You don’t have to be interested in aircraft or flying to find a parable about corporate fantasies, outright lies, or the image spinning that can harm or destroy businesses by looking at the dismal saga of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
As mentioned in the preceding post, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries overnight publicly blindsided Boeing by dropping the use of composites in much of its MRJ project.
No doubt, Boeing will lean hard on 787 partner Mitsubishi to recant, modify, or explain away the obvious, but to what end? The Dreamliner is flirting with failure, or suspension, and has already set records for deceptive public announcements, broken promises and weasel words.
The damage done by the Dreamliner fantasy spinners that suppressed the contrary voices among this once great company’s engineers and designers reaches into Airbus, which fell for the rhetoric and committed to a largely plastic competitor, the A350, and into carriers like Qantas, which still has 50 of the 787s on order and has been left looking reckless in its unquestioning acceptance of the Boeing pitch .
Qantas officially maintains it will get its first 787s in the middle of 2013, and not just the one that Boeing can’t even get into the air, but its successor, the 787-9. Even Air New Zealand, which is the launch customer for that version, has known for some time it won’t get a –9 until 2014.
And now Mitsubishi, who made the wing section that broke unexpectedly in a stress test in May, has dropped the plastics from all the critical or ‘adventurous’ parts of its own MRJ regional jet project.
This 787 con, which featured the roll out of a shell of a jet in July 2007, and was the subject of so many seriously deficient claims by Boeing, was sucked up to by a compliant media that has only just started to ask the hard questions.
What exactly did Boeing expect to get from tame reporting? It didn’t help the project, and probably delayed to some extent the onset of reality.
Neither Qantas nor any other customer on public record, is shown to have commissioned expert independent analysis of the claims for high composite structural usage such as proposed for the 787.
Instead the college kids who look like they should have been Mormon missionaries, stomped the world talking up the 787 as a ‘game changer.’
These are the two most dishonest words in aviation language. The only game changed by the 787 has been that of getting away with fantasy claims for a 767 replacement that on all the real indications will be larger, heavier, more expensive to maintain, and with shorter range.
Boeing is a company where hype has suppressed reality right up to the last possible moment. And not been challenged in general by the mainstream media, until now.
Scott Carson, who was relieved of his ‘leadership’ role at the 787, was replaced as president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes by James Albaugh, whose previous achievements include the failure of the Connexion by Boeing sky internet product, and the failure to get a fully functioning Wedgetail airborne command and early warning aircraft ready for delivery to the RAAF at anything remotely resembling the original specifications or timetable.
Boeing is a case study of how rhetoric, spinning, and media cultivation can critically weaken if not destroy an enterprise.
Can it now provide a similar case study in how to repair itself? That depends on its customers, who had ordered over 900 Dreamliners, and are battling the GFC, as well as its own ability to make the 787 work.
13 Comments
Do they even have a product that the worlds airlines now want to buy? Because it looks to me like the demand-cycle on airplanes has now disconnected completely from the timeline Boeing can deliver on. By the time this one is ready, Airbus will have product facing the same niche, either at the same price, or better.
So to what extent can the 787 meet their financial need, even if the engineering was fixed?
Is there a walk-away price they can afford to pay?
Ben,
How about running a game of Logical Fallacies Bingo; that is, see how many of the statements made about the Dreamliner fit the criteria of logical fallacies i.e.
Non sequitur
Red Herrings
Argumentum ad Populam
Argumentum ad Hominem
Appeal to Authority
Cognitive distortion
Arguments based on ‘a total indifference to reality’
etc.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
ggm
Good question.
This should be put to the Engineers who, like Scott Carson, have been asked to leave but for completely different reasons.
Maybe Boeing should hire some Caterpillar Executives. At least they still manufacture the best machines out of orthodox materials ,on time, and make money for their shareholders in the process.;
While we’re talking about Boeing management taking its eye off the ball, there’s speculation they’re going to move 787 production to an ex-Vought plant in South Carolina to cut costs. Way to go guys – you have a project with all sorts of technical and managerial FUBARs, that has enough problems with unprecedented subcontracting and manufacturing dispersal, and you want to disperse production further and move it away from where all your airliner design, construction and project management expertise is. The way the 787 program is going lowering costs is irrelevant. (Bangs head on desk repeatedly).
Here’s one article on it: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009834342_gregoire_boeing_not_seeking_st.html
Comments suggest that Boeing is grandstanding. If they are, this is D-U-M-B; I can’t see it giving prospective customers any more confidence in management’s priorities.
I’d like to thank Ben Sandilands for his excellent coverage of the 787 Dreamliner saga. There are only a handful of journalists around the world who are telling it like it is. The rest of the mainstream Australian media has so far only delivered Boeing spin.
The mystery is why so many world airlines are still hanging on to their Dreamliner orders. Do any airlines employ experts in plastic composite materials among their engineers? Maybe the airlines don’t have the expertise to challenge Boeing’s spin.
No wonder Boeing had to resort to spin with promises of an advanced airliner they had only a concept of at the time they started to sell it aggresively to trump Airbus orders.
Comet – you would appear to have very incisively got it in one. Highly likely with all the cut backs and the outsourcing that the airlines no longer have the Engineering expertise in house to understand, let alone critically assess what is being presented to and accepted by their generalist management.
The wretched excess of the 787 program may be solely a Boeing problem, but the generic smoke and mirrors program management problem is an industry-wide phenomenon affecting other airframers — and most airlines/customers as well. It’s a variation of the same quant/greed orientation that ruined the markets.
The sole interest of airframer screen-jockeys is manipulating product line attributes and benefits so as to plump next quarter’s numbers, just as the sole interest of most of their airline customers is managing the Street’s expectations such that guidance is modestly exceeded.
Just watch them all dance on any quarterly conference call. It’s pure aviation financial lambada. You’ll want to wash up afterwards.
I have a good friend who working on the Boeing 787 as an Engineer.I called him and had
a talk to him regarding the problems I can give you an accurate picture.
Boeing did the right thing in Developing an all new composite aircraft.Composite structure is a
proven material.The modern US fighter aircraft are made largely out of composite material F22 and F35. All new general aviation aircraft Cirrus,Cessnna 400 are all made out of composites.They are structurally strong and better in many aspect.Moving from Metal to composite is the evolutionary step in avaition.
They made seveal mistakes.Instead doing most of the final assembly work by themselves for the first time they outsourced most of their work to suncontractor.they thought they could save money but in the end they found out .The subcontractors did not perform the work according to Boeing standards and lot of the work had to be re-done. Making an all new composite Jetliner is an enormously complex task and Boeing should have done the same way they made the other jetliner.
Secondly Boeing did not accurately estimate the time and complexities involved in making a compsite jetliner.Many new things had to learned and perfected.Had they made a proto type they could have fixed things faster.Unfortunately computer modelling could not forecast the problems and issues the composite structures presented.
When Boeing 787 concept was presented to airlines around the world in 2003.Many airlines including Lufthansa wanted Boeing to install sidestick controller.Boeing was very adamant installing traditional yoke.Had they given a sidestick it would have made it more compatible with airlines that have Large Airbus fleet.
Boeing 787 will ultimately fly.the question is when. every time it is cloe to a flight they discover a new problem. I feel by the time it flies the Airbus 350 will be flying along with the 787.
qantaspilot… Agreed on the complexity overlook, but let’s compare and contrast the utilization and maintenance man-hour to flight-hour ratios of military, civil/general aviation and future transport category composite aircraft?
I will venture military and civil/GA composite aircraft utilization is a small percentage of the 3800 hours/year typical transport category aircraft utilization, and supported by a whole lot higher MX to flight ratio.
In fact, no one knows what the in-service experience with high duty cycle composite aircraft will be. We should have had more than a year of experience by now.
We will of course hope for the best, since some of us will be flying as passengers on them.
To qantaspilot, ask your Boeing engineer friend about damage tolerance to primary composite structure, lightning protection, inspection procedures, repair methodology, manufacturing flexibility, impact resistance, weight-savings (there aren’t any) .
Ask him also about flammability, behaviour in crash-landings, material costs, manufacturing costs.
There is no reason to go to CFRP for primary structure, in large civil airliners, other than a ‘religious’ belief.
ie: A belief based upon faith, not fact.
Military aircraft are a different proposition, as remarked upon by LTO.
sorry for the delay in posting. I could not get hold of my Boeing Engineer friend as he is away on a conference.How i can tell you about a meeting I had with an Airbus executive who was an engineer at Airbus and is presently working on the Airbus A350extra widebody program.I met him at the Australian Airshow and had a good chat with him about A380 and the Airbus A350 Extra widebody.
He said to me that Airbus has great experience working with composites for over three decades.I thought Airbus was going to build barrels.He said that they are going to build the airframes with composites.How ever there will be a lot of metal reinforcements all long airfame.He also mentioned that.Airbus had studied building aircraft through barrel technology but they found that it is not the best way to build an airliner.
I will try and talk to my frined and then make my next post.
2 Trackbacks