One should not assume that the affected parts were sent to Boeing directly. They are probably buried in assemblies or fuselage sections. If they were installed by Leonardo, they would be buried by the time the section arrived at the FAL. That said the problem may have been found via another route... warranty claims. When Boeing honors a claim against a critical part (and being titanium it would qualify), they request the airline or service center return the bad part. QA and Engineering would discover the material error and immediately freeze all parts from the manufacturing supplier. Of the multitude of parts from MPS, only one probably triggered the alert.

I would hold Leonardo responsible for verifying MPS's materials testing. Unfortunately this is a weak spot in JIT production even though it is eventually caught.

Boeing Co. BA -1.96% is dealing with a new defect on its 787 Dreamliner, the latest in a series of production slip-ups that have delayed aircraft deliveries and drawn increased U.S. government scrutiny.

The new problem involves certain titanium parts that are weaker than they should be on 787s built over the past three years, people familiar with the matter said. The discovery is among other Dreamliner snafus that have left Boeing stuck with more than $25 billion of the jets in its inventory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-deals-with-new-dreamliner-defect-amid-production-problems-11634209201

Another quality issue has hit the Boeing 787. This time, it isn’t composites that are questioned but the structural integrity of certain titanium parts that are used inside the cabin. AirInsight learns that Boeing has been dealing with the issue for at least seven months, but the problems were reported only today by Wall Street Journal and Reuters. Boeing knew of latest 787 issue since March.

https://airinsight.com/boeing-knew-of-latest-787-issue-since-march/

Work continues.

How extensively are titanium parts used inside the cabin?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing Co. BA -1.96% is dealing with a new defect on its 787 Dreamliner, the latest in a series of production slip-ups that have delayed aircraft deliveries and drawn increased U.S. government scrutiny.

The new problem involves certain titanium parts that are weaker than they should be on 787s built over the past three years, people familiar with the matter said. The discovery is among other Dreamliner snafus that have left Boeing stuck with more than $25 billion of the jets in its inventory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-deals-with-new-dreamliner-defect-amid-production-problems-11634209201

Another quality issue has hit the Boeing 787. This time, it isn’t composites that are questioned but the structural integrity of certain titanium parts that are used inside the cabin. AirInsight learns that Boeing has been dealing with the issue for at least seven months, but the problems were reported only today by Wall Street Journal and Reuters. Boeing knew of latest 787 issue since March.

https://airinsight.com/boeing-knew-of-latest-787-issue-since-march/

Work continues.

After the razzle, razzle, we learn it is not a safety of flight and will be fixed via an AD.

Stitch wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Something is very strange here. 3 years ago something in the process must have changed. If the parts before were ok, either manufacturing changed and it was deemed ok from above (Boeing) that the parts were weaker then they should without informing regulators. Or the manufacturer never informed Boeing and actually just delivered faulty parts what would be a criminal act. It still would be concerning though that it took Boeing 3 years to figure that out. Or the third option is neither the manufacturer nor Boeing realised that the parts were not up to standards what is also really concerning.

1) I would like to believe Boeing would not approve a specification change they knew would not meet criteria since that would open the company to possible civil and criminal liability if a failure led to a hull loss or a regulator later discovered the change and the intentional obfuscation thereof.

2) MPS is said to be "under scrutiny by (Italian) prosecutors" so if there is malfeasance, it could be on MPS' part and if they were the ones charged with doing QA, they could have indeed intentionally kept it hidden from Leonardo and Boeing. And if MPS did make an unapproved change three years ago and did hide that change, then it is possible this investigation by Italian prosecutors is what brought it to light and why three years worth of now suspect parts made it through the supply chain into airframes.

3) Leonardo stated MPS no longer supplies these parts so I would like to know if parts supplied by this new vendor to Leonardo are meeting specification. If they are, this further reinforces the possibility that MPS was the one who made a change and then hid it.

It seems option 2) is the most likely. This of course could become a Takata 2.0. If MPS acted with criminal intention (though even if they didn‘t and just neglected QA) they would be fully liable for the costs to bring the 787 to specs. Chances are very big that they could not afford that and would go bankrupt if the costs would be put on them. That would leave the costs with Leonardo and Boeing. Leonardo as a Tier 1 supplier (that can not be replaced withing weeks) is some kind of to big to fail though. Pressing the liability and costs on Leonardo would just kill a supplier that would bring the supply chain down and therefore would take Boeing down too so in the end the financial damage will be on Boeings shoulder even though they seem not to be the cause of the problem at all.

Only in America where we see every solution becoming a court case. As far as Boeing is concerned the problem has been identified, the cause has been identified. Now the correction is in work. The correction involves reviewing the material tests provided to MPS, the tests and quality process at Leonardo, the capture and location of the discrepant parts and replacing them. Boeing will provide Service Bulletins covering any parts installed on delivered airplanes and pay the airlines labor to replace them. They will correct all the undelivered aircraft and that will be that. No legal battles with partners or seeking restitution from second tier suppliers. They will fix the issue with the FAA's oversight, and move on. If the Italian government wants to jump in, so be it that's their issue, but Boeing have moved on.

CX747 wrote:

After the razzle, razzle, we learn it is not a safety of flight and will be fixed via an AD.

The previous woes that halted production were not directly related to safety of flight either, otherwise there would have been more groundings. They're still extremely bothersome for Boeing and its customers.

This is yet another disruption, and the fact that it will be fixed by an AD doesn't tell us how much work is involved, what the price of performing the AD will be and who will bear it, how long the affected frames will have to be grounded for and who will compensate the operators for that downtime...

AD's come in different flavors, from a simple visual check that can be performed in a few minutes between two flights to a major structural rework that can ground a plane for several days... This particular AD would likely be closer to the latter, and that's further bad news that Boeing and 787 operators did not need right now.

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

kanban wrote:

Only in America where we see every solution becoming a court case. As far as Boeing is concerned the problem has been identified, the cause has been identified. Now the correction is in work. The correction involves reviewing the material tests provided to MPS, the tests and quality process at Leonardo, the capture and location of the discrepant parts and replacing them. Boeing will provide Service Bulletins covering any parts installed on delivered airplanes and pay the airlines labor to replace them. They will correct all the undelivered aircraft and that will be that. No legal battles with partners or seeking restitution from second tier suppliers. They will fix the issue with the FAA's oversight, and move on. If the Italian government wants to jump in, so be it that's their issue, but Boeing have moved on.

Can Boeing really just do that? As far as I remember Boeing has financial responsibilities towards its shareholders so if the expenditure for the replacement parts and labor as well as the costs due to delivery delays become to big, Boeing has to officially justify why they do not try to get at least a partial recuperation of the costs from the liable parties.

Stitch wrote:

Be interesting to know where the QA chain lies with these parts. While it is de rigueur to blame the final OEM for all issues, if Leonardo SpA or MPS were charged with handling the QA, then it's not really fair, IMO, to call out this as "another Boeing mistake" if they were delegating QA to a sub-tier supplier.

I think I have to disagree with that, to a degree...
As an executive level Manufacturing Engineer, working in a "final assembly OEM", I'm pretty clear that it is our QA (and ME) functions responsibility to ensure that Suppliers, and sub-tier suppliers QA is up to scratch.
Through APQP processes, there is a requirement on the "final assembly OEM" to ensure that the suppliers QA is properly qualified.
There should be sufficient definition of the condition of supply in the contract, and enough "first article" work done, to ensure the requirements are both sufficiently defined and met.

Obviously if something changes in a supplier and this leads to a fault, and the change isn't communicated to Boeing, then Boeing aren't at fault.
But do we know that this is what happened, or are we just linebacking?

One thing's for sure - it's up to Boeing to ensure that it gets fixed

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Be interesting to know where the QA chain lies with these parts. While it is de rigueur to blame the final OEM for all issues, if Leonardo SpA or MPS were charged with handling the QA, then it's not really fair, IMO, to call out this as "another Boeing mistake" if they were delegating QA to a sub-tier supplier.

I think I have to disagree with that, to a degree...
As an executive level Manufacturing Engineer, working in a "final assembly OEM", I'm pretty clear that it is our QA (and ME) functions responsibility to ensure that Suppliers, and sub-tier suppliers QA is up to scratch.
Through APQP processes, there is a requirement on the "final assembly OEM" to ensure that the suppliers QA is properly qualified.
There should be sufficient definition of the condition of supply in the contract, and enough "first article" work done, to ensure the requirements are both sufficiently defined and met.

Obviously if something changes in a supplier and this leads to a fault, and the change isn't communicated to Boeing, then Boeing aren't at fault.
But do we know that this is what happened, or are we just linebacking?

One thing's for sure - it's up to Boeing to ensure that it gets fixed

Rgds

Boeing delegates the function you describe to the Purchasing Dept. In turn the Purchasing dept. has a QA team that can draw from all the needed disciplines. They also place these QA teams at partners bases and routinely visit second tier suppliers. but mostly they are a process audit function and come intp p;ay when something is noticed..

kanban wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Be interesting to know where the QA chain lies with these parts. While it is de rigueur to blame the final OEM for all issues, if Leonardo SpA or MPS were charged with handling the QA, then it's not really fair, IMO, to call out this as "another Boeing mistake" if they were delegating QA to a sub-tier supplier.

I think I have to disagree with that, to a degree...
As an executive level Manufacturing Engineer, working in a "final assembly OEM", I'm pretty clear that it is our QA (and ME) functions responsibility to ensure that Suppliers, and sub-tier suppliers QA is up to scratch.
Through APQP processes, there is a requirement on the "final assembly OEM" to ensure that the suppliers QA is properly qualified.
There should be sufficient definition of the condition of supply in the contract, and enough "first article" work done, to ensure the requirements are both sufficiently defined and met.

Obviously if something changes in a supplier and this leads to a fault, and the change isn't communicated to Boeing, then Boeing aren't at fault.
But do we know that this is what happened, or are we just linebacking?

One thing's for sure - it's up to Boeing to ensure that it gets fixed

Rgds

Boeing delegates the function you describe to the Purchasing Dept. In turn the Purchasing dept. has a QA team that can draw from all the needed disciplines. They also place these QA teams at partners bases and routinely visit second tier suppliers. but mostly they are a process audit function and come intp p;ay when something is noticed..

Won't argue.
The process I described is typical of a new programme in start-up - a phase I am engaged in now.
When mature, I would expect it to be part of the purchasing activity.

Rgds

It seems that Airbus may have the same problem with MPS/Leonardo. Per Reuters...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus-s ... 22854.html

Airbus is in talks with Italy's Leonardo to assess any impact from problems at one of its suppiers, Brindisi-based MPS, which has been linked to flawed components on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, the European planemaker said.

it's up to Boeing to ensure that it gets fixed

Presuming the parts are somewhere that can be fixed without disassembling the whole airplane. "spacers and clips" sound suspiciously like areas where there are composite to metal transitions.
I wonder how many of these actually require replacement for safety.

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

marcelh wrote:

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Stitch wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

marcelh wrote:

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Leonardo is also 50% of ATR. Let’s not act like they are some cheap questionable low tier supplier to outsource work too.

BEG2IAH wrote:

It seems that Airbus may have the same problem with MPS/Leonardo. Per Reuters...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus-s ... 22854.html

Airbus is in talks with Italy's Leonardo to assess any impact from problems at one of its suppiers, Brindisi-based MPS, which has been linked to flawed components on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, the European planemaker said.

Looks like Boeing helped Airbus do their homework.

marcelh wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

I don’t think optimization has anything to do with current issues. A supplier that made fraudulent parts for multiple OEMs certainly is.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

It seems that Airbus may have the same problem with MPS/Leonardo. Per Reuters...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus-s ... 22854.html

Airbus is in talks with Italy's Leonardo to assess any impact from problems at one of its suppiers, Brindisi-based MPS, which has been linked to flawed components on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, the European planemaker said.

Looks like Boeing helped Airbus do their homework.

Negative.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

Stitch wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

marcelh wrote:

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Untrue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

majano wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

marcelh wrote:

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Untrue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

None of what he said is untrue. Leonardo is supplier for Airbus (true) and Airbus no doubt assessed if they were impacted (do you think the press are the only ones who asked Leonardo if MPS titanium was being supplied to Airbus?). Stitch never said Airbus was impacted.

majano wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This one seems to be another episode from the botched outsourcing/subcontracting saga that has plagued the 787 from the start.

marcelh wrote:

And another example of trying to make a plane as cheap as possible. Some people over here have propagated the cost “optimizing” of the B787 production line as “superior” compared to the A330neo and A350.

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Untrue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

MPS was previously disclosed as an Airbus direct supplier.

Polot wrote:

majano wrote:

Stitch wrote:

For the record, Leonardo is also a supplier of titanium parts to Airbus and Airbus is instituting their own review of said parts to ensure they are not impacted and if they are, they can remediate the issue. So I guess we should also castigate Airbus for "doing it on the cheap"?

We're discussing this issue in the 787 Production thread at viewtopic.php?p=22997271 for the moment, as well.

Untrue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

None of what he said is untrue. Leonardo is supplier for Airbus (true) and Airbus no doubt assessed if they were impacted (do you think the press are the only ones who asked Leonardo if MPS titanium was being supplied to Airbus?). Stitch never said Airbus was impacted.

I don't want to get into any unnecessary arguments. I just provided a sourced fact. User Stitch referred to castigating Airbus.

majano wrote:

Polot wrote:

majano wrote:

Untrue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

None of what he said is untrue. Leonardo is supplier for Airbus (true) and Airbus no doubt assessed if they were impacted (do you think the press are the only ones who asked Leonardo if MPS titanium was being supplied to Airbus?). Stitch never said Airbus was impacted.

I don't want to get into any unnecessary arguments. I just provided a sourced fact. User Stitch referred to castigating Airbus.

Stitch is basically saying what Reuters reported at that time, nothing wrong with that. You are just picking arguments up with updated news which Stitch didn't have when he posted.

This just shows the extent of outsourcing within the industry that both Boeing and Airbus didn't know about potential issues at MPS until recently. Boeing raised the issue, and Airbus had to investigate themselves, Airbus didn't know first hand whether they were affected or not. In some ways luck worked in Airbus's favour, it could had been them if Leonardo used MPS in Airbus's parts.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

majano wrote:

Polot wrote:

None of what he said is untrue. Leonardo is supplier for Airbus (true) and Airbus no doubt assessed if they were impacted (do you think the press are the only ones who asked Leonardo if MPS titanium was being supplied to Airbus?). Stitch never said Airbus was impacted.

I don't want to get into any unnecessary arguments. I just provided a sourced fact. User Stitch referred to castigating Airbus.

Stitch is basically saying what Reuters reported at that time, nothing wrong with that. This just shows the extent of outsourcing within the industry that both Boeing and Airbus didn't know about potential issues at MPS until recently. Boeing raised the issue, and Airbus had to investigate themselves, Airbus didn't know first hand whether they were affected or not. In some ways luck worked in Airbus's favour, it could had been them if Leonardo used MPS in Airbus's parts.

Even now the work is not done. Boeing, Airbus, and regulators are also no doubt working to see if faulty MPS parts were received and used directly (if MPS is direct supplier) or via another supplier.

majano wrote:

User Stitch referred to castigating Airbus.

For the record, the addition of the sarcasm emote at the end of my message meant I was not serious.

Also for the record, I found marcelh's comment to just be taking a cheap shot at Boeing and they likely did not know that Airbus used the same supplier and therefore they were opening up Airbus for the same cheap shot.

So, IMO, rather than using the news as a chance to take a shot at an OEM one might not like/prefer, one might take the time to check to be sure their own liked/preferred OEM is not open to someone else taking a cheap shot at them for the same news.

Anyway, let us move on and save the moderators the need to go back and clean all this up, shall we?

Stitch wrote:

majano wrote:

User Stitch referred to castigating Airbus.

For the record, the addition of the sarcasm emote at the end of my message meant I was not serious.

Also for the record, I found marcelh's comment to just be taking a cheap shot at Boeing and they likely did not know that Airbus used the same supplier and therefore they were opening up Airbus for the same cheap shot.

So, IMO, rather than using the news as a chance to take a shot at an OEM one might not like/prefer, one might take the time to check to be sure their own liked/preferred OEM is not open to someone else taking a cheap shot at them for the same news.

Anyway, let us move on and save the moderators the need to go back and clean all this up, shall we?

100%.

majano wrote:

Negative.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

Sorry I almost destroyed your weekend. The article was corrected in the meantime:
(This story was corrected to clarify that Leonardo did not use components supplied by MPS for Airbus programmes)

Here's what we heard from Airbus this morning:
"MPS is a supplier to Leonardo, a tier one supplier to Airbus," an Airbus spokesman said on Friday.
"We are in talks with Leonardo to assess any potential impact to Airbus following the discovery of quality issues related to titanium component parts on the 787 programme. Leonardo designs and produces small aerostructure sections for Airbus, mainly in traditional alloys."

Here's what we heard from Leonardo 25 mins later:
Italy's Leonardo (LDOF.MI) said its former sub-contractor Manufacturing Processes Specification (MPS) (LDOF.MI) did not provide it with components for Airbus' (AIR.PA) programmes.

The "correction" came from Leonardo, not from Airbus, so I will wait to hear from Airbus.

At least I'm glad that the announcement originated from Boeing and they were not caught by someone else. It's hard to swallow at least a glimmer of hope that things may be improving a tiny little bit at Boeing.

Have a good weekend.

Just for housekeeping, Reuters did subsequently update their article to note that MPS did not supply Leonardo with similar parts after first reporting that they did. And Airbus also evidently released a statement noting: "MPS is a supplier to Leonardo, a tier one supplier to Airbus. We are in talks with Leonardo to assess any potential impact to Airbus following the discovery of quality issues related to titanium component parts on the 787 programme. Leonardo designs and produces small aerostructure sections for Airbus, mainly in traditional alloys."

But with Leonardo informing Reuters that MPS parts were not being shipped to Airbus, it looks like Airbus will likely not be impacted.

Stitch wrote:

Just for housekeeping, Reuters did subsequently update their article to note that MPS did not supply Leonardo with similar parts after first reporting that they did. And Airbus also evidently released a statement noting: "MPS is a supplier to Leonardo, a tier one supplier to Airbus. We are in talks with Leonardo to assess any potential impact to Airbus following the discovery of quality issues related to titanium component parts on the 787 programme. Leonardo designs and produces small aerostructure sections for Airbus, mainly in traditional alloys."

But with Leonardo informing Reuters that MPS parts were not being shipped to Airbus, it looks like Airbus will likely not be impacted.

MPs supplies other OEMs and tier 1s besides Leonardo. The Airbus statement is worded very carefully.

Also perhaps, just perhaps, Airbus' Quality procedures are more rigorous than those in the Boeing supply chain.

Just a thought given recent incidents.

StTim wrote:

Also perhaps, just perhaps, Airbus' Quality procedures are more rigorous than those in the Boeing supply chain.

Just a thought given recent incidents.

The articles suggests that Airbus didn't know at the first instance whether they were affected and they had to investigate by checking with Leonardo before finally confirming they were not affected. Sounds like it was an issue that Airbus would had missed if they hadn't checked with Leonardo. In this case, it was Boeing's QA which found and raised the issue. We still don't know and would likely not know whether MPS has dealings with any other contractors in Airbus supply chain.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

StTim wrote:

Also perhaps, just perhaps, Airbus' Quality procedures are more rigorous than those in the Boeing supply chain.

Just a thought given recent incidents.

The articles suggests that Airbus didn't know at the first instance whether they were affected and they had to investigate by checking with Leonardo before finally confirming they were not affected. Sounds like it was an issue that Airbus would had missed if they hadn't checked with Leonardo. In this case, it was Boeing's QA which found and raised the issue. We still don't know and would likely not know whether MPS has dealings with any other contractors in Airbus supply chain.

I see it as prudence from Airbus to look into the issue thoroughly in the interest of the safety of its products even if they were confident about their quality assurance procedures. It is worth noting that this was found and raised by Boeing QA as you said, but after the affected parts were used for three years.

BEG2IAH wrote:

majano wrote:

Negative.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-10-15/

Sorry I almost destroyed your weekend. The article was corrected in the meantime:
(This story was corrected to clarify that Leonardo did not use components supplied by MPS for Airbus programmes)

Here's what we heard from Airbus this morning:
"MPS is a supplier to Leonardo, a tier one supplier to Airbus," an Airbus spokesman said on Friday.
"We are in talks with Leonardo to assess any potential impact to Airbus following the discovery of quality issues related to titanium component parts on the 787 programme. Leonardo designs and produces small aerostructure sections for Airbus, mainly in traditional alloys."

Here's what we heard from Leonardo 25 mins later:
Italy's Leonardo (LDOF.MI) said its former sub-contractor Manufacturing Processes Specification (MPS) (LDOF.MI) did not provide it with components for Airbus' (AIR.PA) programmes.

The "correction" came from Leonardo, not from Airbus, so I will wait to hear from Airbus.

At least I'm glad that the announcement originated from Boeing and they were not caught by someone else. It's hard to swallow at least a glimmer of hope that things may be improving a tiny little bit at Boeing.

Have a good weekend.

Other than the first part of your response, I agree. Not much could spoil my weekend, especially matters occurring in overseas territories many thousands of miles (nautical and otherwise) away. The sounds and smell of the bush are too intoxicating for that. Have a great weekend too!

As this thread is about Boeing 787 issues feel free to start a dedicated thread in case you want to further discussif Airbus is affected or not. Thanks.

It be interesting to know if the affected parts are built in fix or can be replaced indepent from the parts they are in. Is it like an airbag where you have to replace the whole part even if only the charge is faulty or more like a doorhandle where you can replace the part directly.

This will determine the scope and costs of the fix. This is especially interesting for the parts related to the floor beams.

Also accessibility will be an interesting point. How much of the cabin (if any) will have to be stripped to replace the parts.

FluidFlow wrote:

It be interesting to know if the affected parts are built in fix or can be replaced indepent from the parts they are in. Is it like an airbag where you have to replace the whole part even if only the charge is faulty or more like a doorhandle where you can replace the part directly.

This will determine the scope and costs of the fix. This is especially interesting for the parts related to the floor beams.

Also accessibility will be an interesting point. How much of the cabin (if any) will have to be stripped to replace the parts.

It's too early to say whether all or only some of the parts will be replaced. There is a need to assess each assembly/installation individually. We're not sure what the material differences are between the designed material and the substituted material. sometimes the engineering uses a common material spec because it's available, or is already in use in the system and may in fact be over engineered for the application.

More 787 news has reached the US Financial Press. Boeing Dreamliner defects bog down production. Sounds like the latest issue is structure around the doors. For details see Wall Street Journal today (behind Firewall I believe):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-dre ... _lead_pos7

https://m.arcamax.com/business/business ... 2598281?fs

non paywall

So any proposed way to fix the carbon composites of 1000s of 787s? Some band aid?

https://m.arcamax.com/business/business ... 2598281?fs

So basically the whole plane has issues that leads to premature aging.

I wonder if this will ever end at this point.

Duke91 wrote:

https://m.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-2598281?fs

So basically the whole plane has issues that leads to premature aging.

Not to steal your thunder, but this is a link to the original Seattle Times article. The other site was demanding I turn off add blocker and subscribe etc.

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.

That is a truly terrible testament of the manufacturing failure of Boeing and its suppliers.

Hopefully deliveries can still be done by sometime in May or June 2022.

Daysleeper wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

https://m.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-2598281?fs

So basically the whole plane has issues that leads to premature aging.

Not to steal your thunder, but this is a link to the original Seattle Times article. The other site was demanding I turn off add blocker and subscribe etc.

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.

There’s some nuance missing in the quite sensational Seattle Times article. My understanding is that there are two groups of issues: conformity with design and supplier non-conformance. The issues with gaps and shimming is because assembly did not match design, which basically included zero tolerances. Boeing engineers, failing to recognize it is impossible to build a perfect airplane, designed and certified a perfect airplane. The FAA is now requiring Boeing prove through testing and analysis why certain levels of non-compliance is not a safety of flight issue.

Supplier non-conformance is a regular and on-going issue throughout the industry. Part of QA is on-going reviews and this is where deviations in materials, process, or records can be found. Typically this is analyzed and dispositioned prior to delivery (or at next maintenance visit for delivered airplanes). Again, this is normal and something dealt with by all OEMs and all programs. When a supplier commits fraud, like MPS, it can be a lot of work to determine what airplanes are impacted and how to proceed.

Drawing conclusions about the on-going status of FAA-Boeing discussions from a Seattle Times article is dangerous. I’ve talked to former FAA employees in Seattle and Dominic Gates regularly offers consideration for unauthorized document dumps. Regulators and OEMs talk daily and getting disgruntled employees to provide some letters is not indicative of current status. I would put a lot more weight on articles from Reuters or the WSJ where employees are not incentivized based on clicks.

Duke91 wrote:

https://m.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-2598281?fs

non paywall

So any proposed way to fix the carbon composites of 1000s of 787s? Some band aid?

"The use of PTFE, which left a residue after removal, did not comply with Boeing’s manufacturing specifications.

Initial tests conducted by Boeing and reported to the FAA in April showed a positive outcome: although the bond strength was reduced, it was still within the design limits.

However, the memo includes a new update from late last month, in which Boeing told the FAA that the same contamination has now been found at other major suppliers and affects not only the wing but also the fuselage and tail.

In addition, further tests of small pieces of the composites now indicated that the strength of the contaminated material in some cases was below the allowed design limits."

Well that's cool... very reassuring to know that the 787 you're flying on could fall apart at the wings, fuselage or tail at any second because the bits weren't glued together right : "below the allowed design limits".

Like the endlessly broken Max, the 787 program needs scrapping and all planes taken out of service and scrapped too. What a failure of a company.

Since the defect is on the wings and tail and its potential to pose a flight risk at a yet unknown timeframe or number of cycles could it be economically feasible to replace the affected wing and tail structures of in-service aircraft?

jeffrey0032j wrote:

The articles suggests that Airbus didn't know at the first instance whether they were affected and they had to investigate by checking with Leonardo before finally confirming they were not affected. Sounds like it was an issue that Airbus would had missed if they hadn't checked with Leonardo. In this case, it was Boeing's QA which found and raised the issue. We still don't know and would likely not know whether MPS has dealings with any other contractors in Airbus supply chain.

The issue that is hitting the 787 is basically due to the construction technique. It’s how the barrel is attached to the frames which is the issue. Airbus does not use the similar manufacturing techniques except in the A350 section 19 which is an unpressurised section in the tail. http://www.escm.eu.org/eccm16/assets/1161.pdf

sxf24 wrote:

The issues with gaps and shimming is because assembly did not match design, which basically included zero tolerances.

No idea who told you that the 787 has zero tolerances, that is false. Shims have been a standard part of airliner manufacturing for decades, they would feature on every type Boeing builds.

sxf24 wrote:

Again, this is normal and something dealt with by all OEMs and all programs.

There is nothing normal about what is going on here, and trying to drag other programs into it as a way to justify this is unfair and being done without evidence.

LHAM wrote:

Since the defect is on the wings and tail and its potential to pose a flight risk at a yet unknown timeframe or number of cycles could it be economically feasible to replace the affected wing and tail structures of in-service aircraft?

The wing and tail are made up of many different parts. If you the impacted parts fail analysis and/or testing, they’d be replaced. Since this has been going on since April and no airplanes have been grounded, it seems unlikely that Boeing or the FAA sees significant flight risk.

RobK wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

https://m.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-2598281?fs

non paywall

So any proposed way to fix the carbon composites of 1000s of 787s? Some band aid?

"The use of PTFE, which left a residue after removal, did not comply with Boeing’s manufacturing specifications.

Initial tests conducted by Boeing and reported to the FAA in April showed a positive outcome: although the bond strength was reduced, it was still within the design limits.

However, the memo includes a new update from late last month, in which Boeing told the FAA that the same contamination has now been found at other major suppliers and affects not only the wing but also the fuselage and tail.

In addition, further tests of small pieces of the composites now indicated that the strength of the contaminated material in some cases was below the allowed design limits."

Well that's cool... very reassuring to know that the 787 you're flying on could fall apart at the wings, fuselage or tail at any second because the bits weren't glued together right : "below the allowed design limits".

Like the endlessly broken Max, the 787 program needs scrapping and all planes taken out of service and scrapped too. What a failure of a company.

That seems a bit extreme. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the MAX issues been remedied? So they aren't really endlessly broken.

No flight risk? No ground for grounding? I've heard this before somewhere.

Even then, there is likely faster degradation, which should push the prices of those 787s