issues surrounding the 787....

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):
Words may be cheap in the UK and Ireland

Perhaps I should change my flag.... I've lived in Asia since 2009.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12911 times:

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 35):
Has anybody noticed that many Japanese likely see the 787 as a Japanese plane? Which is a reasonable view.

It's sometimes promoted as such, and many news reports often include at the end how much percentage the 787 has from Japan.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12840 times:

Aviation inherently has risk. To move forwards in aviation you must take risk. The airlines know that. The public knows that. The manufacturers certainly know that. The courts will factor in what is reasonable. Reasonable is the key word. There will be settlements. The airlines will not initially get 100 cents on the dollar. Probably not even close to that. However, it is in Boeing's interests to compensate the airlines with discounted aircraft in the future to make up a large part of the value lost. Everyone knows what must happen... the tussle will be over how. I'm just glad no lives were lost... and the issues are being addressed. The 787 is leap forwards for the whole industry.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12721 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 34):
Do they know what the problem with the battery is yet? Er no.

As far as I know, 'Er yes,' skipness1E.   As far as I know so far, it resulted from inadequate insulation between the battery cells; plus microscopic metallic particles linking the cells; plus general over-charging/voltage problems with the batteries themselves; plus over-use of the largely-discharged batteries, without suitable re-charging, during ground operations; plus inadequate ventilation in the battery compartments in the event of over-heating/fire.

Boeing (and their partner companies) have done their best to solve those problems. Remains to be seen whether they got it right.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2558 posts, RR: 7
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10912 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 34):
Have they a proper project management procedure in place to prevent this sort of disconnet happening on the B777-X project?

I'm going to venture a guess here and say "yes." I have to believe they learned some very hard lessons from the 787 project and will take those lessons to heart to prevent recurrence. Just my   
If you have a different view, please share.


User currently offlineSkyguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10090 times:

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 38):
Aviation inherently has risk. To move forwards in aviation you must take risk. The airlines know that. The public knows that. The manufacturers certainly know that. The courts will factor in what is reasonable. Reasonable is the key word. There will be settlements. The airlines will not initially get 100 cents on the dollar. Probably not even close to that. However, it is in Boeing's interests to compensate the airlines with discounted aircraft in the future to make up a large part of the value lost. Everyone knows what must happen... the tussle will be over how. I'm just glad no lives were lost... and the issues are being addressed. The 787 is leap forwards for the whole industry.

Hit the nail right on the head!

When Boeing introduced the 747 into service in 1969/70, it was a radical aircraft at it's time for it's sheer size and performance capabilities; a leap forward for the aviation industry at that time. Airlines enthusiastically welcomed the aircraft into service, but at the same time were faced with a number of "teething" issues for the first few years as Boeing engineers weeded out all sorts of technical and performance glitches which at times were serious enough to ground flights etc., much to the inconvenience to airlines and passengers alike. Had today's virulent and quick media been around back then, then the public may have heard about the seriousness of some of the issues that were worked out in the early days, and yes, may have criticized Boeing as a less than worthy (or even incompetent) manufacturer of aircraft.

Fast-forward to today, the FAA has had more experience and is more diligent in setting stringent standards for aircraft; aircraft manufacturers have become better at producing large numbers of aircraft that are safe and reliable; airlines are better informed and equipped to handle technical and maintenance issues. Soon, the 787 problems will be in the past, it will prove itself and airlines and passengers will be pleased with the product. The lesson learned for Boeing is more to do with it's management of a complex production process and outsourcing of various pieces while maintaining standards. It's a tough process and a difficult lesson and am sure this entire episode will become a case study examined in business and management schools.



"Those who talk, do not know, and those who know, do not talk."
User currently offlineSEA From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

This apology wasn't to satisfy airliners.netters. It's a cultural thing. In Japan it is extremely common for corporations to publicly apologize after some sort of public mishap or embarrassment. That's what Boeing are doing here. I don't think too much can be read into it.

User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9296 times:

Also intesresting how relatively few airlines are being vocal in publically citicising Boeing, yet the company still made this public apology.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1097 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9239 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 10):
So in the future if there is a battery incident the pax and press won't know

The press will find out. Count on it.

Quoting RobK (Reply 15):
*IF* Boeing has fixed the issues then surely they'd be confident to state this and that no such issues will occur again in the future, right?

Boeing wouuld have to be really stupid to claim that no 787 battery overheat will ever occur again.


User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8238 times:

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
They won't get off the hook with a "we're sorry" and newspaper ad gimmick. The airlines paid for frames they could not use for over three months, that is a LOT of liability. Even if insurance companies pay the airlines, I don't know how much this issue will impact sales, only time will tell. What I am almost sure is it will take a lot more from boeing than a hollow excuse.

I think this is more of a PR formality. I doubt Boeing has any delusions that this issue has and will cost them...

Assuming there are no more major issues, I dont see why this would become a sales issue.

-AA777


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1150 posts, RR: 13
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

Quoting RobK (Reply 15):
As a potential passenger I don't want to hear about what will happen when your plane catches fire again, I want to hear you tell me that you've fixed the issues and there's no way they'll happen again... which you are not doing.

But immediately above you quote them as doing just exactly that:

Quoting RobK (Reply 15):
If any trouble such as heating emerges, new casing and exhaust systems will prevent any impact on the safety of flights and passengers and allow the plane to complete a safe flight to its destination

Which certainly sounds to me like "no way it will happen again" albeit using different words.

As for:

Quoting RobK (Reply 15):
(awaits comments from the usual suspects about using buses and trains)

I will restrain myself then. It does seem a shame that very poor comparative risk assessment ability appears to be an innate part of being human.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7912 times:

This is only directed toward Asian Carriers. An apology has far deeper meaning in all of Asia than in the West.

Even though ANA, CSN and JAL were kicked in the gut, the public apology will be seen positively throughout all of Asia.

Especially in Japan.

So, business as usual.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7894 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 44):
Boeing wouuld have to be really stupid to claim that no 787 battery overheat will ever occur again.

How are your Batteries? Seem a little warm, eh?



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineUA735WL From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 44):

Boeing would also be really stupid if they went around telling their customers that they expect the battery problem to surface again in the future. Boeing is trying to inspire confidence in the 787-so don't expect them to go and undermine their product by saying that their fix might not've worked.


Cheers,  


Jonas

[Edited 2013-05-01 14:44:27]


"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" -Tex Johnston
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 47):
This is only directed toward Asian Carriers. An apology has far deeper meaning in all of Asia than in the West. Even though ANA, CSN and JAL were kicked in the gut, the public apology will be seen positively throughout all of Asia.

Let me get this right, Japanese will not(it took lot of arm twisting) apologize even if millions of cars had unintended acceleration problem, but wants an apology from an American corporation for a battery made in Japan. Even if battery was a Boeing's design, they are supposed to be the experts with all the know how.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5900 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 50):
Let me get this right, Japanese will not(it took lot of arm twisting) apologize even if millions of cars had unintended acceleration problem, but wants an apology from an American corporation for a battery made in Japan. Even if battery was a Boeing's design, they are supposed to be the experts with all the know how.

You are young. Someday you will understand.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinegr8circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3116 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5674 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 50):
Let me get this right, Japanese will not(it took lot of arm twisting) apologize even if millions of cars had unintended acceleration problem, but wants an apology from an American corporation for a battery made in Japan. Even if battery was a Boeing's design, they are supposed to be the experts with all the know how.

You seem to follow the news very selectively.....I distinctly recall Toyota's top brass making a public apology for all those "acceleration" incidents on their cars.....after they had fixed the problem....


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5254 times:

Quoting gr8circle (Reply 52):
You seem to follow the news very selectively.....I distinctly recall Toyota's top brass making a public apology for all those "acceleration" incidents on their cars.....after they had fixed the problem....

I don't want to go off topic defending my post, but I clearly stated "(it took lot of arm twisting)". It took a congressional subpoena for Toyota chief to apologize. Even then they tried to skip because he lives in Japan. Ray LaHood issued more apologetic statements than Toyota. And it took several months after that for dealers to implement the fix.


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 38):
Aviation inherently has risk. To move forwards in aviation you must take risk. The airlines know that. The public knows that. The manufacturers certainly know that.

Couldn't agree with you more. As I posted before there are so many that think, fruit grows around the trunk of a fruit tree, and not up in the branches, where the rewards are high, but there is also some inherent risk in reaching for it. I would much rather invest in a company with this attitude, than one that stands around and is wondering what's happening. One or two years from now this will all be forgotten.

Quoting Skyguy (Reply 41):
The lesson learned for Boeing is more to do with it's management of a complex production process and outsourcing of various pieces while maintaining standards. It's a tough process and a difficult lesson and am sure this entire episode will become a case study examined in business and management schools.

I agree - somtimes you have to try something new, that in the end doesn't work well - despite all the advice you get from management consultants and bean counters. Perhaps outsourcing has found its limits and its time to retract and bring alot of stuff back to the good old US of A, and if you have any spillage you know where to go.   

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 43):
Also intesresting how relatively few airlines are being vocal in publically citicising Boeing, yet the company still made this public apology.

Why would they? If they already own or are in the process of purchasing 787's would it be good or bad for their own PR? It seems to me if they criticize Boeing, about what? Their product that they want their own customers to fly in, is a little self-defeating. The ones that are vocal should think about firing their PR department.

Quoting hivue (Reply 44):
Quoting twiga (Reply 10):So in the future if there is a battery incident the pax and press won't know
The press will find out. Count on it.

How would they know - the heat and smoke will be long gone. Do you think for one minute, that the aircraft mechanics are going to invite the press to sniff the containment box, to prove a battery toasted? Like I said before, it will be like burning buns in the galley oven - a non-event. As far as I know FAA's directive didn't call for a diversion if a battery toast's and if you were the airline, thats the last thing you would want to do , unless you were planning on going broke.


User currently offlinea36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

The general public have the attention span of a fly, so I don't expect any negative reaction to the 787 to last very long. We humans are a fickle bunch and will move onto the next disaster, pop singer, new type of hair product or what ever or North Korea will start beating it's chest again and the issues with the 787 will be a distant memory...Even for the Japanese. As a friend once said to me "well if it doesn't effect me, I don't care". It's sad but we live in a ME ME ME generation..  

User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 628 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 27):
From a legal perspective, it is a very fine line as to when, or even if, corporations should apologize.

I'm glad that in Japanese society apologies are still expected, even from corporations. This late one from Boeing is welcome.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 43):
Also intesresting how relatively few airlines are being vocal in publically citicising Boeing, yet the company still made this public apology.

Not many of the affected airlines have been so crass as to publicly deride the Dreamliner -- but its delays and tribulations have gone on for years now. These patient airlines must be getting compensation behind the scenes..


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 50):

Ummmmmmm they did.....the news reports here in japan were full of them.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinetioloko100 From Australia, joined Jul 2012, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting a36001 (Reply 55):
The general public have the attention span of a fly

Thats good thinking, its rare to find someone these days that think positively towards issues like that these days.


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I don't see why. Of all the problems with the 787, this is one that airlines have been least critical of...at least publicly. Everybody knows that batteries are outsourced and the companies involved with the batteries were well experienced and reputable.

Does that mean that Boeing can sue the battery companies?!


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1097 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 54):
Quoting hivue (Reply 44):
Quoting twiga (Reply 10):So in the future if there is a battery incident the pax and press won't know
The press will find out. Count on it.

How would they know - the heat and smoke will be long gone.

Even if there was heat and smoke the press probably wouldn't be able to figure it out. But they'll be told. Any airline that has a 787 battery burn up will, obviously, know about it. Boeing will hear for sure. So will the national certificating authority. The FAA will be told (and probably the NTSB). Out of all the people involved among all those organizations someone will leak it to the press (if, for some strange reason, there is in fact no official announcement).


User currently offlinetwiga From Canada, joined Mar 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 60):
Even if there was heat and smoke the press probably wouldn't be able to figure it out. But they'll be told. Any airline that has a 787 battery burn up will, obviously, know about it. Boeing will hear for sure. So will the national certificating authority. The FAA will be told (and probably the NTSB). Out of all the people involved among all those organizations someone will leak it to the press (if, for some strange reason, there is in fact no official announcement).

They might find out sometime but it could be months later. Its not in the airlines best interest to tell anyone - they don't want to make their passengers nervous about safety issues after all what they have been through. In fact they may have specific instructions to their mechanics to keep their mouths shut - its confidential within the airline company. But nothing is fool proof. If something is leaked months later it doesn't have the same impact as if it happened yesterday or last week. Granted any future occurances will have to be reported to the regulators. I don't know how this works. Do the regulators keep this info confidential or are they supposed to be transparent to the public? Somebody else will have to answer this question. I'm finding out on my Tech/Op thread that data bases are kept for say in-flight one engine out failures - something like one a month for trans-atlantic flights for large fleets. I think it must be made public maybe not when it happens but at the end of the month or at end of the year for general safety analysis.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 59):

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I don't see why. Of all the problems with the 787, this is one that airlines have been least critical of...at least publicly. Everybody knows that batteries are outsourced and the companies involved with the batteries were well experienced and reputable.

Does that mean that Boeing can sue the battery companies?!


That is a possibility actually. I'm sure the legal departments of both Yuasa and B are going through things right now.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1097 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting twiga (Reply 61):
They might find out sometime but it could be months later.

If the event occurs after the 787 battery issue is past its sell-by date as news, then yes. a36001 notes in post 55 the attention span of the general public. The press are careful to cater to this, so if no battery issue turns up for months it could be non-news to everyone but Anetters.

I am anticipating the first photo on Anet that shows one of the new vent holes in the fuselage with an ugly smoke stain around it. My prediction is it will be a long wait.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

All Depends on how effective this battery fix is........


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

What is Boeing trying to do with the apologies? I can not truly say. But it have been impressed upon us ever since the Douglas merger that "Boeing" is no longer just commercial airplanes and the Boeing reputation do not end with the airlines. Rightly or wrongly, they are promoting the "Boeing" brand beyond their direct customers like how Apple is branding it's name beyond the Mac or Ipod.

This apologies and countless other advertisement that they placed on newspapers around the world is part of this "branding". So it may still be true that the general public do not care what plane they fly on, Boeing is still attempting to make the case for their brand.

I would guess in some part of the world, this attempt is more successful than others.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):

Read above at my posts regarding the purpose.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
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...
We Will Go After Boeing For Millions LOT CEO Says posted Wed Apr 24 2013 04:35:31 by OA260
Pan Am's Boeing 720B Fleet posted Mon Apr 22 2013 18:42:56 by doulasc
787 Battery Fix For Aircraft On Boeing Flight Line? posted Mon Apr 22 2013 05:12:12 by liverpoola380
PanAm And Boeing posted Sun Apr 21 2013 15:22:52 by TWA772LR
Logo Question Boac Boeing 707 posted Sat Apr 20 2013 14:28:30 by boacvc10
Why Did Boeing End The B 717 Production? posted Fri Apr 19 2013 22:08:03 by United Airline
FAA Approves Boeing 787 Battery System Changes posted Fri Apr 19 2013 12:07:32 by Stitch
Boeing Cuts 747 Production 12.5% On Lower Demand posted Fri Apr 19 2013 07:05:26 by clickhappy
Boeing And Airbus Overwhelmed By Too Many Orders? posted Thu Apr 18 2013 10:28:06 by Gonzalo
Why Doesn't Boeing Or Airbus Make A Regional Jet? posted Wed Apr 17 2013 02:09:08 by DeltaXNA