PHX787
Topic Author
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 5:15 am

I was having a lengthy discussion with my professor about the recent 787 issues. This professor specializes in Japanese business practices and has extensively studied how the american system of management works. He stated that the 787 battery issue was not necessarily the issue with Yuasa, the battery maker, but rather how Boeing managed the production of the 787 itself.

A good percentage of the dreamliner is built in Japan. These companies were selected by Boeing for having the best possible product for boeings new airplane. But these companies in Japan rarely ever produce the whole product themselves. These products are usually built by many many diverse suppliers, often producing the same thing for the individual product. For example, since part of the wing is built in Nagoya, that Nagoya company probably has 5 or 6 companies which all build the same component of the wing, which is then sent to Nagoya for wing construction and then, dreamlifted to PAE for final construction

Same goes for Yuasa. They have many companies which build components for their batteries. Yuasa is a diverse company which also builds li ion batteries for electric cars too.

Even though they never found out why 829J and 804A had their batteries melt down, it is generally thought that one supplier out of many constructed an unsafe particular cell, which probably will be discovered in subsequent batteries upon further inspection. Other Yuasa suppliers were uneffected, which really points out the isolated nature of this serious incident. But at the same time it does send Boeing one message.

Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier, after observing the market. Other battery suppliers competed with Yuasa to use their battery on the Dreamliner but Yuasa was chosen. Boeing is only allowed to cooperate with Yuasa therefore-no other company-which means that their standards and yuasas standards could have been conflicted. Because of the weakness of this type of management compared to the Japanese method, this whole grounding mess may have been prevented if Boeing was allowed to cooperate with many battery suppliers instead of just one.

In Japan, between companies, if there's a conflict of interest, messages are sent between the head company and the supplier explaining the situation. Should the Japanese company choose to discontinue cooperation with the supplier, more cooperation is done between subsequent, equal-tier suppliers. For example, Toyota has probably about 15,000 suppliers under them, independent companies which cooperate with Toyota. Should an issue arise with a particular part- you all hear every so often a recall is issued- Toyota either discontinues partnerships with that supplier or sends them a warning to fix what's going on, focusing on other suppliers instead. The recall is issued because they want to take preventative measures and know who was responsible.

I'm not saying that Boeing, Yuasa, or whoever is at fault. I'm not saying that the antitrust law in the us is bad and we should have monopolies; but these issues should raise eyebrows. America could learn something about efficiency from Japan, in my opinion. Especially if they wanna prevent safety issues from happening.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 5:32 am

This doesn't make any sense, unless you're claiming that if Boeing had alternate qualified suppliers for the battery (say Panasonic, since I know they make Li-Ions for Tesla) that they could have just switched to the alternate battery supplier instead of being forced to work with Yuasa. However, in order for that to be plausible the fault would have to be identified as related to the particular assembly done by Yuasa and not an overall design fault. Or are you saying that the fault could have been isolated to "batteries supplied by Subcontractor X" and batteries which didn't involve X's parts would have remained ungrounded? I don't think either scenario is likely, given the circumstances that occurred.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 6:09 am

This whole argument helps explain why Japan, at the precipice of global dominance, regressed so dramatically. They are unable to admit fault or failure within their corporate culture. Denial.

As for the reason Boeing suffered the grounding, it has little to do with the "weakness" of us production methods and everything to do with the weakness of Japanese regulation and oversight. The Japanese government failed repeatedly with regard to safety in the auto, aviation, nuclear and other industries, and to save face and show how proactive they are, jumped the gun on grounding the 787. Once they did so, without a proper investigation and at odds with historical aviation groundings when no fatalities occurred, it forced the FAA to follow suit. Had the JAA not acted prematurely, the 787 would never have been grounded, and we would be looking at a hot fix similar to the 77W engine gearbox.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
antoniemey
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 6:25 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):

Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier, after observing the market. Other battery suppliers competed with Yuasa to use their battery on the Dreamliner but Yuasa was chosen. Boeing is only allowed to cooperate with Yuasa therefore-no other company-which means that their standards and yuasas standards could have been conflicted. Because of the weakness of this type of management compared to the Japanese method, this whole grounding mess may have been prevented if Boeing was allowed to cooperate with many battery suppliers instead of just one.

Antitrust laws have nothing to do with how many suppliers Boeing uses for one particular part. Patent law might, if they were using a process or design patented by a particular supplier, but antitrust law doesn't care who you contract with, only whether or not your market dominance is a natural result of a superior product or based on "unfair" practices.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 6:25 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier, after observing the market.

Anyone care to explain what antitrust laws force Boeing to only use one battery supplier?

How are batteries different from, say, engines (for which there are two main suppliers), or any number of other components, for which there are (or have been, on other airplane types) many different potential suppliers?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
questions
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 6:37 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I was having a lengthy discussion with my professor about the recent 787 issues. This professor specializes in Japanese business practices and has extensively studied how the american system of management works.

You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:20 am

Quoting questions (Reply 5):
You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.

  
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 8:17 am

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 3):
Antitrust laws have nothing to do with how many suppliers Boeing uses for one particular part. Patent law might, if they were using a process or design patented by a particular supplier, but antitrust law doesn't care who you contract with, only whether or not your market dominance is a natural result of a superior product or based on "unfair" practices.

This is nothing to do with Anti-Trust laws - Boeing are free to use as many suppliers as they wish to produce batteries (or any other component). However, the aviation industry requires that each component must be certified, and then the final design must be certified with those components.

This would require Boeing to certify the 787 multiple times for each battery combination - an expense that simply would not be worthwhile. It is currently done for engine variations, as each airline has their own engine preference due to differing performance characteristics, therefore making it worthwhile doing, but no airline is going to care who manufactured the battery, as there will be no benefit between differing models.


Quoting questions (Reply 5):
You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.

  
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 8:38 am

Boeing contracted with Yusa?

Or did Thales contract with Yusa?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 8:45 am

I think you're reading way too much into this. The 787 had/has battery issues because the use of li ion batteries in commercial aircraft has not been entirely proven. Even Airbus is staying away from it on the early A350 deliveries, which leads me to believe it's a design issue and not a supplier issue; otherwise they'd just use a different supplier. Utilizing new technologies on a clean sheet, revolutionary aircraft comes with many challenges, not least of which having to deal with teething issues. If it wasn't the battery then it would have been something else. Literally any new product designed from a clean sheet is inherently assumed to have faults.

There's no harm in exploring the reasons behind failures like this, so I think your search to better understand the cause is valid. I would just suggest not losing sight of the big picture -- your explanation draws conclusions based on cultural differences in business practices and perceived flaws in the American way of doing business. If that is the reason behind all of this, then what does it matter? Japanese business practices and US anti-trust laws won't change because of 787 battery problems. I just don't think the situation is nearly that complex.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 8:56 am

Whatever is he a professor of ? obviously nothing to do with business or manufacturing.

This has nothing to do with anti trust laws, indeed anti trust laws restrict the ability of businesses to reduce competition, not aid them as your "professor" claims.

The problem in this instance is more likely to be that Boeing increasingly expects suppliers to become risk sharing and designing partners in their projects. Traditionally sub contractors either quoted a price to produce to Boeing drawings, or just quoted a price for a proprietary product. When their order was fulfilled, they then competed again.

Now however suppliers are granted a permanant place on the project, but have to take part of the financial risk. Yuasa will have design authority for the battery system, plus a long term contract, making it very difficult for Boeing to seek an alternative supplier.
 
PHX787
Topic Author
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 9:56 am

I don't think you guys are understanding the main argument here:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 10):
Whatever is he a professor of ? obviously nothing to do with business or manufacturing.
Quoting questions (Reply 5):
You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.

Actually he's one of Asia's top respected professors. He has been strongly against the policies that brought japan down during the 90s but no one really listened to him much. His ideals are pretty much the ideals that shaped Japan's emergence as a global economy throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. He also has advised some top government officials who are now working to bring Japan out of the hole they are in from the last 20 years. This guy's pretty qualified.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 10):
This has nothing to do with anti trust laws, indeed anti trust laws restrict the ability of businesses to reduce competition, not aid them as your "professor" claims.
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 10):
The problem in this instance is more likely to be that Boeing increasingly expects suppliers to become risk sharing and designing partners in their projects.
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 7):
This is nothing to do with Anti-Trust laws - Boeing are free to use as many suppliers as they wish to produce batteries (or any other component).
Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 4):
Anyone care to explain what antitrust laws force Boeing to only use one battery supplier?

Everyone is missing the point here.
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier. According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply. This system is done to avoid the horizontal monopolies from being formed. According to those skeptical of that business practice, they are afraid that such collaboration up until final production would result in price controls, unfair wages, and a lesser quality product, which is all incorrect. If such a formation occurs, as per Japan's system (which mind you brought Toyota to be the most profitable company in Asia), anti-trust people believe that the company will merge itself into 1 huge company, which is incorrect. If you follow Toyota's model they only produce about 20-30% of their parts internally and are responsible for the final product.
Boeing attempted to do this with the 787. IIRC about 40% are produced by Boeing themselves (correct me here if I'm wrong) and the rest are outsourced abroad. Thats a start but the quality of the products could be stymied if they weren't allowed to collaborate with many products. If Boeing collaborated, risk-shared, and worked with multiple battery suppliers instead of just Yuasa maybe they would have been able to produce a battery that wouldn't have caught fire like this. The flaw here is that there wasn't enough research done into the product because there wasn't enough mind space (enough companies, institutes, etc) available for Boeing to do the research.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 9):
The 787 had/has battery issues because the use of li ion batteries in commercial aircraft has not been entirely proven.

See above. Because they weren't able to do enough research and testing, the issues occurred. Obviously Boeing was on a huge time crunch--they delayed the first flight a number of times, remember--and if they were allowed to collaborate more with companies that knew what they were doing or companies which had potentially safer suppliers maybe we'd have a different result.

Obviously the 787 launch was extremely rocky. I don't think we can say that the 787 suffered "teething issues." I don't recall the A380, the 777, or other large aircraft having such a huge delay along with such immense problems as the Dreamliner. Don't get me wrong, I love this plane. It wouldn't be in my username if I didn't like it. But I really wish Boeing could have been able to do much more research, collaboration, and testing via multiple companies before the aircraft entered service or was certified by the US.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 7):
This would require Boeing to certify the 787 multiple times for each battery combination - an expense that simply would not be worthwhile.

Not really, because those companies would be producing the exact same product, to the exact specifications of Boeing, and the regulators who approve it. It's not the same as different engines, because GE and Rolls Royce produce the 787 engines in different methods.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 10:07 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Everyone is missing the point here.
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier. According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply.

Antitrust laws are in place to avoid restraint of trade, prevent to establishment of cartels, and promote healthy competition in the marketplace. What you're describing IS restraint of trade, cartel-seeking behavior, and dampens competition.

Either you've misunderstood what the professor was explaining, or you need a new professor.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3069
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 10:30 am

You are 100% wrong, as we all keep trying to explain to you, anti trust laws encourage/insist on multiple sourcing in order to prevent monopolies forming. The problem here lies with either you or your professor. He's not an economist by any chance ?
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 10:41 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Everyone is missing the point here.
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier. According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply.

It is you that is missing the point. There is nothing in anti-trust laws stating that you can only work with one supplier!

have a read of http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.asp and tell us which of the three categories such an arrangement would fall foul of.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Not really, because those companies would be producing the exact same product, to the exact specifications of Boeing, and the regulators who approve it. It's not the same as different engines, because GE and Rolls Royce produce the 787 engines in different methods.

If the part comes from a different supplier, then it will have a different part number, and will need to be certified for use. If they are indeed identical products, then they may get by without having to re-certify the aircraft.

However this situation is very unlikely due to patent laws, more than anything. If Company A develops a new battery design, then you can bet your ass they will patent it, and the chances of them then allowing Company B to build them is slim to none existent. You might get a situation where Company A and Company B both produce similar batteries, but they will never be identical - each company will have a different idea of how to do things. (Take the PC market as a good example - you have Intel and AMD, both producing compatible processors, but they are not identical, and both need different motherboards due to different ways of achieving the same aim).

The only way this could occur is if Boeing themselves developed the battery design, then subcontracted the manufacturing of the item to two or more companies. This would be perfectly legal, and wouldn't fall foul of anti-trust laws, but is again this is unlikely to occur as Boeing does not have the expertise in developing batteries.
 
AeroSafari
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:54 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 11:16 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
This whole argument helps explain why Japan, at the precipice of global dominance, regressed so dramatically. They are unable to admit fault or failure within their corporate culture. Denial.

As for the reason Boeing suffered the grounding, it has little to do with the "weakness" of us production methods and everything to do with the weakness of Japanese regulation and oversight. The Japanese government failed repeatedly with regard to safety in the auto, aviation, nuclear and other industries, and to save face and show how proactive they are, jumped the gun on grounding the 787. Once they did so, without a proper investigation and at odds with historical aviation groundings when no fatalities occurred, it forced the FAA to follow suit. Had the JAA not acted prematurely, the 787 would never have been grounded, and we would be looking at a hot fix similar to the 77W engine gearbox.

   Nailed it ikramerica. Theres more to this then meets the eye, but the Japanese side of this story (especially the main company involved with the battery) is in place to defend itself and stay aloft so to speak.
Just remember, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 12:29 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier.

That's certainly not US anti-trust law from what I know of it. What anti-trust law prohibits is collaboration between multiple companies already making competing products, so as to price-fix or form a monopoly. That's not the same thing. I know of absolutely no provision in US anti-trust law that limits a manufacturer in their choice of suppliers, and in fact (as has been mentioned already), any applicable anti-trust clauses would go in the direction of requiring multiple suppliers to make their wares available to Boeing -- the exact opposite of the claim.

I would guess that single-source usually happens for low rate parts that require specialized manufacturing skills or expensive tooling. Yuasa might own the design and/or patents on the design, but I would be astonished if their contract with Boeing didn't require Yuasa to license the design and production processes to another company if Boeing demanded it.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 12:37 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 5):
You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.

I'm an academic myself and couldn't agree more.   
 
AA94
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 12:49 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier.

Again, you are incorrect. The point of anti-trust laws are to ensure that the scenario you have described above does not happen. Anti-trust laws exist in order to encourage and further competition for the benefit of consumers, not restrict trade and other market practices.

It simply isn't, by definition, an anti-trust situation.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 1:07 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier.

  

That is very untrue. No anti-trust law comes into play here. For example, Boeing often has multiple tire vendors on an aircraft. In the case of the 787, they have *two* risk-sharing engine vendors and a third that wanted to offer an engine. If there had been a business case for two battery vendors, Boeing (or Thales?) would have gone with two vendors. This is a contracts issue (well, actually a return on investment issue and probably an intellectual property issue), not an anti-trust issue.

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 4):
Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier, after observing the market.

Anyone care to explain what antitrust laws force Boeing to only use one battery supplier?

Quote the law by article. This is 100% counter to my experience in aerospace. Mutli-sourcing is typical when economical.

Boeing routinely has multiple vendors for 'non-proprietary' components. Take brakes. That is developmentally the most similar product to the battery from a risk perspective. Most Boeing aircraft start off with one brake vendor but usually end up with several. However, for batteries, there wasn't enough of a business case for multiple vendors. For example, both Honeywell and Goodrich offer brakes for the 77W/77L. I forget who had the initial contract...
The new equipment is now standard on 777 airplanes delivered with Goodrich equipment, and will be available in the aftermarket starting in January 2011.
http://www.goodrich.com/portal/site/...0000b3f67eaaRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

And the Honeywell offering:
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/servl...CA119B-CCDB-A21B-7C2D-EBE76D988667

Quoting ADent (Reply 8):

Boeing contracted with Yusa?

Or did Thales contract with Yusa?

Good question. Who contracted Yusa?

Quoting AeroSafari (Reply 15):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
This whole argument helps explain why Japan, at the precipice of global dominance, regressed so dramatically. They are unable to admit fault or failure within their corporate culture. Denial.

As for the reason Boeing suffered the grounding, it has little to do with the "weakness" of us production methods and everything to do with the weakness of Japanese regulation and oversight. The Japanese government failed repeatedly with regard to safety in the auto, aviation, nuclear and other industries, and to save face and show how proactive they are, jumped the gun on grounding the 787. Once they did so, without a proper investigation and at odds with historical aviation groundings when no fatalities occurred, it forced the FAA to follow suit. Had the JAA not acted prematurely, the 787 would never have been grounded, and we would be looking at a hot fix similar to the 77W engine gearbox.

   Nailed it ikramerica. Theres more to this then meets the eye, but the Japanese side of this story (especially the main company involved with the battery) is in place to defend itself and stay aloft so to speak.

IMHO, I agree. Yes, I believed the 787 statistically was a judgement call for grounding, so I will not blame the Japanese authorities for the grounding. But I do believe the HUGE lapses in regulatory oversight by the Japanese government forced them to 'find a target' and pushed the judgement call further/faster than typical.



Quoting nighthawk (Reply 7):
This would require Boeing to certify the 787 multiple times for each battery combination - an expense that simply would not be worthwhile.

Boeing routinely certifies new brakes and tires for their aircraft. Those cost multiples more in certification costs than a battery. Boeing also certifies minor components (circuit breakers, wire, valves, floor panels, seats, coffee makers, microwaves, ovens, lavoratories, avionics, IFE, wifi) that at first glance seem as not 'worth it,' but in reality are.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 16):
I would guess that single-source usually happens for low rate parts that require specialized manufacturing skills or expensive tooling. Yuasa might own the design and/or patents on the design, but I would be astonished if their contract with Boeing didn't require Yuasa to license the design and production processes to another company if Boeing demanded it.

You are probably correct in all but one detail. Yuasa cannot be made to license their design *unless* they fail to either meet or commit to the contractually delivery/ramp up rates. Single source usually happens as the vendor pays for a significant (for them) fraction of the non-recurring engineering. At any time Boeing can buy out Yuasa from their contract, but that is usually paying off all of the vendors 'sunk costs' (including overhead) plus a 15% (or so) profit margin. Even then, Boeing wouldn't be able to make Yuasa offer any information or drawings. That would just allow Boeing to find another vendor to restart development.

Note: those ramp up rates are what are stalling production increases. Give the vendor their required lead time (this can be as much as 24 months for engine casings) and *guaranteed* production duration (3 years is typical) and the parts arrive. Right now Boeing and airbus desire the ramp up without committing to the other side of the bell curve... and that vendors have an issue with.

US culture has many faults. But our ability to admit fault (outside of a legal environment) helps us recover quickly and learn the lessons.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 1:12 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
America could learn something about efficiency from Japan, in my opinion. Especially if they wanna prevent safety issues from happening.

While I agree with this to some degree, this issue is far to complicated to say it's simply the fault of one Partner/Country.

Companies need to push the limits. The regulatory agencies need to get into the 21st century, and understand what they are looking for.

There is no progress without risk. Much of todays issues are an incomplete understanding of the possible Risk Outcomes.

There is no question IMO, that Boeing assumed too much risk at launch (in unknown partnerships abroad.) However, make no mistake. They have Petabytes of information for the 789 and 777X.

Your Professor could turn the Nationalism down a tad as well. Just MO.   
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 1:26 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply.

Well, as with all laws, things may be more complex than it seems. I do not know whether your professor is right or wrong, However, in this and other case at Boeing, anti-trust do not necessarily drive the decision making.

Most of the internal checks that governs Boeing when dealing with more than one suppliers/contractors for the same product are the laws governing intellectual rights and proprietary information.

Boeing do have multiple suppliers (all over the world) for many products. Boeing do collaborate with many companies on competing designs. In these cases there are often separate teams working with the different companies. These teams are separated by firewalls that keep information proprietary to companies from reaching another.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
. Because they weren't able to do enough research and testing, the issues occurred.

Are you talking about Boeing not able to do enough research?

This is absolutely true. Boeing does not have enough money to do research on technology that they put on their airplane. They stick with their core competency and rely on industries for the rest.

There is one reason that Boeing have, in the past and into the present, chosen to go single sources for large subsystems. Cost.

Oops, I mean two. The other reason is proprietary/patent rights.

As with the 737 - GE/Smecna example (and perhaps the new 777X) choosing a single engine manufacturer allow Boeing to negotiate a single profit driven price with their engine partner, thus keeping the price down. In this case both company has an interest in keeping the price down to sell as many unit as possible. This only works in keeping the price down if there is an external competition as in the A320.

Asside:

Boeing being also a government contractor, is by law subject to anti-trust/anti competitiveness in another way.

All government contracts are subject to audits. If a single source supplier is selected, there must be written justification for making the item single source. Often it's a paperwork nuisance for minor parts and components, but it must be done. So at least for that part of their business, anti-trust laws forces them to look at more than one supplier.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 1:47 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
This professor specializes in Japanese business practices and has extensively studied how the american system of management works.

That gives him about zero respect in my book. Most of the "top" professors I've known here are fine to have a beer with, but really have their heads up their a**es.

The problem with Japanese academics is they spend 95% of their time observing/analyzing and about 5% of their time doing. This is completely the opposite of what people who actually WORK in companies do.

One of the key elements of the Toyota Production System is the concept of "genchi genbutsu" (現地現物) - which basically means learn by DOING and seeing for yourself. Don't listen to this guy, seriously.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
For example, since part of the wing is built in Nagoya, that Nagoya company probably has 5 or 6 companies which all build the same component of the wing, which is then sent to Nagoya for wing construction and then

Not really. MHI is responsible for the main component manufacturing and assembly of the 787 wings. There are subassembly contractors for really particular things like actuators and flight controls, but every last structural component and assembly is done by MHI itself. I have personally walked the floor of their facility near here, but cannot share further details here.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
If such a formation occurs, as per Japan's system (which mind you brought Toyota to be the most profitable company in Asia

Toyota became the most profitable company in Asia by sheer bludgeoning of their supply chain. They pit competing suppliers against one another and cleverly use the rumor mill to get the sales marks where they want them. Talk to small component makers around Nagoya about how humiliating it can be to work with Toyota's purchasing department and you'll get the real scoop on how they keep those margins so high.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
But I do believe the HUGE lapses in regulatory oversight by the Japanese government forced them to 'find a target' and pushed the judgement call further/faster than typical.

Absolutely agree. If there's anything Japanese regulators are good at, it's making decisions at a glacial pace. That's what was most surprising about the whole affair.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 1:59 pm

The entire US manufacturing sector is deemed weak because Boeing and its suppliers designed and built a faulty battery? And it's all due to anti-trust laws? Please.

The disaster that has been the 787 production and roll out will be studied for years no doubt, but the problem lies with Boeing, not the rest of the country. And the part about Japanese firms having so much better practices - again, stop.

I recall Japan being very defensive when Toyotas were having the braking issue - many Japanese were expressing the opinion that the problem lay with American manufacturing rather than Japanese design and some wondered if Americans didn't intentionally sabotage the Toyotas to gain market share.

I take such comments as this professor with a grain of salt.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 2:34 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Obviously the 787 launch was extremely rocky. I don't think we can say that the 787 suffered "teething issues." I don't recall the A380, the 777, or other large aircraft having such a huge delay along with such immense problems as the Dreamliner. Don't get me wrong, I love this plane. It wouldn't be in my username if I didn't like it. But I really wish Boeing could have been able to do much more research, collaboration, and testing via multiple companies before the aircraft entered service or was certified by the US.

Your saying two opposites here. First your saying the B-787 launch and (3 year) delays were Boeing's fault (which most delays were). Then you are saying Boeing should have done more research before EIS. Many of the B-787 delays were because some parts needed redesign or further testing, so I think Boeing was doing research.

BTW, the A-380 launch to EIS was not so smooth, either. The A-380 delays amounted to almost two years, and a four month delay between the delivery of the first airplane and the second one delivered.

All three, the B-777, A-380, and B-787, first several airplanes delivered were over weight. But the B-777 had, by far, the smoothest launch to EIS period of the 3.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
He has been strongly against the policies that brought japan down during the 90s but no one really listened to him much. His ideals are pretty much the ideals that shaped Japan's emergence as a global economy throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. He also has advised some top government officials who are now working to bring Japan out of the hole they are in from the last 20 years. This guy's pretty qualified.

No sir, I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, and watched what Japan did to the markets. They flooded the American market with cheap goods, some were good products, like their very small cars from Toyota and (then called) Datsun (now Nissan), and competed very well against the continuing falling quality of GM, Chrysler, Ford, and American Motors (which went out of business in the mid 1970s). But most of the Japanese products imported into the US was nothing but junk. Today, China is following the 1960s Japanese business model, except for cars. Japan's economy failure of the 1990s was a result of to many Japanese export companies not improving there product lines, the exception again was Toyota and Nissan. The Japanese economy could not sustain a high living standard for about half the country, which in the early 1990s was making boat loads of money, and cheap apartments in Tokyo selling (in the 1990s) for upwards of $1M USD.

Is this what your professor is advocating to returning to?

Japan tried to deceive the American public into buying products in the 1960s and 1970s by marketing some products as "MADE IN USA", because those products were made in a town called Usa, Ōita Prefecture, Japan.

But, in the last several years, Toyota has fallen way off of their previous quality, as proven by many very large and world wide and embarrassing recalls of their cars for anything from runaway accelerations, to brake problems. Yes, many of their cars are now built in the US, but the parts to assemble those cars still come from Japan.

So, how is Toyota trying to regain its reputation in the US and around the world? The CEO made a very public apology at a US Congressional Hearing about those recalls, and then launched very a slick advertising campaign to sell their cars and trucks, again.

In the meantime Nissan is trying to stay above water by recently lowering the price of their cars and trucks in the US. They are able to do this because of lower labor costs to make their parts in Japan. Only one model in their vehicle line-up is selling well, the Altima. But even South Korea's Kia and Hyundai vehicles quality match or exceed the quality of Toyota or Nissan.


Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier. According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply. This system is done to avoid the horizontal monopolies from being formed.

No sir. Just because the B-787 grounding was more publicly known than many of the Toyota recalls were does not mean Boeing cannot as its suppliers to share risks. Toyota has done it with its suppliers that provided parts that ended up in costly recalls, and has charged those suppliers for some of the costs of repairs. Boeing will, most likely do the same with Yuasa and Thales.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 2:39 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
He stated that the 787 battery issue was not necessarily the issue with Yuasa, the battery maker, but rather how Boeing managed the production of the 787 itself.

Boeing follows lean production methodologies originally developed by Toyota, so perhaps the 787 shows the weakness of the Japanese production method?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 3:03 pm

Not 'proven' yet, but it's a pretty fair assumption that the battery problem arose from the use of only 10(?) big cells instead of many more small ones, combined with a lack of any insulation between said cells; and possibly (as per the NTSB) tiny metal particles between said cells causing short-circuits. Possible contributory factors include 'over-aggressive' re-charging procedures.

In legal terms, the essential question is which firm (Boeing or Thales or Yuasa or 'An-Other') had basic responsibility for the battery/circuits designs. Legal arguments will drag on for years; and the most likely outcome is that all the firms involved will face some of the responsibility, on a percentage basis.

Yuasa has 'kicked off,' their first attempt being to avoid as much responsibility as they can. All other firms concerned will 'follow suit' in due course.

In our position, as mere 'enthusiasts,' all this 'which company pays how much to the others' stuff doesn't matter much. What counts is that, so far, the battery fix appears to be working and the 787 is back in the air.........

[Edited 2013-05-20 08:06:46]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
higherflyer
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:14 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 3:12 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
This professor specializes in Japanese business practices and has extensively studied how the american system of management works.
Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier
Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Because of the weakness of this type of management compared to the Japanese method, this whole grounding mess may have been prevented if Boeing was allowed to cooperate with many battery suppliers instead of just one.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier. According to the anti-trust law they must only work with one (maybe 2 at the most) in order to comply.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Actually he's one of Asia's top respected professors.

I hope you are not paying for this "education".
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 3:41 pm

The title of this thread is extremely misleading. As others have said, you are completely wrong in your understanding of Anti-trust law. If you learned this from your "professor" then I would find a new "professor".

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):

In Japan, between companies, if there's a conflict of interest, messages are sent between the head company and the supplier explaining the situation. Should the Japanese company choose to discontinue cooperation with the supplier, more cooperation is done between subsequent, equal-tier suppliers. For example, Toyota has probably about 15,000 suppliers under them, independent companies which cooperate with Toyota. Should an issue arise with a particular part- you all hear every so often a recall is issued- Toyota either discontinues partnerships with that supplier or sends them a warning to fix what's going on, focusing on other suppliers instead. The recall is issued because they want to take preventative measures and know who was responsible.

And this works the same in the US and everywhere else...

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
America could learn something about efficiency from Japan, in my opinion. Especially if they wanna prevent safety issues from happening.

Really? Where do Japanese automakers assemble the majority of their cars... I'll give you a hint, it's not in Japan. Companies can and do learn things from *all* other cultures.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 3:49 pm

If anything, Boeing's single supplier philosophy as of late should be under the microsocope here...there was no law compelling Boeing to only use one battery supplier. However, Boeing have chosen, as of late, to tie the fate of their products to single vendors (including engine suppliers...). Not good    The 747-8 and 737MAX should have multiple engine vendors. It would have been nice had Boeing had an alternate battery supplier on the 787...   
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:03 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 29):
Boeing's single supplier philosophy

Correct me if i am wrong - but the concept of "single supplier" is more of a Japanese concept isn't it? and it bases on the fact that companies "own" part of other companies, or they "own" part their supply chain.

For example; Sony might procure power supplies from Sanyo, but Sony is a minority stake holder in the Sanyo's division that manufactures power supplies; therefore vested in buying only from Sanyo

(PS purely illustrative example)
Step into my office, baby
 
KBJCpilot
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:12 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:13 pm

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 22):
If there's anything Japanese regulators are good at, it's making decisions at a glacial pace.

I work for a Fortune 100 company that is based in Japan. Every one of our executives is Japanese and after 20+ years working for my company I have never seen an American assume a role higher than Vice-President. My company is notorious for bringing over mid-level executives from Japan, providing them a Japanese mentor here in North America, and assign them an area of responsibility for 6-8 years before transferring them to various regional headquarters in Europe, Mexico, Canada, S America, and the US. By the time the employee is in their mid-50's they are promoted to the title of President of an area in our organization for 3-5 years before they return to Japan as an executive where they run the company with 20 or so other men with the same experience and history until they retire when they are in their 60's.

Their American workers, no matter how successful or tenured they are, will never achieve the level of management the Japanese do.

I was in a conference two weeks ago where the President of our company told us that he welcomed input on what direction we would like to see the company focus on in the coming years. Having spent the previous 20 years here, and having met this gentleman many times in the past, I was able to sit down with him and provide him some insight from the street level and if we could change a few things it would make a big difference not only in our lives but in the lives of our customers as well. After listening to me for 5 minutes he thanked me for my input but remarked, "Ah, Mr. BJC Pilot, we don't run our business that way. We could never make those changes. But I thank you for your concern."

And that my friends, sums up the Japanese business culture. I guess I should not be surprised when I saw an upcoming conference titled, "Understanding the American Worker".
Samsonite, I was way off!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7490
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:26 pm

Anti-trust laws lead to what you describe as normal practice in your intro. It can also be normal practice in the US, for example IBM in the 80's had a policy that everything should be dual sourced, so Intel made a deal with AMD and licensed the production of 8086 CPUs. Since then AMD has won several antitrust suits against Intel, and Intel has much trouble patenting stuff, they always need to share with AMD, who does the same in return. Intel also owns AMD shares and puts money in when needed, just to keep a competitor alive.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:33 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 29):
If anything, Boeing's single supplier philosophy as of late should be under the microsocope here...there was no law compelling Boeing to only use one battery supplier.

I expect Boeing did not choose GS Yuasa on a lark, but instead selected them after performing due diligence of whomever are major suppliers of industrial lithium-ion battery solutions for the aerospace industry.

And how many major producers of industrial lithium-ion battery solutions for the aerospace industry are there?



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 29):
However, Boeing have chosen, as of late, to tie the fate of their products to single vendors (including engine suppliers...). Not good.   

I would not be surprised if many of these products only have one or two vendors. Both Airbus and Boeing use APUs from Honeywell and Hamilton Sundstrand. Who else manufactures APUs for large commercial aircraft?



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 29):
The 747-8 and 737MAX should have multiple engine vendors.

Was Rolls-Royce willing to bring back the Trent 1700 for the 747-8? And if they were, was GE willing to share the airframe market with them?

Rolls doesn't have a current-generation engine sized for the 737 MAX and while Pratt believed in 2009 they could fit the PW1100 on the 737 airframe without major modifications by Boeing, do we have conclusive evidence that this was still the case in 2012?



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 29):
It would have been nice had Boeing had an alternate battery supplier on the 787...   

This assumes that Yuasa's design and/or manufacturing is the root cause of the two failures recorded to date and also presupposes that another supplier would have gone with a very different design and/or manufacturing process that would have precluded the "Yuasa problem".
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:40 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts in the history of posting. Your argument , and that of your professor, fails on so many levels.

1. How does US production methods have anything to do with a battery designed, built, and certified in a Japanese factory?

2. US antitrust laws and regulations have jack squat to do with supplier choice. Where did you learn that?
3. Care to ask Toyota about their accepting of responsibility for the problems involved in their cars that would not allow the engine to be overridden b the brakes? Didn't think so?
4. Perhaps you van ask Mitsubishi who got hammered by the Japaenese government recently for their abject failure to report recalss and manufacturing defects? Perhaps they are a stellar example of Japanese production methods that are so superior to everyone else, especially the US?

[Edited 2013-05-20 10:03:09]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 4:40 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
His ideals are pretty much the ideals that shaped Japan's emergence as a global economy throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

So interventionism and continual stimulus then?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Boeing would not be allowed, according to Anti-trust laws, to risk-share, collaborate, or cooperate with any other battery supplier.

That's the opposite of anti-trust laws.

The professor sounds like a Japanese guy looking to blame shift and save face.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Quote the law by article. This is 100% counter to my experience in aerospace. Mutli-sourcing is typical when economical.

  
You have to wonder about the Japanese regulatory structure. As I understand it, in Japanese culture they are often uncomfortably close to business and the government is seen as being responsible for helping Japanese businesses.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
I expect Boeing did not choose GS Yuasa on a lark, but instead selected them after performing due diligence of whomever are major suppliers of industrial lithium-ion battery solutions for the aerospace industry.

They could have gotten A123.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 5:33 pm

PHX787, please don't think everyone here is jumping on you. I can only speak for myself and I feel you have gotten some bad information. If your professor was as on the ball as you think he is, ask yourself this. Why is he teaching this information instead of working as a high level government economist implementing his ideas?

The old adage is "those how can....do, those who can't....teach"
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 6:02 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):

Because of USA antitrust laws, Boeing essentially was only allowed to use one battery supplier, after observing the market. Other battery suppliers competed with Yuasa to use their battery on the Dreamliner but Yuasa was chosen. Boeing is only allowed to cooperate with Yuasa therefore-no other company-which means that their standards and yuasas standards could have been conflicted. Because of the weakness of this type of management compared to the Japanese method, this whole grounding mess may have been prevented if Boeing was allowed to cooperate with many battery suppliers instead of just one.

I am trying to give your professor some credit, but either he doesn’t know that much about what he is talking about or there is a communication problem. As with most professors, they live in a theoretical world. It’s great for research, but outside of MBA programs, they often don’t really know how business works.

First off, Boeing is free to work with as many suppliers as they want. There’s no anti-trust regulations limiting them to one supplier. They can multi-source products. As mentioned, in some areas they do like tires, brakes, line replaceable units, etc. The certification process is extremely costly and lengthy. Getting fully qualified suppliers isn’t something that Boeing typically does for components that are not line replaceable units. There’s no point to spending the extra money.

I think what your professor is talking about is suppliers collaborating. He is right that once Boeing selects a supplier, the companies not selected do not typically collaborate. Companies want to have a competitive edge on each other, so they don’t work with their competition. There’s some basis in anti-trust laws, but there are far more reasons for different companies not working together than anti-trust laws. You don’t work with your competitor. Once the supplier is selected, Boeing is stuck using that supplier’s technology because that is who they selected.

Your comparison to Toyota is not useful. Cars are not certified or qualified like airplanes. Toyota can easily switch suppliers to anyone willing and capable to make the part. For airplanes, switching a component supplier would take 2 years of certification and qualification to demonstrate FAR compliance.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
twiga
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:24 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I was having a lengthy discussion with my professor about the recent 787 issues. This professor specializes in Japanese business practices and has extensively studied how the american system of management works. He stated that the 787 battery issue was not necessarily the issue with Yuasa, the battery maker, but rather how Boeing managed the production of the 787 itself.

How much time did your professor actually spend in the US in carrying out his extensive study of the american system of management? Or was the study mostly carried out from afar?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11376
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:34 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 37):
Your comparison to Toyota is not useful. Cars are not certified or qualified like airplanes. Toyota can easily switch suppliers to anyone willing and capable to make the part. For airplanes, switching a component supplier would take 2 years of certification and qualification to demonstrate FAR compliance.

The comparison to Toyota is also inapt because of volume. For a component that is needed once for each airplane, we are talking about ~100 units per year for the 787 (new build). For a component that is needed once for each car, we are talking about ~1,000,000 units per year for the Camry.

That's why, on high production vehicles, we often see multiple suppliers for a single component. It's a hedge against a problem at a single supplier bringing down the line but, more importantly, it may be impossible for a single supplier to provide the necessary volume.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
brucek
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:43 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:42 pm

I used to work in manufacturing here in the SFO Bay Area (televsion engineering products), and the first thing we made sure was that we were not "sole-sourced" for anything.

I used to run an operation that managed vendors of equipment that were dropped shipped to customers, so a great deal of vendor management and quality control went into the job- I don't know the ins-and-outs of the 787 battery issue enough to be an expert, but it sure sounds like vendor management was the issue here....... just my uneducated opinion...
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:42 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The Japanese government ... jumped the gun on grounding the 787. Once they did so, without a proper investigation and at odds with historical aviation groundings when no fatalities occurred, it forced the FAA to follow suit. Had the JAA not acted prematurely ....

You keep on repeating this untruth, despite being corrected on at least 4 other threads. JL and NH grounded their own fleets, not the JAA. The JAA did not act until after the FAA issued its grounding order.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 7:43 pm

Where anti-trust laws affect Boeing is that they are forbidden under said laws from owning an aerospace engine manufacturer nor are they allowed to own a commercial airline.

In 1934, the US government used anti-trust laws to break up United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, which was a holding company that included a number of aerospace manufactures (including Boeing), engine and propeller manufacturers (including Pratt & Whitney) and airlines (what would become United Airlines).
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 10:38 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 41):
You keep on repeating this untruth, despite being corrected on at least 4 other threads. JL and NH grounded their own fleets, not the JAA. The JAA did not act until after the FAA issued its grounding order.

Not to get too hair-splitty, but the regulatory authority in these parts is the JCAB.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
aklrno
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 10:51 pm

One point that has been skipped so far in this thread (I think) is that when Boeing agrees to a risk-sharing contract where the vendor makes a significant investment in what is to be a Boeing custom design then that company is probably going to ask for the exclusive right to make that product for some time, until the R&D costs have been recovered.

When that quantity or time period is passed, Boeing may very well look to others for further contracts. That will require the certification of the new part(s) but that probably happens all the time without anyone outside Boeing noticing, except for mechanics who are restricted to certain replacement parts which appear to be the same but are made by different suppliers.
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3815
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Mon May 20, 2013 11:23 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
America could learn something about efficiency from Japan, in my opinion. Especially if they wanna prevent safety issues from happening.

Let's not bring personal opinions into this that may insult others.
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Tue May 21, 2013 1:22 am

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 17):
Quoting questions (Reply 5):
You should get another professor... you're wasting your money on this one.

I'm an academic myself and couldn't agree more.   

Yes, you should not listen to this professor of yours. I know what you are getting at but it is not anti-trust laws that are the problem. When I did my graduate work in London in the 80's, I did a study on what the Japanese did in the 60's and 70's and would like to challenge your prof on his opinion.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Tue May 21, 2013 5:08 am

NH and JL grounding their fleets at the behest of the JCAB rather than the JCAB doing so directly is a cultural technicality.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 45):

Not just that, but its Japan who has had a string of embarrassing safety related issues, including nuclear plants, major dangerous recalls in airbags, faked aircraft seat testing, battery fires. Not that the USA doesn't have its share, but Japan continues in a state of denial about the failings of their industries to address systemic fraud
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Farzan
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:55 pm

RE: 787 Battery Issues Show Weakness Of US Prod Method

Tue May 21, 2013 7:46 am

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I was having a lengthy discussion with my professor about the recent 787 issues.

Knowing about your fascination for Japan through your many posts in several other threads, I noticed that you often use your "Japanese sources" and "Japanese experts" as a reference for different statements. Often these statements are wrong or at least mostly unqualified guesses.
So now you are stating that a "highly respected professor" has no clue on antitrust laws and American business?

I know that you previously informed our honorable a.net family on your skills in mastering the Japanese language, but somehow I still wonder, could it be that all your sources are wrong, or could it be that you might lose something in translation?

Who is online