Al Jazeera - "Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787"

[fountainhall]

тАЬSooner or later thereтАЩs going to be a structural failure on the fuselageтАЭ

For those interested in the continuing saga of the Boeing Dreamliner, Al Jazeera recently aired a one-hour documentary, тАЬBroken Dreams: The Boeing 787тАЭ. It purports to go behind the scenes to witness тАЬthe world that Boeing keeps secret.тАЭ Most of it takes place after the incidents with the batteries were тАШsolvedтАЩ. For those not wishing to watch the entire programme, here are some of the highlights.

The root of the problem, according to the reporter, is fourfold. Firstly, the merger with McDonnell Douglas and the attempt to merge BoeingтАЩs successful business model with McDonnell DouglasтАЩ unsuccessful model. That was followed by the move of corporate headquarters from Washington State to Chicago, thereby removing senior management from the production process coupled with a need to satisfy Wall Street by making major cost cuts.

Thirdly it wanted a new plane, but it set a budget of only $5 million. To enable the Dreamliner to be built, it farmed out production of many parts of the plane to contractors around the world who would pay for their own production lines and costs of producing their parts

Fourthly, after being beset by a major mechanics strike in 2009, Boeing took the decision to open a second Dreamliner plant in Charleston, South Carolina тАУ with a non-Union workforce which included staff brought in whose experience had been serving at McDonaldтАЩs. As one Boeing staffer says, тАЬYou canтАЩt have someone from McDonalds doing heart surgery. ThatтАЩs trusting someone with your life. ThatтАЩs what weтАЩre doing here.тАЭ

But тАЬdesigned to save so much money, it was costing Boeing billions. The outsourcing plan failed very badly. All these different suppliers who were going to build these different sections, couldnтАЩt really do it.тАЭ So Boeing had to send hundreds of quality analysts to the contractors. Only, as a 32-year former Boeing employee said, "they were shortchanging the engineering process to meet a schedule and theyтАЩre not allowing quality control to do their job . . . How they sleep at night, I just donтАЩt get it. As an engineer I find that reprehensible . . . I would definitely avoid flying on a 787тАЭ

тАЬItтАЩs an iceberg!тАЭ

At a meeting in the Assembly Plant in Charleston, South Carolina with a man who works inside the plant who was allegedly taking a huge risk by even talking to the reporter, "ItтАЩs been eating me alive to know what I know and to have no avenue, no venue to say anything . . . With all the problems reported on the 787, thereтАЩs 90% thatтАЩs being swept away тАУ hushed up. ItтАЩs an iceberg!тАЭ

One worker states: тАЬI know of one customer, theyтАЩll no longer accept planes from Charleston due to quality тАУ they will only accept final assembly done in Washington.тАЭ At Charleston, BoeingтАЩs quality assurance inspectors do not check individual work, only the finished article. тАЬHere everyone is being pushed to meet the fucking schedule, regardless of quality.тАЭ

When complaints were made to the FAA, questions were referred to Beijing. The investigation was closed. Mary Schiavo, the former US Transportation Inspector General, said that Boeing alleges Boeing claimed they fixed the problems. тАЬThe regulators at the FAA will rarely cross Boeing. They simply wonтАЩt.тАЭ

тАЬI see the quality of the fucking shit going down here.тАЭ

Interviewed at Charleston, 15 workers were asked if they would fly on the Dreamliner. 10 said тАШNoтАЩ. When asked why, one said, тАЬbecause I see the quality of the fucking shit going down here.тАЭ

Finally, during an interview with Larry Lofti, the Boeing executive running the 787 programme, about serious quality issues at South Carolina, BoeingтАЩs Communications Director steps in, stops the interview and asks for the cameras to be turned off. Boeing then wrote to say тАЬour interview was hostile, unprofessional and in the worst tradition of tabloid television news.тАЭ It then made statements to deny all the points made in the interview s with Boeing staff and airlines making negative comments.

From what I have read, those who have flown the 787 seem happy with their experience. After watching the programme, would you fly one - especially one assembled in Charleston?

[youtube:3dh1olym]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os[/youtube:3dh1olym]

[joe552]

I haven't watched the show yet, so I might change my opinion later. I flew an Emirates 787 from BKK to Dubai this summer and was very happy with it. Much more comfortable than the Boeing 777 from Dubai to Dublin. I find it hard to believe that flight safety authorities around the world would license the plane if there were serious concerns about its safety. Maybe I'm being na├пve though.

[Jellybean]

Crikey! Like Joe552 IтАЩve not yet viewed the video, but based on your synopsis fountainhall it raises some serious and worrying concerns. I also share JoeтАЩs sense of disbelief that the US safety authorities would тАШsign offтАЩ any planes that didnтАЩt meet, what I would imagine to be, some very rigorous safety regulations. And that purchasing airlines would buy an airplane if there was any hint of safety issues. It also begs the question, is it known which airlines have bought the Charleston made Boeing 787?

[fountainhall]

Correction. In para 3, the amount should be $5 billion - not million. Apologies!

I'm not sure how you identify which originate in South Carolina and which in Washington. Boeing currently build ten per month - 3 of which come from SC. When production increases to 12 and later 15, the extra ones will all come from SC. Moreover, the latest version to be announced, the 787-10 will all be assembled in SC. However, some blogs are now claiming that SC cannot complete its 3 per month and these have to be shipped over to Washington for additional work and checking before delivery. I am checking the pilots blog site for more info.

I have not flown the aircraft yet and in view of the battery problems, I decided I'd wait 3 years. One interviewee does say that the battery 'fix' is essentially no fix at all. The batteries can still create a monstrous chemical fire. What Boeing has done is encase them in a metal box with a mass of flame retarding materials.

Like Joe552 and Jellybean, I was very skeptical before watching the programme. And I'm not totally convinced about all the claims - e.g. one was made by a former Union leader in Washington State and another from a senior worker who was fired. There could therefore be axes to grind.

As to the certification process, Mary Schiavo herself admits that the FAA is in Boeing's pocket. I think I am correct that Boeing all but self-certifies their own aircraft. I also agree that airlines which have purchased the plane must be aware of most of the programme's content. But there is I suggest another worrying issue. Near the end of the vdo, the name Ali Bahrami comes up. He was the FAA's man in charge of the 787 in 2011. He signed off on the original 787 batteries. After the grounding, Bahrami then signed it back into the air. Soon after that he retired from the FAA. 2 weeks later he was hired as VP of the aerospace industry's association which lobbies on behalf of - Boeing. One of his first activities was to appear before congress to permit airlines like Boeing greater self-regulation. As Mary Schiavo says. "One day you're regulating the airline; the next day you're working for it. You can's possibly be tough on the industry you're regulating because you'll never get that plum job after you leave. The regulators at the FAA will rarely cross Boeing. They simply won't!"

Last year Boeing had over 100 lobbyists. 78 of them were former government workers. 3 were former members of Congress.

[a447]

I just watched the video and, yeah, it's very scary...if you believe everything in it.

At the end of the day, no pilot is going to fly an aircraft he considers to be unsafe. Self-preservation takes precedence over everything else.

[fountainhall]

pprune.org has a number of conflicting comments. One from a pilot states - тАЬI've just seen it, and from my standpoint as an engineer and pilot who's just about to convert to type I found it disquieting. Bottom line, it's not really a Boeing, at least not in the way that Boeing made it's reputation and we all take for granted. I was planning to see my airline days out on it, now I'm not so sure.тАЭ

forbes.com is critical of the programme saying it falls тАЬsubstantially short on substance, too often falling into a slanted and biased presentation that leaves the piece wanting for objectivity and substance.тАЭ It accepts, though, that тАЬthe quality of Charleston 787s is well known within the industry to be less than the standard of Everett, and Charleston 787s are frequently flown to Everett for finishing and eliminating QC issues.тАЭ

But - and it's a big 'but' - that totally flies in the face of BoeingтАЩs own statement issued just 2 days ago. тАЬOur data of the current 787 fleet in service show parity in the quality and performance of airplanes manufactured in both locations!тАЭ

Who is correct, I wonder?

[joe552]

Having now watched the show, it does raise some serious questions. However, I too would put my faith in the pilot - if he's happy enough to fly it, that's ok for me.

[Jellybean]

IтАЩm afraid, due to eyesight problems, I cannot spend a lot of time in front of a computer screen. So British members and readers of this forum may be interested to know that the programme Al Jazeera Investigates has two showings on the Al Jazeera Eng channel (Sky Channel 514) on Saturday 13 September at 21:00 and Sunday 14 September at 02:00. I've set the record button.

[joe552]

I've just realised that it was probably an Airbus A380 I travelled on from BKK to Dubai - not a Dreamliner. But I would still trust the various air regulators to ensure the aircraft is safe, so wouldn't be too worried about flying on the 787

[fountainhall]

It most probably was an A380, Joe, as Emirates does not have the 787 in its fleet.

I can understand those who put their faith in the regulators. Yet, no doubt this is what those who flew in the early Comet jets did. Unfortunately, three crashed into the sea with the loss of all lives before the regulators grounded the plane. Structural design faults were found to be the problem. Even after the modified plane started flying again, public confidence in it never recovered.

Similarly with the DC-10. After a major Turkish Airlines crash outside Paris with the loss of 346 passengers and crew, a structural fault on the aft cargo door was found to be the problem. Some years later in 1979 an engine flew off as an American Airlines flight was taking-off from Chicago, again killing all on board. Whilst the immediate cause of that accident was faulty maintenance procedures, the crash threw up another structural problem with the main hydraulic line and its two back-up systems all passing along the front of the wing. All were severed. That again led to the grounding of the worldwide fleet whilst structural modifications were made. Once again, the plane never regained the general public's confidence.

Aircraft design and production have developed in leaps and bounds since then. However, the 787 enters unknown territory with its much greater use of composite materials. As was seen in the fire aboard the Ethiopian Airlines plane parked at London's Heathrow, those materials can melt at very high temperatures.

Equally, there is another issue that has consumed many columns on pilots' websites. This concerns ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin Operations). Twin Engine aircraft flying over water are limited by the amount of time they can fly on one engine before being able to land at a mid-point airport. Initially this was set at 90 minutes, and then gradually extended to 120, 180 and in many cases to 240. Because of the reliability of the 777s and A330s, in 2011 this was increased from 240 minutes to 330. When it entered service, the 787 was limited to 180 minutes. Yet one of Boeing's claims for the 787 was that it would be granted a far higher ETOPS, thus making it possible to save more fuel by taking shorter routes. SInce its return to the air after the grounding, Boeing aggressively lobbied for a 787 extension. That was finally granted in May this year. So you could now find yourself on a 787 flying on just one engine for as long as 5 1/2 hours. Nothing in the aircraft's history seems to suggest this is not perfectly possible. Yet, shouldn't we be bearing in mind Mary Schiavo's comment, тАЬThe regulators at the FAA will rarely cross Boeing. They simply wonтАЩt!тАЭ?

[goji]

I've just realised that it was probably an Airbus A380 I travelled on from BKK to Dubai - not a Dreamliner. But I would still trust the various air regulators to ensure the aircraft is safe, so wouldn't be too worried about flying on the 787
For identification purposes, the A380 has passengers on 2 floors.

I'll not get in a 787 for a few years yet.