Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787

I worked on that program for three years and there was some computer work in use but it was in its infancy. The main work was done by dedicated engineers and draftsman on the board and it was intense. Sutter and company "lived" at the plant and many of us did too. There were many hours of overtime and some weekends were simply put in without pay...I did many myself. The manufacturing guys busted their butts when it came time to put the airframe together and, again, the engineering guys were right with them. I saw Sutter and many of the department heads on the floor many times any day of the week. That program was a killer to work on because the fat was in the fire and Boeing had Juan Trippe on its back with heavy penalties if the airplane didn't fly by a certain date. Work was driven hard BUT QUALITY WAS NEVER COMPROMISED and if it took all night to do something, that is what was done. Excellent work by dedicated excellent people.

 

I agree with Bob whole heartedly. On the Missiles and Space side, we engineers did everything by hand. Used a slide rule, plotted our own curves, designers on the board did all the drawings by hand. We could sit in a design review and intuitively know what changes could be made if needed. As Bob said, with the advent of computers, if you needed a change, you started with the change and someone would punch the cards and next day get an answer that you could analyze. Now you sit in a meeting and ask a simple question and the young engineers will have to go and run a program to get an answer. Also, an engineer makes a drawing now on a computer and passes it off to another engineer that makes and assembly drawing who could be in another state or country. No more educated guess by an old experienced engineer. Plus, you have to make a bigger profit, so means reducing schedule and short cuts.

The other part of the equation is people who weren't brought up in airplanes, or space, or missiles are now put in charge of a program they have no knowledge of.

The one exception that I know of is Mulally, who should have got the CEO of Boeing, really improved Ford.

 

There is no reason why the people in Charleston shouldn't be able to build a quality airplane. When it was decided to build the F-22 Raptor here in Georgia, there was some trepidation among company management as to whether the work force here was capable of building an aircraft that advanced, because for years all they had been building were "sky trucks" (C-130, C-141, C-5).

There was a steep learning curve, and the first aircraft had a lot of issues to overcome. I spent some time back then loaned out to liaison engineering and there were a ton of tags to wade through. But in time, the "uneducated" work force figured it all out and the late Raptors were generally delivered "Code One" (defect-free) to the USAF.

Of course, for that to happen in SC, the Boeing management will have to be diligent to make sure that every mechanic gets all the training that is pertinent, and the necessary motivation to do his or her best job.

 

Wasn't a good part of this the facts that (besides the above engineering and 'team' issues):

Totally new materials... Spinning the CF tube.

Manufacturing all over hell and back: US, Japan, Europe, etc.??? Then put the tinker toys together in 2 different factories...



Neither of those were factors with the great 747, 757, 777 planes.

 

In a perfect world, Boeing would probably do some things differently. However, this is the new Boeing. And, it will either correct its' problems or it will ultimately fail when it alienates customer carriers. You can only rely on reputation for so long. And, we might as well get used to how business is done (right or wrong) today.

That said, everything I've ever read about this program indicated it was one of the most complex, computer-designed machines to be built. The new technologies, manufacturing processes and partners plan with anything this significant would understandably have kinks that need to be worked out. Building to the FAA's standard shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Building beyond that is better, but will customers pay? The market makes that choice.

Airbus is building planes that I've heard some (even here) say they wouldn't fly on, either. And, I don't understand why a workforce cannot be properly trained and supervised to deliver quality product. It requires investment, but as soon as that investment is made, workers unite/unionize and demand more and more. This documentary is almost so packed with issues, it's virtually impossible to deconstruct it in one single post. Blame DC, the regulators, the management, the workers, the sub-contractors and whomever else anyone can think of. Whistleblowers suffer. In part, it's just an indictment piece on the whole capitalist system, which is something I'd expect of Al Jazeera (who, btw, is being sued by Al Gore for breach of contract here relating to his sale of his cable channel).

Could the Dreamliner have been better executed? Yes. Should it be fixed? Yes. Will it be fixed? Hope so.

CW

 

I think that pretty much says it all. This report on AJ a few years to late!! The airlines know the 787 is cheap to operate, but all the delays and production problems left a bad taste in everybodys mouth. The 787 is now becoming what it should have been 4 years ago, a leader in the industry. The 7478 is also starting to put other makers very large airplanes to shame. I hope it gets the orders it deserves soon. If GE and Airbus do not certify a renengined A380 I think it will. And the 777-300 is still the best airliner ever made. Even Airbus admits that.

 

Don't get me started. The worst part is they believe the answer they get without having any practical knowledge or intuition to give them confidence that it is correct. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Prior to the 747-8 Boeing updated quite a few drawings (paper or real old CAD to CATIA). Then they went and measured all the tooling that is used to actually make the airplane. Quite a few major assy tools did not match the original design, yet the mechanics have been making everything fit for decades.

 

"Complex program with many challenges". That is exactly why it should have been done totally in house where it could have been monitored and controlled by its originators instead of thrown over the fence to a bunch of stringless yo-yo's, some of which were total unknowns and had no track record. That was dumb and irresponsible and showed that McNerney and his people have no understanding of how a large and complex airplane should be built, especially something so new and advanced. The 777 is probably the last aluminum airplane that Boeing will build but when it started it broke ground by being the first of Boeing's airplanes to done completely on the computer and believe me it was a challenge and expensive but it was a resounding success thanks to heavy training of the employees.
You mentioned why the employees can't be trained and supervised to produce a superior product. They can be, but try to convince a manger to spend some of his budget to train workers and inspectors. It is extremely difficult to show them that they will be saving money in the long run by virtue of fewer tags and scrapped parts. I was able to do this on the 727 and 747 programs and some of the courses that I developed are still being conducted for new-hires. The new clan at the Boeing helm have cut down R&D to save money. Where do they think all the new technology on the 787 came from? It just sort of popped out of the ground, I guess.
Look at the 64 year long string of Boeing airplanes; B-52, KC-135, 707,720, 727,737,757,767,and 777 and show me where one of them was delayed for 4 years while they figured out how to get it put together. Enter the McNerney show and the 787.
It's tough for me to keep my mouth shut when I saw so much good work on the models mentioned above and then to see someone make an inexcusable mess out of something good. It is a good airplane and things will get worked out but it it's too bad to see such embarrassment for a great company.

 

I can understand the pride you take in the company, and its' products. It was well-earned. And, I would like to see that kind of pride again. Not just at Boeing of course. It would be great if "Made in America" really meant something (quality, design, durability, etc.) again, as opposed to a punchline. I would also agree that, over the long run, quality produces lower TCO (total cost of ownership).

One major differentiating factor is Airbus, though. While Boeing certainly had competition, the rewards for a win (and penalties for a loss) today are staggering. And, when Airbus introduces/announces a new airframe, I'm sure the pressure is on Boeing to match (or beat) within the same time frame. Obviously, competition is good for the consumer, but if it causes companies to rush bad product to the market, that's not so good. And, even, internally, letting bad product go out the door is a managerial failure.

But, sadly (right or wrong), Wall Street is the tail that wags the dog.

As an ex-Wall Streeter, I am frustrated by that. Wall Street should be about facilitating great companies, ideas and people through financing them. The long view is the ONLY view, IMO. Profits come from companies that sell good product that customers want. Burn your customers with bad product, even once, and it will take multiples more to recapture their confidence in you. It takes time, commitment and investment to achieve good product.

Unfortunately, my way of thinking is in the margin. Guys like McNerney will be running the show for a long time, though. Boeing should have chosen a CEO from within the industry, maybe, as opposed to hiring a guy from 3M.

CW

 

We have issues like that on the C-130 fairly often. We've been building them for 60 years but sometimes we have to revise the drawings to match the airplane! And those drawings are a mix of four systems: manually drawn (but scanned into CADAM), CADAM itself, CATIA V4 and CATIA V5. (And anyone who knows CATIA knows that V5 was essentially an entirely new CAD system.) But we address every issue that comes along, and press on regardless.

 

Let me say this about unions. My nearly 40 years in the business has been split about 50/50 between a non-union company (Grumman) and a union company (Lockheed Martin).

In my opinion, when it comes to productivity and labor-management relations, non-union is better. At Grumman there were excellent relations between hourly workers, salaried workers and management. The mechanics were top-notch because they knew that they'd be out the door quick if they weren't. Salary and benefits were obviously acceptable to all parties, and this was mainly in a location with a high cost of living (Long Island). Every time a union showed up to try to organize a group of employees, they were voted down by large pluralities, and this was in an area which was generally quite liberal.

But arguably, this is why Grumman is no longer an independent aircraft builder. The management was so loyal to the workers and to the location that they priced themselves out of the business. Grumman management always said that "Grumman would never leave Long Island", and they stuck to it - it was Northrop Grumman, after the takeover (which was laughably referred to as a "merger of equals"!) which actually left.

So I guess that in today's business environment, that model simply will not work anymore. Only at a company that treats its workers the way Grumman did could do without a union, and that's just not likely in this business anymore. A unionized company will stay that way as long as their competitors do likewise, and only the bargaining agreement will keep the company from cutting costs to an unreasonable amount. This is probably why strikes seem to be the rule rather than the exception.

 

In So. Cal. with all the aerospace companies, I think in general, there was a relatively good relationship between the management and the unions. When times were good, if a company didn't treat the engineers and workers on the floor well, they could go "across the street" and work for another aerospace company. In Seattle, Boeing is the only game in town and did not really have major aircraft facilities outside WA (I believe).

 

I knew a fellow once who moved from L.I. to L.A. and he settled in Bellflower, which was in about the middle of the basin and thus was close to being equidistant between Douglas, Lockheed, Northrop, Rockwell, TRW, etc. I have no idea how many of those (or others) that he actually worked for. On Long Island, people went back and forth between Grumman and Republic, but I believe they were both non-union.

 

Of course, there was always Wichita, but to the Boeing people in Seattle, that seemed to be considered the counterpart to the Russian Front on "Hogan's Heroes", the place that no one wanted to be banished to!

 

With the 777 program, the culture by Alan Mullaly was "Working Together" across all organizations. Enhanced collaboration, right down the to suggestions by mechanics on the floor.

The 3 key elements of the program was the following:

A) Best design.
B) Best performance.
C) Best quality.
All regardless of the cost.

* All of the employees, including union, felt valued and gladly went the extra mile, (and with lots of extra overtime) to make this the greatest program in the company, EVER.

* A 777 rolls out every 2.5 days with high quality and good on time delivery by dedicated and experienced builders.
*************************
The 787 program on the other hand, with the exception of design, has failed in ALL of the elements above.

First and foremost in the 787 business model is to squeeze all of the suppliers mercilessly, buy the cheapest parts and find the cheapest labor with the the end result being a cheap plastic airplane built with cheap plastic parts.

All of this has backfired spectacularly and the profits from actual production will be practically nil. The only profits that might be realized is in providing spares to the airlines.

The disrespect of the employees and heritage of the by the executives of the company is palpable and destroying what was once a great company.

 

We all got a card with, if I recall correctly, 21 rules to follow on the program. Believe it or not, one of them was "Have fun!" It's hard to imagine that being a "rule" to follow today.

 

You must have got that card right out of Florida. I think that I had fun throughout my career. There were times I didn't realize I was having fun.

 

You remember correctly, Jim. And that was part of the climate then. In an all hands meeting in a theater in Seatac to enthuse us the executive officers cracked us up and surprised us with a showing on stage that absolutely was fun. The VP of Finance was of Scandinavian heritage. He roared on stage in full Viking paraphernalia complete with a horned helmet and gave us a fun show. The whole program was like that and it was a hard working but relaxed effort. Mulally was constantly circulating through the work areas throughout the plant cheering everybody on . Many of us got personal awards of achievement signed by Mulally (I have four) and he was the one who presented them. Boeing really blew it when they let him go. This 787 mess of which we speak in this forum would never have happened if he had been running the show.

 

Why I love Boeing

Show me an Airbus land w this damage
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is nothing when compared to " North American" that was almost cut in two by an ME109 over Africa. A long gash in the same area as this one but it took off the left horizontal and left part of the ME109 in the fuselage. I bunked with a B-17 tail gunner who rode the severed tail of his airplane down 13000 feet and survived. Boeing has always erred on the side of structural reliability and dual load path.The 737 in Hawaii that had the forward upper fuselage blow off still stayed together until they landed.

 

Show me a 787 land with this damage.

Being carbon fibre it will shatter into a million plus pieces.
Pete

 

I'm sorry, but that's a bull**** comment (IMO).

I guess I better don the flame suit, but they're building some damn fine airplanes these days. At least they don't spontaneously combust......

Not so sure there Pete.... It's not built like an F1 car.... Hopefully, they understand, and implement, Bobs "multiple load paths" engineering into the thing..... Although, from what he's saying, I wonder how many of them today even understand the concept of multiple load paths?

Cheers,
Ian

 

The name was "All American" not North American.