If news about the delays to the singularly definitive test flight of the super fire box fitted LOT Polish 787 hasn’t been trying enough, today’s (Saturday US time) postponed of a Dreamliner flight that is dealing with unrelated electrical panel problems seems to have made one Seattle Times reader snap.
First, the story here.
And then this comment:
I’m really concerned about the quality of reporting the Times has done on this story. The 787 has been MAJOR news since it was launched and I have yet to see one story in the Times that digs real deep in to all the delays and troubles this plane has had, afterall, you claim to have earned 9 Pulitzer Prizes for reporting, but you haven’t dug deep into the 787 at all, instead you just rehash Boeing press releases
Something is/has been seriously wrong with the 787 program all along, all the delays should have been red flags for some investigative reporting, instead we have to read the WSJ, Business Week, NY Times and Forbes to get a real story about what is going wrong at Boeing.
Is it because the Times is afraid to offend a hometown employer? Is the Times putting advertising dollars it earns from Boeings full page ads over public safety? I think so. Any good paper would have been digging deep into this story for years and reporting all the missteps along the way, but them of course the Times might have pissed off Boeing right? So what, safety is more important than pissing off McNearny, after all he destoryed the 3M company in Saint Paul, Mn, he was kicked all the way to Chicago on that one.
Frankly, I’m disappointed that the Japanese newspapers broke the story about the 100s of assembly errors they found so far in the 787, The JAPANESE had to report it, but the Times didn’t? Do you realize that even American cars don’t leave the factory with 100s of assembly errors?
To add insult to injury, you want me to now pay to read your paper online? Why would I do that when I can go directly to Boeing’s and the FAA websites and read their press releases and make up my own mind.
Seen from here, the ST reporting seems to be undeserving of such a blast. It has been on the case in a major and timely way since the Boston fire (no, really Mr Boeing it was on-freeking-fire, and for 99 minutes) and very insightful as to what is going on in Boeing’s management, which is not pretty.
But while tempers fray it is of rational, unemotional concern that almost five years after the Dreamliners were supposed to enter service, the company no longer has the capacity to design a complete jet or properly assemble one.
The competitor for the next version of the 787, the -9, is the Airbus A350-900, and it is being prepped in its cage over in Toulouse for its test and certification phase, which absent another stuff up, is going to see it enter service in the second half of next year, before the first 787-9s are delivered.
What needs to be kept in mind that the 787-9 must carry a full payload both ways on routes as long as Los Angeles-Sydney, or in light of today’s events, the same task as flying Sydney-Dubai.
There is no wriggle room for Boeing on this. The 787-9 must be a 14 hours 45 minutes full payload jet in a Qantas configuration, or those options that it can exercise from 2016 are seriously resistible.