Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Norwegian Has Had Enough Of Dreamliner Nightmare 2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4432 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41394 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to length of the first thread, here is part two.

Part one: Norwegian Has Had Enough Of Dreamliner Nightmare (by Mortyman Sep 23 2013 in Civil Aviation)

275 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4060 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 41073 times:

Quote:
Some subcontractors do it better than the firm subcontracting. Calling it Gold is just marketing. Clearly, Boeing has a serious learning curve however.

Funny how DY is getting flak for allegedly rushing into 787 ops but this is the closest thing to a mild criticism I have read in 200+ posts about Boeing's GOLD programme which apparently does not deliver. And in the business world it is usually frowned upon if one partner is getting paid for learning how to perform instead of actually performing...


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 40733 times:

Norwegian CEO Bjørn Kjos has issued an apology on Facebook re. the problems (in Norwegian). I have translated it:

"I want to apologise to all our passengers that have been affected by the unacceptable delays on our long haul routes recently. I understand how frustrating it must be to wait for hours for your plane to depart.

Last night Norwegian had a meeting with Boeing where the company gave a clear message that the situation is unacceptable. Boeing said that they will put together a dedicated team that will continuously follow Norwegian to ensure that any technical challenges that occur going forward are dealt with immediately. In addition, they will make sure that the necessary spare parts are available at all airports we fly to and from with the Dreamliner so that our passengers won't be hit by large delays".

So it seems that Boeing are taking this seriously... Hopefully this won't mean large delays going forward!



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 38759 times:

There are several noteworthy things from the first thread and some things that are less so, some of our North American friends seem to think that NAS is a small tinpot airline, some posters on both sides tries to drag this into the ongoing A v B flame war, etc.

Norwegian, which is a large airline in the narrow body market segment, is new to long haul wide bodies.
DY is the third largest LCC in Europe - with 17.7 million passengers and operates 68 737-800, 10 737-300, but only 2 787-8 (out of a total order of 8). It has another 269 airframes on their order books, and is used to start up phases and growing pains. For a comparison it is roughly the size of AS - ~75% and growing fast.

DY has long been a loyal Boeing customer and only recently added their first Airbus to their order books (320NEO - none delivered so far), but they did lease two A340 while the 787-8 was coming into the fleet.

Norwegian has signed onto Boeing's Gold Care fleet services, so it's not the "usual" problem of local techs not knowing what to do - it is actually Boeing's problem both as a supplier of airframes and the provider of fleet services.

The bottom line: This looks bad for the Dreamliner (marketing must hate that name by now) and for Boeing's Gold Care fleet services. The only option is for Boeing to get their house in order or risk losing a loyal and large customer - their last order was valued at $21.5B!!

[Edited 2013-09-26 07:59:39]


Longtime Lurker
User currently onlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 38569 times:

This suggestion may be completely idiotic but at some point Boeing would have to consider free leases to carriers with the bad frames, and I'm sure they know which line numbers these frames are, and maybe just rebuild the ones now in service from top to bottom. That's easily 1-2 $B right there but the onslaught of bad news is getting worse by the day. Or at minimum Boeing should have a fleet of 767s/777s prepositioned across Europe, the US and Japan to cover flights that go tech. Still it seems that only option 1 solves the problem long-term.

User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 38370 times:

People sometimes refer to the FIAT car brand as Fix It Again Tony. Similarly, many car enthusiasts quip about how certain sports cars from certain manufacturers should be followed at all times by a repair truck and mechanic.

I am getting the sense that Boeing should provide a 777F to follow each and every 787 flight to make sure it flies on time without mechanical failure (or incident).

This all smells like a ticking time bomb to me. Boeing WAS the last great hope of manufacturing in America. And now they've completely ruined the image of American manufacturing with the LemonLiner.

Perhaps airlines in the USA can refer to their state's Lemon Law for dealing with Boeing?


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 38187 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 5):
Boeing WAS the last great hope of manufacturing in America. And now they've completely ruined the image of American manufacturing with the LemonLiner.

Don't worry. Airbus will soon be along to save the day... Mobile, Alabama!



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 37958 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 6):
Don't worry. Airbus will soon be along to save the day... Mobile, Alabama!

Yes, that reminds me on the shabby manufactured Mercedes M-class, build in Vance, Alabama!



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineOM617 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 37074 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 7):
Yes, that reminds me on the shabby manufactured Mercedes M-class, build in Vance, Alabama!

PLEASE don't remind me of those albatrosses! They weren't so pretty to look at, either. It took a few years, but they did get their act together.


Don't Airbus make 320s in China? How are they holding up compared to the Toulouse/Finkenwerder models?

Oops, drifting off the DY/787 issues. Their aircraft are newer build, theoretically should have all the updates/mods...

OM617


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36800 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 4):
Or at minimum Boeing should have a fleet of 767s/777s prepositioned across Europe, the US and Japan to cover flights that go tech. Still it seems that only option 1 solves the problem long-term.

I would be shocked if it were not cheaper for Boeing to simply buy back the a/c paying compensation allowing the carriers to select an Airbus product - PC thrown away - than pre-position fleets of plane sand crews with all the necessary paper work to be able to operate freely into the regions / countries involved.


User currently offlineCplKlinger From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 36364 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 5):
This all smells like a ticking time bomb to me. Boeing WAS the last great hope of manufacturing in America. And now they've completely ruined the image of American manufacturing with the LemonLiner.

That's funny, considering most "foreign" cars are now made in the US. The Honda Accord, long a standard in reliability is made in my hometown of Greensburg, IN. Toyota has a few plants here and in Ohio.

I think folks just like to dump on Boeing here because it's the popular thing to do. Are there issues? Definitely, but not "ruining the face of American manufacturing" type issues. Get a grip on yourself.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 36144 times:

Norwegian had an emergency meeting with Boeing executives yesterday, including Raymond Connor. Norwegian news media have been full of reports from that meeting. Boeing refused to talk to journalists afterwards, but DY has released some information:

DY claims that all spare parts are located in London, and that's the reason why it takes so much time go get the plane fixed when there's a problem in OSL, ARN, JFK or BKK. Now, I obviously have no idea if this is the whole truth, but if they stock all spare parts in London, maybe they should call it Boeing Clay Care instead of Gold Care.

DY also claims that Boeing had approved their 18 hour per day schedule. I'm totally flabbergasted if that is the whole truth. That would mean that both Boeing and DY live in some kind of fantasy world concerning fleet planning. In your dreams ...



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 36024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not sure if we'll ever get full disclosure of this meeting or representations made by Boeing or their assumptions based on DY representations.

Bottom line: spares should be located at the very least at DY bases. Given JFK is a major international gateway, they should have spares available there for 787s. For BKK, the spares could be in SIN or DEL (where AI is based).

If there are certain parts which are failing more often, obviously, stock more of those parts.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 35964 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
DY claims that all spare parts are located in London

Correct, and Boeing said to resolve these problems:

Quote:
"They agreed to put up spare part stocks at destinations we fly to," Kjos told Reuters. "And they'll send a dedicated team of experts to Norwegian so if there's a problem popping up, they can immediately solve it."

"If you look at the other 787 customers, most of them have technical problems too," Jenssen said. "It's a performance reliability problem and a quality issue from Boeing."

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130926/BIZ/709269892



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 35135 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 12):
For BKK, the spares could be in SIN or DEL (where AI is based).

Seriously? If placing the stock in London didn't work for Oslo and Stockholm, around 2 hours of flying away, how can Singapore (2.5 hours) or Delhi (4.5 hours) work for Bangkok? And, of all places, Delhi! Do you have any idea of the Indian bureaucracy and how difficult it is to get foreign parts, rotables particularly, into country - let alone out again without them having been 'used'? Surely this is a poor attempt at a bad joke!



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 32033 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 5):
This all smells like a ticking time bomb to me. Boeing WAS the last great hope of manufacturing in America. And now they've completely ruined the image of American manufacturing with the LemonLiner.

Dramatic much? This is one of the most idiotic things I've read on this forum.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5808 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 31690 times:

Just comparing aircraft on the BA Source, and, since their introduction just a day apart, A380 G-XLEA has had an almost daily utilisation comprising 91 flights, while 787 G-ZBJA has flown just 24 times, with sometimes days between flights. Their second A380 has flown six times since it was introduced four days ago. 787 G-ZBJB has flown 26 times since its introduction a month ago, again with gaps in service (in once instance 10 days). G-ZBJC has flown 22 times since its introduction, again with some gaps of a few days in service. I know the A380 is a more mature aircraft, but it's surprising to see so many days missing from the 787s' schedules. Anyone any more info?

http://www.thebasource.com/jettracker.html


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 31640 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 5):
People sometimes refer to the FIAT car brand as Fix It Again Tony.

Funny, in Germany we refer to FIAT as "Fehler in allen Teilen". (flaws in all parts)   *

But kidding aside, Boeing is definitely responsible for obviously existing flaws in their product. DY is not the only airline, which is furious about the 787 and their responses.


* But I have to admit that, in the last years, they've got their act together and the quality of their cars has increased.

[Edited 2013-09-27 00:17:55]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31432 times:

It wonders me why parts are needed on a brand new aircraft. Aren't these supposed to live longer than a few months, or are the 787s getting sub standard parts on the production line?

[Edited 2013-09-27 01:12:56]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31420 times:

There was another issue:

http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/383487531540819968

Quote:
Norwegian Air says suffered another 787 Dreamliner breakdown on Friday which delayed a flight from Bangkok to Stockholm



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31410 times:

Quoting OM617 (Reply 8):
Don't Airbus make 320s in China? How are they holding up compared to the Toulouse/Finkenwerder models?

no they dont MAKE them there, they are ASSEMBLED


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31347 times:

Quoting OM617 (Reply 8):
Don't Airbus make 320s in China? How are they holding up compared to the Toulouse/Finkenwerder models?

Airbus biggest fear was quality control so they had send a team from Europe to China to inspect the first assembled birds. Once the factory workers were through the learning curve, the team left China.

[Edited 2013-09-27 01:13:17]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 31021 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 18):
It wonders me why parts are needed on a brand new aircraft. Aren't these supposed to live longer than a few months, or are the 787s getting sub standard parts on the production line?

Parts will always be needed, the trick when introducing a new aircraft type is to know which parts will see the highest usage and which will be the most critical, then order a 'start-up' package that fits those needs. The manufacturer will issue a recommended list of parts, which the customer will then buy all or parts of. In DY's case, however, the actual buying and stocking is also part of their Gold care package.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 30961 times:

This isn't going to go down well:

Huge news in Norway is that one of DY's Dreamliners has been grounded (again!), this time due to hydrolic problems and just a couple of days after Boeing and DY's agreement on spare parts etc.

The flight was due to operate from BKK to ARN.

Article here: http://www.nrk.no/norge/dreamliner-fra-norwegian-pa-bakken-1.11266405 (in Norwegian)

However, I have taken the liberty of translating it to English. Being a translator, it doesn't take long!

---------------------------------------------

"Communication advisor Astrid Mannion has confirmed to NRK.no that there is a fault with the hydralic pump that has the resulted in the plane being grounded, and that it is not the first time this fault has occured on the new plane.

She informed us that the flight from Bangkok to Stockholm has been cancelled and that the airline is doing all it can in order to obtain tickets for the 197 passengers with other airlines. It is not easy, she explains, and as such cannot say how long it will take.

Astrid Mannion also has no overview of how many Norwegians were meant to be on the plane.

When the fault has been corrected the plane will be flown to Stockholm without passengers and subsequent monitoring will happen there, she informs.

Norwegian has experienced a number of problems with its Dreamliner aircraft recently and this had let to large delays. Earlier this week the top leadership of Boeing visited Norwegian in Oslo to try and resolve the problems.

Norwegian boss Bjørn Kjos said after the meeting with Boeing-management that the biggest problem was that it took so long to get reserve parts. The reserve parts are in London and it takes many hours to repair the damages. He said that Boeing has promised to make reserve parts available in more locations.

Boeing also promised to send a team of engineers to monitor the two aircraft closely.

Norwegian has two Dreamliner aircraft which operate on long haul routes to New York and Bangkok. The plane now grounded in Bangkok should have flown to Stockholm but it is not yet clear when the plane will fly again".

[Edited 2013-09-27 03:59:05]


Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 30868 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 23):
The flight was due to operate from BKK to ARN.

As of now the flight shows with a 6 hour delay. This means that today's afternoon flight to JFK will be at least 4.5 hours late.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31738 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 24):
As of now the flight shows with a 6 hour delay. This means that today's afternoon flight to JFK will be at least 4.5 hours late.

According NRK the flight has been cancelled and will be flown back to ARN empty. I think we can safely say the JFK flight will also be cancelled pending the ability to charter a HiFly aircraft at short notice.



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31599 times:

It's EI-LNB/LN112 (again) which is stuck in BKK

User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32383 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 25):
I think we can safely say the JFK flight will also be cancelled pending the ability to charter a HiFly aircraft at short notice.

Unless DY can charter another aircraft they will have to cancel the JFK-ARN leg also. What a mess for DY.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently onlineseansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32326 times:

Here is an interesting article (in Norwegian) about the problems. http://e24.no/spesial/norwegian

User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 32224 times:

It's sad to see the 787 still suffering huge problems. You have to wonder how long this will continue and how they plan to solve it. I finally saw it leaving from CPH and it was a beautiful sight. Before this aircraft was introduced, I really looked forward to flying on it. Now I'd go out of my way to avoid it. Not only due to feeling uncomfortable with its safety, but also because I don't want to worry about there being a good chance of my flight being delayed or cancelled.

User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31998 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 27):
Unless DY can charter another aircraft they will have to cancel the JFK-ARN leg also

Probably not, as EI-LNA wasn't scheduled to due any flights today, so if they can send it from OSL to ARN it should be able to operate ARN-JFK


User currently onlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 58
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 32030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 16):
Just comparing aircraft on the BA Source, and, since their introduction just a day apart, A380 G-XLEA has had an almost daily utilisation comprising 91 flights, while 787 G-ZBJA has flown just 24 times, with sometimes days between flights. Their second A380 has flown six times since it was introduced four days ago. 787 G-ZBJB has flown 26 times since its introduction a month ago, again with gaps in service (in once instance 10 days). G-ZBJC has flown 22 times since its introduction, again with some gaps of a few days in service. I know the A380 is a more mature aircraft, but it's surprising to see so many days missing from the 787s' schedules. Anyone any more info?

http://www.thebasource.com/jettracke....html

Not sure that's anything to do with the aircraft reliability. Due to the delivery delays as a result of the grounding, the 787 deliveries were more bunched up than planned. The training flights were a single daily 787, followed by 1 or 2 daily Toronto flights at the launch of long-haul service. For most of this period 2 aircraft were available, and 3 around the time the Toronto flights started. The A380 Frankfurt flights on the other hand had to be flown by a single A380 until G-XLEB was delivered just a few days before the LAX service started.

Also when you compare the Thomson experience, that appears to have been relatively trouble-free, and they are using 2 aircraft on intensive long-haul flying but there are 2 others flying 2-4 sectors per day on short-haul routes. Also before service started, there were weeks of training flights, which did not just take the form of circuit training, but actual simulated line sectors several times per day without passengers frequently visiting Hannover, Shannon and Newquay for example.

The difference with both these airlines from Norwegian is that they both have experience of both long-haul operations and introducing new Boeing types into service. Their initial planning was very conservative, and both had considerable slack built into their schedules at first. BA as outlined above had a spare aircraft at the start of long-haul flights, Thomson the same - although being used on short-haul flights it could be substituted if needed.

Whether Boeing technically "approved" Norwegian's proposed utilisation or not, it's not for them to advise what is advisable, only what is technically possible. It's not for them to get involved in what are commercial matters around how intensive the airline wants the utilisation to be.

I'm sure Norwegian have been unlucky, and the aircraft has not performed as expected, and Boeing has to take some blame for the issues - but equally Norwegian have not made life easy for themselves, and their lack of long-haul experience is probably showing. It's very different supporting the logistics of this type of operation from the short-haul they are very experienced with this, and when things go wrong the problems created are huge - for example on long flights a technical problem just before departure doesn't have to cause a huge delay before the crew go out of hours.

Both BA and Thomson have taken care to schedule their first season for the 787 to operate shorter long-haul routes, to a very small number of destinations (just Toronto for BA, Orlando SFB and Cancun for Thomson) so that the places the aircraft visits are quickly gaining experience, and other types such as the 767 can be substituted in the event of an issue. It is a complete lack of any backup aircraft without sub-chartering which is the reason Norwegian have suffered so badly from the problems caused.

Anyone who thinks the 777's introduction was trouble-free only has to go back to the Flight International archives from summer 1995 to read some of the problems when the type first entered service, some BA crews crudely nicknaked it the "cripple 7" at the time. It quickly became a world-beater though... The 787 is though very different to most other aircraft flying - the level of new technology introduced has lead most airlines to take a conservative approach - it's not just a plastic 767! The A380 while huge, and introducing some innovations is a far more conservative design.

While the 787 should now fast becoming a mature type, a lot of operators experience with the type will be down to their own planning of the introduction, their experience of operating similar types, and previous service entry. Sometimes the long term benefits will be gained from a conservative entry into service. Norwegian did the usual short-haul bit, but I think the problem with the planning was the full long-haul programme to be started before delivery of an additional frame.

Norwegian were unlucky with the delays earlier in the year, as they had no alternative but to subcharter, this further backed them into a corner with the utilisation in order to rid themselves of the expensive Hifly leases - but the overall problem goes back to the ambitious programme they had planned in the first place.

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineJonssonF From Sweden, joined Mar 2013, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 31818 times:

By reading the timetable at Norwegian.se it is clear that the 787 is scheduled 6 days a week with resting Fridays in Oslo and Sundays in Stockholm. How can this be concidered a tough schedule?

User currently offlinetarheelwings From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 31843 times:

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 31):
Regards
CROSSWIND


Posts like these are the reason I joined a.net....thank you sir!

Alex


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 31610 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
I would be shocked if it were not cheaper for Boeing to simply buy back the a/c paying compensation allowing the carriers to select an Airbus product - PC thrown away - than pre-position fleets of plane sand crews with all the necessary paper work to be able to operate freely into the regions / countries involved.

If that happens, it will rain on hell followed by a blizzard.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
DY also claims that Boeing had approved their 18 hour per day schedule. I'm totally flabbergasted if that is the whole truth. That would mean that both Boeing and DY live in some kind of fantasy world concerning fleet planning. In your dreams ...

The way I see it they saw the performance warranties of the Aircraft, consulted Boeing, and they did not see a problem.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 12):
If there are certain parts which are failing more often, obviously, stock more of those parts.
Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 18):
It wonders me why parts are needed on a brand new aircraft. Aren't these supposed to live longer than a few months, or are the 787s getting sub standard parts on the production line?

Exactly my thoughts WHY does a spanking new aircraft that was marketed as a cheap to maintain due to newer technology, needs parts everywhere to get it going?

something does not add up. (or maybe its already raining in hell)

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinedelta777jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1317 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 31428 times:

How is LOT one of the first customers in Europe is doing with their Dreamliners ? I did not heard much bad news out of there.....


Fly easyJet
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 31399 times:

Quoting delta777jet (Reply 35):
I did not heard much bad news out of there.....

Well..... LOT Gives Boeing Ultimatum About 787 Compensation (by Gonzalo Sep 26 2013 in Civil Aviation)



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 31199 times:

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 31):
Whether Boeing technically "approved" Norwegian's proposed utilisation or not, it's not for them to advise what is advisable, only what is technically possible. It's not for them to get involved in what are commercial matters around how intensive the airline wants the utilisation to be.

The problems that DY is having are not operational but technical.

The flight schedule is 6 days flying one day rest. On average about 15 hours a day, of course the rest day included.
That should not be a problem on a type witch is not any longer "entering service" but has been now in service for more than one and a half year and is specially advertised for low service demand.
If the service is part of "operational problems" it is not a problem of DY but Boeing with there Gold Care service.
That includes the service and spare parts management

It does not matter what other airlines do, all of them not depending on Boeing for the service. All of them have to bring there departments up to scratch, whereas a service contracted out to the manufacturer should function from the go.

The ambitious program of DY should work, if there is taking mark on the advertised specs of the B 787.

The strangest idea in this discussion here is the assumption, that two long haul stretches a day should stress the airplane more than four shorter sections a day, up to now the assumption was that short haul with several section a day would be the more stressful.

All in all a good try again defending the indefensible, bashing the airline for problems wholly in the realm of the air framer.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
DY claims that all spare parts are located in London, and that's the reason why it takes so much time go get the plane fixed when there's a problem in OSL, ARN, JFK or BKK.

Boeing Spares ... the main store is at Seatac, there are regional stores around the world (used to be Singapore, Belgium, and NYC, although I think there are now a couple more (maybe Dubai) . The problem is they stock only Boeing proprietary parts that have sales records. Parts designed and manufactured using 'supplier controlled drawings' (SCD) with supplier patents are not stored by Boeing Spares and it's the airlines responsibility to establish both stock and spares relationships. The electrical panel was a Thales SCD so Boeing would not have it.. that must be what they are talking about coming from London.

Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response.

So before we cast darts, we need to know whether it is an SCD or a Boeing proprietary part involved. Yes, some will maintain that "Boeing should..." but reality is the business model that has worked since the 707 says no..


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30702 times:

FAL

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Boeing Spares ... the main store is at Seatac, there are regional stores around the world (used to be Singapore, Belgium, and NYC, although I think there are now a couple more (maybe Dubai) . The problem is they stock only Boeing proprietary parts that have sales records. Parts designed and manufactured using 'supplier controlled drawings' (SCD) with supplier patents are not stored by Boeing Spares and it's the airlines responsibility to establish both stock and spares relationships. The electrical panel was a Thales SCD so Boeing would not have it.. that must be what they are talking about coming from London.

Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response.

So before we cast darts, we need to know whether it is an SCD or a Boeing proprietary part involved. Yes, some will maintain that "Boeing should..." but reality is the business model that has worked since the 707 says no..

It does not matter in this case what Boeing does or does not stock.

DY bought the whole package regarding service from Boeing, that includes managing the spare parts.
It is a Boeing decisions where and what spare parts Boeing keeps for the B 787 for DY.
So it is a Boeing responsibility to have the right spare part, at the right time, at the right place.


User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 30244 times:

I don't know if this article was posted before or not. It lists some of the problems that DY has had since inducting the 787s. The issues seem to be all over the place, not limited to one or two areas.

Boeing exec meets with Norwegian Air over 787

Quote:
...
Norwegian's newly established long-haul 787 flights to New York and Bangkok were disrupted throughout September by three apparently unrelated component failures, first involving the jet's electrical power, then hydraulics, and most recently the cockpit oxygen supply, according to a person with knowledge of the incidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last weekend, both 787s were grounded because a leaky regulator on an oxygen bottle depleted the emergency oxygen supply available to the pilots in both airplanes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the planes arrived in Oslo, replacement oxygen bottles were not immediately available, and flights had to be canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning of the month, one Norwegian Air 787 was grounded for five days after a power supply issue in the electric brake system showed up during routine maintenance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that was fixed, the carrier's second 787 developed an unrelated power supply problem, this time connected to the jet's central computing system, which grounded that jet for another day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then in mid-September, a 787 flight from Oslo to New York was delayed until the next day after a hydraulic pump failed. Passengers waited hours at the terminal for the pump to be fixed; then a final check discovered an unrelated leak in a hydraulic hose to the landing gear. The flight didn't take off until next day.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30011 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 40):
I don't know if this article was posted before or not. It lists some of the problems that DY has had since inducting the 787s. The issues seem to be all over the place, not limited to one or two areas.

Boeing exec meets with Norwegian Air over 787

Some of this information is pretty damning, seems like poor QC. No excuses really, 4 years after first flight and 2 years after EIS to continue to have these kinds of AOG-creating QC issues or "teething" problems.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blrsea (Reply 40):
The issues seem to be all over the place, not limited to one or two areas.

Three of the four replacements are not considered spare-able.. even for a Boeing fleet. they are unique one off events.. Hydraulic hoses are generally stocked by airlines.. I don't understand all the details of the Boeing agreement.. however I sense the details are not as inclusive as comments suggest.

If someone can post the contract I'll be glad to comment.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5939 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30010 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 41):
Some of this information is pretty damning, seems like poor QC

That's what I'm thinking as well. I 100% acknowledge that Norwegian should probably have stronger operational contingencies in place, BUT these issues are decidedly technical. People can criticise them for how they have handled the issues, but the mere fact that these issues are occurring points to responsibility by Boeing.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 29846 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 40):
I don't know if this article was posted before or not. It lists some of the problems that DY has had since inducting the 787s. The issues seem to be all over the place, not limited to one or two areas.

We now have 2 times problems with hydraulics pumps (the last problem added after the list was compiled was a pump). This is surprising, there is nothing really new on the hydraulics side IIRC, it is a 5000 PSI system but that is vanilla technology today IMO. Is it a new supplier?



Non French in France
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 29376 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
Three of the four replacements are not considered spare-able.. even for a Boeing fleet. they are unique one off events.. Hydraulic hoses are generally stocked by airlines.. I don't understand all the details of the Boeing agreement.. however I sense the details are not as inclusive as comments suggest.

If someone can post the contract I'll be glad to comment.

The service for the DY B 787 is farmed out to Boeing including spare parts management, a central part of Boeing GoldCare services.
Unless you can show that the contract limits the responsibility of Boeing, I assume that Boeing is 100% responsible.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 29329 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 37):
If the service is part of "operational problems" it is not a problem of DY but Boeing with there Gold Care service.That includes the service and spare parts management
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):
DY bought the whole package regarding service from Boeing, that includes managing the spare parts.It is a Boeing decisions where and what spare parts Boeing keeps for the B 787 for DY.So it is a Boeing responsibility to have the right spare part, at the right time, at the right place.

  

If you charge a client extra for a service to keep their equipment working in a timely manner, that is the service you should provide.


User currently onlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 29305 times:

With the amount of outsourced suppliers Boeing must have been looking for a huge reduction in the stores they had to carry. If I was an airline and the option was to have multiple contracts or one throat to squeeze I know which way I would be going.

I find it astounding that a Thales unit that is part of the original equipment can be seen as an item not stocked by Boeing.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28753 times:

Quoting StTim (Reply 47):
With the amount of outsourced suppliers Boeing must have been looking for a huge reduction in the stores they had to carry.

Boeing maintains inventory based on historical MTBF data. It appears even the most reliable parts so far are failing quickly and randomly on 787. My theory in the hype of energy savings Boeing probably asked every vendor to achieve certain % (say 20) savings. Some vendors used advanced technology and some reduced weight. In the process every vendor messed with already reliable products and here we are.

I think Boeing should slowdown production and take a holistic look of entire program. For starters they should increase quality checks at their delivery center. There is no point rolling out lemons.


User currently offlineuberflieger From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

according to Reuters DY is returning the 787 currently stuck in Bangkok and won't take her back until Boeing can assure a more reliable performance

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norweg...r-boeing-breakdowns-114526153.html



passionate about The New American :)
User currently onlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28741 times:

Sending it back to Boeing is a pretty big step. In some ways I feel for Boeing. There is a constant stream of bad news about the 787. In some ways I don't feel for them ever since I found out what a show was for the first roll out. It was obviously a programme driven by marketeers and accountants and not engineers.

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28644 times:

Quoting StTim (Reply 50):
Sending it back to Boeing is a pretty big step.

Probably lost in translation, it is more like leaving your troublesome car at dealership until it is fixed.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28522 times:

The way I understand it, it will stay in Stockholm until Boeing has resolved all the issues with the aircraft.

Quote:
The aircraft that will be returned is still stuck in Bangkok after a hydraulic pump failure this week and will be flown back to Stockholm where Boeing will carry out the work.


[Edited 2013-09-28 06:20:20]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28443 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
The way I understand it, it will stay in Stockholm until Boeing has resolved all the issues.

Quote:
The aircraft that will be returned is still stuck in Bangkok after a hydraulic pump failure this week and will be flown back to Stockholm where Boeing will carry out the work.

Who does fly it back to Stockholm, Norwegian or Boeing?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28429 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
Who does fly it back to Stockholm, Norwegian or Boeing?

Good question. I'm not sure if pilots are part of the Gold Care service?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28350 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 54):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
Who does fly it back to Stockholm, Norwegian or Boeing?

Good question. I'm not sure if pilots are part of the Gold Care service?

But it could be part of putting the frame in the hands of Boeing.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28313 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 48):
I think Boeing should slowdown production and take a holistic look of entire program. For starters they should increase quality checks at their delivery center. There is no point rolling out lemons.

I don't think they'll have to slow down production. We have seen several quality issues with the 787 (incorrect installed wiring, missing oil filters) and all were discovered during maintenance / routine checks. So I think Boeing should improve the quality control on the assembly line and during the delivery process, but it should not affect the production rate.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28282 times:

Boeing:-Sorry for drawbacks

Boeing states that it shall make necessary improvements to ensure the aircraft's operational stability.

- The decision is made ​​in consultation with Norwegian to improve aircraft reliability. As a result, it is expected that the aircraft will be out of commission for a few days, says Fiona O 'Farrell, director of communications at Boeing Europe,

- We apologize for the inconvenience for Norwegian and their passengers, she continues.

http://www.vg.no/reise/artikkel.php?artid=10152052


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28253 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
Who does fly it back to Stockholm, Norwegian or Boeing?

Norwegian had their own pilots in BKK ready to fly the airplane to ARN with passengers on Friday. If they're going to wait for Boeing to send their pilots to BKK, they will easily lose at least 24 hours. I see no reason to do that.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28160 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 58):
Who does fly it back to Stockholm, Norwegian or Boeing?

Norwegian had their own pilots in BKK ready to fly the airplane to ARN with passengers on Friday. If they're going to wait for Boeing to send their pilots to BKK, they will easily lose at least 24 hours. I see no reason to do that.

The plain is to be flown without passengers, the passengers were booked on other flights, further passenger flights are to be done with a HyFly A 340, who loses 24 hours?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28130 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 59):
who loses 24 hours?

I think he means the stranded airplane has to wait 24 hours if Boeing needs to send its own pilots.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 28137 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 57):
- We apologize for the inconvenience for Norwegian and their passengers, she continues.

I don't know what Norwegian culture says about apologies. but here in Japan, Apologies are almost a way back to credibility....but apologizing too much without fixing the issue is a way to ultimately ruin yourself for life.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 27939 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 59):
who loses 24 hours?

I think he means the stranded airplane has to wait 24 hours if Boeing needs to send its own pilots.

But if Norwegian said, over to you, to Boeing, than it is a decision of Boeing where they wont to repair it.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 27629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45):
Unless you can show that the contract limits the responsibility of Boeing, I assume that Boeing is 100% responsible.

So we're posting based on assumptions.. It seems nobody knows what is and is not in the contract. There is a big difference between managing the spares inventory and providing it.. Managing consists of recommendations, min/max stock levels, reorder tracking, repair and maintenance tracking, and asset deployment to line stations.. Hydraulic items are usually stocked as one replacement unit and repair kits (seals etc) all are manufactured by contractors either as Boeing design or supplier design. Boeing spares would have replacements of Boeing design and repair kits. SCD's and their repair kits have to come from the suppliers. Hydraulic hoses are spec controlled drawings and again haven't been manufactured since the 707 days by Boeing.. the same manufacturers build units for all the past and current models.. Note: Boeing is not and chooses not to be am FAA certified repair station for any but leasable components (flaps, rudders, ailerons).. I believe the electrical panel was Thales as an SCD, and repair /replacement was their responsibility.. a spares management plan would track the replacement unit ordering and part arrival at the customer.. Norwegian mechanics must still remove and install the hardware. It appears there may have been a misunderstanding between some of the airline management and Boeing as to the limits and control of the process.

Historically Boeing Service and Spares engineers present a customer an initial provisioning recommendation, most customers buy everything and it is delivered prior to the first a/c.. the customer then breaks it out per Boeing recommendations to line stations. Some customers defer portions and rely on AOG support. Additional packages are designed for subsequent fleet increases and are the customers job to procure and distribute..

Addendum.. I have noticed that since the mid 90's new MBA managers at Boeing with little practical experience other than egos, tend to make sweeping promises that are unrealistic and unfounded and unsupported by process.. many had little concept of followthrough relying on someone else to "make it happen" because they were "can do" people.

[Edited 2013-09-28 08:45:58]

User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 27477 times:

Embarrassing

Quote:
In the meantime, the Scandinavian low-cost carrier will lease an Airbus A340 to fly on its two new long-haul destinations between Stockholm, Sweden, and New York and Bangkok.
http://seattletimes.com/html/boeinga...18424_apeunorwegiandreamliner.html


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 27366 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56):
I don't think they'll have to slow down production. We have seen several quality issues with the 787 (incorrect installed wiring, missing oil filters) and all were discovered during maintenance / routine checks. So I think Boeing should improve the quality control on the assembly line and during the delivery process, but it should not affect the production rate.

Sounds a bit like the quality issues SAS had as a launch customer when the 737-600 entered service.


User currently offlineschwege From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 45 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 27351 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
If someone can post the contract I'll be glad to comment.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=2173
I know, that's not the actual contract but probably as close as you can get.

Quote:

Norwegian has selected GoldCare Enterprise, which encompasses the complete parts, engineering, and maintenance solution. Norwegian also is the first customer to select the line maintenance option through the GoldCare MRO network, in which Boeing manages scheduled and minor maintenance that is conducted between flights and overnight. Norwegian will maintain active control responsibility over all engineering and maintenance activities.

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):
Norwegian mechanics must still remove and install the hardware.

From what I understand reading the Boeing announcement above, Norwegian mechanics don't need to even touch the 787. As to what "maintaining active control responsibility" means in practice, I have no idea.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 33
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 27334 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):
Norwegian mechanics must still remove and install the hardware.

You keep pushing this line.
Norwegian does not have any B787 mechanics. Boeing supplies all mechanics for the Norwegian B787.
Gold care is different from historical systems.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26963 times:

Reuters is reporting the following

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...ype=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector

(Reuters) - Budget airline Norwegian Air Shuttle is taking one of its brand new Dreamliners out of long-haul service and demanding that Boeing repair the plane after it suffered repeated breakdowns, the carrier said on Saturday.

Boeing said the repairs would take "a matter of days".

"The aircraft's reliability is simply not acceptable, our passengers cannot live with this kind of performance," spokesman Lasse Sandaker-Nielsen told Reuters.

"We are taking it out of long-haul service."



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 26692 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 72):
"We are taking it out of long-haul service."

= grounding


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting schwege (Reply 66):
From what I understand reading the Boeing announcement above, Norwegian mechanics don't need to even touch the 787

from the media release "in which Boeing manages scheduled and minor maintenance" notice the word "manages" ..Much different from performs. Boeing has no maintenance mechanics.. they may manage a contract with a certified repair and maintenance company.. just as other airlines have contracts with maintenance providers..

further on "GoldCare is Boeing's flexible lifecycle solution that provides maintenance, engineering and material management" again the word management.. People, it's a bloody computer program.. not a physical entity.!!!


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26735 times:

I always thought that Norweigan was taking a bit of a gamble by staking its future on a new type of plane that had never been flown before. As it was, the entry into service was delayed by two years, then it got grounded due to the battery fires, and now there have been all sorts of reliability problems. Maybe they would have been better off leasing a few A330s and gradually introducing the 787s to replace them whilst keeping one or two A330s on hand for a while as backup (or even some old 767s on a cheap lease). Maybe as they introduce more 787s into service they should leave one in or near New York and one in Bangkok and rotate them in and out of service until the reliability issues get solved.

User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 371 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26740 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):
I have noticed that since the mid 90's new MBA managers at Boeing with little practical experience other than egos, tend to make sweeping promises that are unrealistic and unfounded and unsupported by process.. many had little concept of followthrough relying on someone else to "make it happen" because they were "can do" people.

I'm sure your right about that.

Having worked with a lot of senior management in a huge number of organisations and, in more recent years, specialising mainly in helping to fix projects that are going wrong, I can attest to the fact that there's no worse manager than a recent MBA graduate. They think they know it all and try to run whatever they're in charge of as though it's an academic exercise. They rarely have any idea how things actually work out here in the real world.

I'd rather have a manager who's worked their way up through the ranks any day.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26755 times:

It seems that the only one benefiting from this saga is HiFly, which gets a lot of extra revenue from DY. Moreover, DY is probably glad that HiFly increased the number of A340s in its fleet and that it's off season here in Europe (each full cancelled 787 flight would be approx EUR 175k in compensation alone).

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26696 times:

Quoting LJ (Reply 79):
Moreover, DY is probably glad that HiFly increased the number of A340s in its fleet and that it's off season here in Europe

Indeed, except I wouldn't want to see the fuel bill for those A340s  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 33
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26704 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
Boeing has no maintenance mechanics.. they may manage a contract with a certified repair and maintenance company.

On the ramp at ARN, a company called Nayak is employed by Boeing to maintain the Norwegian B787. There are Boeing managers on site who closely monitor the operation and tell Nayak what to do.
Norwegian maintenance control in Oslo runs the aircraft, but all technical decisions on how to fix them are taken by the Boeing managers and performed by the Nayak mechanics using spare parts from the Boeing store.
The Norwegian mechanics watch.


User currently offlineschwege From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 45 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26540 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
further on "GoldCare is Boeing's flexible lifecycle solution that provides maintenance, engineering and material management" again the word management.. People, it's a bloody computer program.. not a physical entity.!!!

You, sir, are wrong.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/goldcare/pdf/goldcare.pdf

Quote:

GoldCare Enterprise includes complete parts management, repair and overhaul integrated into material management, engineering and the execution of any required maintenance.


User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 26603 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):
Indeed, except I wouldn't want to see the fuel bill for those A340s

If paid another, why would you not want to see the fuel bill?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 26579 times:

Quoting Bogi (Reply 83):
If paid another, why would you not want to see the fuel bill?

Well, the A343 burns 30% more fuel so if I were DY management, I wouldn't want to see the bill. On the other hand, the A340 is cheap to lease.

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.nl/20...ian-leases-a340-300-to-bridge.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 26451 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 63):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45):
Unless you can show that the contract limits the responsibility of Boeing, I assume that Boeing is 100% responsible.

So we're posting based on assumptions.. It seems nobody knows what is and is not in the contract. There is a big difference between managing the spares inventory and providing it.. Managing consists of recommendations, min/max stock levels, reorder tracking, repair and maintenance tracking, and asset deployment to line stations.. Hydraulic items are usually stocked as one replacement unit and repair kits (seals etc) all are manufactured by contractors either as Boeing design or supplier design. Boeing spares would have replacements of Boeing design and repair kits. SCD's and their repair kits have to come from the suppliers. Hydraulic hoses are spec controlled drawings and again haven't been manufactured since the 707 days by Boeing.. the same manufacturers build units for all the past and current models.. Note: Boeing is not and chooses not to be am FAA certified repair station for any but leasable components (flaps, rudders, ailerons).. I believe the electrical panel was Thales as an SCD, and repair /replacement was their responsibility.. a spares management plan would track the replacement unit ordering and part arrival at the customer.. Norwegian mechanics must still remove and install the hardware. It appears there may have been a misunderstanding between some of the airline management and Boeing as to the limits and control of the process.

Historically Boeing Service and Spares engineers present a customer an initial provisioning recommendation, most customers buy everything and it is delivered prior to the first a/c.. the customer then breaks it out per Boeing recommendations to line stations. Some customers defer portions and rely on AOG support. Additional packages are designed for subsequent fleet increases and are the customers job to procure and distribute..

Addendum.. I have noticed that since the mid 90's new MBA managers at Boeing with little practical experience other than egos, tend to make sweeping promises that are unrealistic and unfounded and unsupported by process.. many had little concept of followthrough relying on someone else to "make it happen" because they were "can do" people.

This is at least as much speculation as min.
DY contracted the service out to Boeing for the B 787. What do you think that includes? DY mechanics do not work on the B 787, Boeing mechanics do, or the mechanics Boeing subcontracted to do the work.. Is it so difficult to understand? Boeing stocks the spare parts not DY.
Boeing sold the service for the B 787 to DY and Boeing is responsible for it. It is a common occurrence in a lot of industries to hire the OEM for service of the equipment they sold. Boeing has been offering it and DY seems the first airline to take that offer.
I do not hear Boeing telling that there must be a misunderstanding. I only read posters here on a.net telling it.
The only think that Boeing has been saying is that they will try to do better.


User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 26316 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
Well, the A343 burns 30% more fuel so if I were DY management, I wouldn't want to see the bill. On the other hand, the A340 is cheap to lease.

Their will is pushing not to me.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 26330 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
from the media release "in which Boeing manages scheduled and minor maintenance" notice the word "manages" ..Much different from performs. Boeing has no maintenance mechanics.. they may manage a contract with a certified repair and maintenance company.. just as other airlines have contracts with maintenance providers..

further on "GoldCare is Boeing's flexible lifecycle solution that provides maintenance, engineering and material management" again the word management.. People, it's a bloody computer program.. not a physical entity.!!!

I do not care about the name of the program. DY contracted the service out to Boeing. Boeing again contracted the service out to some maintenance provider. The service guys from DY do not touch the B 787.
Is this so difficult to understand?

Boeing has been trying to sell this hole service package. DY is to my knowledge the first airline to take the offer.

Great advertisement for Boeing this is.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 26192 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
On the other hand, the A340 is cheap to lease.

I doubt very much. Airlines such as HiFly or Titan are known for their hefty lease rates (rates for last minute ad hoc charters are not low). It's not like DY is leasing an A340 from the market.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 26004 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 87):
I do not care about the name of the program. DY contracted the service out to Boeing. Boeing again contracted the service out to some maintenance provider. The service guys from DY do not touch the B 787.

I wouldn't dismiss kanban's theory so easily. In IT/SAP world we have experts from SAP on-site playing an advisory role, escalating issues with SAP Global Support, but actual work is done by our own staff. Their program names sound similar with emphasis is on "care" and "support" but there is no actual work.

Rockwell Collins has a program called "Dispatch".

Rockwell Collins will provide airline with guaranteed spares availability, systems configuration updates, technical repairs, and performance monitoring on Rockwell Collins’ comprehensive suite of communications, surveillance, displays and pilot controls systems onboard the 787. The total life cycle solution is coordinated by a dedicated program manager.

From the text one would think Rockwell is doing everything, in reality there is just an assigned program manager to the airline.

Did DY fell for Boeing's brochure and marketing fluff and purchased the service thinking Boeing will do the work, very likely.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 25938 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 89):
I wouldn't dismiss kanban's theory so easily. In IT/SAP world we have experts from SAP on-site playing an advisory role, escalating issues with SAP Global Support, but actual work is done by our own staff. Their program names sound similar with emphasis is on "care" and "support" but there is no actual work.

Seems like you missed pot #82.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 89):
Did DY fell for Boeing's brochure and marketing fluff and purchased the service thinking Boeing will do the work, very likely.

Sure, successful airlines like Norwegian that have been in business for years make multi-million dollar purchases based on browsing marketing brochures only.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 25865 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 89):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 87):
I do not care about the name of the program. DY contracted the service out to Boeing. Boeing again contracted the service out to some maintenance provider. The service guys from DY do not touch the B 787.

I wouldn't dismiss kanban's theory so easily. In IT/SAP world we have experts from SAP on-site playing an advisory role, escalating issues with SAP Global Support, but actual work is done by our own staff. Their program names sound similar with emphasis is on "care" and "support" but there is no actual work.

Rockwell Collins has a program called "Dispatch".

Rockwell Collins will provide airline with guaranteed spares availability, systems configuration updates, technical repairs, and performance monitoring on Rockwell Collins’ comprehensive suite of communications, surveillance, displays and pilot controls systems onboard the 787. The total life cycle solution is coordinated by a dedicated program manager.

From the text one would think Rockwell is doing everything, in reality there is just an assigned program manager to the airline.

Did DY fell for Boeing's brochure and marketing fluff and purchased the service thinking Boeing will do the work, very likely.

Whether Boeing manages the program a computer in Seattle or via on-site managers who oversee some sub-contractor makes zero difference. DY paid for full service. That means Boeing is responsible to ensuring the aircraft are running. If they break down, Boeing is responsible for servicing the aircraft.

There are two interrelated problems:

1. The 788 is breaking down for DY for whatever reason at an absurd rate and;
2. Boeing doesn't spares are the right places to quickly replace the crap that keeps breaking down at the above mentioned absurd rate.

All of this on two brand spanking new aircraft for a type which has been in service for two years.

You can't sugar coat the issue nor can you blame DY given they are PAYING for BOEING to service the aircraft.

Its cute and all to talk about DY "should've had an equal number of 'hot spare aircraft' available" to swap out but that's silly. Should they have a plane sitting in BKK and JFK in addition to ARN and OSL? Crazy.

By the way, I wasn't sniping at the quoted post simply highlighting the absurdity of those who seem to thing Boeing isn't at fault 100% for this trainwreck.

[Edited 2013-09-28 13:15:40]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 25749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I still see assumptions based on beliefs that are unsubstantiated.. However, I have contacted the Boeing Fleet Services people to a fuller description of the process.. If you're right I'll say so, if not I'll pass on what I learn.

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 25711 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 90):
Sure, successful airlines like Norwegian that have been in business for years make multi-million dollar purchases based on browsing marketing brochures only.

I have customers with millions of dollars of IT assets on the books from deals happened between management and vendors on golf courses. Now it is up to IT and Business users to make use of it. Meanwhile asset depreciation is the only activity.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 90):
Seems like you missed pot #82.

The brochure is so carefully worded it is impossible to figure out who does what, unless you are involved with that program.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 25722 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 89):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 87):
I do not care about the name of the program. DY contracted the service out to Boeing. Boeing again contracted the service out to some maintenance provider. The service guys from DY do not touch the B 787.

I wouldn't dismiss kanban's theory so easily. In IT/SAP world we have experts from SAP on-site playing an advisory role, escalating issues with SAP Global Support, but actual work is done by our own staff. Their program names sound similar with emphasis is on "care" and "support" but there is no actual work.

Rockwell Collins has a program called "Dispatch".

Rockwell Collins will provide airline with guaranteed spares availability, systems configuration updates, technical repairs, and performance monitoring on Rockwell Collins’ comprehensive suite of communications, surveillance, displays and pilot controls systems onboard the 787. The total life cycle solution is coordinated by a dedicated program manager.

From the text one would think Rockwell is doing everything, in reality there is just an assigned program manager to the airline.

Did DY fell for Boeing's brochure and marketing fluff and purchased the service thinking Boeing will do the work, very likely.

Do me the favor read was was posted in reply 82: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/goldcare/pdf/goldcare.pdf

"Maintenance Execution
The physical execution of all the
maintenance functions required to keep
your airplanes operating efficiently, including
base, hangar and line maintenance. You
choose the level of support you require
based on your capabilities."

"Material Management
Material Management is a supply chain
management service for spares delivered
with guaranteed parts availability. Flexible
and tailored, Material Management
can include rotables, expendables and
reparable parts."

"You pull the pieces together that you
want from the integrated solution. Do
you need parts and engineering? Do you
need engineering and maintenance? Or
do you need it all integrated into GoldCare
Enterprise? You select what’s best for your
business, and we deliver on it."

You buy the whole package for your airline, you do not have to worry about technical problems. Boeing does the worrying for you. You just meet with your crew and fly your airplanes.   

I am getting sarcastic, but not with Boeing, they seem to admit there errors, but with some posters here on a.net.
Yes, you can buy the whole service package from Boeing.

Lets hope that Boeing gets there ducks in a row very fast. And lets hope that the B 787 stops surprising us with new problems. And lets hope the B 787 performs for all the airlines who bought them according to expectations.
But lets call a spade a spade.


User currently offlinepart147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 25665 times:

You are not helping Boeing's image if you really believe that ... "DY fell for Boeing's brochure and marketing fluff and purchased the service thinking Boeing will do the work"!!!

The way I understand you... Boeing's brochure [on Goldcare] and Boeing's marketing fluff are not truthful and something that Norwegian shouldn't have fallen for!...

You're not just shooting yourself in the foot there, you've let an entire truckload of shotguns run over it.


I feel sad that the 787 continues to be in the news for all tht wrong reasons, hopefully things will resolve soon for all the airlines that have bought, and still have teething problems with, the dreamliner.


I dislike the petty squabbling on these boards now, just as I didn't like it back when the A380 was the butt end of the remarks. Payback is a b*tch I suppose.

[Edited 2013-09-28 13:51:31]


It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 25439 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response
Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
I don't understand all the details of the Boeing agreement.. however I sense the details are not as inclusive as comments suggest

Well, EASA rules, I would expect, would apply to this Norwegian operation, either through their Norway operation, or the Irish lease (the planes have EI-registration I believe).

EASA rules say that the OEM controls the Initial Airworthiness (Type Ceritficate, Part-21, and possibly Production Certificate, which is probably controlled by FAA, and accepted (harmonized) through bilateral between EASA and FAA.

Once the airframe has been delivered, the operator becomes responsible for Continued Airworthiness. Under EASA, this must be managed by an approved Part M organisation. The Part M organization doesn’t actually touch any wrenches or tools; they only manage the program; they set up the maintenance plan (usually closely resembles the MRB approved OEM recommended maintenance plan, as published in the Maintenance Manuals (which usually are part of the TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet). The Part M organisation also must do MTBF analyses, which would continuously update/improve the maintenance program to make it more effective, more efficient, more reliable, and thus more safe. In an ideal world, the part M organisation would also determine spare levels, in conjunction with the Part-145 organization.

The part M organisation issues Work Cards / Job Tasks / Repair Orders to the approved maintenance organization that performs the actual work. Under EASA, that must be a Part-145 approved organization. They turn wrenches, control tools etc. They are also responsible for storing and handling (spare) inventory. As stated, they would adjust spare levels in close cooperation with the Part-M organisation.

Now the real question here is, is the Gold Care program, as advertised and sold by Boeing, a Part M organization? To me, that seems to be the case. EASA allows full contracting to a third part Part M organisation.
It also seems that Boeing has subcontracted the Part-145 activities to a third party, being Nayak. It may also be that Nayak has both a Part M and a Part-145 organisation. Not sure in this case.

Whichever is the case, the operator (Norwegian) has contracted** all the maintenance responsibilities and then has every reason to be extremely angry to see all this disruption.
The OEM (TCDS holder - Boeing) sold a supposedly reliable plane. The operator hired an approved Part M organization (Boeing Gold Care) and undoubtedly deeply discussed a 787 fleet initialisation plan with the Part M organisation (Boeing, or Nayak). This would have included things such as short haul EIS, followed by a reasonably aggressive, but mutually (Operator – Part M organisation) agreed long-haul utilization plan. It must be noted that the Part M organization might be Boeing (not being the production part of it), it may be Nayak.

But I guess the painful thing for Boeing is that they sold and stood by the Gold Care, so they whether they contracted those Part M activities and/or Part-145 work to third part(y)(ies),is of no concern to Norwegian. It seems that Boeing contracted an important part of that work to third parties, and also in this area Boeing either does not understand their own product to sell such a service, or they don't control their vendors to a satisfactory level. Unfortunately, we have seen that before on the 787 program . . .

**Do note the subtle, but highly important difference between contracting, and subcontracting under EASA rules.
A contractor holds its own EASA approval, and are audited by EASA.
A subcontractor does not have its own approval, and they fall under the QA Department of the customer.

To illustrate, the engine MRO I work for will contract specialized component repair to say Chromalloy. The component is refurbished by them and they issue an EASA Form 1 for al the work they performed. That is contracting.
However some machining work requires specialized 3-D grinding machine. The investment is not worth to purchase that machine, so we hire a local company to do that work for us. They do not have EASA approval, but they do that work according to our instructions, under our engineering supervision. They can’t issue an EASA Form 1 as they are not EASA approved. But we have adopted part of their organization under our QA umbrella. That is subcontracting under EASA rules.


PS. Sorry for the long reply, but I think it is quite important in the context of this discussion.

Best Regards,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 25399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 96):
Best Regards,
PW100

Thanks for putting the argument in a real framework. ..


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 24764 times:

Per FlightGlobal, Norwegian has taken out one of it's 787s from service - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...of-its-787s-out-of-service-391087/

User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 24620 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 59):
The plain is to be flown without passengers, the passengers were booked on other flights, further passenger flights are to be done with a HyFly A 340, who loses 24 hours?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
I think he means the stranded airplane has to wait 24 hours if Boeing needs to send its own pilots.

KarelXWB, that's correct.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 62):
But if Norwegian said, over to you, to Boeing, than it is a decision of Boeing where they wont to repair it.

Perhaps, but the decision had already been made to fly the airplane empty to ARN, and in reply 53, you asked who will fly it to ARN: Boeing or DY. I replied to you that since DY already has pilots in BKK waiting to take the plane to ARN, and since Boeing's nearest pool of 787 pilots are probably in Seattle, it makes sense to let the DY pilots do the flying.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 23702 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 72):
there's no worse manager than a recent MBA graduate

MBA = Must Be Avoided  
Quoting Speedbored (Reply 72):
I'd rather have a manager who's worked their way up through the ranks any day.

Not just that. I like managers to get their hands dirty every so often too. It is amazing how quick people forget when they don't do things anymore.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
Well, the A343 burns 30% more fuel so if I were DY management, I wouldn't want to see the bill.

I would not worry about it for a second as I would balance it with the costs of not operating.


User currently offlinelutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 22296 times:

Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response.

Kanban - but in this case Boeing is acting like LHT/ SRT/ AFI "total component services" offerings, and Boeing will need to own & manage the repairs of other manufacturers parts.

They may of course have outsourced this to an MRO, like it looks they have outsourced line maintenance.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lutfi (Reply 95):
Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response.

The problem with some, not all or even a majority, is customer uniqueness.. and revision levels.. Now most do maintain a level of spares however if there are frequent demands, the stock can be depleted.. Example, the early 747 had windscreen problems.. some glass only lasted 2 or 3 flights before it delaminated .. the supplier could't make them fast enough and there were flights cancelled. Spares support is not 100% available for everything it's mostly those things that show a history of wear or damage. And believe me forecasting spares needs is not a walk i the park.. there is only about an 80% of getting it exact.. some forecast items never are needed, others that should last 5000 hours wear out in 500 hrs.

Again though as I read the blurbs, Boeing is managing the inventory for the airline based on spares recommendations.. they are not providing 100% coverage for unforeseen replacements. No airline would buy stock at that level either..

Anyway let's wait and see what the Boeing people say (if anything ) and then form fact based opinions vs. ideal world opinions.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21933 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Example, the early 747 had windscreen problems.. some glass only lasted 2 or 3 flights before it delaminated ..
Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
And believe me forecasting spares needs is not a walk i the park.. there is only about an 80% of getting it exact.. some forecast items never are needed, others that should last 5000 hours wear out in 500 hrs.

Kanban -- fully agree. However I think patience is wearing thin because it is now 4 years after first flight and 2 years after EIS. Materials, QC, and forecasting methods should have improved a lot since 1970 when the 747 came into service, and even the 747 was fairly stable two years into EIS.

All modern jetliners since then, including the one prior to the 787, namely the A380, were much more stable two years after EIS and 4 years after first flight. There comes a point where customers say enough, this is unacceptable, and the point has now been reached for some, it seems.

[Edited 2013-09-29 23:26:25]

User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21614 times:

This active thread is interesting and amazing.
Earlier topics such as "787 problems" (directly for all the problems) are have been prevented, as if there is no such problems.

[Edited 2013-09-30 01:13:50]

User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21552 times:

Quoting LJ (Reply 82):
I doubt very much. Airlines such as HiFly or Titan are known for their hefty lease rates (rates for last minute ad hoc charters are not low). It's not like DY is leasing an A340 from the market.

Just to put that into context - leasing any plane last minute/ad-hoc from HiFly or the likes is expensive; it's nothing unique to the A340 here. Within the ad-hoc leasing market, the A340 is probably still relatively cheap compared to, say, an A330 or 777.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21076 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Quoting lutfi (Reply 95):
Boeing can not insist the SCD manufacturers maintain spares stock.. they can only insist that they have an AOG process and response.

The problem with some, not all or even a majority, is customer uniqueness.. and revision levels.. Now most do maintain a level of spares however if there are frequent demands, the stock can be depleted.. Example, the early 747 had windscreen problems.. some glass only lasted 2 or 3 flights before it delaminated .. the supplier could't make them fast enough and there were flights cancelled. Spares support is not 100% available for everything it's mostly those things that show a history of wear or damage. And believe me forecasting spares needs is not a walk i the park.. there is only about an 80% of getting it exact.. some forecast items never are needed, others that should last 5000 hours wear out in 500 hrs.

Again though as I read the blurbs, Boeing is managing the inventory for the airline based on spares recommendations.. they are not providing 100% coverage for unforeseen replacements. No airline would buy stock at that level either..

Anyway let's wait and see what the Boeing people say (if anything ) and then form fact based opinions vs. ideal world opinions.

You did not wait to see so I post a comment.
All the arguments you are bringing do not remove the responsibility of the OEM to guaranty the flow and supply of spare parts. It does not matter were the stock is kept with the OEM, the sup supplier, the wholesaler for standard parts, the OEM can not escape the responsibility. Of course you have to expect the airlines to keep stock of the common parts.
Unless they contract that out to the OEM.

When we talk about a new frame at the date of EIS, the OEM has made a prediction what spare parts this frame will need when. I expect when the first frames go to the customer the OEM having a stock of likely but also unlikely parts on stock because predictions are just predictions.
A stock seeming huge for a few frames because you overstocked, fast gets normal when more frames get delivered.

For me a spare part is a part breaking during normal use of the frame, misuse and accidents are something else.
The answer, but we did not predict that part to break at that time is an explanation and often used as excuse.
The only answer to that is than the prediction was wrong, and wrong spare part predictions do not excuse the OEM.

At some time the Frame is not longer a frame newly come to the market. At that point the customer can expect a mature spare parts supply. If parts are breaking faster than predicted or parts breaking not predicted to break, the spare parts chain of the OEM has to react.

In the case of Norwegian we look at frames that should be getting mature, to talk about teething problems 1.5 years after EIS is getting a bit old.
The spare parts kept for DY are part of the Boeing service, Boeing manages the availability of those parts and that has to include those parts Boeing does not usually keep on stock but expects the airline to keep them.
We can have here two problems, one the DY frames have more problems than reasonable, that is a problem of the OEM and therefore Boeing. Two, parts that should be on stock are not on stock, or not on stock were there are needed, and that is again a problem of Boeing as the sole service provider.
The third point would be sub standard service, that should be unlikely as the service is provided by Boeing and that includes subcontracted work.


User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21015 times:

The thing that sets this thread apart from previous threads about the 787 is that here it's not only an airframe issue, but a deeper problem with Boeing's Gold Care program, which in turn implies a deeper problem within the Boeing organization. When Norwegian bought the airframes they wanted to make sure they had the top of the line maintenance to go with it - or so they believed; turns out Boeing's Gold Care program has it's own unique problems.

Now there might be many reasons for this, some posters here have attributed this to MBA managers, etc. They might be right. To me Boeing appears to have changed a lot since moving their HQ to Chicago - there is a now greater disconnect between management and marketing vis-à-vis engineering and manufacturing. Maybe the true reason is something else entirely.



Longtime Lurker
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21010 times:

How many aircraft does Boeing produce in Chicago? Strange to have the HQ so far from the work place. Must be tricky to keep the ball rolling when thigns go wrong.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20775 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 102):
How many aircraft does Boeing produce in Chicago? Strange to have the HQ so far from the work place. Must be tricky to keep the ball rolling when thigns go wrong.

Maybe the engineers in Seattle preferred it this way as they got rid of the paper pushers who tend to just get in the way when one is trying to turn a bolt.
I'm really looking for the Dilbert comic on this management issues, its fun reading.  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 102):
How many aircraft does Boeing produce in Chicago? Strange to have the HQ so far from the work place.

All Commercial Airplane activities are centered in Seattle.. as a separate company within Boeing, there is no need to daily oversight from the MBA's in Chicago.. in fact they often muddle things up even worse. The Spares Department and Customer Support are housed in a building just South of Boeing Field, the main spares warehouse Is in Seatac just North on the main runway.

Quoting Norlander (Reply 101):
a deeper problem with Boeing's Gold Care program, which in turn implies a deeper problem within the Boeing organization.

Again unless you know exactly what the contract covers and the inclusions and limitations, these are just assumptions not based on knowledge but on idealism. The more I see of the program, it is a management system with subcontracted labor and computer scheduling activities while providing a few service engineers.


Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 100):
You did not wait to see so I post a comment.

I was responding to a question from someone looking for basic knowledge.. sorry if the data doesn't fit your theory.. I spent 35 years in the business. I'm unclear what life experience brings you to the assumptions and frustration being expressed. 40 plus years for spares forecasting is extremely accurate.. supplier support has always left some items unavailable. AOG does not ensure part delivery of spare-able parts in 24 hours.. it's a goal. non spare-able parts take longer.. incident repairs take weeks to months for parts accumulations. Commercial airplane spares is different in complexity and cost from spare parts for your car.


And even though I've queried the Gold Care managers, Boeing Policy may not allow them to respond.. So I can only shed what I know and have experienced of the Spares process.... but can not support views of make believe business scenarios.


User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20374 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 104):
Again unless you know exactly what the contract covers and the inclusions and limitations, these are just assumptions not based on knowledge but on idealism. The more I see of the program, it is a management system with subcontracted labor and computer scheduling activities while providing a few service engineers.

So you disagree with the framework that PW100 provided in reply 90? If you do not (which I assumed, given your reply to his post), then how can you hold the position that the current state of this program is - with regards to Norwegian - not a serious problem for Boeing?



Longtime Lurker
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It may only be a perception problem.. I'm just not willing to go gloom and doom without actual contract knowledge. and we know how the press can make a mountain out of a molehill.

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4870 posts, RR: 14
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Norlander (Reply 101):
To me Boeing appears to have changed a lot since moving their HQ to Chicago - there is a now greater disconnect between management and marketing vis-à-vis engineering and manufacturing. Maybe the true reason is something else entirely.

Its all about saving$$$$ and providing best sheareholder value which is not synonymous with best customer value!!

I thought that with all the time B had to test fly the 787 during theproduction delays they would have come across some of the problems customers are experiencing. I could see things with customer comfort- IFE/galleys etc problems may not show up on the testing .Though dont they have one frame dedicated to just that sort of flying? If the engine OEMs could do enough engine operation ( I assume a lot of it was in the air and not in a test engine cell) to come up with PIPs quite soon. B should have done enough hours to see they have issues with hydraulics,fire extinguisher etc

I don't work in the industry, just a lifelong air nut but seems B has been sitting on its a... during the period of extended test flying they had available to them. Or am I wrong that they had this extra time? Or they really have a major lemon.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20075 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 104):
Again unless you know exactly what the contract covers and the inclusions and limitations, these are just assumptions not based on knowledge but on idealism. The more I see of the program, it is a management system with subcontracted labor and computer scheduling activities while providing a few service engineers.

Subcontracting seems to be the main excuse of Boeing today.

Quoting kanban (Reply 104):
And even though I've queried the Gold Care managers, Boeing Policy may not allow them to respond.. So I can only shed what I know and have experienced of the Spares process.... but can not support views of make believe business scenarios.

Of course he will not comment on Norwegian.

And you live in the make believe world were Boeing just can not be responsible for this mess.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19871 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 92):
Per FlightGlobal, Norwegian has taken out one of it's 787s from service - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...1087/

According to the latest schedule change, DY will use the A340 until and including October 11th.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19841 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 108):
Of course he will not comment on Norwegian.

They did comment on Norwegian and the current situation..
I can not identify that contact I spoke with.
There is a specific command center for just these a/c that runs 24/7. One comment was passed on is that with today's social media, problems, assumed problems, and down right mis information frequently reaches the news before either the Gold Care or Field Service people are engaged.

From the original release" GoldCare is Boeing's flexible lifecycle solution that provides maintenance, engineering and material management as a multi-year service managed by Boeing. GoldCare utilizes Boeing's advanced global e-enabling technologies.
Support using GoldCare Enterprise will allow Norwegian to operate its new long haul service efficiently, knowing that its airplane assets achieve maximum utilization and are maintained to all regulatory requirements and industry standards.
Within GoldCare, Boeing leads a global team of suppliers and maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) providers to deliver airplane support at a predictable cost based on flight hours. GoldCare provides airlines with 24/7 operations center support using the latest technology to turn airplane operating data into diagnostic information that enhances efficiency and maximizes airplane availability."

As I suspected, the Gold Care coupled with Field Service is a management system designed to relieve the customer from flight time maintenance scheduling, relive the customer form spares parts inventory management replenishment tasks, and working with the carrier provide a MRO contractor to meet the carriers needs without adding additional carrier staff. The MRO while certified to perform many aspects of airplane maintenance, however, generally can not service SCD's. Those must be serviced by the suppliers' repair process. Note, the MRO was selected BY THE CARRIER from a list of approved certified candidates.. yes Boeing carries the contract, but the decisions are carrier based.

The Gold Care team does process the warranty claims for the carrier back to Boeing where failed parts are analyzed and engineering redesigns as necessary for more robustness.
There is an on site Gold Care team, there is an on site Field Service team.

Many of the assumptions voiced by the posters are indeed expectations over and above the contract. Note: the hydraulic pump in not on the minimum equipment list. Note: while some rant about the delay to service and during that time all bugs should have been found, many of these issues are either not computer forecastable or require actual service to expose.. sitting in the FAL does nothing to expose them.

My own thoughts .. the carrier may have bitten of a bigger piece than they realized with the aggressive service plane and high utilization right out of the box.. It happens. I am also confident that Boeing will resolve the issue, even going beyond the contractual terms, to satisfy the carrier.

addendum: it appears it is easier to voice assumptions than pick up the phone or email and talk to the people involved.. I've always felt that talking with the people involved was more direct than sniping.

[Edited 2013-09-30 11:02:55]

User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19527 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
My own thoughts .. the carrier may have bitten of a bigger piece than they realized with the aggressive service plane and high utilization right out of the box.. It happens. I am also confident that Boeing will resolve the issue, even going beyond the contractual terms, to satisfy the carrier.

The thing what got me going in this thread is the picking on the carrier.

Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
Many of the assumptions voiced by the posters are indeed expectations over and above the contract. Note: the hydraulic pump in not on the minimum equipment list. Note: while some rant about the delay to service and during that time all bugs should have been found, many of these issues are either not computer forecastable or require actual service to expose.. sitting in the FAL does nothing to expose them.

Lets go through my assumptions:

Assumption # one: DY contracted Boeing for the service for there B 787.
Assumption # two: Dy contracted Boeing for keeping and managing the spare parts for there B 787s.
You are telling me both this assumptions are wrong?

The qualifier that yes Boeing sold this service but they subcontracted it again does not fly as an excuse for Boeing not being responsible. And even when the customer got to chose the subcontractor, that was a Boeing list and the contract still runs through Boeing.

Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
Note: the hydraulic pump in not on the minimum equipment list. Note: while some rant about the delay to service and during that time all bugs should have been found, many of these issues are either not computer forecastable or require actual service to expose.. sitting in the FAL does nothing to expose them.

Here is were the arrogance hits.

When a part breaks in normal use of the equipment one has sold, accidents and misuse excluded, and the OEM does not stock it because he predicted it not to break, than the prediction of the need to stock this part is simply wrong.

A prediction is always that, a prediction not the absolute truth.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19462 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
As I suspected, the Gold Care coupled with Field Service is a management system designed to relieve the customer from flight time maintenance scheduling, relive the customer form spares parts inventory management replenishment tasks, and working with the carrier provide a MRO contractor to meet the carriers needs without adding additional carrier staff. The MRO while certified to perform many aspects of airplane maintenance, however, generally can not service SCD's. Those must be serviced by the suppliers' repair process. Note, the MRO was selected BY THE CARRIER from a list of approved certified candidates.. yes Boeing carries the contract, but the decisions are carrier based.

The Gold Care team does process the warranty claims for the carrier back to Boeing where failed parts are analyzed and engineering redesigns as necessary for more robustness.
There is an on site Gold Care team, there is an on site Field Service team.

Kanban, I have not comment on this issue before because I have waited for more information. Looking at what you write it seems to me that Boeing has been contracted and accepted to manage all maintenance and repair. That Boeing is subcontracted the hands on process and the customer was involved in selecting the subcontractor doesn't change that it is Boeing who is responsible for it being performed properly.

What am I misunderstanding or is it a Boeing issue that the planes are not available to the extent expected (and I assume in the contract?)


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19435 times:

This isn't the end of the world. Norwegian has been having problems with their brand, new planes. Right or wrong, it got reported by the media and since everything 787 related is news, it became a big deal.

Boeing and Norwegian are working like crazy to get this sorted out....and they will. Nobody is telling anybody to 'get lost' or some such thing.

The same with LOT. Not every possible problem can be predicted...so they can't be preemtively solved. That means there will be a lag between discovery of the problem and a solution.

Of course the airlines are p!ssed. If your new car is in the shop more than on the road...you'd be choked too. They have to deal with the tweets of hundreds of disgruntled passengers who are complaining as the problems are happening. The airlines have to answer to the public so the issue press releases and tell Boeing to get their crap together...which they will. That doesn't mean things aren't more civil behind the scenes.

There are more problems ahead but hopefully they will become more and more rare.



What the...?
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19330 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
As I suspected, the Gold Care coupled with Field Service is a management system designed to relieve the customer from flight time maintenance scheduling, relive the customer form spares parts inventory management replenishment tasks, and working with the carrier provide a MRO contractor to meet the carriers needs without adding additional carrier staff. The MRO while certified to perform many aspects of airplane maintenance, however, generally can not service SCD's. Those must be serviced by the suppliers' repair process. Note, the MRO was selected BY THE CARRIER from a list of approved certified candidates.. yes Boeing carries the contract, but the decisions are carrier based

Does that mean that Boeing is the EASA approved Part M organisation, and Nayak is the (customer chosen) Part 145 MRO provider?
It is pretty clear to me that Nayak performs the Part 145 activities, I am very curious to learn which company is doing the Part M activities . . .

Thanks for your insight.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineicareflies From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 59 posts, RR: 3
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 114):
Does that mean that Boeing is the EASA approved Part M organisation, and Nayak is the (customer chosen) Part 145 MRO provider?
It is pretty clear to me that Nayak performs the Part 145 activities, I am very curious to learn which company is doing the Part M activities . . .

Your assumption is correct.



AF777-300ER and 9W737-900 - Love it! Love it
User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19097 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 99):
Just to put that into context - leasing any plane last minute/ad-hoc from HiFly or the likes is expensive; it's nothing unique to the A340 here. Within the ad-hoc leasing market, the A340 is probably still relatively cheap compared to, say, an A330 or 777.

I really don't see the reason why the A340 should be cheaper. Any airline leasing the plane needs the lift it provides urgently. Not because they like the plane so much. There is no reason for HiFly or the likes to provide their service cheap(er).


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 112):
Looking at what you write it seems to me that Boeing has been contracted and accepted to manage all maintenance and repair.

The fine distinction is between managing a group of tasks for the carrier and performing the detailed tasks.. Boeing provide many managing function from military fleets to airports, crewing and staging, even route scheduling.. these are functions for a small airline that could become a major cost center so they contract them.. Now airlines could hire separate staffing to perform all these functions, however the costs would be well out of proportion to the benefits.

Take emergent spares requirements.. Nayak would request a spare from the local pool stock.. if it wasn't available, the Gold Care team would order from Seattle just like any other customer. If it was available, it would ship from the nearest depot (maybe Amsterdam), if not , an order would be placed through either Boeing manufacturing or Purchasing to obtain it on a 24/7 build priority. the same process that exists for any other customer.. Having Gold Care does not circumvent the line and leave other customers hanging.

Let's take a less volatile issue.. crewing.. So Boeing sets up a crewing plan, the names are inserted based on all the variable factors from seniority, to preference, language requirements, a/p familiarization, mandated down times.. and Monday morning a scheduled person has a family emergency.. and in finding the necessary person to fill the slot, the flight is late.. is that the crewing plan manager's fault?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19034 times:

Quoting robffm2 (Reply 116):
I really don't see the reason why the A340 should be cheaper. Any airline leasing the plane needs the lift it provides urgently. Not because they like the plane so much. There is no reason for HiFly or the likes to provide their service cheap(er).

An old A340 is much cheaper to lease than a A330 / 777, check Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Spring 2013 (by LAXintl May 14 2013 in Civil Aviation)



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18809 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 111):
Lets go through my assumptions:

Assumption # one: DY contracted Boeing for the service for there B 787.
Assumption # two: Dy contracted Boeing for keeping and managing the spare parts for there B 787s.
You are telling me both this assumptions are wrong?

Certainly the first one is wrong. Boeing is contracted for the service management, not the service. If you can't tell the difference after some of the other posts above, there's no point in attempting further instruction.

The second is true, if I understand you correctly, but so what? You have harped on this in other threads; I guess you can't accept that nobody can keep a complete airplane's worth of spares available to all comers, but it's true whether you want to accept it or not. Parts fail unexpectedly. Sometimes it's a trend and sometimes it's just a one-off.

DY is (probably) not blameless in all this, either; not for the airplane problems (unless their choice of MRO was a poor one, and nobody has said anything against Nayak) but in accepting excessive risk. They walked into the street assuming that the bus would stop in time, and it didn't. Maybe they understood the risk they were taking and accepted it, I dunno (and you don't either), but the risk was there.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18685 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 102):
How many aircraft does Boeing produce in Chicago? Strange to have the HQ so far from the work place. Must be tricky to keep the ball rolling when thigns go wrong.

For large corporations in USA it is the norm to keep strategic planners and designers away from day to day grind. Otherwise they get pulled into crisis management, hence cannot concentrate on future plans. By getting involved in daily ops, strategic planners also develop tunnel vision and stay away from out of the box ideas. Production units supposed to build their own crisis management team. Boeing is a late comer to this band wagon.

[Edited 2013-09-30 15:25:06]

[Edited 2013-09-30 15:26:01]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18650 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
The fine distinction is between managing a group of tasks for the carrier and performing the detailed tasks.

I do not understand why you make the distinction. If I hire someone to manage a task then I expect them to make sure the tasks they are hired to manage are performed. Not to come and tell me this or that wasn't done.

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
Take emergent spares requirements.. Nayak would request a spare from the local pool stock.. if it wasn't available, the Gold Care team would order from Seattle just like any other customer. If it was available, it would ship from the nearest depot (maybe Amsterdam), if not , an order would be placed through either Boeing manufacturing or Purchasing to obtain it on a 24/7 build priority. the same process that exists for any other customer.. Having Gold Care does not circumvent the line and leave other customers hanging.

I don't think anyone expect it to mean Gold care customers have higher priority than other Boeing customers. I think people expect it to mean, based on the descriptions provided, that Boeing is running the maintenance department. That they make sure all tasks are completed and equipment is available at the same level as if I used an internal manager.

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
and Monday morning a scheduled person has a family emergency.. and in finding the necessary person to fill the slot, the flight is late.. is that the crewing plan manager's fault?

Is it the crewing plan managers fault. That someone has a personal emergency, not at all. For not having an acceptable plan in place to handle it satisfactory, absolutely.


User currently offlineschwege From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 45 posts, RR: 1
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18605 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 119):
Certainly the first one is wrong. Boeing is contracted for the service management, not the service. If you can't tell the difference after some of the other posts above, there's no point in attempting further instruction.
Quoting kanban (Reply 110):
yes Boeing carries the contract, but the decisions are carrier based.

Kanban, as there still is confusion about the matter and you seem to be the only one with something that could be considered proof-like, could you answer this one with yes/no/I don't know?

Does Norwegian have a contract with Boeing that includes the physical maintenance activities? (the Nayak contract being between Boeing and Nayak, not Norwegian and Nayak)

FWIW, IMO the GoldCare brochure leaves us with no doubt about the relationship, but it's not the contract.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting schwege (Reply 122):
Kanban, as there still is confusion about the matter and you seem to be the only one with something that could be considered proof-like, could you answer this one with yes/no/I don't know?

Does Norwegian have a contract with Boeing that includes the physical maintenance activities? (the Nayak contract being between Boeing and Nayak, not Norwegian and Nayak)

FWIW, IMO the GoldCare brochure leaves us with no doubt about the relationship, but it's not the contract.

The contract does not include physical maintenance activities.. it includes scheduling maintenance activities..

Say a plane arrives back a the home base after flying from Bangkok... Boeing would print out or load the maintenance computer at Nayak with the actions required from system checks to air=craft cleaning and restocking. Nayak would down load any flight squawks. A Boeing engineer /support analyst would review the squawks, and add a task to Nayak to preform the necessary to the Boeing team as well as actual flight information that affects time or cycle related components. Nayak would perform any maintenance noted or the might just note it a something to be deferred ( say a gravy spot o seat 23A). Nayak would draw parts as required from the stores and Gold Care would note the withdrawal and disposition of the unit off the airplane. If the draw brought the stock level to a reorder point (or min/max level) the analyst would initiate reorder. If the removed unit was reparable by Nayak, they would do so, if not they would send it to an authorized repair station. Nayak will take the completed job paper to Norwegian's QA for buy off. The Gold Care does not absolve the airline from QA and ownership issues and regulatory requires the airline retain the QA responsibility.


If anything, based on my experience with the Spares Dept and Customer Service, Boeing will over react and initiate repair action in circumstances that airline managed maintenance would defer. This type of error is actually more costly to public relations than flying with a locked out non essential system. Although Boeing helps design and test operations with partial system availability, they are loathe to allow it on their watch where airlines do it all the time.

I hope that helps


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 18336 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 123):

So you are saying DY has a contract with Boeing to schedule the service and than DY (not Boeing) has a separate contract with Nayak to perform the service.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 18346 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 123):
The Gold Care does not absolve the airline from QA and ownership issues and regulatory requires the airline retain the QA responsibility.

Norwegian has active control responsibility over all engineering and maintenance activities.



Anyway, any updates on the 787 that was grounded? When is it planned to be back in service?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 18332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 124):
So you are saying DY has a contract with Boeing to schedule the service and than DY (not Boeing) has a separate contract with Nayak to perform the service.

While I am not sure whether Boeing or the airline holds the actual contract with Nayak, Norwegian selected them to be the MRO from a group of qualified bidders and selected Boeing to manage the contract work.. What I am saying is that the Gold Care process is a management tool that relieves the airline form the day to day maintenance processes.. However as BestWestern noted "Norwegian has active control responsibility over all engineering and maintenance activities." which includes the QA operations.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18224 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 123):
The contract does not include physical maintenance activities.. it includes scheduling maintenance activities..

Even if we separate these two and say for argument's sake that Boeing is not responsible for Nayak, do we know whether the issues are caused by Nayak unable to turn the wrench properly, or by something Nayak has no control of, ie a component failure or an erroneous error message?

Are we saying Nayak is unable to fix these problems when others would have been able to? That the actual occurrence of these problems is not the real issue?


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18082 times:

The Norwegian daily VG has published some more statistics from DY's long-haul arrivals into OSL (i.e. only the arrivals from JFK and BKK, not departures).

The article is available in Norwegian on http://www.vg.no/reise/artikkel.php?artid=10152232

Some details:

DY7002, JFK-OSL:

June: 7 out of 10 flights were more than 15 minutes delayed, average delay 82 minutes.
July: 10 out of 14 arrivals were delayed, average delay 67 minutes.
August: 11 out of 12 arrivals were delayed, average delay 49 minutes.
September: 8 out of 12 arrivals were delayed, average delay 190 minutes.

Total: 36 out of 48 arrivals delayed.

DY7202, BKK-OSL:

June: 9 out of 10 arrivals delayed, average delay 90 minutes.
July: 9 out of 13 arrivals delayed, average delay 34 minutes.
August: 6 out of 13 arrivals delayed, average delay 90 minutes.
September: 13 out of 13 arrivals delayed, average delay 56 minutes.

Total: 37 out of 49 arrivals delayed.

For both routes: 73 out of 97 arrivals delayed.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 17926 times:

RedChili, you don't need to make it worse than what it is. The delay is the average delay of flights not on time. To set this in perspective, the on time performance of Norwegian Long Haul is pretty equal to what the two Chinese large airports Shanghai (PVG) and Beijing (PEK) had in August according to FlightStats. And if we compare the average delay of aircraft not on time from New York to OSL in August, Norwegian's was 4 minutes less delayed than United's (49 minutes vs 53 minutes). But United had only 4 delayed flights and 1 cancelled of their 31 planned UA038.

Source: http://www.osl.no/en/osl/aboutus/_statistics/_punctuality


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17855 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 129):
The delay is the average delay of flights not on time.

That's pretty much what I wrote. I wrote "average delay," not "average arrival time."

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 129):
And if we compare the average delay of aircraft not on time from New York to OSL in August, Norwegian's was 4 minutes less delayed than United's (49 minutes vs 53 minutes). But United had only 4 delayed flights and 1 cancelled of their 31 planned UA038.

If only 13 percent of flights are delayed, it's not so much of an issue that the average was a bit longer than DY.

SK had a 96.3 percent on-time arrival rate into OSL from EWR in September. A single flight was cancelled. From June to August, every single SK908 EWR-OSL arrived on time at OSL. That's 84 flights.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineplanewasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17723 times:

I get the feeling that some people here think DY is a small airline from Norway, that Boeing don't care "that" much about. Which is very understandable as DY are relatively new. But their financials are very impressive, and remember that they placed an order for 222 narrowbodies in 2012. Who knows how big their longhaul operations will be in ten years? I think Boeing really wants to keep a good relationship.

User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 14
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17411 times:

According to this report today Norwegian takes both its Dreamliners out of service until Boeing can guarantee the reliability.


http://www.expressen.se/res/norwegian-tar-sina-problemplan-ur-trafik/



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17012 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 132):
According to this report today Norwegian takes both its Dreamliners out of service until Boeing can guarantee the reliability.

While I sympathize with this decision, I have to wonder how either party expects to guarantee the reliability of a plane that is not flying. (That is intended as an honest question, not flamebait; you generally have to fly a plane to find its problems.) It will be interesting to see how this is resolved.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17028 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 132):
According to this report today Norwegian takes both its Dreamliners out of service until Boeing can guarantee the reliability.

On present evidence, at any one time, up to 50 787s are flying in service, out of 83 delivered so far. With no evident problems?

http://flighttracker.newairplane.com/

If Norwegian are having continual problems with BOTH their 787s, common sense says that it isn't likely to be that there is anything wrong with the basic aeroplanes?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16942 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 134):
If Norwegian are having continual problems with BOTH their 787s, common sense says that it isn't likely to be that there is anything wrong with the basic aeroplanes?

What do you think is causing these issues then if the aircraft isn't at fault?
Some aircraft work fine, others not. Some aircraft operate day in day out without a problem, others self combust whilst at a stand at Heathrow..

Something IS wrong - whether it be quality control or otherwise.

Two LOT 787s were delivered last week without fuel filters. Something is not right here and it's very unfair to dump the blame on DY.

Does anyone know whether it's possible that they will cancel their order with Boeing and buy A330s instead?
Or are they tied in?



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16934 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 135):
Does anyone know whether it's possible that they will cancel their order with Boeing and buy A330s instead?

Customers normally don't cancel orders, they expect the manufacturer to fix the issues.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16906 times:

The express.se article is based on an travelnews.se article and this travelnews.se article is based on Reuters articles. Somewhere along this line there has been a translation error and a mix up caused by an overzealous desk employee at travelnews.se and the Dreamliner ended up in plural form at expressen.se.

EI-LNA is now inbound to OSL from BKK and DY7202 will land on time less than 30 minutes from now. November Alpha will continue later this afternoon to JFK as DY7001.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16879 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 135):
Does anyone know whether it's possible that they will cancel their order with Boeing and buy A330s instead?
Or are they tied in?

The crux of a lot of these threads, unfortunaley due to PC both post will probably be deleted.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16885 times:

The original Reuters article was riddled with mistakes also.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineboeingbus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16900 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 135):
Does anyone know whether it's possible that they will cancel their order with Boeing and buy A330s instead?
Or are they tied in?

That would be very silly. Norwegian via the delays and early slots are getting the 787 at an awesome price PLUS the 787 is far superior in economics on thin routes. Norwegian is barking to get support as they desperate due to not plan accordingly -to me this is bad management on norwegian.

The issue here is two fold here... a plane that is having normal teething issues with its systems perhaps under certain conditions and an overly aggressive schedule into service. This is an overly optimistic airline thinking they can use the 787 in the manner they have done.

At the end of the day, its Boeing's to fix, solve and apologize, however, Norwegian needs to look at reality and history to know that its not easy being the first few airlines in the first few years. This is why the first few years of production is cut rate.

People, all these issues and more will be sorted in time as the component makers get more data. There isn't enough data permutations of testing that is possible in functional flight testing as it would take a decade to do. Aircraft manufacturers functional test on what is known today by performing all positive and boundary testing. The unknown andor sometimes negative testing are very difficult with hundreds of systems on board. The A350 no matter how airbus states its mature will have issues and will face similar as the odds are against them that they will miss a test case in the flight testing.

We are not building toasters here... these are complicated pieces of machinery with lots of new bells and whistles. Norwegian knew about this from the get go.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlinegarynor From Norway, joined Oct 2010, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16704 times:

Despite the problems, Norwegian still remains faithful to Boeing and the 787 (article in Norwegian):

http://e24.no/boers-og-finans/kjos-h...skal-ha-flere-dreamlinere/21619996

"When the problems are solved, this still remains the best airliner on the market. We will most likely take more Dreamliners." says CEO Kjos.

I hope they sort the problems out ASAP, I believe the LH of Norwegian will be a success because of the 787. A330s are not an option for Norwegian.


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16556 times:

Quoting garynor (Reply 141):
I hope they sort the problems out ASAP, I believe the LH of Norwegian will be a success because of the 787.

Not sure whether Norwegian will succeed long term on the Bangkok route. According to this article of last July, Norwegian was being undercut on price by the Gulf airlines, once the ancillary fees are added.

The leisure market is fickle. Price is all-important, even if it involves a plane change en route.


http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...s-price-advantage-to-gulf-carriers

Also this year, Thai is much more aggressive in Scandinavia with a new product in the shape of the B777-300ER with more spacious seating than what Norwegian can offer.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16561 times:

Quoting garynor (Reply 141):
"When the problems are solved, this still remains the best airliner on the market. We will most likely take more Dreamliners." says CEO Kjos.

I just received a tweet from a not-always-reliable source saying that Kjos also said that the 787 is "better on performance than anticipated, the fuel burn is lower."

I am trying to find the actual source if someone can help me out.

Hope they get these problems ironed out. The DY model is similar to what others down the road are going to try to model (Scoot, Jetstar, etc) and it will not be good for the program if it doesn't work for them.

tortugamon


User currently offlinegarynor From Norway, joined Oct 2010, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16490 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I just received a tweet from a not-always-reliable source saying that Kjos also said that the 787 is "better on performance than anticipated, the fuel burn is lower."

That is actually also in the article I quoted, here's the Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translat..._t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=e24.no&act=url


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16434 times:

Quoting boeingbus (Reply 140):
That would be very silly. Norwegian via the delays and early slots are getting the 787 at an awesome price PLUS the 787 is far superior in economics on thin routes.

The price doesn't matter when they don't work. Right now they are not providing superior economics. Right now they are causing a lot of additional costs.

Personally I'm confident Boeing will figure out what is going and everyone will put this behind them but it looks to be a lot of hard work left before it gets there.

Quoting boeingbus (Reply 140):
a plane that is having normal teething issues

Sincere question; Is this normal or is it excessive?

Quoting boeingbus (Reply 140):
and an overly aggressive schedule into service

I fully agree they have an aggressive schedule compared to many (most) airlines but don't you think this schedule was discussed during the negotiations and availability is one of the contract terms?

Quoting boeingbus (Reply 140):
Norwegian needs to look at reality and history to know that its not easy being the first few airlines in the first few years. This is why the first few years of production is cut rate.

Understanding there will be issues doesn't mean any amount of issues is acceptable.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16362 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 135):
What do you think is causing these issues then if the aircraft isn't at fault?

Most likely an assembly stuff-up, raffik?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16292 times:

Quoting boeingbus (Reply 140):
these are complicated pieces of machinery with lots of new bells and whistles. Norwegian knew about this from the get go.

That doesn't change the fact that they're built and sold for a particular function, and should reasonably be expected to fulfil that function dependably. If they're not fit for purpose, they shouldn't be delivered and put into service.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 127):
Even if we separate these two and say for argument's sake that Boeing is not responsible for Nayak, do we know whether the issues are caused by Nayak unable to turn the wrench properly, or by something Nayak has no control of, ie a component failure or an erroneous error message?

Are we saying Nayak is unable to fix these problems when others would have been able to? That the actual occurrence of these problems is not the real issue?

From what I heard Nayak is a very qualified and conscientious contractor. And there are no faults assigned to them.

What I have difficulty documenting is exactly what the root cause issues are. It seems that several got heaped into a pile and expressed as "Boeing and the 787 are no damn good".. Yet the actual root causes are unsaid. Here I'm not talking about a part failure but having a process failure that precipitated the emotional response.

Two items we seem to know about.. a hydraulic pump that is not on the minimum equipment list, and an electrical panel that is apparently from Thales where the manufacturer has the overhaul and replacement responsibility.. Yes Gold Care was the interface, however 9 guys on the phone screaming at the vendor won't produce a baby any faster.

Comparable example, years ago Boeing produced hydrofoils (Jetfoils) for commercial ferries. One vessel on the route between Maui and then big island was checked on arrival by a Boeing customer service crew (early Gold Care prototype)... they found metal chips on the magnetic plug in one gear box. The decision was made to pull the gear box..now the vessel could have made the return trip without problems, but a overzealous manager made the decision and stranded 200 tourists who were on a cruise ship day outing. the replacement gear box had to be shipped from Seattle and because of size and weight had to wait for a 747 freighter.. The vessel was docked for 48 hours (maybe longer.. my memory is not clear). The uproar made all the tourists mags (pre texting days) and the resulting furor, and other over zealous actions, killed the ferries credibility and it folded. The same customer service people tried to mandate that the ferries ran on airline punctuality even though the inter-island route was prone to various sea states and winds.

So some of the questions here may be were the delays warranted, or over zealous best intents? Notice I am not absolving Gold Care however I'm trying to assess where the actual problem within the process occurred. And what is the process nature of that problem. Is this part of the "can do" MBA mentality where full impact discussion was avoided for an unrealistic standard? Airlines are better at these trade-offf assessments than OEMs.


User currently onlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1501 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16022 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 134):
If Norwegian are having continual problems with BOTH their 787s, common sense says that it isn't likely to be that there is anything wrong with the basic aeroplanes?

Anyone who has worked supporting technical products will tell you that there always seem to be some customers who encounter disproportionately large numbers of problems. Usually this skew is caused by one or more of three reasons:

1) Customer incompetence
2) Customer is pushing the product harder than others
3) Random chance

In this case there's no evidence of 1) or 2), so I think the most likely reason for the skew is 3). Our brains have a tendency to assume events should occur with an even distribution, when much of the time they are quite lopsided especially in such a small sample size (83 frames).

Common sense is often the enemy of statistical analysis, and in this case I think is leading you to the wrong conclusion based on the evidence.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15988 times:

Quoting garynor (Reply 144):
That is actually also in the article I quoted

Thank you. Silver lining on a dark problem.

tortugamon


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15864 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I just received a tweet from a not-always-reliable source saying that Kjos also said that the 787 is "better on performance than anticipated, the fuel burn is lower."

An aircraft than doesn't fly burns exactly 0 Fuel.

    

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15995 times:

What he means is, the aircraft exceeds the performance as promised in the contract.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15940 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 151):

You got me there!   The guy is pot committed and needs to instill confidence from his shareholders so he needs to defray some negative messages with positive ones. Enough to motivate vendors while keeping shareholders' image of him and his decisions as high as possible. Still, its at least some good information.

tortugamon


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15347 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 148):
From what I heard

Kanban, several posters have assumed that when DY signed up for the Gold Care, that they provided Boeing with their planned schedule, and Boeing signed off on that schedule. Is it possible for you to find out whether there's any truth in this?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 149):
Usually this skew is caused by one or more of three reasons:

1) Customer incompetence
2) Customer is pushing the product harder than others
3) Random chance

In this case there's no evidence of 1) or 2),

With 18 hours per day schedules, I'd say that there's evidence of 2).

According to the Wikipedia EK fleet page, EK has one of the highest fleet utilization numbers with 13.7 hours per day. That's a quote from an EK report which is no longer available on the net.

Now, if EK -- which has a large fleet, a single hub, a lot of long-haul-experience, and virtually no weather delays at their hub -- can "only" get 13.7 hours from their fleet, I don't see how DY --- which has a tiny fleet, two hubs (soon three), no long-haul experience, and hubs with potential weather problems during six months of the year -- should get 18 hours from their planes.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15331 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 154):
With 18 hours per day schedules, I'd say that there's evidence of 2).

According to the Wikipedia EK fleet page, EK has one of the highest fleet utilization numbers with 13.7 hours per day. That's a quote from an EK report which is no longer available on the net.

Now, if EK -- which has a large fleet, a single hub, a lot of long-haul-experience, and virtually no weather delays at their hub -- can "only" get 13.7 hours from their fleet, I don't see how DY --- which has a tiny fleet, two hubs (soon three), no long-haul experience, and hubs with potential weather problems during six months of the year -- should get 18 hours from their planes.

The 18 hours operation was approved and given an acceptance by Boeing.


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15299 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 154):
With 18 hours per day schedules, I'd say that there's evidence of 2).


Its a machine, not a person. It does not need to sleep, as sit in a parking stand for certain hours per day.
As long as maintenance is perfectly performed, it can literarily run the rest of the time.
Its a question of scheduling and how efficient you can operate the network.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 14
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15262 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 149):
Anyone who has worked supporting technical products will tell you that there always seem to be some customers who encounter disproportionately large numbers of problems. Usually this skew is caused by one or more of three reasons:

1) Customer incompetence
2) Customer is pushing the product harder than others
3) Random chance

Sure enough but technical line maintenance is outsourced to Boeing!! And I dont think you can call one of europes largest airlines incompetent. And they dont push the product hard, they just expect more than 50 % dispatch reliability.



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15204 times:

Something odd is happening - lots of press stories about Norwegian grounding its 787s, but according to Boeing's 787 Flight Tracker one of them is halfway across the Atlantic on its way from New York to Oslo?


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15091 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 158):
lots of press stories about Norwegian grounding its 787s

They've grounded one 787, EI-LNB, which had multiple problems. The other, LNA, is still flying.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 713 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15055 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 154):
With 18 hours per day schedules

But is that so much for a LH plane in the end? AY uses their A340s and A330s a lot as well - they fly the plane HEL-Asia turn it around and fly it back - just to make the repeat the same thing again. Almost all of the Asian flights depart from HEL around 17:00 and return around 14:00. When they will get their A350s, it'll be interesting to see how they'll hold up in this schedule...


User currently offlinebx737 From Ireland, joined Sep 2001, 687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15011 times:

Eighteen hours is only one long haul round trip, that is not excessive scheduling.The 787 is allegedly a long haul aircraft so a OSL-JFK should not tax the aircraft. If an airline spends $200million on an aircraft for long haul routes it should be able to do long haul trips. From what is being said I believe Norweigan have one day down time per aircraft per week. To me that doesn't sound excessive. My own airline schedules its long haul aircraft to operate 7 days a week.

The 787 is a fine aircraft that has been beset by bad tech snags. This needs to be looked at by Boeing and I am sure they are doing so. I do think that having spare parts in LHR for an airline based in OSL was not the cleverest idea and compounded problems. How frequent were flights to OSL to get the parts to Norweigan? This could only increase delays being experienced.


User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 162, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15014 times:

NAV20, you need to check my reply above (# 137). EI-LNA is right now flying DY7002 and expected to land 10 minutes before time at OSL. November Alpha will then have had two flights to OSL within the last 24 hours with landings on time.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14879 times:

Thanks for the clarifications, RedCh