Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787 | FerrariChat

Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by Jet-X, Sep 8, 2014.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Jet-X

    Jet-X F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    5,688
    Orange County
    Full Name:
    Brian
  2. NürScud

    NürScud F1 Veteran

    Nov 3, 2012
    7,273
    This is really bad for a new type plane. Especially if this is Boeing's product. I'm looking forward to see the documentary.
     
  3. FERRARI-TECH

    FERRARI-TECH Formula 3

    Nov 9, 2006
    1,674
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Ferrari-tech
    I'm sure it will be a very informative show, with no bias what so ever.

    The journalists at AJ can bring their vast knowledge of aircraft production to the fore.

    Come to think of it the Arab owners of AJ can use their experience from all the vast aircraft factories in the middle east as a comparison.

    I'm especially looking forward to all Airbus commercials.
     
  4. Jet-X

    Jet-X F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    5,688
    Orange County
    Full Name:
    Brian
  5. NürScud

    NürScud F1 Veteran

    Nov 3, 2012
    7,273
    Thank you. I will be interesting.
     
  6. NeuroBeaker

    NeuroBeaker Advising Moderator
    Moderator

    Oct 1, 2008
    38,742
    Huntsville, AL., USA
    Full Name:
    Andrew
    Well, that's better than you resolving to be mundane. :)

    All the best,
    Andrew.
     
  7. NürScud

    NürScud F1 Veteran

    Nov 3, 2012
    7,273
    Just saw the documentary. The truth is that i'm really disappointed. I always thought that Boeing is the first in it's category but the facts shows the opposite, at least for the 787. Because they made a second facility, they drop their quality...this is a really bad thing. And if you watch the people who give interviews, you can clearly see the frustration and unhappiness in their eyes. Some words are too bad to hear them..

    Really a shame.
     
  8. mikelfrance

    mikelfrance Formula Junior

    Apr 15, 2014
    594
    I just flew on a 747-8 on Lufthansa. What a marvelous plane. Then the A340. Really, really nice.

    But the Dreamliner --- meh! Flight attendants tell me it's always breaking something. Boring inside design, cheap feel.

    Boeing what happened to you on this one?
     
  9. mikelfrance

    mikelfrance Formula Junior

    Apr 15, 2014
    594
    A lot of BS here. Partnerships are nothing new and not unique to the 787. Talking to 3 girls outside a factory in Japan is investigative reporting? Criticizing the roll out?


    BS

    I am not a fan of this plane but this "documentary" is completely biased and misleading.
     
  10. Jet-X

    Jet-X F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    5,688
    Orange County
    Full Name:
    Brian
    I didn't make the documentary, I just posted it :D
     
  11. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,648
    Land of Slugs & Moss
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    (From previous public articles and commentary)

    Answer: James McNerney and John McDonnell.

    * Ill conceived program by bean counters instead of airplane people (like the successful 777).
    * The program was poorly executed using over extended supply chains and untried production software.
    * World wide outsourcing to under-qualified or unqualified sub-contractors.
    * Ignorance of the lessons learned from other highly successful programs in the company.
    * A second production facility where the labor costs were cheapest but unfortunately where the knowledge base and experience was nearly non-existent, for the sake of improving margin, not quality.

    - And to top it off, the 787-10 will be built at the second facility exclusively, (South Carolina).

    With that said, The 787 is a great performer and generates good revenue for the airline that flies it, (as long as it doesn't break down).
    The 787-9 will be the bread and butter airplane of the line because of capacity and increased range.
     
  12. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    :) ;)

    Without going all P&R, AJ is a pretty well respected news source world wide. In many "knowledgeable" eyes, right up there with the BBC & CNN in fact! Certainly a thousand miles ahead of the BS on Fox for example.....

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  13. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I have family and many friends and many in my old group working at Boeing.Comments on the AJ video are not out of line for I have heard the same comments face to face with my old friends. McNearny and his Douglas styled wrecking crew have done irreparable damage to the Boeing Co. Several highly skilled engineering friends have left in disgust and several more top notch employees are taking early retirement because of the poison that McNearny has sewn in the company. He has destroyed morale and antagonized the work force from the factory floor to engineering with his " Cowering employees" remark and the extortion of the employees and the state to keep 77X production at Everett.
     
  14. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I don't want to pop your balloon but I am personally associated with many people at Boeing and I have firsthand accounts of what is going on. The AJ documentary didn't stretch anything relating to the mess that Jim McNearney and his group has caused in the 787 program. They have tried to cover up and lie about everything that has failed due to their greedy efforts to squeeze money out of everything and everybody instead of producing a quality product of a marvelous design that engineering created. The Boeing now isn't the Boeing that I worked for for 48 years where a quality product was the first order and all else was secondary. The prime example is the 777 program where all stops were pulled to produce the ultimate winner over Airbus and we did it. BUT Alan Mullally was everywhere extorting the employees and urging us on to do the absolute best and he was in the factory as well the design areas. Boeing spent a lot of money producing the 777 but look at it now, bringing in profits that McNearny had nothing to do with. Everything that he has touched has cost Boeing billions. He has no knowledge of and could care less about producing a quality jet transport.
     
  15. Jet-X

    Jet-X F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    5,688
    Orange County
    Full Name:
    Brian
    Well Bob, that sucks...I'm scheduled to fly the 787 on 12/31 :(
     
  16. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I would fly on one. I think that any real problems have been addressed and they are catching up to everything else. All of the stuff that happened shouldn't have happened if the program had been run correctly. It will be a good airplane in time but McNearney has squandered billions in the mismanagement of the whole thing. The 787 was a giant leap in engineering and could have been a coup for Boeing but it was a huge embarrassment because of a stupid business plan to build it like it was a toaster oven. As long as the Everett gang is in place they will keep it going. I probably should keep my mouth shut but I'm angry at the way things are being wrecked by the dingbat in charge.
     
  17. NeuroBeaker

    NeuroBeaker Advising Moderator
    Moderator

    Oct 1, 2008
    38,742
    Huntsville, AL., USA
    Full Name:
    Andrew
  18. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    I haven't watched it yet, and TBH aren't sure I want to!.... What Bob, who I believe gave his heart & soul to the company pretty much all his life says is depressing enough. :(

    Sort of reminds me of another high profile "ousting" that's going on right now. :(

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  19. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    My wife recently booked tickets for me to hop over to New Zealand to see family. She booked the cheapest and it was Air New Zealand, which is totally fine except that I knew that they had just received a fleet of 787's ... I was able to check which plane and was very thankful that I will not be on a 787. If I was I'd be cancelling the tickets.

    While I understand everything has to be designed and built to a cost, there are somethings where there has to be sensible limits and I'm sorry I do not believe they have solved the batteries catching on fire issue, they have just masked the issue ... this should not happen with passenger carrying aircraft.

    Yes I'm a chicken but I'm also not being paid to be Boeings guinea pig or test passenger.
    Pete
     
  20. mike01606

    mike01606 Formula Junior

    Feb 21, 2012
    794
    Cheshire UK
    Full Name:
    Mike M
    I'm with you on this. As a survivor of a fatal onboard fire aircraft accident, this is what stops me using the 787. I am going to Florida next month and chose Virgin's 747 over the 787 option even though it was significantly less expensive to go by 787.
    A real shame as I'd looked forward to flying the Dreamliner and like others have said, hopefully confidence will build in the plane.

    WRT the documentary, the part outside the Yuasa factory was laughable. Some of the rest was a bit worrying. Apparent employee commitment/competence being the most.
     
  21. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,369
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    On the 777 there were still many 'old timers' who had gone thru multiple new airplane programs (747/757/767). These guys were what made the 777 the airplane it is. Without their leadership the enormous number of young engineers on the program would have floundered. Many/most of these guys retired sometime between the 777 and start of 787. The best of the young engineers on the 777 had now been promoted into 1st and 2nd level management positions. A whole new group of engineers who cut their teeth on the 777 derivatives were group leads. Derivative development is not the same as development of a clean sheet airplane, especially on one with the new technologies incorporated on the 787. The 787 was lacking in the technical knowledge depth that the 777 enjoyed. The impact of this was made worse by the level of outsourcing on the 787 and too few qualified (Boeing) people to oversee the work of the vendors, especially on the technical and quality levels. This was a management decision to stretch their technical resources too far.

    This is partially related to the first comment, re outsourcing. Have to remember that this was an Alenia/Vought facility and was going to be making significant assemblies for the 787 regardless of whether Boeing built a final assy line there. Boeing was in part trying to save the entire program by buying out Vought.
     
  22. Gator

    Gator Karting
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 29, 2006
    110
    Mesquite, NV
    Full Name:
    Darryl Van Dorn
    Bob & Spasso - With 40+ years in the aerospace business, non-aircraft, and from the outside looking in, I agree with you on a number of items.

    We learned early at Douglas Aircraft that the only people that care about Douglas business was Douglas. The only concern that all of our major subcontractors cared about were their business plans before ours. So, we put experienced engineers and quality personnel at the major subcontractors to make sure both technical and quality products were being produced to Douglas specifications and on schedule. We also designated responsible engineers to watch over bought parts. This is something that Boeing Seattle didn’t seem to do at first on the 787 and got into problems. From what I have read, the 787 program finally did send Boeing engineers, etc. into the field.

    I also believe in centralized engineering. My experience that on complex products, it is best to have engineering disciplines co-located. When we became Boeing, this was not the norm. At that time, the New Boeing philosophy was “you can take any engineer or manager” to do a job. My feeling was if you have heart problems, you don’t go to a brain surgeon. It is hard enough to pass on “lessons learned” as it is. On a program I was ask to fix programmatically/technically, I tried to centralize but was defeated by the powers to be in Seattle/Chicago.

    Where I think differently is, if the “engineering paper” and the “build paper” are good, you should be able to build hardware at any qualified manufacturing facility. We were able to move production from Huntington Beach to Colorado then to Alabama without incurring any failures. Unfortunately, the days of walking out on the floor and making revisions and the “hammer-to-fit, paint-to-match” days are over.

    Again, from the outside looking in, just when Seattle had Airbus up against the ropes, the unions at different times decided to strike or go into a slow down mode. It would seem to me that when you are trying to get customers to buy a new airplane, the unions and management should be working together. It seems adversarial conditions exist in Seattle.
     
  23. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    #23 Bob Parks, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    Your comments are dead on and delivered more accurately than my blurb. I was a part of the 777 program from the start, transitioning from the 767X work into the 777. That program was the model of how to run a new airplane program. Seasoned engineering top guns were gathered up from throughout the company and located in a cohesive well coordinated group. Manufacturing was the done the same way where the old timers from mechanics to managers were on board early to work with design as it became mature. Company managers and directors were visibly in the mix with everyone else and they instilled a sense of team and enthusiasm. Nothing was spared to produce the absolute best airplane and in the middle of it all we initiated the use of the CATIA computer in designing the airplane. Mulally was constantly circulating throughout the plant cheering everybody on and he did a good job of it. In short, every ounce of energy was put into building the best airplane FIRST so it could win the customer base and it did. A lot of *****ing about the cost of the program but look what it did. It, along with several other early models, became a "Cash Cow" that is kept the company healthy in the face of the current mismanagement. Too bad that somebody didn't look at the 777 program to see how it should be done. I might add that prior to my working on the 777 I had worked on every jet program from the B-52, 707 up to the 777. One can learn a few things over time.
     
  24. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    You are right on, particularly with the Seattle situation. McNerney and co. have orchestrated a plan to emasculate the union in the NW by their move in building the Charleston plant and hiring non-union workers. Again, this is not addressing the health and quality of the product but to punish the IAM for striking. The quality of the work being done in Charleston is evident when their airplanes are being flown to Everett to be properly fixed. Some of the engineering groups are being dismantled by opening the so-called "Centers of Excellence" in disparate locations in the country. Most of these groups are staffed by old timers who have established lives and homes here in the NW. Do you think that they are going to re-locate to a non-place to do the engineering work that should be closely coordinated with other on site groups? The Chicago people seem to be doing everything possible to disperse and break down any cohesive strength that employees would have. Impossible and frivolous tasks have been dumped on older tech and engineering staff to make them prove that they are worth keeping. Remember, they are making a lot more money than the new guys and their retirement is too expensive so best that they are moved along. Then there are plenty of young new engineers that can step in whose salaries are much lower and anyway, an engineer is an engineer and they are a dime a dozen. Don't bother with experience and knowledge. Same with "mechanics" off the farm.
     
  25. Jet-X

    Jet-X F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    5,688
    Orange County
    Full Name:
    Brian
    So ironically, yesterday, I got around to watching this new (2014) documentary (which I found amazing) vs. the tabloid reporting of the 787 documentary. It was about the 747.

    (it's on Youtube, but recently originally aired on the Smithsonian channel):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI_xl2cZaw0

    90 minutes long.

    But what I still find amazing, is looking at an aircraft like the 747, and how it was engineered, built, flown, and delivered in a fraction of the time it takes to put out another aircraft in this day and age. And they (Sutter's original team) did it, not with an "A" team of engineers (Boeing SST had the perceived "A" engineers), but WITHOUT all the computer processing power.

    And that aircraft is STILL flying to this day.

    So in a nutshell - WTF happened over the last 20 years that it now takes an act of God to build and deliver a new airplane.
     

Share This Page