PLeblond

I guess that, using that logic, you wouldn't fly an A 380 neither?

108 airplanes currently operating. 1 inflight engine explosion, wing bracket cracks.

787 has over 180 airplanes currently flying...

Neither one would have 'not that encouraging teach records' in your mind?

kanor

I was very curious about the claim of AlJazeera that some airlines dont accept Charleston assembled 787s, so looked into the numbers a bit. I used this table as my source, published by the "all things 787" blog:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=2&output=html
I only used the 787-8 planes with a confirmed customer.

On the first glimpse its not very interesting, there are no airlines that only got Charleston planes. The bigger airlines that got only Everett planes are these: AA, BA, LO, + all leasing and charter companies.

With a second look at the data it seamed that there is a geographical connection which suggests some GDP correlation with the Everett planes customers. So its clearly realistic that airlines with more money or bargaining power pose an "Everett-only" criteria to Boeing.

As you see the table is ordered by the Charleston/Everett ratio, showing the aforementioned GDP correlation.

Let me know what you think.

HMO

I don't believe comparing percentages to be a good way to prove your points, only in the particular case where both productions are the same.

Comparing aircraft production seems to be (IMO) a better way to show the data. ^

kanor

What are you talking about? I dont get what you mean by "comparing aircraft production".

edit: I think I have an idea of what you meant, you want to see "number of aircrafts" instead of percentages. But that doesnt make sense because the relative ratio (thus the order) remains unchanged.

BearX220

Did you even look at it? It's not a "cursory fluff piece," it's a one-hour documentary that took months to produce. Like it or not, it's the kind of long-form investigative work the main news networks don't invest in anymore, unless the subject is kidnapped white teenage girls.

That's a very interesting analysis -- thanks. But much as Boeing's Washington state machinists' union might like it, I don't think there's necessarily much quality magic in factory geography. Boeing went through a big quality scandal at Renton a few years ago when 737 production ramped up and suddenly a lot of sick airplanes were rolling out with improperly installed wiring harnesses, crossed connections, etc. You think there's no weed on the premises at Renton or Everett? C'mon.

Not to nullify the issues AJA raises in this doc at all -- just to point out they are likely widespread.

lloydah

If moeve will let me butt in here - the above incidents/areas of concern you mention tireman are such that they have been clearly identified and sorted, and not repeated. There are other similar teething probs with many other aircraft, one can accept that. The 787 seems to repeat and repeat and no one has yet been able to say hand on heart we've solved it. If I'm at 35000feet I want more reassurance than that.

PLeblond

I could add ATR icing issues, 737 rudders and MD-80's jackscrews to your list. (although if the ATR is at 35k feet, you have bigger problems to worry about).

lhrsfo

It was an interesting documentary - too full of soft stuff for my taste, but still with some morsels of hard stuff.

The impression I came away with (and, of course, none of us are experts) is not so much the assembly line question (which was clearly being fed by propaganda from the unions more than anything else) but Boeing underestimating the work required a) to bed in new technologies (composite frames, much more extreme batteries) and b) to control a massively increased set of sub-contractors. And this makes sense: it is a matter of public record that the plane was delayed far more than would be expected for this type of launch - all are delayed but not on that scale.

So, you are left feeling slightly concerned that they haven't really solved the problems and that one or more could come back to bite. It has happened before with, for example, metal fatigue and other advances and no doubt will happen again.

As for refusing to fly the 787, I feel that's ridiculous. Even if the plane is flawed and that, for the sake of argument, one will be lost because of those flaws sometime in the next ten years, the odds against being on it are astronomical. Far safer to fly 787s than drive to work.

BearX220

Yes -- AJA is far from the first to point out that the 787 is a perfect storm of (A) new cutting-edge technologies, (B) untested subcontractors, and (C) ambitious just-in-time subassembly coordination involving all those Dreamlifters in constant motion, and in retrospect Boeing was out of its mind to take on all three challenges at once. That is why the plane is years late and has cost Boeing billions in make-good payments to airlines whose fleet plans for this decade were wrecked by these problems. There are hundreds of millions in write-offs still to come as Boeing quietly junks the so-called "terrible teens" -- early editions of the 787 that have been moldering, unwanted, at PAE for years in a sad, dejected row. They'll cost too much to fix. It's not principally a worker competency issue, the alarming stuff in the doc notwithstanding, but a macro process-design issue.

Traveloguy

I'm actually more concerned about Boeing's response, which can be found here:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.ph...95&item=129201

It's interesting to see Boeing have gone on the full attack without directly responding to a single claim the programme made. If they want to seriously suggest this really just tabloid style reporting, they really ought to address each claim with their version of the 'facts'. Whilst I have no doubt some of the claims made are just ex-employees airing grievances and twisting facts to suit their needs, there are at least an equal number that require a considered response by Boeing, as on face value, as they do appear to have possible safety consequences.

I still find the launch of the 787 bizarre which quite a number of key components were still made out of plywood.... A launch which was not a real launch should have been delayed to begin with.

lakers6902

[QUOTE=WindowSeat123;23513926]
Quote:

But not so for airliners. There is only one alternative, Airbus. Airlines don't have that choice. /QUOTE]

There is a choice. Airlines can choose from russian, or Chinese built aircraft, such as the Antonov

Tchiowa

Given that the first A380 production was blocked when they realized the various pieces of the plane wouldn't fit together, I'd call this piece what it is: "Political garbage".

zerolife

There is always a risk of defects, nothing is 100% safe. The question is how much risk you are willing to accept in order to archive the plane's requirement (e.g. light and fuel efficient) while keeping production cost as low as possible. Boeing willingness to accept the risk in exchange for low cost may be different than what I as a passenger is willing to accept.
o
Yes, the design & manufacturing philosophy of the 787 is totally different than the earlier Boeing planes. This has been widely covered.

Faulty ignition switch on GM verhicles led to 74 deaths, despite GM knowing early on that there are issues with the ignition switch. Some bean counter probably calculated it's more costly to replace the ignition switch than potential damage payouts, and he is likely right from a pure capitalist standpoint.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/03/r...nition-switch/

HMO

Antonov - nice choice.

Since 2000 , every year at least one AN-24 crashed. In fact, since 1965, only at 1999 there wasn't an AN-24 crash.

Me thinks I'll take my chances at an 787 ^

HMO

You are right ^