Avatar2go wrote:

I think it's probably both. Better quality control processes in place at Boeing, as well as being pushed out to the suppliers. And the fact that any negative news about Boeing, is headline news.

This problem appears to be fairly minor, a two week delay for rework before delivery.

Do they know it will be two weeks or are they hopeful it will only be 2 weeks per aircraft to repair?

Boeing finds another quality problem on 787, delaying deliveries again

With this new defect on the 787 horizontal tail, Boeing has not yet clarified exactly what it is that the fitting attaches to.

Boeing said that while its engineering team is still finalizing the repair plan, it expects that completing the rework could take a couple of weeks per airplane.

I guess they are confident it will not be longer than 2 weeks if they are reporting this as the repair time, but not sure we can say for certain it will only be 2 weeks at the moment if they are still working on a repair plan. Expects seems to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting here in the story.

I think you guys are selling the issues here a little short. The reason why it is headline news is because it is another delay on the 787 while it is still recovering from a previous delay. It is not because publications do not care about the other OEM's or don't report on delays that are apparently happening all the time, it is because delays and stoppages like these are so rare for OEM's that when they do happen it is big news. The fact that you have had 2 in such a short space of time shows how much the company has allowed QA to slip. Let's hope the ship has been put on the right direction and these are the backend of the problems that was allowed to fester in the company and not a pattern of things to come for not just the 787 but other programs as well when they apply more rigorous QA to their products.

Avgeek21 wrote:

by738 wrote:

that dark RIA livery will take a lot of cooling on a Saudi apron…

And? APU bleed ON and let it cool down. Alternatively use external aircon during nights or winter time. I don’t see the issue.

$$$ and excess CO2

CHS is a problem for Boeing.....PAE is a solution again

pabloeing wrote:

CHS is a problem for Boeing.....PAE is a solution again

This latest defect has nothing to do with CHS or PAE, but SLC. Frankly, I think the 'CHS is to blame' boat has sailed for quite some time.

pabloeing wrote:

CHS is a problem for Boeing.....PAE is a solution again

What’s the problem and how are they the solution?

enzo011 wrote:

I guess they are confident it will not be longer than 2 weeks if they are reporting this as the repair time, but not sure we can say for certain it will only be 2 weeks at the moment if they are still working on a repair plan.

If it is similar to the shimming issue on the 787-8's horizontal stabilizer from a decade ago, Boeing can probably leverage the same inspection, identification and remediation processes used then which would help speed up the process now.

Over .005" , about 125 microns, about the width of a human hair. That's the tolerance gap Boeing requirs when attaching things. So if they were 20% off on this max deviation target, or .006, then that .001 would represent less than a 1/4 the width of a human hair... If it's double the error, then the gap the attachment fittings are causing exceeds the tolerance by the width of a human hair. That's the deviation causing 90+ planes to be reworked. Incredible how tight things need to be when flying at 650mph. Plane building, not for the faint of heart.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Over .005" , about 125 microns, about the width of a human hair. That's the tolerance gap Boeing requirs when attaching things. So if they were 20% off on this max deviation target, or .006, then that .001 would represent less than a 1/4 the width of a human hair... If it's double the error, then the gap the attachment fittings are causing exceeds the tolerance by the width of a human hair. That's the deviation causing 90+ planes to be reworked. Incredible how tight things need to be when flying at 650mph. Plane building, not for the faint of heart.

Yes, it has to do with the fatigue life of joins when working with non-ductile materials. Aluminum has some ability to conform over time and distribute point stresses, composites do not. So a composite join has to distribute the stress correctly from initial manufacture, if it is to meet the fatigue life metrics.

Could this also be the reason why the delivery of LN1118 for KL was postponed?

pabloeing wrote:

CHS is a problem for Boeing.....PAE is a solution again

it's 2023. A lot of things have changed

pabloeing wrote:

CHS is a problem for Boeing.....PAE is a solution again

I thought the problem was at a different factory that produces the part in Utah?

Rifitto wrote:

by738 wrote:

that dark RIA livery will take a lot of cooling on a Saudi apron…

Royal Jordanian livery is even darker , they don't seem to have any issue with the extreme heat

I’m glad this was brought up having just flown to AMM on a RJ E195 & A320.

Their aircraft including B787’s paint was flaking & faded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, does this mean that aircraft that aircraft that completed rework 3 days ago or earlier and then joined the flightline waiting for their test flights also now have to be checked for the horizontal stabilizer issue? Or, is it only for pre Ln 1127 aircraft for which rework has yet to commence?

edealinfo wrote:

So, does this mean that aircraft that aircraft that completed rework 3 days ago or earlier and then joined the flightline waiting for their test flights also now have to be checked for the horizontal stabilizer issue? Or, is it only for pre Ln 1127 aircraft for which rework has yet to commence?

And if we let the imagination run free a bit...what if this concerns a plethora of already delivered 787s that now needs to be reworked...then Boeing has a real nightmare ahead of them.
But Boeing so far is very quiet so who knows?

RobbiDee wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

So, does this mean that aircraft that aircraft that completed rework 3 days ago or earlier and then joined the flightline waiting for their test flights also now have to be checked for the horizontal stabilizer issue? Or, is it only for pre Ln 1127 aircraft for which rework has yet to commence?

And if we let the imagination run free a bit...what if this concerns a plethora of already delivered 787s that now needs to be reworked...then Boeing has a real nightmare ahead of them.
But Boeing so far is very quiet so who knows?

The likely outcome of this will be as before, where very small gaps at assembly are involved. Remediate those aircraft in inventory, so they meet the certification spec on delivery, as all aircraft must do, to receive their certificate.

For that case, this issue introduces a delay of a few weeks in an overall process that can take a few months. Boeing will work that into the prep schedule, as they have before.

And since there is no issue of safety involved, inspect & address any affected aircraft in the fleet at major maintenance checks, in coordination with the customer.

Avatar2go wrote:

And since there is no issue of safety involved, inspect & address any affected aircraft in the fleet at major maintenance checks, in coordination with the customer.

With a 2 week downtime for the affected aircraft that needs to be repaired. That would be more compensation that Boeing would have to pay to airlines for these delays, in addition to the other charges they have taken on the 787 program in the past.

enzo011 wrote:

With a 2 week downtime for the affected aircraft that needs to be repaired. That would be more compensation that Boeing would have to pay to airlines for these delays, in addition to the other charges they have taken on the 787 program in the past.

I doubt there would be significant compensation (if any) for a 2 week delay in delivery.

Similarly for major checks that involve weeks or more of downtime, the remediation can be carried out in parallel with other activities. There is no need for compensable downtime specifically for these types of issues.

enzo011 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

And since there is no issue of safety involved, inspect & address any affected aircraft in the fleet at major maintenance checks, in coordination with the customer.

With a 2 week downtime for the affected aircraft that needs to be repaired. That would be more compensation that Boeing would have to pay to airlines for these delays, in addition to the other charges they have taken on the 787 program in the past.

probably not... there is always room in the schedules and from an airline standpoint, it's cheaper for them if Boeing fixes it now..

kanban wrote:

probably not... there is always room in the schedules and from an airline standpoint, it's cheaper for them if Boeing fixes it now..

I imagine there will almost assuredly be a number of customers who would be more than happy to shift their delivery to the right a bit to conserve some capital before they sign that final check, so Boeing should be able to sequence frames for inspection and remediation with little to no actual impact to customers.

Stitch wrote:

kanban wrote:

probably not... there is always room in the schedules and from an airline standpoint, it's cheaper for them if Boeing fixes it now..

I imagine there will almost assuredly be a number of customers who would be more than happy to shift their delivery to the right a bit to conserve some capital before they sign that final check, so Boeing should be able to sequence frames for inspection and remediation with little to no actual impact to customers.

For some airlines yes and for some its a big problem...If you look at Qatar airways for exampel its a huge problem,they have been planning to open several new routes this summer and increase traffic to already existing routes and i know they have been counting on the 5 787s that is in rework now,if Boeing lined them up in Everett and said they were ready to go Qatar would pick them up as soon as they could fly people in. Since their earlier feud with Airbus they have leased 5 777-300s from Cathay Pacific and 3 exVirgin Australia 777-300s,apart from that 3 A330 from Oman air on wetlease,and they have let Finnair temporarily take over 3 daily flights to Stockholm,Helsinki and Copenhagen on some sort of codeshare agreement. So you could say they are in desperate need for more widebodies,they still have 14 A350s grounded but Airbus is working hard to get them in the air again since they reached a settlement they have been able to reactivate 16 of the earlier grounded A350s ,Qatar have recently taken delivery of 2 new A350s with 5 more on order.

Boeing 787-10 ecoDemonstrator N8290V(VN-A876) ferried CHS-PAE as BOE160

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8290V

I take it this is now a NTU frame

B787register wrote:

I take it this is now a NTU frame

Honestly at this point nobody really knows the future of this and the other VN 787-10s right now. Technically this is not a VN frame, it belongs to ALC (iirc)-VN is leasing. VN does not have anymore 787s on direct order with Boeing.

It’s unclear if VN is pulling out of their lease or just delaying delivery, with VN/ALC agreeing to let Boeing use the frame in the meantime (which would result in a discount on purchase price for ALC, and if VN is pulling out more time to find a new customer to lease plane to).

RobbiDee wrote:

Stitch wrote:

kanban wrote:

probably not... there is always room in the schedules and from an airline standpoint, it's cheaper for them if Boeing fixes it now..

I imagine there will almost assuredly be a number of customers who would be more than happy to shift their delivery to the right a bit to conserve some capital before they sign that final check, so Boeing should be able to sequence frames for inspection and remediation with little to no actual impact to customers.

For some airlines yes and for some its a big problem...If you look at Qatar airways for exampel its a huge problem,they have been planning to open several new routes this summer and increase traffic to already existing routes and i know they have been counting on the 5 787s that is in rework now,if Boeing lined them up in Everett and said they were ready to go Qatar would pick them up as soon as they could fly people in. Since their earlier feud with Airbus they have leased 5 777-300s from Cathay Pacific and 3 exVirgin Australia 777-300s,apart from that 3 A330 from Oman air on wetlease,and they have let Finnair temporarily take over 3 daily flights to Stockholm,Helsinki and Copenhagen on some sort of codeshare agreement. So you could say they are in desperate need for more widebodies,they still have 14 A350s grounded but Airbus is working hard to get them in the air again since they reached a settlement they have been able to reactivate 16 of the earlier grounded A350s ,Qatar have recently taken delivery of 2 new A350s with 5 more on order.

Qatar's fleet problems are much more that a two week delay for the stabilizer fix..

kanban wrote:

RobbiDee wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I imagine there will almost assuredly be a number of customers who would be more than happy to shift their delivery to the right a bit to conserve some capital before they sign that final check, so Boeing should be able to sequence frames for inspection and remediation with little to no actual impact to customers.

For some airlines yes and for some its a big problem...If you look at Qatar airways for exampel its a huge problem,they have been planning to open several new routes this summer and increase traffic to already existing routes and i know they have been counting on the 5 787s that is in rework now,if Boeing lined them up in Everett and said they were ready to go Qatar would pick them up as soon as they could fly people in. Since their earlier feud with Airbus they have leased 5 777-300s from Cathay Pacific and 3 exVirgin Australia 777-300s,apart from that 3 A330 from Oman air on wetlease,and they have let Finnair temporarily take over 3 daily flights to Stockholm,Helsinki and Copenhagen on some sort of codeshare agreement. So you could say they are in desperate need for more widebodies,they still have 14 A350s grounded but Airbus is working hard to get them in the air again since they reached a settlement they have been able to reactivate 16 of the earlier grounded A350s ,Qatar have recently taken delivery of 2 new A350s with 5 more on order.

Qatar's fleet problems are much more that a two week delay for the stabilizer fix..

Surely...and let´s hope it is only two weeks like they say. But that was in response to Stitch saying there would be little to no actual impact to customers when a big part of the airline community is in desperate need of more widebodies,and these constant delays is tedious and frankly an embarrasment for Boeing.

Now this is an interesting flight, the VN/EcoDemonstrator LN 1034 to Narita!?!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160

RobbiDee wrote:

Now this is an interesting flight, the VN/EcoDemonstrator LN 1034 to Narita!?!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160

Plus Singapore and Bangkok
https://investors.boeing.com/investors/ ... fault.aspx

RobbiDee wrote:

Surely...and let´s hope it is only two weeks like they say. But that was in response to Stitch saying there would be little to no actual impact to customers when a big part of the airline community is in desperate need of more widebodies,and these constant delays is tedious and frankly an embarrassment for Boeing.

Fortunately most airlines seem to understand that it's more a problem of managing the supply chain. Which has become more difficult over the last few years, and not just for Boeing. It's hard to find any defense or aviation program that hasn't been affected.

Together with Boeing's efforts to address that problem by pushing quality control and safety culture out to the supply chain, as well as implement them internally. That is meant to ferret out problems. If it found no problems, it wouldn't be effective, or necessary.

This seems to be the way airlines are viewing it. If those delays entitle them to compensation, Boeing pays it. But in the end they want a quality aircraft, and they also understand the vast majority of the flaws are minor, and don't affect either safety or performance.

As with many of these issues, there is a difference between the media representation, and industry knowledge and understanding.

Avatar2go wrote:

RobbiDee wrote:

Surely...and let´s hope it is only two weeks like they say. But that was in response to Stitch saying there would be little to no actual impact to customers when a big part of the airline community is in desperate need of more widebodies,and these constant delays is tedious and frankly an embarrassment for Boeing.

Fortunately most airlines seem to understand that it's more a problem of managing the supply chain. Which has become more difficult over the last few years, and not just for Boeing. It's hard to find any defense or aviation program that hasn't been affected.

Together with Boeing's efforts to address that problem by pushing quality control and safety culture out to the supply chain, as well as implement them internally. That is meant to ferret out problems. If it found no problems, it wouldn't be effective, or necessary.

This seems to be the way airlines are viewing it. If those delays entitle them to compensation, Boeing pays it. But in the end they want a quality aircraft, and they also understand the vast majority of the flaws are minor, and don't affect either safety or performance.

As with many of these issues, there is a difference between the media representation, and industry knowledge and understanding.

Well spoken.

And it is interesting how media often gets it a little bit...you could say a piece of the picture but not the whole picture.

Boeing 787-9 N8572C LN1128 (Riyadh Air livery) CHS-RUH as BOE581

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/boe581

Avatar2go wrote:

Fortunately most airlines seem to understand that it's more a problem of managing the supply chain. Which has become more difficult over the last few years, and not just for Boeing. It's hard to find any defense or aviation program that hasn't been affected.

Together with Boeing's efforts to address that problem by pushing quality control and safety culture out to the supply chain, as well as implement them internally. That is meant to ferret out problems. If it found no problems, it wouldn't be effective, or necessary.

This seems to be the way airlines are viewing it. If those delays entitle them to compensation, Boeing pays it. But in the end they want a quality aircraft, and they also understand the vast majority of the flaws are minor, and don't affect either safety or performance.

As with many of these issues, there is a difference between the media representation, and industry knowledge and understanding.

You once again seem to want to link supply chain issues on all programs, due to the Covid pandemic and the slowdown that resulted and the ramp-up being challenging for all programs, with the problem the 787 is having while this is occurring as well. You are correct that everyone is dealing with supply chain issues but the 787 is dealing with issues that not everyone is dealing with. They have additional issues they are having to deal with and that is costing the company money. By my count it is a $3.5b in write offs from last year for the delays then and an additional $2b manufacturing costs in 2022. We will have to see if this $2b figure will be adjusted up with the new delay.

I do have to wonder, if the current efforts on improving quality are finding problems now on 787's being produced now, how certain are we that no issues have been missed on previously produced 787's flying now? And if those are not major problems, why is it costing the program so much money and why are they taking the time to fix those problems?

enzo011 wrote:

You once again seem to want to link supply chain issues on all programs, due to the Covid pandemic and the slowdown that resulted and the ramp-up being challenging for all programs, with the problem the 787 is having while this is occurring as well. You are correct that everyone is dealing with supply chain issues but the 787 is dealing with issues that not everyone is dealing with. They have additional issues they are having to deal with and that is costing the company money. By my count it is a $3.5b in write offs from last year for the delays then and an additional $2b manufacturing costs in 2022. We will have to see if this $2b figure will be adjusted up with the new delay.

Every manufacturer is incurring costs due to supply chain disruptions. Every manufacturer is encountering delivery delays, some of which involve customer compensation.

Whatever happens with Boeing is trumpeted in the news, especially if it's negative. That doesn't mean the same problems are not occurring elsewhere. Remember that much of the supply chain is shared. So unless there is a conspiracy to commit mistakes only on Boeing components, it's an industry wide problem. We have seen this confirmed, time and again.

I do have to wonder, if the current efforts on improving quality are finding problems now on 787's being produced now, how certain are we that no issues have been missed on previously produced 787's flying now? And if those are not major problems, why is it costing the program so much money and why are they taking the time to fix those problems?

This has been discussed at length, here and elsewhere. The 787 program underwent a rigorous quality control audit. That is how the problems were found. They were not found by certification inspection or by customer service issues. Rather by looking for problems and bringing them forward.

As stated, the problems are not related to safety or performance, but the gap issues in particular require disassembly. This adds cost prior to delivery of new aircraft, and delivery delay may lead to compensation. It will also add costs at service checks for in-service aircraft that may require remediation, but that will likely not involve compensation.

At the same time, airlines will be assured that their aircraft will have their stated design life, if not extended life since the joins are reset to their new specs. And that Boeing stands solidly behind their aircraft. And that Boeing's improved culture is ferreting out problems and addressing them.

Most of your posts only look at the negatives, which as noted, is also a characteristic of the media. But as I tried to explain, the airlines view it differently, because of their knowledge and experience. In terms of what they need to operate their businesses, Boeing delivers. That's what matters most.

Anyone have access to Boeing's 787 production schedule? Please DM me!

El Al 787-8 4X-ERD LN985, tenth test flight PAE-PAE as BOE966



https://twitter.com/jenschuld/status/16 ... 4RrNJUmFQA

Yesterdays EcoDemonstrator LN 1034 787-10 takeoff from Everett to Tokyo with ATC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdodSPGitD4

RobbiDee wrote:

Yesterdays EcoDemonstrator LN 1034 takeoff from Everett to Tokyo with ATC.
[url][/url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdodSPGitD4

Great Video!

Iraqi Airways 787-8 YI-ATC MSN40108 LN1146 fourth test flight (CHS - CHS) with callsign BOE980

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE980/history/20230612/1255Z/KCHS/KCHS

Vietnam Airlines 787-10 VN-A876 (N8290V) MSN60293 LN1034 made a flight (NRT - SIN) with callsign BOE160

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160/history/20230613/0357Z/RJAA/WSSS

32Bit wrote:

Vietnam Airlines 787-10 VN-A876 (N8290V) MSN60293 LN1034 made a flight (NRT - SIN) with callsign BOE160

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160/history/20230613/0357Z/RJAA/WSSS

This is the Boeing Eco Demonstrator Explorer of course and has been repainted into an all white livery. It’s still not been confirmed that VN will be taking this frame.

https://aviation.flights/boe/787/60293

audidudi wrote:

32Bit wrote:

Vietnam Airlines 787-10 VN-A876 (N8290V) MSN60293 LN1034 made a flight (NRT - SIN) with callsign BOE160

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160/history/20230613/0357Z/RJAA/WSSS

This is the Boeing Eco Demonstrator Explorer of course and has been repainted into an all white livery. It’s still not been confirmed that VN will be taking this frame.

https://aviation.flights/boe/787/60293

Personally i call it the former VN

However it seems to have been some sort of problem,it was supposed to land in Bangkok and actually flew over Suvarnabhumi airport and even started to descend a bit and then continued straight to Singapore which was supposed to be the next stop after NRT and BKK,looks like they didnt get a landing clearance for some reason.

MIAT Mongolian Airlines (Riyadh Air livery) 787-9 JU-1789 (N8572C) MSN66877 LN1128 made a flight (RUH - LBG) with callsign BOE581

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE581/history/20230614/0441Z/OERK/LFPB

RobbiDee wrote:

audidudi wrote:

32Bit wrote:

Vietnam Airlines 787-10 VN-A876 (N8290V) MSN60293 LN1034 made a flight (NRT - SIN) with callsign BOE160

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160/history/20230613/0357Z/RJAA/WSSS

This is the Boeing Eco Demonstrator Explorer of course and has been repainted into an all white livery. It’s still not been confirmed that VN will be taking this frame.

https://aviation.flights/boe/787/60293

Personally i call it the former VN

However it seems to have been some sort of problem,it was supposed to land in Bangkok and actually flew over Suvarnabhumi airport and even started to descend a bit and then continued straight to Singapore which was supposed to be the next stop after NRT and BKK,looks like they didnt get a landing clearance for some reason.

Nothing unusual, Singapore was the second leg NRT-SIN

https://twitter.com/boeingairplanes/sta ... jWlqhBe_Wg

Third leg just arrived in BKK:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE160

El Al 787-8 4X-ERD (N1015X) MSN63398 LN985 made a flight (PAE - VCV) with callsign BOE966 for repaint

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE966/history/20230614/1820Z/KPAE/KVCV

32Bit wrote:

El Al 787-8 4X-ERD (N1015X) MSN63398 LN985 made a flight (PAE - VCV) with callsign BOE966 for repaint

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE966/history/20230614/1820Z/KPAE/KVCV

Why repaint?

Any sign of VH-ZNN re-emerging from the paint shop yet she's been in there since last month?

Surely the re-painting in the standard QF livery doesn't take 2+ weeks?

QF744ER wrote:

Any sign of VH-ZNN re-emerging from the paint shop yet she's been in there since last month?

Surely the re-painting in the standard QF livery doesn't take 2+ weeks?

Maybe getting the rework done there while they are at it?

MileHFL400 wrote:

QF744ER wrote:

Any sign of VH-ZNN re-emerging from the paint shop yet she's been in there since last month?

Surely the re-painting in the standard QF livery doesn't take 2+ weeks?

Maybe getting the rework done there while they are at it?

Are you talking about the new fault found in the rudder? Because VH-ZNN finished its rework on May 12th (atleast per MattCawby).

jbs2886 wrote:

32Bit wrote:

El Al 787-8 4X-ERD (N1015X) MSN63398 LN985 made a flight (PAE - VCV) with callsign BOE966 for repaint

FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE966/history/20230614/1820Z/KPAE/KVCV

Why repaint?

The plane was first painted ~3 years ago. Boeing has been giving some planes that sat in long storage a fresh repaint because airlines expect fresh perfect paint on their new delivery not one that has been baking in the sun for several years.

32Bit wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

QF744ER wrote:

Any sign of VH-ZNN re-emerging from the paint shop yet she's been in there since last month?

Surely the re-painting in the standard QF livery doesn't take 2+ weeks?

Maybe getting the rework done there while they are at it?

Are you talking about the new fault found in the rudder? Because VH-ZNN finished its rework on May 12th (atleast per MattCawby).

Yes the rudder fault.

What's the new rudder fault?