Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:21 pm

kanban wrote:
Zeke:
from what I hear from old acquaintances inside, there are assembly drawings and manufacturing plans that did not include fit and fair, shim as required notes.. without those the FAA would insist on zero tolerances even when logic says different.

The problem is worsened by the FAA being embarrassed by the 737Max Boeing screwup that they didn't catch so they are letting nothing by right now. They've positioned themselves in the middle of the normal process revision cycle insisting on 100% compliance before allowing process modifications. Normally all the issues being addressed would have come through engineering investigation with recommendations to fix the process, fix the process specifications, fix the drawings, release a service bulletin if warranted. some of the fixes might be loosening of tolerances, others tightening tolerances, revising the components etc. also unfortunately there are cases when "cut and paste" drawing boilerplate isn't applicable but is done by the unknowing newbies.

However it is time for the FAA to quit their knee jerk thin skinned approach and let Boeing solve the issues through proven processes that have been in place since the B-17.

If the FAA does not see a need for ADs or even inspections on existing delivered aircraft the whole refusal to certify aircraft built but not delivered smells.


Yes, but that normal process to address issues was not being managed well. Identifying root cause and fixing datasets creates costs that are taken straight off of profits. The FAA stepped into a process that wasn't working. One could see this coming for quite awhile.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:14 pm

Pythagoras wrote:
kanban wrote:
Zeke:
from what I hear from old acquaintances inside, there are assembly drawings and manufacturing plans that did not include fit and fair, shim as required notes.. without those the FAA would insist on zero tolerances even when logic says different.

The problem is worsened by the FAA being embarrassed by the 737Max Boeing screwup that they didn't catch so they are letting nothing by right now. They've positioned themselves in the middle of the normal process revision cycle insisting on 100% compliance before allowing process modifications. Normally all the issues being addressed would have come through engineering investigation with recommendations to fix the process, fix the process specifications, fix the drawings, release a service bulletin if warranted. some of the fixes might be loosening of tolerances, others tightening tolerances, revising the components etc. also unfortunately there are cases when "cut and paste" drawing boilerplate isn't applicable but is done by the unknowing newbies.

However it is time for the FAA to quit their knee jerk thin skinned approach and let Boeing solve the issues through proven processes that have been in place since the B-17.

If the FAA does not see a need for ADs or even inspections on existing delivered aircraft the whole refusal to certify aircraft built but not delivered smells.


Yes, but that normal process to address issues was not being managed well. Identifying root cause and fixing datasets creates costs that are taken straight off of profits. The FAA stepped into a process that wasn't working. One could see this coming for quite awhile.
He forgets that the main 787 issues were Boeing's inspection practices, or the lack of them.

The solution according to some is simply get supplies as they are and work on AD's, and this is not the first time I am reading it either. No solutions as to how the gap in quality will be bridged.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2883
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 787 Production/Delivery Thread - 2021

Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:24 pm

Ruscoe wrote:
But the 787 passed the FAA structural testing, so where is the problem?


Exactly. Plus 787's are safely crisscrossing the globe every day.

IMHO, the FAA has been weaponized against Boeing for not only the Max Fiasco,

but as a payback the the Everett unions for Boeing's decision to move 787 production to Charleston.

Ever heard the saying, "Death by a thousand cuts " ?
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:49 pm

This is sad. The 787 is such a beautiful aircraft.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:51 pm

Ruscoe wrote:
But the 787 passed the FAA structural testing, so where is the problem?

I guess over a short period of time the composite materials wear out faster?
 
StTim
Posts: 3925
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:23 am

dc10lover wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
But the 787 passed the FAA structural testing, so where is the problem?

I guess over a short period of time the composite materials wear out faster?

I also guess the initial units were produced in accordance with the specifications.
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:09 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Pythagoras wrote:
kanban wrote:
Zeke:
from what I hear from old acquaintances inside, there are assembly drawings and manufacturing plans that did not include fit and fair, shim as required notes.. without those the FAA would insist on zero tolerances even when logic says different.

The problem is worsened by the FAA being embarrassed by the 737Max Boeing screwup that they didn't catch so they are letting nothing by right now. They've positioned themselves in the middle of the normal process revision cycle insisting on 100% compliance before allowing process modifications. Normally all the issues being addressed would have come through engineering investigation with recommendations to fix the process, fix the process specifications, fix the drawings, release a service bulletin if warranted. some of the fixes might be loosening of tolerances, others tightening tolerances, revising the components etc. also unfortunately there are cases when "cut and paste" drawing boilerplate isn't applicable but is done by the unknowing newbies.

However it is time for the FAA to quit their knee jerk thin skinned approach and let Boeing solve the issues through proven processes that have been in place since the B-17.

If the FAA does not see a need for ADs or even inspections on existing delivered aircraft the whole refusal to certify aircraft built but not delivered smells.


Yes, but that normal process to address issues was not being managed well. Identifying root cause and fixing datasets creates costs that are taken straight off of profits. The FAA stepped into a process that wasn't working. One could see this coming for quite awhile.
He forgets that the main 787 issues were Boeing's inspection practices, or the lack of them.

The solution according to some is simply get supplies as they are and work on AD's, and this is not the first time I am reading it either. No solutions as to how the gap in quality will be bridged.


There are issues which pre-date the current 787 issues which I am referring to.

As an FYI, there will only be an Airworthiness Directive if it is found that the discrepancy results in a safety issue, specifically if the structure is found to have less than Design Limit Load capability, or if it affects the baseline maintenance and inspection program. Boeing may choose to issue a Service Bulletin if it is found to not be safety issue and should corrective action be needed to avoid an economic cost. For example, excessive pull-up may result in an aluminum component to be subject to increased fatigue stresses or exceed the stress corrosion threshold of the material.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:47 am

Pythagoras wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Pythagoras wrote:

Yes, but that normal process to address issues was not being managed well. Identifying root cause and fixing datasets creates costs that are taken straight off of profits. The FAA stepped into a process that wasn't working. One could see this coming for quite awhile.
He forgets that the main 787 issues were Boeing's inspection practices, or the lack of them.

The solution according to some is simply get supplies as they are and work on AD's, and this is not the first time I am reading it either. No solutions as to how the gap in quality will be bridged.


There are issues which pre-date the current 787 issues which I am referring to.

As an FYI, there will only be an Airworthiness Directive if it is found that the discrepancy results in a safety issue, specifically if the structure is found to have less than Design Limit Load capability, or if it affects the baseline maintenance and inspection program. Boeing may choose to issue a Service Bulletin if it is found to not be safety issue and should corrective action be needed to avoid an economic cost. For example, excessive pull-up may result in an aluminum component to be subject to increased fatigue stresses or exceed the stress corrosion threshold of the material.
For what has been delivered, absolutely.
 
Chemist
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:33 am

smartplane wrote:
Stitch wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
I do ask myself why there seems to be no incoming goods inspection at Boeing? If this is so outta spec, why does nobody notice until it's too late?


Boeing receives these as completed structures that I believe are covered in protective coatings that are not removed until painting so they might not be able to do visual inspections as they load them into the FAL?

Surely for wrapped structures, Boeing would have inspectors (their own or independent) inspecting before wrapping. Some customers undertake more significant component inspection than the OEM. At the other extreme, some customers didn't undertake comprehensive customer acceptance, relying on documentation alone.


When I worked in a different but also regulated industry, we had subcontractors doing certain operations for us. We had an employee from our QA group stationed at that subcontractor's site, living and working there, and on the floor monitoring the processes being followed by our subcontractor.

If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.
 
2175301
Posts: 2246
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:18 am

Chemist wrote:
If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.


Not at all. It suggest a failed QA program at MHI. The Boeing QA program caught that failure so it at least was working earlier this year.

We have no idea how long this issue has existed. It might be only something from very recent - in which case the Boeing QA program did its job correctly in catching it.

If it turns out that the problem has been there for many years... only then can we question the Boeing QA oversight.
 
Chemist
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:25 am

2175301 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.


Not at all. It suggest a failed QA program at MHI. The Boeing QA program caught that failure so it at least was working earlier this year.

We have no idea how long this issue has existed. It might be only something from very recent - in which case the Boeing QA program did its job correctly in catching it.

If it turns out that the problem has been there for many years... only then can we question the Boeing QA oversight.


You *could* be correct, but given recent history, nobody is going to trust that Boeing has done the right thing or had a good program. Their credibility and reputation are in the gutter.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5756
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:22 am

Chemist wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.


Not at all. It suggest a failed QA program at MHI. The Boeing QA program caught that failure so it at least was working earlier this year.

We have no idea how long this issue has existed. It might be only something from very recent - in which case the Boeing QA program did its job correctly in catching it.

If it turns out that the problem has been there for many years... only then can we question the Boeing QA oversight.


You *could* be correct, but given recent history, nobody is going to trust that Boeing has done the right thing or had a good program. Their credibility and reputation are in the gutter.

A thought on this, and on how we discuss things. Let's say that Boeing gets its house in order. As part of that, they would no doubt turn up issues from when their house was disordered. I fear when they do this, they would then be castigated for "yet more Boeing problems", when in fact we would be witnessing the work to resolve those problems. That in itself doesn't create the most conducive atmosphere for cultural change. It has been quite easy to point the finger at "vulture capitalism" as some have described it, and this short-termism baked into our financial system definitely hasn't helped. But I wonder to what extent our social culture of the current age, where we focus on every fault and play it out in a public ad nauseum, has also contributed to a siege mentality that has hampered working with those outside the company to resolve issue proactively, in favour of trying to play down issues in the hope it won't lead to negative discussions. That's not to say those discussions analyising faults shouldn't be happening with the FAA; indeed they should be, and in a way that is focused not on apportioning blame but on finding the root causes of issues and addressing those. When they also are played out by people without the technical expertise to contextualise them, I fear that is not contributing to a safety culture, but in fact to a culture of siege.

I sincerely hope we are getting to the point where they are getting the house in order and able to clear away the gremlins in their systems, and I hope that when they do that we won't use it as an excuse to be keyboard warriors proudly claiming how much more we know than those working at the coalface.

V/F
 
astuteman
Posts: 7511
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:15 am

2175301 wrote:
Eiszeit wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Boeing receives these as completed structures that I believe are covered in protective coatings that are not removed until painting so they might not be able to do visual inspections as they load them into the FAL?


Sure they do but auditing your suppliers and their work without any warning or rythm is a basic task in engineering...
Even if they were only able to inspect them after loading them into the FAL. If there is a defect you store the part and don't install it.


It is likely that Boeing discovered the issue with just such an audit. Please get real on how these things actually work. Someone at Boeing did not discover the problem just by sitting at their desk and daydreaming.


No.
They should have discovered any process change that risks the qualification of the product through continuous on-site Supplier Quality Assurance Processes.
You're not trying to tell me that Boeing don't have an on-site SQA team at MHI for such a fundamental part of the product?

I was pretty sure that Boeing would operate in an APQP environment, and indeed they do.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/x38656_ ... ning_(apqp)_&_production_part_approval_process_(ppap).pdf

Boeing Engineers should be defining the key, or critical characteristics that ensure the delivery of design requirements and product qualification to key suppliers, and SQA should be ensuring that those are met.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/quality.html

A lot of the brown stuff WILL stick to Boeing as the responsible prime.
Can't sweep it all under the MHI carpet.

We wouldn't in our business.....
If for no other reason than to ensure it doesn't happen again

Rgds
 
JonesNL
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:21 am

When will they stop production actually, delivery doesn't seem to be happening any time soon...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14428
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:13 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
It's a pretty horrific read. Not only have they seemingly not put it together properly with bad panel gaps allowing for premature ageing as you state, but it's also suffering with a weakened bond between different composite sections affecting all area's including the wings and tail structure. They do say that although weakened, the ones they have found so far at least, are still within specifications and should not pose a safety risk - Which is good news, about the only good news in that article.

More concerning is that the FAA state Boeing does not have accurate records as to which airframes already in service are effected by these new issues. Not that I think it's unsafe, but given Boeing's recent track record I don't think I'll be booking any 787 flights in the near future.... Scary stuff.


It is better them catching it like this now than after it becomes a smoking hole in the ground. But it does not instill confidence. At all.

Seriously.

At this point, I'm wondering if there's anything in Boeing's current/impending production run that I'd feel comfortable stepping on?!

  • 737MAX? No freakin' way. Gonna give that contraption yearrrrrrs to prove itself.
  • 787? Been on plenty, but this is seriously concerning to me.
  • 777X? Did they ever explain what was causing the uncommanded pitch incidents, and what was done to fix it?

Man, how I pine for the days of the Seattle-produced 737NGs, 757s, 767s, and 77E/77Ws. :( :(



sxf24 wrote:
Boeing engineers, failing to recognize it is impossible to build a perfect airplane, designed and certified a perfect airplane.
sxf24 wrote:
Drawing conclusions about the on-going status of FAA-Boeing discussions from a Seattle Times article is dangerous.

To both of these statements I would ask: what in the world are you talking about?



Sooner787 wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
But the 787 passed the FAA structural testing, so where is the problem?

Exactly. Plus 787's are safely crisscrossing the globe every day.

So did every other aircraft that ever had a unique structural issue that eventually led to disaster....
 
2175301
Posts: 2246
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:06 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
A thought on this, and on how we discuss things. Let's say that Boeing gets its house in order. As part of that, they would no doubt turn up issues from when their house was disordered. I fear when they do this, they would then be castigated for "yet more Boeing problems", when in fact we would be witnessing the work to resolve those problems. That in itself doesn't create the most conducive atmosphere for cultural change. It has been quite easy to point the finger at "vulture capitalism" as some have described it, and this short-termism baked into our financial system definitely hasn't helped. But I wonder to what extent our social culture of the current age, where we focus on every fault and play it out in a public ad nauseum, has also contributed to a siege mentality that has hampered working with those outside the company to resolve issue proactively, in favour of trying to play down issues in the hope it won't lead to negative discussions. That's not to say those discussions analyising faults shouldn't be happening with the FAA; indeed they should be, and in a way that is focused not on apportioning blame but on finding the root causes of issues and addressing those. When they also are played out by people without the technical expertise to contextualise them, I fear that is not contributing to a safety culture, but in fact to a culture of siege.

I sincerely hope we are getting to the point where they are getting the house in order and able to clear away the gremlins in their systems, and I hope that when they do that we won't use it as an excuse to be keyboard warriors proudly claiming how much more we know than those working at the coalface.

V/F


Very well said.

Unfortunately, this very thread is proof that the keyboard warriors appear to be are out in full force...


I've actually lived the kind of change that the Engineers at Boeing have to be going through. My QA & Regulatory background is in Nuclear Power (and the Aviation and Nuclear regulatory regulations are in many cases very often mirror images of themselves with some key words changed to focus on either avaition or nuclear).

Within the USA the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does multiple inspections of various aspects of the operation and maintenance of nuclear plants each year. They have a "Green/Yellow/Orange/Red" rating system for each area. Red means that there are serious issues that could realistically affect the health and safety of the public; with "protection of the health and safety of the public" being our key licensed goal (the NRC does not care if a nuclear power plant generates any electricity or is commercially viable).

This color coded rating method was adopted in the late 1980's or very early 1990's. Historically, there have been 4 "Red" findings since then.

I was at the plant that had 2 of those "Red" findings - and overlapping at the same time. The NRC almost shut us down.

When I started working there I remember being criticized by my Supervisor as taking too long to do work. I told him that I was concerned that every-time an issue came up that too many people started from the position that "of course its operable (our Key regulatory requirement for equipment)... we just have to demonstrate that"; where in my opinion was that the correct starting point was to seriously ask the question "Is it operable?" My supervisor told me that I really did not understand things.

Then the plant got hit with it's 1st Red finding, and the NRC oversight became massive, then the 2nd Red Finding, and the NRC was everywhere in the plant. A lot had to change in Engineering and Operations on the approaches and attitudes. A lot of people left. Virtually all engineering documents had to be reviewed by an independent review team before being approved. That same engineering review team reviewed every "approved" engineering evaluation or calculation going back multiple years; and found massive rework had to be done.

Then one day after our plant had cleared the Red Findings and were back to normal NRC oversight my Manager (who was the supervisor who criticized me and scoffed at my point of view many years ago) told me that the "review team" had concluded that I had produced the highest quality engineering work of the entire 100+ person engineering department since I arrived at the plant (none of my documents had to be revised or reworked); and then told me that my observation from many years ago about the presumed starting point on issues turned out to be totally correct; and thanked me for pushing back and keeping my high standards. I got a higher than normal pay raise that year.

So I've lived this... and seen how hard it is for an organization to really change. And yes, having people constantly nitpick and tell you how bad you are for finding old problems does not help at all. Fortunately, the NRC did not beat us over the head about finding all the old problems; and the press was not writing about the issues at my plant.

I actually believe that Boeing finding this is a very good indication - and tells me that Boeing engineering and QA are headed in the right track...
 
JonesNL
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:15 pm

2175301 wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
A thought on this, and on how we discuss things. Let's say that Boeing gets its house in order. As part of that, they would no doubt turn up issues from when their house was disordered. I fear when they do this, they would then be castigated for "yet more Boeing problems", when in fact we would be witnessing the work to resolve those problems. That in itself doesn't create the most conducive atmosphere for cultural change. It has been quite easy to point the finger at "vulture capitalism" as some have described it, and this short-termism baked into our financial system definitely hasn't helped. But I wonder to what extent our social culture of the current age, where we focus on every fault and play it out in a public ad nauseum, has also contributed to a siege mentality that has hampered working with those outside the company to resolve issue proactively, in favour of trying to play down issues in the hope it won't lead to negative discussions. That's not to say those discussions analyising faults shouldn't be happening with the FAA; indeed they should be, and in a way that is focused not on apportioning blame but on finding the root causes of issues and addressing those. When they also are played out by people without the technical expertise to contextualise them, I fear that is not contributing to a safety culture, but in fact to a culture of siege.

I sincerely hope we are getting to the point where they are getting the house in order and able to clear away the gremlins in their systems, and I hope that when they do that we won't use it as an excuse to be keyboard warriors proudly claiming how much more we know than those working at the coalface.

V/F


Very well said.

Unfortunately, this very thread is proof that the keyboard warriors appear to be are out in full force...


I've actually lived the kind of change that the Engineers at Boeing have to be going through. My QA & Regulatory background is in Nuclear Power (and the Aviation and Nuclear regulatory regulations are in many cases very often mirror images of themselves with some key words changed to focus on either avaition or nuclear).

Within the USA the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does multiple inspections of various aspects of the operation and maintenance of nuclear plants each year. They have a "Green/Yellow/Orange/Red" rating system for each area. Red means that there are serious issues that could realistically affect the health and safety of the public; with "protection of the health and safety of the public" being our key licensed goal (the NRC does not care if a nuclear power plant generates any electricity or is commercially viable).

This color coded rating method was adopted in the late 1980's or very early 1990's. Historically, there have been 4 "Red" findings since then.

I was at the plant that had 2 of those "Red" findings - and overlapping at the same time. The NRC almost shut us down.

When I started working there I remember being criticized by my Supervisor as taking too long to do work. I told him that I was concerned that every-time an issue came up that too many people started from the position that "of course its operable (our Key regulatory requirement for equipment)... we just have to demonstrate that"; where in my opinion was that the correct starting point was to seriously ask the question "Is it operable?" My supervisor told me that I really did not understand things.

Then the plant got hit with it's 1st Red finding, and the NRC oversight became massive, then the 2nd Red Finding, and the NRC was everywhere in the plant. A lot had to change in Engineering and Operations on the approaches and attitudes. A lot of people left. Virtually all engineering documents had to be reviewed by an independent review team before being approved. That same engineering review team reviewed every "approved" engineering evaluation or calculation going back multiple years; and found massive rework had to be done.

Then one day after our plant had cleared the Red Findings and were back to normal NRC oversight my Manager (who was the supervisor who criticized me and scoffed at my point of view many years ago) told me that the "review team" had concluded that I had produced the highest quality engineering work of the entire 100+ person engineering department since I arrived at the plant (none of my documents had to be revised or reworked); and then told me that my observation from many years ago about the presumed starting point on issues turned out to be totally correct; and thanked me for pushing back and keeping my high standards. I got a higher than normal pay raise that year.

So I've lived this... and seen how hard it is for an organization to really change. And yes, having people constantly nitpick and tell you how bad you are for finding old problems does not help at all. Fortunately, the NRC did not beat us over the head about finding all the old problems; and the press was not writing about the issues at my plant.

I actually believe that Boeing finding this is a very good indication - and tells me that Boeing engineering and QA are headed in the right track...


Very nice story that is quite analogues to Boeings current status. I think Boeing is in a same situation where your plant was after 2nd Red finding. FAA being everywhere and requiring a lot of rework on processes and documentation.

The unfortunate thing is for Boeing is that the press is following each finding with a microscope and Boeing is changing too slow. They are still trying to implement stuff with the exclusion of the FAA, which gets a hard NO from them. So, they are still trying to understand what the required modus of operandi is by the FAA.

Also the corporate language hasn't changed which is the most worrying. Safety and QA should be the words used in every second sentence but it is not...
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:28 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
Chemist wrote:
2175301 wrote:

Not at all. It suggest a failed QA program at MHI. The Boeing QA program caught that failure so it at least was working earlier this year.

We have no idea how long this issue has existed. It might be only something from very recent - in which case the Boeing QA program did its job correctly in catching it.

If it turns out that the problem has been there for many years... only then can we question the Boeing QA oversight.


You *could* be correct, but given recent history, nobody is going to trust that Boeing has done the right thing or had a good program. Their credibility and reputation are in the gutter.

A thought on this, and on how we discuss things. Let's say that Boeing gets its house in order. As part of that, they would no doubt turn up issues from when their house was disordered. I fear when they do this, they would then be castigated for "yet more Boeing problems", when in fact we would be witnessing the work to resolve those problems. That in itself doesn't create the most conducive atmosphere for cultural change. It has been quite easy to point the finger at "vulture capitalism" as some have described it, and this short-termism baked into our financial system definitely hasn't helped. But I wonder to what extent our social culture of the current age, where we focus on every fault and play it out in a public ad nauseum, has also contributed to a siege mentality that has hampered working with those outside the company to resolve issue proactively, in favour of trying to play down issues in the hope it won't lead to negative discussions. That's not to say those discussions analyising faults shouldn't be happening with the FAA; indeed they should be, and in a way that is focused not on apportioning blame but on finding the root causes of issues and addressing those. When they also are played out by people without the technical expertise to contextualise them, I fear that is not contributing to a safety culture, but in fact to a culture of siege.

I sincerely hope we are getting to the point where they are getting the house in order and able to clear away the gremlins in their systems, and I hope that when they do that we won't use it as an excuse to be keyboard warriors proudly claiming how much more we know than those working at the coalface.

V/F
'If you're not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.' Malcolm X.

This is one of the greatest quotes ever made and it is more than apt over here. No one really cared whether Boeing was messing up or not so long as the planes they built were not falling off the sky. Boeing is not the victim here, they are the company that took the cheapest route to everything, the company that did not pay attention to what they were building, and the one entity that really lacked empathy.

Lion Air should have been an opportunity for Boeing and the FAA to really clean up. Boeing was more interested in making sales, the FAA was the same FAA that has traditionally dithered. The ET crash was an opportunity for them to take the lead......Boeing wanted to keep the jet flying, the FAA was waiting, waiting for data that was readily available after the crash and moved after most other bodies had made a decision.

Today, the 787 is being made in Charleston, a site that is cheaper labor and worse quality. Boeing is one of two huge players in the jet manufacturing business and they have issues on all their planes not called the 767 or the legacy 777. Let them clean house, and as they do that let them suffer the consequences. Tough times determine what people are made of.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:45 pm

2175301 wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
A thought on this, and on how we discuss things. Let's say that Boeing gets its house in order. As part of that, they would no doubt turn up issues from when their house was disordered. I fear when they do this, they would then be castigated for "yet more Boeing problems", when in fact we would be witnessing the work to resolve those problems. That in itself doesn't create the most conducive atmosphere for cultural change. It has been quite easy to point the finger at "vulture capitalism" as some have described it, and this short-termism baked into our financial system definitely hasn't helped. But I wonder to what extent our social culture of the current age, where we focus on every fault and play it out in a public ad nauseum, has also contributed to a siege mentality that has hampered working with those outside the company to resolve issue proactively, in favour of trying to play down issues in the hope it won't lead to negative discussions. That's not to say those discussions analyising faults shouldn't be happening with the FAA; indeed they should be, and in a way that is focused not on apportioning blame but on finding the root causes of issues and addressing those. When they also are played out by people without the technical expertise to contextualise them, I fear that is not contributing to a safety culture, but in fact to a culture of siege.

I sincerely hope we are getting to the point where they are getting the house in order and able to clear away the gremlins in their systems, and I hope that when they do that we won't use it as an excuse to be keyboard warriors proudly claiming how much more we know than those working at the coalface.

V/F


Very well said.

Unfortunately, this very thread is proof that the keyboard warriors appear to be are out in full force...


I've actually lived the kind of change that the Engineers at Boeing have to be going through. My QA & Regulatory background is in Nuclear Power (and the Aviation and Nuclear regulatory regulations are in many cases very often mirror images of themselves with some key words changed to focus on either avaition or nuclear).

Within the USA the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does multiple inspections of various aspects of the operation and maintenance of nuclear plants each year. They have a "Green/Yellow/Orange/Red" rating system for each area. Red means that there are serious issues that could realistically affect the health and safety of the public; with "protection of the health and safety of the public" being our key licensed goal (the NRC does not care if a nuclear power plant generates any electricity or is commercially viable).

This color coded rating method was adopted in the late 1980's or very early 1990's. Historically, there have been 4 "Red" findings since then.

I was at the plant that had 2 of those "Red" findings - and overlapping at the same time. The NRC almost shut us down.

When I started working there I remember being criticized by my Supervisor as taking too long to do work. I told him that I was concerned that every-time an issue came up that too many people started from the position that "of course its operable (our Key regulatory requirement for equipment)... we just have to demonstrate that"; where in my opinion was that the correct starting point was to seriously ask the question "Is it operable?" My supervisor told me that I really did not understand things.

Then the plant got hit with it's 1st Red finding, and the NRC oversight became massive, then the 2nd Red Finding, and the NRC was everywhere in the plant. A lot had to change in Engineering and Operations on the approaches and attitudes. A lot of people left. Virtually all engineering documents had to be reviewed by an independent review team before being approved. That same engineering review team reviewed every "approved" engineering evaluation or calculation going back multiple years; and found massive rework had to be done.

Then one day after our plant had cleared the Red Findings and were back to normal NRC oversight my Manager (who was the supervisor who criticized me and scoffed at my point of view many years ago) told me that the "review team" had concluded that I had produced the highest quality engineering work of the entire 100+ person engineering department since I arrived at the plant (none of my documents had to be revised or reworked); and then told me that my observation from many years ago about the presumed starting point on issues turned out to be totally correct; and thanked me for pushing back and keeping my high standards. I got a higher than normal pay raise that year.

So I've lived this... and seen how hard it is for an organization to really change. And yes, having people constantly nitpick and tell you how bad you are for finding old problems does not help at all. Fortunately, the NRC did not beat us over the head about finding all the old problems; and the press was not writing about the issues at my plant.

I actually believe that Boeing finding this is a very good indication - and tells me that Boeing engineering and QA are headed in the right track...

There are definitely some similarities, but also some differences in the situation.
The big one is that Chernobyl (and, hopefully, evaluation of Three Mile Island) was a serious wake-up call for nuclear industry. I have no idea how much of a wake-up call MAX was. Certainly, Boeing tried to deny it; and certanly there are still a lot of Boeing fans who don't really see the issue, even on this very thread. I wonder what is the feeling of low- and mid-level employers at Boeing.

The other difference is that there are a few nuclear plants, so external expertise is available from other plants and from OEM. there is very little of such external expertise for Boeing, and they are the OEM, so nobody really knows the product and associated issues better that Boeing and their supply chain.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:11 pm

JonesNL wrote:
When will they stop production actually, delivery doesn't seem to be happening any time soon...


Well they have evidently stopped production of some major structural parts so that, by extension, means production is now stopped since you can't assemble frames without them.

I also believe the 787 is currently at Rate 2 and between such a low production rate and no deliveries Boeing probably has plenty of time to inspect frames both in the FAL and on the Flight Line. Combine that with the hope Boeing is putting additional focus on QA across the program and that might very well be why all these issues are being discovered one after the other.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:16 pm

I wonder how many critics have actually worked in aircraft manufacturing or inspection. many of the things the FAA is squawking about are too small to be seen or buried that only a destructive test can find. The long term impact is unknown however with 1000 flying with many cycles on them, there seems to be no issue.

As far as why can't the product be error free for ever.. some issues only arise when the aircraft has 100 cycles or more. Engineers may be viewed as all seeing, all knowing .. but you would be surprised how many never touch the parts or assemblies they design and rely on computers to predict stresses, fluctuations and wear. same with QA, you can not have inspectors riding the carbon fiber laying machines watching to 1/1000 in. dia bubbles. you rely on the tool design and computer programing. now it appears that some of the gapping at section join is caused by pressure from the computer driven riveters joining the sections.. considering the sections were engineered before the joining process and tooling, who has the foresight to suspect this.. yet many who have the vaguest knowledge and having been pointed roughly to the issue will blame a company's corporate management miles away from the process.

among the paradoxes here is this: if the sections fit perfectly with no need of shimming until the joining fasteners are installed, and only in some random places post assembly shimming is advised, how do you decide where to shim and by how much before installing the fasteners. In the old days it was a thick two inch wide application of sealant that should work here but the FAA is blocking it because it wasn't on the drawing.

for those that believe an assembled aircraft is a stable unit, HAH! the thing flexes, twists, expands and contracts with temperature and internal pressure, creaks and groans with each landing and take off, each fueling, each engine start.. allowing these motions is necessary to prevent early material wear and cracking. Some of what the 787 is experiencing is how those motions affect a composite structure. the FAAs rules for metal planes don't necessarily apply, Engineering and QA's assumptions from metal aircraft design and inspection also don't necessarily apply on a one for one basis. So how would the Corporate offices and the Board of Directors know?
 
LDRA
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:28 pm

Chemist wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Boeing receives these as completed structures that I believe are covered in protective coatings that are not removed until painting so they might not be able to do visual inspections as they load them into the FAL?

Surely for wrapped structures, Boeing would have inspectors (their own or independent) inspecting before wrapping. Some customers undertake more significant component inspection than the OEM. At the other extreme, some customers didn't undertake comprehensive customer acceptance, relying on documentation alone.


When I worked in a different but also regulated industry, we had subcontractors doing certain operations for us. We had an employee from our QA group stationed at that subcontractor's site, living and working there, and on the floor monitoring the processes being followed by our subcontractor.

If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.


Boeing is not liable for aircraft safety, FAA is.
So aircraft safety issues do not imply Boeing management - at least per the logics corporate lawyers used
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:31 pm

kanban wrote:
I wonder how many critics have actually worked in aircraft manufacturing or inspection. many of the things the FAA is squawking about are too small to be seen or buried that only a destructive test can find. The long term impact is unknown however with 1000 flying with many cycles on them, there seems to be no issue.

As far as why can't the product be error free for ever.. some issues only arise when the aircraft has 100 cycles or more. Engineers may be viewed as all seeing, all knowing .. but you would be surprised how many never touch the parts or assemblies they design and rely on computers to predict stresses, fluctuations and wear. same with QA, you can not have inspectors riding the carbon fiber laying machines watching to 1/1000 in. dia bubbles. you rely on the tool design and computer programing. now it appears that some of the gapping at section join is caused by pressure from the computer driven riveters joining the sections.. considering the sections were engineered before the joining process and tooling, who has the foresight to suspect this.. yet many who have the vaguest knowledge and having been pointed roughly to the issue will blame a company's corporate management miles away from the process.

among the paradoxes here is this: if the sections fit perfectly with no need of shimming until the joining fasteners are installed, and only in some random places post assembly shimming is advised, how do you decide where to shim and by how much before installing the fasteners. In the old days it was a thick two inch wide application of sealant that should work here but the FAA is blocking it because it wasn't on the drawing.

for those that believe an assembled aircraft is a stable unit, HAH! the thing flexes, twists, expands and contracts with temperature and internal pressure, creaks and groans with each landing and take off, each fueling, each engine start.. allowing these motions is necessary to prevent early material wear and cracking. Some of what the 787 is experiencing is how those motions affect a composite structure. the FAAs rules for metal planes don't necessarily apply, Engineering and QA's assumptions from metal aircraft design and inspection also don't necessarily apply on a one for one basis. So how would the Corporate offices and the Board of Directors know?

By investing more in research and development. By taking more work in house, or getting the best quality product even if it means paying more.

It does mean that they will get it right each time, that is an unrealistic expectation. The expectation is that they should strive to get it right each and every time and going by what we see, that has not been top of their priority. Sometimes, you get what you pay for, sometimes you are unlucky. Boeing is not the latter.

If Airbus has the same issues over time, they will also be due some reckoning.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:32 pm

kanban wrote:
I wonder how many critics have actually worked in aircraft manufacturing or inspection. many of the things the FAA is squawking about are too small to be seen or buried that only a destructive test can find. The long term impact is unknown however with 1000 flying with many cycles on them, there seems to be no issue.

As far as why can't the product be error free for ever.. some issues only arise when the aircraft has 100 cycles or more. Engineers may be viewed as all seeing, all knowing .. but you would be surprised how many never touch the parts or assemblies they design and rely on computers to predict stresses, fluctuations and wear. same with QA, you can not have inspectors riding the carbon fiber laying machines watching to 1/1000 in. dia bubbles. you rely on the tool design and computer programing. now it appears that some of the gapping at section join is caused by pressure from the computer driven riveters joining the sections.. considering the sections were engineered before the joining process and tooling, who has the foresight to suspect this.. yet many who have the vaguest knowledge and having been pointed roughly to the issue will blame a company's corporate management miles away from the process.

among the paradoxes here is this: if the sections fit perfectly with no need of shimming until the joining fasteners are installed, and only in some random places post assembly shimming is advised, how do you decide where to shim and by how much before installing the fasteners. In the old days it was a thick two inch wide application of sealant that should work here but the FAA is blocking it because it wasn't on the drawing.

for those that believe an assembled aircraft is a stable unit, HAH! the thing flexes, twists, expands and contracts with temperature and internal pressure, creaks and groans with each landing and take off, each fueling, each engine start.. allowing these motions is necessary to prevent early material wear and cracking. Some of what the 787 is experiencing is how those motions affect a composite structure. the FAAs rules for metal planes don't necessarily apply, Engineering and QA's assumptions from metal aircraft design and inspection also don't necessarily apply on a one for one basis. So how would the Corporate offices and the Board of Directors know?

Problem here is exactly that - those who designed and certified those joints may have vague idea about how it performs in the field. So ensuring some similarity between what was designed and simulated, what was tested, and what is being delivered is a big question.
As far as I understand, current problems are not with safety of flight, but with the long term reliability. So far, 787 was in service for 11 years. Assuming 5k hours a year, fleet leaders should have about 55k hours accumulated by this time, probably less. Is there enough left in those to fly to 100+ k hours, or is it time to retire? 2 of earlier frames are already parked for those issues, so possibly 50k is the service maximum with current manufacturing process, which is apparently not what was envisioned for earlier service life estimates?

I agree delivery stop is a harsh measure given service history - although there were a few close calls with 787. FAA is IMHO more harsh than it should be. Two factors here, though - first, FAA seems to be very heavy handed in general, and people on this side said that is the way to go (at least while it was foreigners being affected). Second, Boeing had a history of plowing their opinion through without a second thought, such as with copper in 787 wings. So maybe no more slight hints, only fullest extent of the law is what FAA see as appropriate?
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:33 pm

LDRA wrote:
Chemist wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Surely for wrapped structures, Boeing would have inspectors (their own or independent) inspecting before wrapping. Some customers undertake more significant component inspection than the OEM. At the other extreme, some customers didn't undertake comprehensive customer acceptance, relying on documentation alone.


When I worked in a different but also regulated industry, we had subcontractors doing certain operations for us. We had an employee from our QA group stationed at that subcontractor's site, living and working there, and on the floor monitoring the processes being followed by our subcontractor.

If Boeing can't see flaws in parts delivered by MHI, they ought to be using their QA function to be onsite for critical manufacturing operations. As well as at other suppliers with similarly critical operations. The fact that this is happening suggests a failed QA program at Boeing. And a failed QA program at Boeing suggest a failure at the management levels of the company. Which we all know about anyway, but somehow the CEO and the Board don't seem to see a big problem that isn't financial.


Boeing is not liable for aircraft safety, FAA is.
So aircraft safety issues do not imply Boeing management - at least per the logics corporate lawyers used
Have you seen airlines seeking compensation form the FAA? Or the FAA making payouts to the victims?
 
2175301
Posts: 2246
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:30 pm

kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:

Edited for shortness: See above for full statements

I've actually lived the kind of change that the Engineers at Boeing have to be going through....

Edited for shortness: See above

So I've lived this... and seen how hard it is for an organization to really change. And yes, having people constantly nitpick and tell you how bad you are for finding old problems does not help at all. Fortunately, the NRC did not beat us over the head about finding all the old problems; and the press was not writing about the issues at my plant.

I actually believe that Boeing finding this is a very good indication - and tells me that Boeing engineering and QA are headed in the right track...


There are definitely some similarities, but also some differences in the situation.
The big one is that Chernobyl (and, hopefully, evaluation of Three Mile Island) was a serious wake-up call for nuclear industry. I have no idea how much of a wake-up call MAX was. Certainly, Boeing tried to deny it; and certanly there are still a lot of Boeing fans who don't really see the issue, even on this very thread. I wonder what is the feeling of low- and mid-level employers at Boeing.

The other difference is that there are a few nuclear plants, so external expertise is available from other plants and from OEM. there is very little of such external expertise for Boeing, and they are the OEM, so nobody really knows the product and associated issues better that Boeing and their supply chain.


Your examples are not that relevant: Back when 3 Mile Island happened we were having major airline crashes in the USA every month or so. There was recently a thread on A-net about the dramatic improvements in Airliner Safety since those days... and what it took to get there. A similar series of improvements in regards to nuclear incidents and major plant issues has also occurred similar to the reduction in aviation crashes with major fatalities. What we now consider a major nuclear incident would have been considered trivial in the late 1970's.

The Chernobyl plant had 3 fundamental design issues that would have prevented it ever being built in the USA.

1) The reactor was inherently unstable (negative void coefficient) at low power mode. No commercial or even experimental reactor in the USA can ever have a negative void coefficient as the reactor is inherently unstable at that point and could massively malfunction faster than anyone could respond.

2) The reactor could also go "prompt critical" with normal control rod motions (and it did with the resulting energy release blowing up the core due to the limited amount of water in the reactor via a steam explosion). USA commercial reactors are designed to prevent the abiltiy to get to "prompt critical" with normal control rod motions (speeds and extent of withdrawal of control rods is controlled to prevent "prompt critical"). Note that an experimental US Army reactor did go prompt critical in on Jan 3, 1961 (look up SL-1); and that changed reactor design requirements.

There is at least one very small research reactor located in a very very large tank of water that is designed to do so; with the water absorbing the heat and preventing the core from melting (and the fuel rods are in super-robust racks to prevent them from deforming). This reactor also has duplicate emergency shutdown rods (only 1 set required to shutdown the reactor) that release when the neutron pulse occurs. This has allowed the USA to study what happens in a "prompt critical" event and experiment with different factors.

3) Chernobyl was not built with a containment building. To date: All commercial power reactors in the USA have to be built in a containment building in the event that things we did not anticipate goes wrong. These are very expensive and are typically about 1/3 of the cost of a USA nuclear power plant. 3 Mile Island was not a radiological disaster because of the containment building. Chernobyl would not have been an European radiological disaster if it had containment buildings around each reactor to contain it. Note: Russia stopped building that type of nuclear power plants and now builds PWRs with containment buildings.

You just cannot compare a plant that no way no how could have ever been built in the USA (or even most western countries) with plants that were required to meet some very key safety requirements.

Back to the 787 issues: proper engineering attitudes, procedures, and QA. It appears to me that Boeing is actually doing a pretty good job of changing. It took my plant 3-4 years from the 1st Red finding to getting things right and clearing the 2nd Red finding, and then that independent review group operated for another year or so beyond that to ensure that everyone was looking at issues correctly. Massive changes in approach and attitude takes time. It also takes time to look back and review things done in the past.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:47 pm

2175301 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
2175301 wrote:

Edited for shortness: See above for full statements

I've actually lived the kind of change that the Engineers at Boeing have to be going through....

Edited for shortness: See above

So I've lived this... and seen how hard it is for an organization to really change. And yes, having people constantly nitpick and tell you how bad you are for finding old problems does not help at all. Fortunately, the NRC did not beat us over the head about finding all the old problems; and the press was not writing about the issues at my plant.

I actually believe that Boeing finding this is a very good indication - and tells me that Boeing engineering and QA are headed in the right track...


There are definitely some similarities, but also some differences in the situation.
The big one is that Chernobyl (and, hopefully, evaluation of Three Mile Island) was a serious wake-up call for nuclear industry. I have no idea how much of a wake-up call MAX was. Certainly, Boeing tried to deny it; and certanly there are still a lot of Boeing fans who don't really see the issue, even on this very thread. I wonder what is the feeling of low- and mid-level employers at Boeing.

The other difference is that there are a few nuclear plants, so external expertise is available from other plants and from OEM. there is very little of such external expertise for Boeing, and they are the OEM, so nobody really knows the product and associated issues better that Boeing and their supply chain.


Your examples are not that relevant: Back when 3 Mile Island happened we were having major airline crashes in the USA every month or so. There was recently a thread on A-net about the dramatic improvements in Airliner Safety since those days... and what it took to get there. A similar series of improvements in regards to nuclear incidents and major plant issues has also occurred similar to the reduction in aviation crashes with major fatalities. What we now consider a major nuclear incident would have been considered trivial in the late 1970's.

The Chernobyl plant had 3 fundamental design issues that would have prevented it ever being built in the USA.

1) The reactor was inherently unstable (negative void coefficient) at low power mode. No commercial or even experimental reactor in the USA can ever have a negative void coefficient as the reactor is inherently unstable at that point and could massively malfunction faster than anyone could respond.

2) The reactor could also go "prompt critical" with normal control rod motions (and it did with the resulting energy release blowing up the core due to the limited amount of water in the reactor via a steam explosion). USA commercial reactors are designed to prevent the abiltiy to get to "prompt critical" with normal control rod motions (speeds and extent of withdrawal of control rods is controlled to prevent "prompt critical"). Note that an experimental US Army reactor did go prompt critical in on Jan 3, 1961 (look up SL-1); and that changed reactor design requirements.

There is at least one very small research reactor located in a very very large tank of water that is designed to do so; with the water absorbing the heat and preventing the core from melting (and the fuel rods are in super-robust racks to prevent them from deforming). This reactor also has duplicate emergency shutdown rods (only 1 set required to shutdown the reactor) that release when the neutron pulse occurs. This has allowed the USA to study what happens in a "prompt critical" event and experiment with different factors.

3) Chernobyl was not built with a containment building. To date: All commercial power reactors in the USA have to be built in a containment building in the event that things we did not anticipate goes wrong. These are very expensive and are typically about 1/3 of the cost of a USA nuclear power plant. 3 Mile Island was not a radiological disaster because of the containment building. Chernobyl would not have been an European radiological disaster if it had containment buildings around each reactor to contain it. Note: Russia stopped building that type of nuclear power plants and now builds PWRs with containment buildings.

You just cannot compare a plant that no way no how could have ever been built in the USA (or even most western countries) with plants that were required to meet some very key safety requirements.

Back to the 787 issues: proper engineering attitudes, procedures, and QA. It appears to me that Boeing is actually doing a pretty good job of changing. It took my plant 3-4 years from the 1st Red finding to getting things right and clearing the 2nd Red finding, and then that independent review group operated for another year or so beyond that to ensure that everyone was looking at issues correctly. Massive changes in approach and attitude takes time. It also takes time to look back and review things done in the past.

That's what they were saying all along. And then Fukushima was lucky enough to flush all the crap into the ocean instead of spreading it in the air; but overall situation is pretty similar in many aspects.
So the power of a wakeup call went way down over 30 years, and a new one is not heard..
That is more or less what is going on with Boeing - power of wakeup calls is not there, diminishing over time, and new calls are not taken seriously. That's why I am still skeptical regarding Boeing future.
 
Retaliation
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:47 pm

Looks more like a Boeing bashing thread than the actual topic which was QUALITY.

They make quality planes and hope they will come out of it.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:52 pm

Retaliation wrote:
Looks more like a Boeing bashing thread than the actual topic which was QUALITY.

They make quality planes and hope they will come out of it.

So far, a better statement would be "They had been making quality planes, and hopefully they will be making them again someday"
Let's hope things will become better - and will not become worse before that happens.

One of the things I would like to see in this threads is some lessons to be learnt. And there are very few of those coming from Boeing... Which is again a reason for limited optimism.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2965
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:50 pm

Things can go wrong and they did at everbody's programs. But this gets too expensive. Manufacturing defects being unnoticed for so long. These are not teething troubles anymore.
I hope they get going at full quality again soon.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:13 pm

astuteman wrote:

No.
They should have discovered any process change that risks the qualification of the product through continuous on-site Supplier Quality Assurance Processes.
You're not trying to tell me that Boeing don't have an on-site SQA team at MHI for such a fundamental part of the product?

I was pretty sure that Boeing would operate in an APQP environment, and indeed they do.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/x38656_ ... ning_(apqp)_&_production_part_approval_process_(ppap).pdf

Boeing Engineers should be defining the key, or critical characteristics that ensure the delivery of design requirements and product qualification to key suppliers, and SQA should be ensuring that those are met.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/quality.html

A lot of the brown stuff WILL stick to Boeing as the responsible prime.
Can't sweep it all under the MHI carpet.

We wouldn't in our business.....
If for no other reason than to ensure it doesn't happen again

Rgds

Normally you're right on with your opinion. This time piling on criticism about non or not completely understood issues adds little value. Even 11 years into the program things are being discovered.. a composite plane of this size while doing many of the things an aluminum plane would do it does them differently, some not at all others things entirely new. bubbles, gaps and contamination are symptomatic in large area composites. when are the parts or assemblies actually at risk of failing? there is no scale, just as there is no truly "clean room" for manufacture. There is no projection that foresees minor changes during the auto-clave process. So why should the presence of non critical deviations cause such an uproar.

back on aluminum aircraft there were voids in sealant at lap joints.. they were not detectable without tearing the joints apart and having torn the assembly apart it could not be reassembled. There was always the question as to whether the bubbles existed prior to disassembly or were caused the disassembly. so except for blatant cure time or use by date infractions, the joints remained as assembled.

Boeing and it's contractors are not building components or planes by hand anymore. they found hand lay-up of composites more prone to errors and so time consuming other defect factors like adhesive aging became involved. The answer was computer driven equipment in cleanrooms was the most precise. The clean rooms are leaky because the manufacturing process requires frequent opening and closing. a Japanese or Italian earth tremor will shake some debris from the rafters no matter how clean the room is. all manufacturing involves some risk management.. Boeing and their contractors seek to minimize manufacturing risk. we need to look at the processes as different from the metal airplane processes.

still there will be errors, some low level supplier used to building automobile parts either doesn't check new parts to the material specs. or changes something because "the difference is so minor".. yes they happen and guess what? .. they get found out and corrected without the FAA squatting on the process. Teflon spray to release the parts.. found out when paint wouldn't adhere, some contamination is to be expected and steps taken to minimize or remove it during manufacture. some deviations take years to surface even on closely watched assemblies. some will always be surprises. But do we stop trying because there is always uncertainty? Do we stop advancing? Did we hang Ferdinand and Isabella because Columbus got lost and lost a few crew?

people seem believe the plane and all its parts and systems can be viewed and inspected as one would view and inspect a faulty Xbox controller.. The 787's scale scale and complexity says "no way".

Yes there are process problems that are being addressed, but some are "no risk" chatter. and by concentrating on the ends of the bell curve there are others issues that are being set aside like early part life and bearing surface wear, things like the nose gear retract lock out pin fitting two holes leading gear collapse. that would have been found before the incident. ..
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:35 pm

kanban wrote:
astuteman wrote:

No.
They should have discovered any process change that risks the qualification of the product through continuous on-site Supplier Quality Assurance Processes.
You're not trying to tell me that Boeing don't have an on-site SQA team at MHI for such a fundamental part of the product?

I was pretty sure that Boeing would operate in an APQP environment, and indeed they do.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/x38656_ ... ning_(apqp)_&_production_part_approval_process_(ppap).pdf

Boeing Engineers should be defining the key, or critical characteristics that ensure the delivery of design requirements and product qualification to key suppliers, and SQA should be ensuring that those are met.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/quality.html

A lot of the brown stuff WILL stick to Boeing as the responsible prime.
Can't sweep it all under the MHI carpet.

We wouldn't in our business.....
If for no other reason than to ensure it doesn't happen again

Rgds

Normally you're right on with your opinion. This time piling on criticism about non or not completely understood issues adds little value. Even 11 years into the program things are being discovered.. a composite plane of this size while doing many of the things an aluminum plane would do it does them differently, some not at all others things entirely new. bubbles, gaps and contamination are symptomatic in large area composites. when are the parts or assemblies actually at risk of failing? there is no scale, just as there is no truly "clean room" for manufacture. There is no projection that foresees minor changes during the auto-clave process. So why should the presence of non critical deviations cause such an uproar.

back on aluminum aircraft there were voids in sealant at lap joints.. they were not detectable without tearing the joints apart and having torn the assembly apart it could not be reassembled. There was always the question as to whether the bubbles existed prior to disassembly or were caused the disassembly. so except for blatant cure time or use by date infractions, the joints remained as assembled.

Boeing and it's contractors are not building components or planes by hand anymore. they found hand lay-up of composites more prone to errors and so time consuming other defect factors like adhesive aging became involved. The answer was computer driven equipment in cleanrooms was the most precise. The clean rooms are leaky because the manufacturing process requires frequent opening and closing. a Japanese or Italian earth tremor will shake some debris from the rafters no matter how clean the room is. all manufacturing involves some risk management.. Boeing and their contractors seek to minimize manufacturing risk. we need to look at the processes as different from the metal airplane processes.

still there will be errors, some low level supplier used to building automobile parts either doesn't check new parts to the material specs. or changes something because "the difference is so minor".. yes they happen and guess what? .. they get found out and corrected without the FAA squatting on the process. Teflon spray to release the parts.. found out when paint wouldn't adhere, some contamination is to be expected and steps taken to minimize or remove it during manufacture. some deviations take years to surface even on closely watched assemblies. some will always be surprises. But do we stop trying because there is always uncertainty? Do we stop advancing? Did we hang Ferdinand and Isabella because Columbus got lost and lost a few crew?

people seem believe the plane and all its parts and systems can be viewed and inspected as one would view and inspect a faulty Xbox controller.. The 787's scale scale and complexity says "no way".

Yes there are process problems that are being addressed, but some are "no risk" chatter. and by concentrating on the ends of the bell curve there are others issues that are being set aside like early part life and bearing surface wear, things like the nose gear retract lock out pin fitting two holes leading gear collapse. that would have been found before the incident. ..

Making it short - do you think Boeing went over their paygrade when trying to design 787, or you have some other message here?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14428
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:02 pm

kanban wrote:
many of the things the FAA is squawking about are too small to be seen or buried that only a destructive test can find. The long term impact is unknown however with 1000 flying with many cycles on them, there seems to be no issue.

What kind of point are you even attempting to make with that?

    Do you have any idea how many fatal accidents have been caused by issues "too small to be seen".... UA232 ring a bell?

    And EVERY aircraft that ever had a unique structural malady that led to disaster, flew plenty of cycles with seemingly no issue-- until they didn't. Heck, it took almost a quarter century of service for the 737's rudder issues to manifest themselves.




LDRA wrote:
Boeing is not liable for aircraft safety, FAA is.
So aircraft safety issues do not imply Boeing management

Wait, what?

There's a wholeeee bunch of civil settlements and case precedence that say otherwise.....
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:27 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
kanban wrote:
many of the things the FAA is squawking about are too small to be seen or buried that only a destructive test can find. The long term impact is unknown however with 1000 flying with many cycles on them, there seems to be no issue.

What kind of point are you even attempting to make with that?

    Do you have any idea how many fatal accidents have been caused by issues "too small to be seen".... UA232 ring a bell?

    And EVERY aircraft that ever had a unique structural malady that led to disaster, flew plenty of cycles with seemingly no issue-- until they didn't. Heck, it took almost a quarter century of service for the 737's rudder issues to manifest themselves.




LDRA wrote:
Boeing is not liable for aircraft safety, FAA is.
So aircraft safety issues do not imply Boeing management

Wait, what?

There's a wholeeee bunch of civil settlements and case precedence that say otherwise.....

One can say that B787s in service flew for an average of 5 years. 1000 frames, 5000 hours a year, and lets assume an average of 5 hour flight.
That is 5 million flights by now, give or take.
Somewhat average crash rate - for the lack of events to be averaged over - 1 out of 5-10 million flight for western airlines.
So 787 right now has better stats than AF or SU, but has decades to go before achieving combined US3 statistics over past decade.
Which probably means 787 is in a pretty good standing right now, but not outstanding. Maintaining that status is, as for any other plane, subject to ongoing inspection and maintenance program. Which is where the issue is with previously manufactured frames.
I don't see a crash as a possible outcome of exposed problems. An early retirement is pretty much the worst case scenario.
Last edited by kalvado on Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:03 am

kalvado wrote:
Making it short - do you think Boeing went over their paygrade when trying to design 787, or you have some other message here?


no I don't... yes there are challenges in any radically new design or manufacturing process. and yes there are always a few dim wits..like the manufacturing engineers who forgot "beburr and clean" after every drilled fastener hole. Or shim as required on major section joins. Look Boeing has been leading up to this for years from small parts to short run military production. the only big change was the scope and some of that proved beyond the various internal organizations capability to adjust. Too many thought it's business as usual..

I do think Boeing was a bit more adventurous than Airbus with their half assed frame and panel approach, but then again it fits their scattered around town manufacturing processes. .
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:28 am

kanban wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Making it short - do you think Boeing went over their paygrade when trying to design 787, or you have some other message here?


no I don't... yes there are challenges in any radically new design or manufacturing process. and yes there are always a few dim wits..like the manufacturing engineers who forgot "beburr and clean" after every drilled fastener hole. Or shim as required on major section joins. Look Boeing has been leading up to this for years from small parts to short run military production. the only big change was the scope and some of that proved beyond the various internal organizations capability to adjust. Too many thought it's business as usual..

I do think Boeing was a bit more adventurous than Airbus with their half assed frame and panel approach, but then again it fits their scattered around town manufacturing processes. .

That's exactly what I mean - Boeing bit more than it can chew...
 
StTim
Posts: 3925
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:15 am

kanban wrote:
I do think Boeing was a bit more adventurous than Airbus with their half assed frame and panel approach, but then again it fits their scattered around town manufacturing processes. .



I do think your use of language here betrays your inherent bias.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:41 am

StTim wrote:
kanban wrote:
I do think Boeing was a bit more adventurous than Airbus with their half assed frame and panel approach, but then again it fits their scattered around town manufacturing processes. .



I do think your use of language here betrays your inherent bias.

I think quoting a wrong person sends a mixed message
 
StTim
Posts: 3925
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:21 am

Did I? I see that Kanban wrote that in response to a message by you.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:31 am

StTim wrote:
Did I? I see that Kanban wrote that in response to a message by you.

Originally you attributed the quote to me. Looks like it was fixed fairly fast
Or maybe everyone can mess up- even those who criticize Boeing
 
StTim
Posts: 3925
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:57 am

kalvado wrote:
StTim wrote:
Did I? I see that Kanban wrote that in response to a message by you.

Originally you attributed the quote to me. Looks like it was fixed fairly fast
Or maybe everyone can mess up- even those who criticize Boeing



Sorry I have not touched my original post. I did removed the quote from you to just pick up the last paragraph. I do not know if Anet kept that original quote in flagging it as you being quoted. This site certainly does some odd things.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:16 pm

I think the share value, executive bonusses, free cash flow driven corporate culture needs a reboot. Reward the executive team for operational integrity, long term profitability and portfolio strenght. Adding value to US society. The current climate rewards cutting corners, avoiding investment, being overly optimistic and endorses financial mystification.

Personally I find it very dissapointing to see new bad news surfacing every few weeks on almost all programs. The industry is craving for some ositive news on Boeing. Not least the hard working employees.

Big question is who but government could reset Boeing, nobody seems independent.. Hopefully Boeing won't have to be totally on its knees before a reboot becomes possible.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:33 pm

kanban wrote:
astuteman wrote:

No.
They should have discovered any process change that risks the qualification of the product through continuous on-site Supplier Quality Assurance Processes.
You're not trying to tell me that Boeing don't have an on-site SQA team at MHI for such a fundamental part of the product?

I was pretty sure that Boeing would operate in an APQP environment, and indeed they do.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/x38656_ ... ning_(apqp)_&_production_part_approval_process_(ppap).pdf

Boeing Engineers should be defining the key, or critical characteristics that ensure the delivery of design requirements and product qualification to key suppliers, and SQA should be ensuring that those are met.

https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/quality.html

A lot of the brown stuff WILL stick to Boeing as the responsible prime.
Can't sweep it all under the MHI carpet.

We wouldn't in our business.....
If for no other reason than to ensure it doesn't happen again

Rgds

Normally you're right on with your opinion. This time piling on criticism about non or not completely understood issues adds little value. Even 11 years into the program things are being discovered.. a composite plane of this size while doing many of the things an aluminum plane would do it does them differently, some not at all others things entirely new. bubbles, gaps and contamination are symptomatic in large area composites. when are the parts or assemblies actually at risk of failing? there is no scale, just as there is no truly "clean room" for manufacture. There is no projection that foresees minor changes during the auto-clave process. So why should the presence of non critical deviations cause such an uproar.

back on aluminum aircraft there were voids in sealant at lap joints.. they were not detectable without tearing the joints apart and having torn the assembly apart it could not be reassembled. There was always the question as to whether the bubbles existed prior to disassembly or were caused the disassembly. so except for blatant cure time or use by date infractions, the joints remained as assembled.


I think this is the case. Some processes just need to be very closely monitored precisely because Boeing was over-cautious about the tolerances on their first carbon fibre plane. This is not exclusive to Boeing either. Airbus has only delivered 3 A35K's since Jan 1, and the most recent was in June. This is the supposed template for a cargo model now as well, but there is no announcement of a quality pause etc. We've heard for years how many future A35K orders would be coming/conversions but it has only around 150 total orders, and under 60 deliveries (excluding Iran Air).

The woe-is-Boeing comments here sometimes are just cheerleading when we don't really know the issues of a particular engineering/QC challenge. There's no real rush to resume widebody deliveries quickly, imho, from the customers or Boeing/Airbus alike.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3593
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:49 pm

StTim wrote:
kalvado wrote:
StTim wrote:
Did I? I see that Kanban wrote that in response to a message by you.

Originally you attributed the quote to me. Looks like it was fixed fairly fast
Or maybe everyone can mess up- even those who criticize Boeing



Sorry I have not touched my original post. I did removed the quote from you to just pick up the last paragraph. I do not know if Anet kept that original quote in flagging it as you being quoted. This site certainly does some odd things.

Lets just assume one of us did an honest mistake - and lets assume Boeing did some of those as well.
Happens even with the best of us (and I am not one of the best anyway!)
 
StTim
Posts: 3925
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:21 pm

kalvado wrote:
StTim wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Originally you attributed the quote to me. Looks like it was fixed fairly fast
Or maybe everyone can mess up- even those who criticize Boeing



Sorry I have not touched my original post. I did removed the quote from you to just pick up the last paragraph. I do not know if Anet kept that original quote in flagging it as you being quoted. This site certainly does some odd things.

Lets just assume one of us did an honest mistake - and lets assume Boeing did some of those as well.
Happens even with the best of us (and I am not one of the best anyway!)

:thumbsup:
 
sxf24
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:43 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the share value, executive bonusses, free cash flow driven corporate culture needs a reboot. Reward the executive team for operational integrity, long term profitability and portfolio strenght. Adding value to US society. The current climate rewards cutting corners, avoiding investment, being overly optimistic and endorses financial mystification.

Personally I find it very dissapointing to see new bad news surfacing every few weeks on almost all programs. The industry is craving for some ositive news on Boeing. Not least the hard working employees.

Big question is who but government could reset Boeing, nobody seems independent.. Hopefully Boeing won't have to be totally on its knees before a reboot becomes possible.


I think Boeing is in the process of resetting itself. The pause in 787 deliveries started with a search for quality issues and self reporting to the FAA.

At the end of the day, Boeing and any other company have to generate cash or they’ll cease to exist. All the other financial discussion is noise.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:57 pm

sxf24 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the share value, executive bonusses, free cash flow driven corporate culture needs a reboot. Reward the executive team for operational integrity, long term profitability and portfolio strenght. Adding value to US society. The current climate rewards cutting corners, avoiding investment, being overly optimistic and endorses financial mystification.

Personally I find it very dissapointing to see new bad news surfacing every few weeks on almost all programs. The industry is craving for some ositive news on Boeing. Not least the hard working employees.

Big question is who but government could reset Boeing, nobody seems independent.. Hopefully Boeing won't have to be totally on its knees before a reboot becomes possible.


I think Boeing is in the process of resetting itself. The pause in 787 deliveries started with a search for quality issues and self reporting to the FAA.

At the end of the day, Boeing and any other company have to generate cash or they’ll cease to exist. All the other financial discussion is noise.


Boeing was generating cash, buying back stock, paying dividents while draining the company and building up it's $62B debt, shortcutting certification.

And everybody refused to see. Cheering, ignoring noise.. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/11/ ... irbus.aspx.

At the end of the day, chickens have come home to roost.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:00 pm

There seems to be an issue with aft passenger and cargo doors. I had not seen anything as specific quoted previously.

"Boeing confirms it is completing rework to structures surrounding aft passenger and cargo doors on some in-production 787s, a move that involves holding up some areas of 787 assembly"

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... -231121-JM
 
sxf24
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:13 pm

keesje wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the share value, executive bonusses, free cash flow driven corporate culture needs a reboot. Reward the executive team for operational integrity, long term profitability and portfolio strenght. Adding value to US society. The current climate rewards cutting corners, avoiding investment, being overly optimistic and endorses financial mystification.

Personally I find it very dissapointing to see new bad news surfacing every few weeks on almost all programs. The industry is craving for some ositive news on Boeing. Not least the hard working employees.

Big question is who but government could reset Boeing, nobody seems independent.. Hopefully Boeing won't have to be totally on its knees before a reboot becomes possible.


I think Boeing is in the process of resetting itself. The pause in 787 deliveries started with a search for quality issues and self reporting to the FAA.

At the end of the day, Boeing and any other company have to generate cash or they’ll cease to exist. All the other financial discussion is noise.


Boeing was generating cash, buying back stock, paying dividents while draining the company and building up it's $62B debt, shortcutting certification.

And everybody refused to see. Cheering, ignoring noise.. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/11/ ... irbus.aspx.

At the end of the day, chickens have come home to roost.


You’re confusing two different periods of time with very different financial performance. There’s nothing wrong with distributing some cash to owners during good times. While it’s fair to discuss what share of cash flow is appropriate, that’s not relevant to this discussion nor within the competence of those participating. The debt Boeing raised came after the MAX grounding and during COVID when performance went south.

It’s fun to kick someone who is down. Perhaps it’s better to be a fly on the wall and let those without an agenda continue the discussion.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 938
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:08 pm

"Man, how I pine for the days of the Seattle-produced 737NGs, 757s, 767s, and 77E/77Ws."

I pine for the days when Boeing built airplanes. Not like it is now when they seem to be assembling kits.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos