swallow
Topic Author
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:05 pm

According to Flight global, some suppliers may be excluded from 787 work in the future. This is a follow on from Mike Bair's speech last week.

Quote: 'Boeing also learned that certain key suppliers were not prepared for the integrator-level responsibilities that are the hallmark of the 787's distributed supply chain strategy, Bair said, reportedly adding that these suppliers will be banned from such work in the future'

I am wondering whether these are tier 1 partners or sub-contractors

There are still backlogs in the supply chain

Quote: 'Spirit's Turner noted, however, that some parts and systems continue to arrive in the manufacturing system too late. "Probably wiring is, as it always is, the final one to fall in place," Turner said. But he added optimistically: "When we get things, it all fits into place".

And the Dec 5th update will be an important barometer of 787 progress

Quote: Pat Shanahan, Boeing's newly appointed general manager and vice-president for 787, is reviewing the programme's schedule and all aspects of its strategy. He is expected to report his findings publicly for the first time at the next scheduled programme update on 5 December.


Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ay-dump-sub-par-787-suppliers.html
The grass is greener where you water it
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:11 pm

Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
"When we get things, it all fits into place".

That's good to know, if he's being truthful.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26716
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:40 pm

This is a significant change in how Boeing does business, so I don't find the hiccups to be unexpected, but I do find them disappointing. I am buoyed that at least Boeing was working to mitigate these issues ahead of time. They have not been totally successful, of course, but if they had just "hoped for the best", we could have been looking at 60 month delays instead of 6.

Would Boeing seriously deny work to suppliers? Perhaps. But it is an effective way to motivate those suppliers to get their act together, since they stand to make plenty of money from the 787 program based on current sales, to say nothing of projected, and the 737RS will be many multiples better.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
Quote: 'Boeing also learned that certain key suppliers were not prepared for the integrator-level responsibilities that are the hallmark of the 787's distributed supply chain strategy, Bair said, reportedly adding that these suppliers will be banned from such work in the future'

I am wondering whether these are tier 1 partners or sub-contractors

Seems like Boeing is going to be the 10,000th company on this planet to learn the hard way the difference between theory and practice in outsourcing.

Outsourcing is the sport in which "re-inventing the wheel" has been done more times than in any other sport.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Seems like Boeing is going to be the 10,000th company on this planet to learn the hard way the difference between theory and practice in outsourcing.

You'd be hard pressed to find companies on this planet with more prior experience at outsourcing than Boeing and Airbus.

Tom.
 
swallow
Topic Author
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:27 am

Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
"When we get things, it all fits into place".

If as Spirit indicate, the parts all fit, then the rate limiting step seems to be shortages of parts as inventories are stretched thin.

In that case the 787 should be on track for first flight and EIS, but I doubt that production estimates are realistic given the shortages described. It looks like another 380 scenario; late to EIS and challenged on the production side albeit not to the same degree.
The grass is greener where you water it
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:08 pm

I would like to see Pat Shanahan address conformity issues with the prototype.

Are all the major sub-assemblies installed on the prototype built in conformity with engineering requirements?

Is it still the plan to eventually deliver the first flying article to a customer?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
You'd be hard pressed to find companies on this planet with more prior experience at outsourcing than Boeing and Airbus.
Tom.

Tom, you are mixing up subcontracting and outsourcing.

Flight Global: "Boeing also learned that certain key suppliers were not prepared for the integrator-level responsibilities that are the hallmark of the 787's distributed supply chain strategy, Bair said...".

"Integrator-level responcibility", that's outsoucing. It hardly happened in the airliner industry before 787. Airbus doesn't know what outsourcing is. They probably outsourced their office cleaning, but very little apart from that.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
barbarian
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:10 pm

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:56 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
"Integrator-level responcibility", that's outsoucing. It hardly happened in the airliner industry before 787. Airbus doesn't know what outsourcing is. They probably outsourced their office cleaning, but very little apart from that.

forgetting of course that Airbus GIE outsourced all major component manufacture to BAe Systems, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Airbus and CASA (in their various guises) for 30 years from 1970 to 2000..... but yes we do also outsource the office cleaning.
 
User avatar
rg828
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:12 pm

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:38 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
"Boeing also learned that certain key suppliers were not prepared for the integrator-level responsibilities that are the hallmark of the 787's distributed supply chain strategy, Bair said..."

Wont Boeing have to stick with these ´underperformers´ for the duration of the 787 program, or can they afford to switch right now?

Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
According to Flight global, some suppliers may be excluded from 787 work in the future.

So, ´the future´ means 20 years down the line when 787 production ends? I guess that mainly means these suppliers wont be invited to participate in future aircraft programs, but will continue to do so with the 787?
I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:37 am

Quoting Aerodog (Reply 6):
I would like to see Pat Shanahan address conformity issues with the prototype.
Are all the major sub-assemblies installed on the prototype built in conformity with engineering requirements?

Yes, they will be. It's not a prototype, it's a production aircraft, albeit heavily modified with flight test instrumentation.

Quoting Aerodog (Reply 6):

Is it still the plan to eventually deliver the first flying article to a customer?

Yes.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
You'd be hard pressed to find companies on this planet with more prior experience at outsourcing than Boeing and Airbus.
Tom.

Tom, you are mixing up subcontracting and outsourcing.

I agree with you that there is a difference between subcontracting and outsourcing but Boeing outsources tons of stuff (for example, almost all of their electronics boxes). Obviously, they also subcontract a ton of stuff as well. The difference with the 787 was primarily the degree of outsourcing and the "pre-stuffing" of sections (which could have been done with or without outsourcing).

Tom.
 
2175301
Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
I agree with you that there is a difference between subcontracting and outsourcing but Boeing outsources tons of stuff (for example, almost all of their electronics boxes).

The key difference:

Subcontracting: Here are the prints (key dimensions) and specifications, please manufacture to them.

Outsourcing: Here is what we want to do and some specifications we need to meet, and exceeding the specifications would be greatly desired. Please be the primary designer and work with us to develop and manufacture the item(s).

A key part of any outsourcing relationship is that the vendor company freely share with the buying company (Boeing) their major ideas, issues they are having problems with, and outright screw-ups. This requires the vendor company - and people within the vendor company to trust the buying company (in this case Boeing) to a degree that is actually contrary to normal competitive bid subcontracting and how a lot of companies operate. It requires the vendor company to also adopt an internal self reporting of problems and lessons learned mode of response to issues instead of disciplinary actions - or transferring of responsibility - for normal level routine mistakes. We all make mistakes - that is human nature. Working in an environment where you can freely admit those mistakes - discuss what went wrong, what should have happened, the lessons learned, and how to resolve any general issues and move forward... is what is required to be able to successfully work as an outsourcer (and I would suggest also required to reach the pinnacle of success for any company).

I am sure that this is the key fault that Boeing has found that some of the new subcontractors have not been able to adopt. They still hide their issues until it is so late that the issue becomes real obvious. The buying company (Boeing) is actually expecting issues to arise and will work with and not punish companies who self identify the issues. In addition, in almost all cases that the buying company (Boeing) has dealt with the issue before and if they had been told of it could have provided a blue-print for how to manage and resolve the issue with minimal effects on the project - if only the vendor had been willing to be open and honest about the entire situation.

It really is a different way of working with a client company.

Within the US there are three general industries that have moved substantially towards the internal self reporting of problems and lessons learned mode of response to issues: Aerospace, Medical, and Nuclear Power. There are a few companies outside of those industries who have been able to adopt key aspects of the process as well. In the US. 3M, and HP are two that I am familiar with.

The ISO 9000 series is built on this concept as well, but the ISO 9000 series of certification is very much a paper program of intent without any teeth to require enforcement and prevent incorrect discipline that stops the effectiveness of the program (and I speak as a former ISO 9000 QA manager for a foundry & machine shop - and dealing with ISO 9000 certified clients). It is a great program if a company really wishes to implement and enforce the intent (and am quite willing to terminate key managers and supervisors who are not willing to fundamentally change their ways) - but you can get ISO 9000 certified without any real intent to change your ways - and without properly implementing it (guess how I know that). My transfer to the Nuclear Power Industry allowed me to see how it should have really worked (10 CFR 50.54 Appendix B is much more effective - and has teeth to ensure the program is actually implemented and used).
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:06 pm

Quoting Barbarian (Reply 8):
forgetting of course that Airbus GIE outsourced all major component manufacture to BAe Systems, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Airbus and CASA (in their various guises) for 30 years from 1970 to 2000.....

Yeah, you are probably right, that could be called some sort of very tight outsourcing, and a very successful one.

And 2175301, your roundup in reply #11 is great. It tells all about the principles.

And I agree with you about ISO 9000 and no teeth. ISO 9000 wasn't made to have teeth. It is a way to describe internal company procedures to in an audit-able way, including how to deal with faults and mishaps. And when certified you are periodically audited to check that procedures are actually followed. Large customers can that way read what they can expect instead of making their own expensive on site auditing (or base the business relationship on experience and rumors only).

ISO 9000 documents could in principle be very short and sound like this: "This company intends sometime to produce and sell products which in some circumstances may be useful for our customers. But when we fail to do so, then we really couldn't care less".

That could in principle be ISO 9000 certified, if that is indeed the way the company operates and responds to complaints. That way a customer or potential customer would still have an externally audited document to tell them exactly what they could expect. And they can base their decisions on knowledge rather than past time experience, salesman talks and rumors.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18832
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:49 am

Boeing is definitely running into issues on the 787. If they don't get the ball rolling soon... It will hurt their reputation. Its easy to lose a good reputation, tough to rebuild it. I'm not saying Boeing doesn't have a great reputation for reliability/service/etc. But EIS delivery probably will come with more "hooks" on the next model (e.g., if the 818 is late, supply a 77W or 788 on a cheap lease).

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
You'd be hard pressed to find companies on this planet with more prior experience at outsourcing than Boeing and Airbus.

 checkmark 

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
Airbus doesn't know what outsourcing is.

Huh? Goodrich would argue otherwise on Nacelles. UTC would argue otherwise on quite a few of the A380 subsystems. Airbus has historically outsourced more than Boeing per my experience! In my opinion, Boeing tried to copy the Airbus model and forgot to assign profit (and thus ownership) to the right companies.  Wink

Quoting Barbarian (Reply 8):

forgetting of course that Airbus GIE outsourced all major component manufacture to BAe Systems, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Airbus and CASA (in their various guises) for 30 years from 1970 to 2000..... but yes we do also outsource the office cleaning.

Oh yea, those too.  Wink  spin 

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 12):
That could in principle be ISO 9000 certified,

 rotfl  So true! There is a reason ISO9000 doesn't get much attention anymore. However, the process of developing procedures that ISO9000 started is alive and well; it truly benefits a company when it doesn't get out of hand (which it will, eventually).

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 11):
3M, and HP are two that I am familiar with.

3M and Toyota are the two companies everyone else is trying to steal ideas from. Toyota as no one can produce a widget for less at high quality. 3M as their organizational structure works/motivates/produces well.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:17 am

The big chalenge lies in the de-centralized assembly, not in the procurement itself.

If you operate one plant where stuff is assembled, only minor pre-assembled components drop in there, then you have one big supply chain to manage, but it''s only one.

Having something as complex as a modern airplane assembled on multiple sites, just to ship the sections for a quick final assembly in Seattle - that is a logistical nightmare. Each site has a different section to assemble, different parts to use, different scheduling in manufacturing... Basically each site runs on it's own supply chain.

So take Boeing's head Supply Chain Manager and have him do his work - just add some 10-20 new supply chains... ouch...

It's not impossible. Car manufacturers do this for long, having the engine plants, body plants, assembly plants...
Airbus has done it for a while and we all where shaking our heads about the transportation nightmares the 380 created... After severe problems they are now working to get things up and running.
Even for an experienced decentralized company like Airbus things can get screwed...

Boeing's biggest challenge is, while they are huge and definitely a customer you want to have as a supplier, management is tempted to take things for granted, such as all the world doing whatever just to please Boeing. This broke my former employer's neck SCM-wise, and it can seriously harm the 787 project. Pissing off the suppliers can backfire so badly, they can so screw the 787 that Boeing would wish they never started the project...

Boeing has been procuring parts for airplanes for many years now, so it seems a bit lame to blame it on the suppliers. Boeing changes the production procedure, things do not work out any longer, and now the suppliers are at fault? Huh? What did they change? Nothing, Boeing did...
What they did not do before in that scale is procuring parts for 20 plants or even more, managing 20+ supply chains instead of one or let's say 5. Big dfference. Boeing would be best off if they took the suppliers on board for a SCM workshop t figure out, all of them together, how to get up and running. Pressure and fighting will be backfiring soon enough!
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 11):
The key difference:

Subcontracting: Here are the prints (key dimensions) and specifications, please manufacture to them.

Outsourcing: Here is what we want to do and some specifications we need to meet, and exceeding the specifications would be greatly desired. Please be the primary designer and work with us to develop and manufacture the item(s).

Agreed, but quite a few parts on Boeing (and Airbus, I assume) aircraft are "spec-built." That means Boeing write the specification for performance and interface with the aircraft and leaves the design to the vendor. Any Boeing part that has a P/N starting with "S" is done this way.

Quoting Nudelhirsch (Reply 14):
Boeing has been procuring parts for airplanes for many years now, so it seems a bit lame to blame it on the suppliers. Boeing changes the production procedure, things do not work out any longer, and now the suppliers are at fault? Huh? What did they change?

The change was that Boeing said "We want to do it this way, can you do it?" and the suppliers said "Yes!" but then failed to do what they said they would do. Shame on Boeing for improper oversight, sure, but much more shame on the suppliers for failing to supply what they said they would.

Tom.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:34 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
Airbus doesn't know what outsourcing is.

Huh? Goodrich would argue otherwise on Nacelles. UTC would argue otherwise on quite a few of the A380 subsystems. Airbus has historically outsourced more than Boeing per my experience!

Yeah, dear Lightsaber, you may be right, I haven't seen the small print on those contracts. But by assumption I put those examples in the "subcontracting basket". Airbus made the blueprints, and Airbus found a capable manufacturer and negotiated a price for a limited period of time. And Airbus transfers the manufacturing to another subcontractor the next day after contract expiry if they have found a better or cheaper supplier. But maybe that's not the way it is, and then I would be wrong.

But then you continue:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
Boeing tried to copy the Airbus model and forgot to assign profit (and thus ownership) to the right companies.

That is a very interesting statement. If that is correct, then it is a terrible timebomb under the whole 787 program. The outsourcing partners owns the intellectual design and manufacturing method of "their" components. If they lose interest in the program because they can't earn a fair profit on it, then...!

Subcontracted manufacturing can be transferred to another supplier "overnight". Outsourced manufacturing cannot. A lot of new and time consuming R&D and redesign will have to take place in case an outsourcing partner has to be scratched and replaced by another outsourcing partner. Or by a subcontractor.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18832
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:09 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):

Subcontracted manufacturing can be transferred to another supplier "overnight". Outsourced manufacturing cannot. A lot of new and time consuming R&D and redesign will have to take place in case an outsourcing partner has to be scratched and replaced by another outsourcing partner. Or by a subcontractor.

And that appears to be part of the problem.

Now, much of that is in wiring and other fixable areas. But another is interesting. With some each plane requires quite a few different parts. The "vendor" bid on delivering so many parts per year and designed their manufacturing accordingly. Boeing expects to get a full "kit" of parts right before the manufacturing of the aircraft.

I think Boeing will pull it off, but there are more delays lurking than they know. e.g., The Boeing 787 is the launch flight customer for the latest VxWorks OS revision (6.1 IIRC, but my web access is spotty right now. But a.net works!)

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
Airbus made the blueprints

Sometimes yes and thus outsourced. Many times no. e.g., quite a few parts in the A380 aren't "owned" by airbus.

However, there is one catch. Both Airbus and Boeing usually demand access to blueprints. (Its more common than you think in the industry.) If an outsourced vendor cannot handle "in house" the manufacturing, both Boeing and Airbus can subcontract the manufacturing paying the original vendor a licensing fee. As long as the vendor delivers per contract schedule at contract prices... they get to make the parts.

We've seen AA make MD-80 tail cones and other such examples. These issues often become convoluted. Aerospace contract law is a tangled web.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
I think Boeing will pull it off, but there are more delays lurking than they know. e.g., The Boeing 787 is the launch flight customer for the latest VxWorks OS revision

The certification hurdle for a flight-critical OS is so high, and the OS would have to be certified long before they could put it on the airplane, that it would be a bit stunning if this was where they found a delay.

Tom.
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
Shame on Boeing for improper oversight, sure, but much more shame on the suppliers for failing to supply what they said they would.

True, I sure agree on that, but again, SCM includes partnering up with suppliers. If things get critical, be all over the supplier. Leave a purchasing manager at their plant to watch things vamp up. If you change your way of manufacturing so deeply and fundementally, be more than just all over your suppliers.

What supply chain manager watches growing his job from 1-5 chains to up to 20-30 chains just sitting around, sipping coffee or playing golf? That would be a typical case of the arrogance of a poor supply chain manager.

Today europes largest seaport, Rotterdam, closed due to storms and risk of floods. In addition to that German train drivers were on strike all day in the cargo division. How to deal with that? If you are a good supply chain manager the strike will not hurt you because you saw it coming (was announced a few days ago) and you made arrangements. If ship transportation is vital, you do not look into yachts, but you check weather updates and see if you need to make an arrangement.
If you completely turn around the production process, don't expect to get out of the office at all, because you need to be all over everything, internally and externally.
This is harsh upon the supply chain managers, but I have been there before. Sucks, but when the day is over, nobody will ask you 'why', just blame you for what happened. Purchasing managers learn right away to not assume anything and to prepare for the worst case scenario at all times. The good sc-manager has everything planned and prepared before it becomes a problem. The bad one sits there and just loses the race. The clever one waits until a crisis breaks out then pulls out his pre-prepared solution to the problem and scores as the hero of the day...  Wink

Sometimes it's that simple. If I was a top executive at Boeing I would not even want a discussion about 'why' and what supplier screwed up, I would expect the sc-manager to solve the problem asap. For me an underperforming supplier would be the result of a poor decision of the sc-manager as to what supplier to contract...
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26716
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:46 pm

Looks like Vought might be the weak-link in both the 787 and 747-8 programs:

Quote:
The new leader of Boeing's troubled 787 Dreamliner program has moved quickly to shuffle top management and reorganize responsibilities.

Among other changes, new 787 Vice President Pat Shanahan appointed an executive specifically to oversee one of the major supplier partners, Vought, which builds the airplane's two rearmost fuselage sections in Charleston, S.C.

The appointment is a clear indication that Vought is a weak link in the Dreamliner supply chain.

Strode will give "special attention to 787 recovery and production ramp-up," the internal announcement said, though his oversight also extends to Vought's development work on the new jumbo-jet derivative, the 747-8.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2004003350_boeing09.html
 
swallow
Topic Author
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:26 pm

This is an interesting situation...

'The Boeing spokeswoman said Bair, in his speech, was not suggesting the 787 productions system is flawed and should be scrapped, only that it would be better to have the main manufacturing partners together and located near Boeing's final assembly facility'

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/337793_boeing02.html

but...

Boeing has cited the amount of travelled work reaching the final assembly at Everett - combined with shortages of fasteners and flight-control software - as the main culprits driving the six-month delay

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ay-dump-sub-par-787-suppliers.html

and...

'The appointment is a clear indication that Vought is a weak link in the Dreamliner supply chain'

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2004003350_boeing09.html


So then we have three 'known knowns':

1. Fastener shortages-Alcoa
2. FCS-Honeywell
3. Travelled work-Vought and ???

All three are suppliers on existing aircraft programs so why is a manufacturing hub needed?

I am confused  Confused
The grass is greener where you water it
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26716
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Quoting Swallow (Reply 21):
All three are suppliers on existing aircraft programs so why is a manufacturing hub needed?

Because right now it takes a day or more for Boeing to get people out to the factories in Japan and Italy when an issue arises. If they were all within a few miles of PAE, then it would just take an hour or two.

So Boeing would be able to much more quickly respond to issues and it would be both cheaper and more logistically reasonable for Boeing and those suppliers to move lots of staff back and forth. For example, Boeing could have sent the machinists to the supplier's factory to do the work, instead of waiting for incomplete pieces to be flown to PAE and then fixing them. This alone likely would have eliminated much of the six month delay the 787 program is now operating under.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26716
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:28 pm

Boeing supplier getting its house in order

Quote:
The chief executive of one of Boeing's major 787 Dreamliner partners acknowledged Friday that his company is "among the riskiest, if not the riskiest, of the [airplane] structure producers."

He presented a picture of a supplier that 18 months ago, just as production work on the 787 began in earnest, was in bad shape and poorly positioned to provide what Boeing needed.

But Elmer Doty, CEO of Vought — which makes the 787 rear fuselage in Charleston, S.C. — said things are looking up.

"Our challenges are logistical rather than technical," Doty insisted in a teleconference with financial analysts to discuss third-quarter earnings. "We've got a game plan that meshes with everyone else's and we think we can execute on it."

Still, Vought now faces a cash crunch and is negotiating revised 787 contract-payment terms even as Boeing gives its supplier extra scrutiny.

Doty largely blamed Vought's subcontractors for the problems.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2004005472_vought10.html

[Edited 2007-11-10 08:29:08]
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Boeing And Underperforming 787 Suppliers

Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:37 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
The outsourcing partners owns the intellectual design and manufacturing method of "their" components.

To the contrary, I think suppliers have to surrender the design IP to Boeing for the components delivered. The manufacturing methods and tools for the fuselage barrels are Boeing IP anyway as far as I know.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
I think Boeing will pull it off, but there are more delays lurking than they know. e.g., The Boeing 787 is the launch flight customer for the latest VxWorks OS revision (6.1 IIRC

If that turned out to be true, Boeing's risk management wouldn't be anywhere near as good as I thought. I hear similar things from other areas though, e.g. electric brakes.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 18):
The certification hurdle for a flight-critical OS is so high, and the OS would have to be certified long before they could put it on the airplane, that it would be a bit stunning if this was where they found a delay.

 checkmark  But I think VxWorks will be the OS for the Common Core System which houses avionics and utlity systems functions, but not for the FCS.
http://www.windriver.com/news/press/pr.html?ID=71
Here's an interesting backgrounder by Wind River on VxWorks/ARINC653 as used in the 787
http://www.t6.dglr.de/Veranstaltunge..._Architekturen/DGLR_Hampp_2007.pdf

The flight control software should be largely based on and largely re-use the software code of the 777 for exactly the reasons you mention. Indeed I do hear rumors on CCS software integration being behind schedule and being more critical than the FCS in this respect.

I think in Boeing PR, FCS software and titanium fasteners are serving as prominent 'in-front-of-the-curtain culprits', while in fact (and unsurprisingly so) there's a plethora of other causes for the delays. Same goes for A380 'wiring' and the 'CATIA V4 vs. V5' debate.

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