Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:The 787 is a really bad example for a launch aircraft as the "technology push" and manufacturing tech push lead to large delays and massive costs that still hurt the program. If Boeing learned from them mistakes it can be a success but it is also a huge risk that needs to be addressed. I do not know if Boeing can handle another delayed program. The 787 was delayed, the 777X is delayed, the 737 was on time? but rushed and is now grounded. The 787 was grounded. Boeing needs to get this one right and the more "experiments" are in it the higher the chance that the program will be an overall failure even if the product is actually good. And if it is delayed and too close to the new generation NSA then this could ripple into the actual NSA for Boeing and delay that as well.
I think delays / groundings / tech failures are unfortunately the new norm. In recent times we had PW GTF's bearing failures leading to it being grounded in at least one jurisdiction and a large amount of economic disruption, RR's T1000 corroded blade failures leading to restrictions and inspections that made it very difficult to operate the type and many frames grounded due to lack of spares, GE9x with "durability issues" grounding the 77X for at least half a year, etc. If we want to go after FAA, keep in mind that RR's failings happened on EASA's watch.
This is a world wide phenomenon in almost every industry. Products go to the market way to fast and the customer is also the alpha or beta tester, with software the prime example. But to change this regulatory bodies like the EASA and the FAA and other would have to set much stricter rules for certification and the outcry of the industry would be heard on Mars. No one cries and wines as good as a company that gets regulated stricter.
On the other side even tho all them companies know that A) their product will merely passed the certification and is nowhere near a stage of long time durability and B) their workforce is squeezed to the limit, time to market is cut shorter and shorter to please shareholders.
At the end we have either groundings or long delays, either with EIS or with the deliveries.
I totally agree with the rest of you post (and therefore spare everyone of the quote) and it is just a sad thing to see how corporate culture and "quality" has changed over the last 20-30 years. Airbus and Boeing cash in on amazing products developed in the 80's and 90's but I have a feeling that this lemons are now squeezed and every further squeeze will result in the lemon being torn apart. The 737 is now the second sign of that. Let us all hope that was also the only one and a change in thinking will occur. With the 787 we luckily missed rock bottom and the fires luckily did not cause any loss of life but that warning sign was ignored. If the 737 sign is now also ignored then we as the flying public are in for a wild ride. So A and B have to sort their shit out and deliver good products again, because I do not think that this is a Boeing problem alone, it is an industry problem as you can see with the engines or the A400M.