Boeing 787 Screamliner

[AdamSmith]

""WARSAWNo airline staked more on Boeing Co.'s BA -1.12% new 787 Dreamliner than LOT Polish Airlines SA, a troubled state-owned carrier that embraced the jet as means of gaining more lucrative, long-haul travelers. Now, its hopes for the plane threaten to turn into a nightmare. ""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578287963634247382.html

Well, Polack jokes aside, one could argue that any carrier stupid enough to make such a bet deserves to go out of business.

[AdamSmith]

Perhaps you have the wrong order and a relative impossibility.

Best regards,

RA1

I have the greatest enthusiasm for this mission...

[AdamSmith]

...I know I've made some very poor decisions recently. But I can assure you, very confidently...

[RA1]

Most flag carriers would go out of business without government subsidies to include "indirect" ones from the US government. However, some do seem bent upon self destruction, don't they?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

Just a minor birthing issue...

‹http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/business/japanese-still-seeking-link-in-787-battery-incidents.html?_r=0

[Guest rimchair]

And so it begins. Wonder if the Poles aren't far behind.

NEW DELHI: Air India has put all its newly-acquired Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner planes for sale and leaseback and invited bids from prospective lessors by February first week, even as all of these aircraft remained grounded across the world.

And so it continues:

WARSAW, Poland (AP) - Polish airline LOT said Thursday it is keeping its Boeing 787 Dreamliners grounded through October while the U.S. company tries to solve a potential safety threat. The late date suggests some airlines are growing skeptical about the plane's chances of resuming flight soon.

[Guest rimchair]

Will Huerta sign-off on the fixes Boeing proposed today? I say an uneasy 'yes', with provisos.

When I look at this saga, I am reminded of “To A Mouse,” the Robert Burns poem that includes the verse “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, Go often awry, And leave us nothing but grief and pain…”

[Guest rimchair]

After weeks of PR statments designed to snowball public opinion, NTSB today dealt a setback to Boeing execs who overextended their influence at FAA.
Boeing will, of course, claim victory; they use the same doctrine as North Korea, but with less credibility.
You’ll be asked to buy into claims that Boeing’s ‘fix’ is really ready for prime time; very few people are gullible enough to fall for it, but repetition tends to sway markets when messaging is key.
The fix is not in!

I don't see how Boeing's proposal can be called "comprehensive" when it doesn't identify or address the source(s) of the problem, which are still not known, but proposes an elaborate stopgap fix. The FAA is going to have to decide which is more important, Boeing's financial state or public safety. I don't see how any proposals to fix the problem can even be considered if nobody knows what the cause of the problem is (and make no mistake, a problem that can cause a midair fire hours from the nearest airport is a grave one), only the symptoms.

[RA1]

gloats-

I don't understand why you continue to denigrate one of the US's premier companies. Are you a French agent or someone who feels compelled to attack the US from within?

No one is going to ride on the Boeing 777 until and unless it is approved for return to service by the FAA and others, although not necessarily the NTSB. Therefore what good does it do to constantly disapprove of anything Boeing does or, for that matter, the FAA and others?

Anyone who rides on the airlines is completely familiar with the situation and they do not rely upon any threads or posts herein for current information.

I, for one, am ready for this magnificient aircraft to get back into the air so we can all enjoy its' benefits.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

gloats-

No one is going to ride on the Boeing 777 until and unless it is approved for return to service by the FAA and others, although not necessarily the NTSB. Therefore what good does it do to constantly disapprove of anything Boeing does or, for that matter, the FAA and others?

Best regards,

RA1

The Boeing has several models of the 777 already flying Junior Birdman. I have flown them, and other Boeing aircraft, and will do so again. "If it is not a Boeing I ain't going!" holds true for me, but not this very troubled aircraft, the Boeing 787.

[RA1]

I certainly admit my finger slipped when I inserted the model but any sane person would realize that I meant the 787. My comments remain the same. But, of course, I do not expect you to understand them.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

my finger slipped when I inserted the model

You could write for the porn biz.

[Guest rimchair]

(This is a send up folks)

Jim McNerney will do an apology tour in America. It will go something like this: “To Boeing’s shareholders, customers, vendors and, especially, employees, I’m deeply sorry that we — and I regret to say this includes my predecessor, St. Alan Mulally — attempted to build the world’s most advanced airliner on the cheap, with an untested and reckless outsourcing program that led to repeated delays, finally grounding, and putting the very future of the company at risk. I deeply regret the weak corporate governance that allowed this, and as a result I will give up the title of chairman to an independent director. I will ask all the directors to resign and appoint only those who pass a medical exam that shows they have a spine. I will give up all of my compensation for the past five years and if the 787 isn’t flying flawlessly this year, I will resign as chief executive…

“To our employees in the Puget Sound, I owe a special apology. I’m sorry we moved the headquarters to Chicago. The hot dogs are superior, but otherwise the company’s top executives are too far removed from the critical commercial airplane business and from Asia. I’m sorry we made a hash of the outsourcing that you now have to fix. I’m sorry we tried to deflect accountability that rightly rests with management decisions by blaming our unionized workers and set up an assembly in South Carolina to punish and intimidate them…” (bows deeply here toward machinists, engineers and technical workers, whispering reverently, “No nerds, no birds” several times.)

[RA1]

Boeing has bet the farm many, many times in the past which does not make them reckless or foolish in a general sense but only part of a very tough business, aviation. Big risks and often only "medium" rewards. Look at some of their main customers, the airlines, who all have gone bankrupt at least once and many of them several times. FEDEX and UPS being the only large ones who have not.

Somehow they have limped along through good years and bad, all without taking a direct subsidy from the US government ala GM and some others. I guess their union isn't as strong as the autoworker's is. There is no doubt Boeing has taken indirect subsidies as most any large supplier to the US government has and does.

Very definitely Boeing has made mistakes and some very big ones. That in and of itself does not make them unusual. A friend of mine says that every successful venture likely was preceded by one or more failures or will fail in the future. The trick is to get past them and go on, something I fully expect Boeing to accomplish.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

Very definitely Boeing has made mistakes and some very big ones. That in and of itself does not make them unusual. A friend of mine says that every successful venture likely was preceded by one or more failures or will fail in the future. The trick is to get past them and go on, something I fully expect Boeing to accomplish.

Best regards,

RA1

Name a previous ('very big', your words) mistake that Boeing has made prior to the 787 Doomliner.

[RA1]

gloats-

I fully realize this so called request is a version of have you quit beating your wife or bf or so. Therefore I shall not usurp your right to use Google and form your own opinion however wrongly you may interpret the facts.

Fortunately Boeing has not so far had a "Comet" to come out of their factories.

I suppose my question to you is, will you fully admit how wrong you were when the 787 flies and is successful?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

Boeing is dispensing out immense BS and incremental pain. If the airlines were told in the beginning that the 787 would suffer a delay of over 3 years, followed by a grounding of 1 year followed by restricted ETOPS, no airline would have signed up to this fiasco.

But it happened in increments. Because airlines are in the dark at each point, they hold on (like you RA1, & and your lacky ), falsely believing that things will get better pretty soon. Things won’t.

The dream of how flying of the future would be turned into the airliner that had no future. The most dysfunctional airliner ever made.

[RA1]

Who is my lackey? Obviously you understand almost nothing about airlines or aviation but that is your perogerative as an ignorant poster. Here is my advice to you so that you can remain happy. Don't fly. Don't travel on any American transporatation venues. In fact, just stay home and live your life out without any regard for having adventure or fun. That also is your perogerative.

I wish you well but please keep your negative opinions to yourself.

Best regards,

RA1

[JKane]

The most dysfunctional airliner ever made.

No, by definition that would have to have been the De Havilland Comet. Maybe the 787 is the first airliner you've especially paid attention to the launch of, but all have had some problems--often including catastrophic loss.

There were threads like this about the A380 for a while. And as I said, in the past things were far worse. As recently as the 767 several were lost with all hands early on.

I worry that the hysterical reporting of comparatively minor things like the 787's problems so far (and the F35, for that matter) will obliterate all future progress, especially in aerospace. Though people are quick to jump on relatively minor foibles of potentially revolutionary cars too, like the Tesla/Leaf. (The Fisker is a POS though, I'll admit... but then it's not revolutionary either, just a really pretty and expensive Volt...)

In fact, Rimchair, I'd go so far as to say that YOU and those like you, quite possibly, are the reason we still don't have our FLYING CARS! ;o)

Seriously though, the constant baiting with little to nothing (other than apparent personal animosity) behind it is getting tiresome, to me at least.

[Guest rimchair]

"Two top Boeing executives delivered an unflinching defense of the 787 Dreamliner in a Friday morning news conference in Japan, insisting that no battery fire will be possible on the airplane once the company’s proposed fix is installed."

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020561865_787batterybriefingxml.html?prmid=4939

I they don't even know the root cause of these fires?

Granted, flying is never totally safe, just ask Icarus.

Hubris, however, is dangerous.

[RA1]

gloats-

As always, you live up to your name. What about just lying low and seeing what transpires over the next several weeks?

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

For me, the news in all this is not that they had a technical glitch. That, as many have said, is to be expected with such advanced technologies. The news is that the present technical glitch involved lithium ion batteries bursting into flame. That is so yesterday! Is there anyone on Earth who hasn't heard stories about lithium ion batteries bursting into flame? This is not a brand new technology and it's not a brand new problem.

Boeing itself acknowledged the issue from the get-go and said they had a fix designed into the batteries that would keep a runaway thermal reaction from spreading. Even in the unlikely event that one cell heated up, they said they had designed the battery so that it couldn't spread to a second cell. Well it did. And now they say they've redesigned it so that it won't do what they said it wouldn't do in the first place.

I'm not sure how a runaway lithium ion battery caught them napping the first time. They knew the problem and they knew the solution. Perhaps they trusted GS Yuasa to get it right, and they failed. But, if that's true, then what other outsourcers did Boeing trust to get something right, and which of them has a surprise waiting to be uncovered? Even recently, according to this article, Boeing and the Japanese battery company were at odds over whether or not the proposed battery fix was the right one.

With so many outsourcers involved with the plane, it seems reasonable, to me at least, to find one day that another fix will prove inadequate. And that's for mature technologies, like lithium ion batteries, or windows, or tires. What happens when some of the really new technologies log enough flying hours to manifest problems?

I expect Boeing will solve them, one by one, but it seems remarkable that something as basic as a hot lithium ion battery could have cost so much money, so much time, and so much bad publicity this early in the aircraft's life.

[RA1]

You are certainly correct, lookin, in wondering how modern companies utilizing modern technologies can have such disasterous results and especially those that are long lasting. However, do you have an adequate explanation for Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer with their roll over problems. How about cars that catch on fire? How about brakes that fail? The list can go on and on. Modern technology is a mystery or so it seems at times. Personally I have observed several of these type problems to be the result of "improved" technology which actually is "cost cutting". Boeing is likely on the receiving end of such a problem.

Boeing has received a lot of criticism for outsourcing many of its' components and apparently justifyably so. However that horse has left the barn and they have to deal with whatever can be salvaged. I think that is a lot.

I would prefer that Boeing and other US manufacturers reserve most of their work for US workers but the world at large is out there for compromise, isn't it?

We shall see what develops, shall we not?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

We shall see what develops, shall we not?

Best regards,

RA1

I feel completely reassured to know that if I fly a 787 Dreamliner, the Super FireBox™ will keep the fire contained for at least 3 hours. When the burning plastic produces toxic fumes, the Dreamliner’s superior ducting will pump those fumes effortlessly and safely to the atmosphere outside.

I will be able to continue to enjoy the inflight entertainment and my glass of wine, and I feel particularly comforted by the Boeing guarantee that passengers won’t even notice the rise in heat.

[JKane]

The thing that annoys me in all this is there was an *American* company that made some of the best **and safest** batteries available. A123. And they were pretty much bankrupted because everybody just wanted the cheapest. Last I heard they were getting bought out by the Chinese and that's going to keep the US Military from being able to use them as much.