The plastic fantastic 787 Dreamliner keeps sending alarming messages to interested if not impatient travellers and its increasingly desperate or angry customer airlines.
In its first five months with All Nippon Airways, the launch customer, it has averaged only one delivery per month.
Last week United Airlines joined the queue of customer airlines demanding compensation for delays.
On Friday Boeing shuffled the heads of the 777 and 787 program, which is itself alarming, because if its ex 787 business head was unacceptable in that role, why is he allowed to assume control of the 777 program, which is a terrific success, and could be about the go to the next chapter of its success story through a new series of -X models?
Earlier in the week Boeing briefed some reporters that as many as all of the 55 Dreamliners so far built awaiting delivery and other modifications could need repairs to a carbon fibre fuselage delamination flaw at the rear of the jet.
At a conference at which some on-the-record information was given, Boeing estimated that it would take between 10-14 days per jet to remedy the flaw, which had inadvertently been built into the jets. (Which sounds awfully similar in terms of process to the way Airbus has been inadvertently assembling A380 wings with inevitable cracked brackets caused by locking in excessive stresses.)
There are other disappointments too. Early users have referred to noise levels inside the 787 as being higher than they had expected, and an annoying electrical buzzing or whining sound, as well as a lack of perceived benefit from the cabin being pressurized to a lower altitude and with higher retained humidity levels, and even disappointment that ANA cabin crew had turned down the electronic window shades to block the views through what is supposed to be a selling point, giant windows.
In his half yearly presentation Qantas CEO Alan Joyce referred to the advantage of the 787s in not requiring heavy maintenance for their first 12 years of anticipated flight cycles.
This could come back to bite him, and everyone else, very hard.
At the moment it seems that Qantas, like all the other 787 customers, has no certainty as to what it is going to get from the 787-8 and later -9 models, nor when.
13 Comments
Ben, I applaud you for continuing to tell the hard truth about the 787 program, not the ‘game-changing’, lightweight carbon-fiber storyline so witlessly still being embraced by the mainstream media.
Is this project going to be the equivalent of the Edsel, the DeLorean, or the Pinto?
Yet I still see what I’ve seen for the past thirty years, most recently last week: Boeing representatives trash-talking Airbus more than telling us about their own products in various meetings and presentations. And total nonsense, too, such as that Boeing has a “more mature” aging aircraft program – yeah, right, because yours are the only ones that seem to fall apart in the middle of flights – and that Airbus gives airplanes away – yeah, right, that’s why I’ve never seen them be the low bidder in any competition I’ve seen – etc., etc.
Why can’t Boeing just tell the truth about their products, leave it to Airbus to tell about their products – and leave it to the customers to determine the merits in their respective cases? The constant badmouthing of competitors – especially with obvious lies – leaves a bad taste and further damages Boeing’s credibility.
RS
Edsel? Really…REALLY??? *geesh*
It’ll eventually work, but it’s just taking much longer to get there and – just like the 747 and 777 – the first 100 or so jets will be dogs which will never meet spec.
To Magoo:
Yes, really.
But, better the Edsel, which was shunned by customers, than the Pinto, which turned into a fireball on impact.
I wish I could share your optimism on it eventually working (as promised).
Yes, I feel sorry for B787 program, it is going from one sink to another, I don’t know how Boieng keep on producing new B787 plane while 50+ plane are placed there in the scape yard. it is much more worth to Boeing to stop their production of this type till they complete clearing their yard.
A key difference between the A380 cracks and the 787 delamination problem in the terms of locking in stress is that carbon composites are much stiffer and can’t plasticly deform the way metals can. That means than an incorrect shim (as in the 787) will lock in much more stess in a carbon composite than in a metal part.
From what I understand the 787 delaminations are the results of incorrect shimming (a manufacturing quality control problem), whereas the A380 problems were caused by incorrect material choice and incorrect prediction of the stress occurring during certain manufacturing steps (a design problem). Ultimately the same results (repairs / replacements needed), but a different root cause.
To johnny7713:
That’s an excellent point. In a conventional, rivetted aluminum sheet metal assembly, where there is some mismatch, or built-in preloading, local yielding will allow the load to be distributed between adjacent parts, to some degree.
It also means there might be significant differences in operational stress levels between one airframe and another, in CFRP.
Scary thing about composites is the difficulty of detecting hidden damage and difficulty of repair.
And how will they behave in a fire?
So far, the 787 would appear to have no advantages over conventional, aluminum structure, and some significant disadvantages.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22survive.htm
I hope Boeing is lucky enough to never have their internal eMails released like
what happened to those “valiant” and righteous people from the Heartland Institute
http://www.google.com/search?q=heartland+institute+internal+docs
Ciimate Sceptics forsoth!
Another example of US exceptionalism, for sure.
Rocketscientist seems to have locked himself out of his car. The reason why small cracks are a problem in aluminium structures is that they propagate.They too are often hidden and difficult to repair.
Carbon fibre has its own issues but crack propagation is not one of them. Heard of metal fatigue ?.
Last time I checked , fire is not good for any plane while in the air. Some say its the smoke thats the real problem but luckily any plane, aluminium or composite is hardly effected by smoke damage. Staying alive and landing is a bit more tricky
Ghostwalker, you are absolutely correct.
I used to be a stress engineer, but that was about a hundred years ago.
I am in contact with a few people working on the 787 and I am dismayed by the number who describe it as a POS.
Now where did I put my keys?
Perhaps AJ is backdating his comments based on the August 2008 delivery dates
Sure QF has been hugely impacted by the 787 program, but one of the major QF management failings in my view is the risk management done on non-delivery of this plane, considering it was the silver bullet to all QF’s fleet woes.
It’s now quite extraordinary to witness the positive spin put on the further delay of this plane to QF group until FY14(5 years late); that it assists with cutting Capex and getting the ratings agencies on side.
back in 2007 Jetstar were saying the 787 maintenance was a “‘quantum “‘ too high
Speaking at the maintenance master class during last week’s Asian Aerospace Congress in Hong Kong, Seb Mackinnon, acting general manager of procurement at the Qantas low-cost subsidiary, said that the figures Jetstar has calculated so far for 787 per hour operating cost is “quantum higher than what the Qantas Group was expecting and that’s obviously pretty alarming”.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-291788.html
Back in 2006 Boeing was claiming a doubling of maintenance overhaul flight hours
Check B767 B787
A 500 hours 1,000 hours
C (for systems) 18 months 36 months
C (for structure) 3 years 6 years
D 6 years 12 years
Sounds like they could combine the D check with the partout.