I know there are always a few issues that come up with a new aircraft type, but it seems as if the 787 has had far more than usual. First the battery, but there have been others, usually unrelated - most recently cracks in the wing.

I'm wondering if anyone here knows enough about the aircraft itself or the production methods that would explain this high number of issues. Do so many components use new and previously untested technologies? Has Boeing been rushing to get these into production because of high demand that their testing or quality control has been lacking? Will the 787 ever really be "safe"?

There is a school of thought that compares the Boeing of today with the Boeing of years ago. In those days, Boeing tightly controlled every aspect of the manufacture of their aircraft. The company's vision was always looking to where they and the industry would be in 10 years and what they had to do in order to maintain their lead position.

Some years ago, the company vision/mission changed from being the industry leader to maximizing shareholder value. With that as a driving force, they naturally sought to minimize costs by outsourcing labor to low-wage/non-union localities, extensive sub-contracting, etc. They thus opened themselves up to the possibility of shoddier workmanship, counterfeit (but cheaper) parts, and outright theft of their designs.

In any industry, it is not hard for company management to be dazzled by the thought of significantly lower costs and minimize the dangers inherent in some of these moves. We all try to convince ourselves that the best-case scenario is the one that will happen. In much of American business, sadly, bad things that might happen a few quarters down the line don't have much of an effect on the prospect of greater profits today.

Whether it all works out or not is yet to be seen.

The 787 project is a perfect storm of three major risk factors coinciding and blowing up at once. New, relatively untested materials (such as carbon fiber) and technologies; high reliance on subcontractors (80 percent of 787 manufacture is outsourced); and a globally distributed manufacturing process, with only final assembly of complete components occurring at Everett.

The airplane was hardly "rushed" into production. Consider that Boeing launched four entirely different commercial aircraft (707, 727, 737, 747) in the 12-year period 1958-1970, but the 787 has been gestating since 2003 -- 11 years. If that's a rush, I'd like to see what paralysis looks like.

The company bit off far more than it could chew and bet too heavily on subcontractors chosen as much for political advantage as for competence. Japanese suppliers make 35 percent of the 787, including its famously troubled batteries, not necessarily because they were judged best for the jobs but because Boeing hoped it would influence Japanese carriers to buy 787s. The result is an unholy mess.

Probably. Notoriously troubled airliners like the Comet and DC-10 were eventually considered very safe. But by then the world had moved on to newer, more modern, more competently produced alternatives and they were more or less irrelevant.

If you want a snapshot view of the market's judgment re: the 787, drop by Everett and see the 10 to 20 early-build Dreamliners that have been sitting there gathering moss for years, painted for airlines that no longer want them, which Boeing is desperate to dump at practically any cost -- vastly discounted off MSRP -- just to get them off Paine Field.

History will not count the 787 as Boeing's finest hour.

Nothing wrong with outsourcing. Everything from cars to computers to phones to planes is sourced from all over the world. Some companies do it better than others. Boeing apparently doesn't know how to do it as well as others. But blaming outsourcing in and of itself for the 787 issues is ridiculous.

The biggest reason that people are blaming outsourcing is because that was the union line, but the unions have held the company hostage in Washington with some of the highest labor costs, not just in the world because it is the US, but probably the most expensive city in the most expensive state in the US, albeit lower than France and Germany where Airbus is. Boeing has tried for years to open other factories within the US, and every time the workers have gone on strike because they wouldn't be able to force people to join the union there.

Think about it this way. It is cheaper for them to build something thousands of miles away, design and build a special plane to carry parts built thousands of miles away, and then fly those parts thousands of miles away to WA, than it is for them to just build that part in WA. The ideal best case would be for them to build everything in one place at the same costs as it would be to build it all over, but its cheaper this way. Also, no other project, besides NASA has ever used composites on this scale.

Not in principle, but like I said, it depends who you're outsourcing to. And it seems clear that Boeing did not have the distributed project management infrastructure to bring appropriate discipline to this very complicated process.

You are under the impression that Seattle is "the most expensive city" and Washington "the most expensive state" in the US? Is that what you're saying here? You've got to be kidding.

The company's vision was always looking to where they and the industry would be in 10 years and what they had to do in order to maintain their lead position.

Back in 2004, I'm pretty sure they didn't look forward to 2014 and envision years of production delays, battery fires trumpeted in the world's press, temporary loss of the 787's FAA certificate, a dozen or more unsold, unwanted airframes gathering dirt on the Everett ramp, enraged airlines whose fleet plans for the whole decade have been wrecked, and billions of dollars in discounts and make-good payments out the door to atone. What a horror show. Some lead position.

Yes, but outsourcing (to China for example) to make an iphone or ipad is alot different to outsourcing plane parts. The scale and complexity is just totally different. You can't just compare an ipad with a 787, you are comparing apple to oranges.

By the way, the 787 was not the first (and most likely not the last) plane to be outsourced by Boeing. In fact, Boeing has been doing this for many years with the 777 and its other jetliners with little issue or concerns. The problem is not outsourcing as a business principle but the scale and breadth of outsourcing of the 787 program, which was unprecedented. Boeing had no experience with this degree of outsourcing. They couldn't manage well the quality-control and logistical aspect of this complex supply chain. Now Boeing has figure out most of these issues, but it was a painful trial and error for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/jal-787-emerge...3--sector.html

According to the article, this was the same frame that caught fire in Boston.

Other aircraft have also had significant teething problems - eg A380.

I wouldn't describe the A380s problems as significant, at no point has the entire worldwide fleet been grounded as happened with the B787.

http://www.themanufacturer.com/artic...o-wing-cracks/

The Qantas A380 was almost lost due to the severe wing damage when the engine exploded. I would call the problems significant. Fixable, but significant.

The 772A at BA, UA and AA was considered a dog in 1995 to 1997. BA removed the 772 from transatlantic service due to early problems with the gear box.

The 772A had so many troubles that Boeing had to put out an enhanced version almost immediately after the first version came out. Additionally there have only bee 88 version A of the 772 produced where as 788 version A has 122 examples and counting.

The internet social media age is the big X factor when comparing 787 performance to earlier aircraft. Even the A380 missed out on the social media internet 2.0 craze.