Slashdot Mirror


FAA To Investigate 787 Dreamliner

Dupple sends word from the BBC that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will be conducting a safety review of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner after a number of incidents have called the aircraft's hardiness into question. "An electrical fire, a brake problem, a fuel spill and cracks in the cockpit's windshield have affected Dreamliner flights in the past week. ... The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most advanced aeroplanes ever created. Much of it is made from very strong, light carbon-fibre composite material. However, a spate of technical issues has hurt its image. On Friday, two new problems were found, adding to Boeing's woes." A spokesman for Boeing said they were "absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the 787," and were cooperating fully with the FAA's investigation. The 787 went into service in 2011, and 50 have been delivered to various airlines since then, with hundreds more on order. Qatar Airways has received five of them, and it has criticized Boeing for manufacturing faults.

237 comments

  1. Outsourcing Manufacturing by Liquidretro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if the manufacturing and quality problems has anything to do with the change on this plane that it is made all over the world, by tons of suppliers, then all moved to a common location for final assembly. This is a departure from the way Boeing has done manufacture in the past where most things are done under one roof.

    1. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Possibly. But a lot of cars are built that way too, and while a process change for a business invariably has kinks to work out, that doesn't mean the move was the wrong one. Boeing was hemmoraging cash up until recently, and this switchover may save them a lot of money at the cost of some run-up problems.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Possibly. But a lot of cars are built that way too

      True, but note that in fact there are many many "recalls" for critical problems with autos every year. Yet there is a difference between an auto traveling on a surface road with 2 or 6 passengers, and a jet at 30,000 with 200 passengers. When one catches fire, it's going to be a little more catistropic than the other...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Liquidretro · · Score: 1

      True, business conditions drove the decision and thats important, I just wonder if there are not enough checks in place etc due to the new system of manufacture.

    4. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a departure from the way Boeing has done manufacture in the past where most things are done under one roof.

      Boeing has been making parts in one place, from small ones like doors or control surfaces all the way up to entire fuselages, and shipping them to another for final assembly for many years now.

      They started assembling 737 fuselages in Wichita and then shipping them by rail to Renton for final assembly back in the 80's. The production of smaller bits (doors, seats, empennage, etc...) overseas (notably in China and Israel) started back in the 90's. (And was a huge issue in one of the machinists strikes.)

    5. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but note that in fact there are many many "recalls" for critical problems with autos every year. Yet there is a difference between an auto traveling on a surface road with 2 or 6 passengers, and a jet at 30,000 with 200 passengers. When one catches fire, it's going to be a little more catistropic than the other...

      An apples to oranges comparison. I'm referring to the efficiency of the manufacturing process. You're referring to problems with the engineering and design process. Airplanes like this are built one part, one section, one plane, at a time. There's numerous qualifications and tests done at each stage of assembly. And the models don't change year over year, unlike cars. The 787 is being produced with interchangeable parts and have the same general appearance, function, and specifications, as the ones 5 or 10 years from now will.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Airplanes like this are built one part, one section, one plane, at a time."
      no they aren't. Many parts are built at the same time and then assembled.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Airbus is built the same way, with pieces from all over the world. And considering the size differences, I'd say the Airbus is even more impressive.

    8. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's deeper than that in general these days. I don't know if Boeing is guilty of these.

      1. Engineers without the right mindset, graduating from school doesn't mean I'd trust the work for life critical systems. You should think and worry about every single possible failure case, and invent new ones.
      2. People other than engineers making engineering choices. This is rampant in consumer segment.
      3. The stockmarket. If you don't do your best to make it cheap and shiny, they sue.

      Quite frankly I think number 1 is the biggest problem I've seen, I like contemplating complex problem scenarios, and people say I over-think it. And most importantly, this is an area where computers are virtually useless.

    9. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      The difference is that the 787 is the first aircraft Boeing has attempted to build pre-stuffed fuselage sections off-site for, and assemble them into a completed aircraft at the FAL. Airbus has been doing this since the early 1980s, but Boeing still used their on-site build process for the 777 in the 1990s.

      Boeings mistake was in changing the production methodology at the same time as changing the technologies involved - a switch to a higher aluminium content electrical wiring and the differing tolerances of such a move, new ways of grounding, new materials etc etc. suddenly the same assembly workers have to adjust not only their working practices but their skill set as well.

    10. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly I think number 1 is the biggest problem I've seen, I like contemplating complex problem scenarios, and people say I over-think it. And most importantly, this is an area where computers are virtually useless.

      Huh?? Software is replacing more and more hardware on these airplanes. And computing power is constantly increasing. I'd say computers are becoming VERY useful at finding and fixing failure modes. Of course you need intelligent, mindful people using these tools, but your statement that I quoted is simply not true.

    11. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      no they aren't. Many parts are built at the same time and then assembled.

      *facepalm* part does not necessarily mean discrete component, dude. As in "part of a plane".

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    12. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if the manufacturing and quality problems has anything to do with the change on this plane that it is made all over the world, by tons of suppliers, then all moved to a common location for final assembly.

      I think an even bigger problem is the way that the engineering was outsourced (whether domestic or foreign outsourcing). Even Boeing management eventually admitted they screwed the pooch on that one. In many cases subcontractors that were capable of manufacturing good parts were suddenly given the responsibility of designing them - an area where they had little expertise. There was also poor coordination between Boeing and these subcontractors. The only way they got this pig up in the air is by finally bringing in a bunch of engineers who had deep expertise in designing airliners. Surprisingly they found almost all of them at a company called "Boeing". Perhaps they should have used that company's engineering services all along.

      Many of the mistakes made in the 787 design were downright amateurish, such as improper design of the wing attachment points (and extremely critical part of the design that Boeing had figured out decades ago). Though they got enough of these biggies out of the way to get certification, it doesn't surprise me that there are still lots of "little" problems left over.

    13. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a software engineer? You certainly didn't get the grand-poster's point. The idea is that in the _design_ phase there are important points where CAD doesn't help much, like checking for failure possibilities that aren't part of your computer model. This is particularly true of things like a hidden lack of redundancy. A simple example is when redundant electrical, fiber optic or hydraulic lines are routed too close to each other in spots.

    14. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Normal mode of operation for cars doesn't include flying.

      That extra degree of freedom is a big difference.

    15. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Everything about this plane is new. It is also probably had the most anal QA process that any airliner has ever had. With the hundreds of thousands of parts, it was inevitable that there would be some issues.

      At least is hasn't flown into a forest and crashed and burned.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    16. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comparing airliners to cars is a terrible, terrible comparison, and not for the reason that many would think.

      Airliners are just ridiculously safe. Statistically speaking, you are safer on your standard 737 jet than you are sitting on your couch, in your living room. Comparing their safety to a car is like comparing the safety of going for a walk in a park to playing with hand grenades.

      In this environment, *any* kind of problem is just intolerable. As much as anything could be, airliners demand perfection, and given peoples' general fear of flying (damn the numbers) it makes sense why.

      BTW: The reason why a jetliner is statistically safer than sitting on your couch is because people near death due to age/disease don't typically fly but they are likely to sit on their couch.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    17. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by mpe · · Score: 1

      The idea is that in the _design_ phase there are important points where CAD doesn't help much, like checking for failure possibilities that aren't part of your computer model.

      The A in CAD stands for Aided. The computer is a tool which still requires a human to use it properly. Computer models can in some cases be worst that useless too.

    18. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 2

      It's more of a logistic headache im sure. What I am interested to see is how the composite construction stands the test of time along with the new "Bleed-less" engine design" which now requires systems that used to use compressed air from the engines( cabin pressure, de-icing, etc), to use electrical power. Boeing claims it will save fuel but the generators and electrical systems are a good deal beefier on this aircraft, and bleed less design is a first for large passenger aircraft.

    19. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by mea_culpa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It think it has more to do with the MBA culture that has infected businesses in the US like a cancer. The environment this creates cuts out any will to perform better than what is needed to stay employed promoting mediocrity. When this goes on long enough, good talent tends to look for a better habitat.

    20. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      This article highlights some of the things you mention.
      As the author points out, Boeing was forced to keep pushing the delivery date on the 787 for over 3 years

      Boeing Has An Airplane Problem, Not a PR Problem
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/boeing-has-an-airplane-problem-not-a-pr-problem/

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    21. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      It's made of plastic and snapped together like a kid's toy. It's a fucking joke. Boeing has sunk as low as airbus.

    22. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is that in the _design_ phase there are important points where CAD doesn't help much, like checking for failure possibilities that aren't part of your computer model.

      The A in CAD stands for Aided. The computer is a tool which still requires a human to use it properly. Computer models can in some cases be worst that useless too.

      The more advanced the system becomes, the less interested you will become in the process. You can quote me on this if you like. But quite frankly, once the 'Aided' part does everything for you (This includes structural simulation), you will become seriously bored at the task, unless you are obsessed by it. (By which I mean people who are very very serious about it and quite probably dysfunctional in normal society).

      This is already a problem in areas that require high quality control. And it's especially true in systems that allow software programming of it, because validating them in error situations becomes increasingly difficult.

    23. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Boeings mistake was in changing the production methodology at the same time as changing the technologies involved - a switch to a higher aluminium content electrical wiring and the differing tolerances of such a move, new ways of grounding, new materials etc etc. suddenly the same assembly workers have to adjust not only their working practices but their skill set as well.

      Boeing is vainly trying to reach with the 787 the same seat-mile efficiency they have with VW-Bug-level brilliant 737. They're trying to do it with weight-cutting measures to be able to eventually carry toward 1000 passengers. This is doomed to a massive marketing-driven engineering failure.

      What happened to the highly critical documents objecting to the safety of a non-conducting synthetic fuselage with minimized chicken wire to try to harmlessly divert a couple of lightning strikes every year? Land-outlawed aluminum wiring when a 747 over Long Island exploded from faulty wiring, when the FAA remediations have been waived as too costly?

      Dream on, Dreamliner.

    24. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Talking with some Boeing guys from Seattle, I asked what is their take on lengthly delay of 787. They answered it was outsourcing many items which Boeing had to buy back some of these subcontractors to complete many subassemblies. They also said Boeing management admitted mistake in outsourcing too many items.

      I wonder if 787 will be the last new airplane series Boeing will build. Likewise with the A380. From here on, it will all be stretched, re-engined or what not. It seems much of Boeing's infrastructure in Everett/Seattle has been dismantled, i.e. large foundry that built landing gear I heard was closed some years ago. 787 Wings were designed and built in Japan.

      But then 787 has higher cabin pressure so you will not lack O2 those long flights (but then less cabin pressure gets you "ahead" when having a alcoholic drink). Did you know that the one pressurized air vehicle that had sea level pressure was the highest fastest flying of them all: Space Shuttle.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    25. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Boeing was hemmoraging(sic) cash up until recently, and this switchover may save them a lot of money at the cost of some run-up problems.

      Does the cost of those run-up problems remind anyone else of this little bit of dialog?

      Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting.
      Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Define "interesting".
      Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    26. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Then Airbus tried to use Al-Li in the A350 only to get shot down by their clients because it wasn't using the composite material bling of the Dreamliner in the main fuselage. Hah. They sealed their own doom.

    27. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There are supposed to be two more airplanes but I don't know how much the roadmap changed.

    28. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When one catches fire, it's going to be a little more catistropic than the other...

      Not nessicarily.

    29. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by jafac · · Score: 1

      (and extremely critical part of the design that NACA had figured out decades ago)

      FTFY. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    30. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by green1 · · Score: 1

      I think the problem being referred to is completely seperate from the CAD part. It's a mindset problem. I had this discussion a while back where I work:

      Me: The [part] has failed, I need a new one.
      Them: [part] doesn't fail.
      Me: Well in this case it did, so I need a new one.
      Them: We can't give you a new one, because that part can't fail.
      Me: Well it did, so what's your procedure for this?
      Them: We have no procedure for this, because it can't happen. You don't need a new part.
      Me: ok, well I'm stealling [part] from [unused system] now, you can figure it out, but I suggest you do it before [unused system] is needed, which will be about 3 customers from now... (at current rate of subscription about 1 day)

      This can be translated in to all sorts of different areas, but the commonality is someone forgetting to think of a particular situation as being possible. And often continuing to refuse to think about it, even after that situation has manifested. Many issues in all sorts of industries turn out to be that exact problem, either somebody forgetting that ALL parts can potentially fail, and that ANY combination of them could fail at once. or someone failing to anticipate a use case, "Nobody will ever try to do X and Y at the same time!" And historically the airline industry is certainly not immune, and no level of increased reliance on CAD software can help this either.

    31. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are at least two and possibly three different variants of the 787-8 model in commercial service right now. And they won't actually reach the 'final' configuration off the factory floor until somewhere around the 100th airframe. There have been changes to the engines, systems and the airframe itself, some will be retrofitted to the early deliveries during heavy maintenance, others are permanent and adversely affect the fatigue life or range of the aircraft.

      And then there are the first few flight test airframes which are so different that Boeing had to abandon its plans to actually deliver them to customers.

    32. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      The backlash against the Ai-Li might be a mixed blessing; the material is still used a bit in the current design and the billet supplier is struggling with meeting porosity limits in the billets (the cast and rolled blocks that the parts are machined from). The porosity significantly affects fatigue life, so the parts get beefed up to reduce stress levels, which increases weight.

    33. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about; drop it. I've been doing aircraft stress analysis on Airbus aircraft for 7 years (this includes reading documents that elaborate what failure loads and conditions you have to design for) and have never seen any sign of failure modes being invented automatically. Computers just do all the tedious stuff.

    34. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Statistically speaking, you are safer on your standard 737 jet than you are sitting on your couch, in your living room."

      When my couch has a catastrophic malfunction, everyone on that couch is just about 100% likely to survive.

    35. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, you are safer on your standard 737 jet than you are sitting on your couch, in your living room

      I'll have you know that my couch is equipped with enough parachutes for every occupant on board!

    36. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Comparing airliners to cars is a terrible, terrible comparison, and not for the reason that many would think.

      Oh, I'm sorry! I thought we were discussing the differences between a problem in the fundamental design of a product, and manufacturing flaws -- two categories you will find in everything built from automobiles to zylophones. But if you want to have a king sized bitch about using something people can relate to (a car) with something a bit more abstract (a plane, which they don't use everyay), by all means don't let me stop you.

      In this environment, *any* kind of problem is just intolerable.

      I asked for cold water and I got lukewarm water. THIS IS INTOLERABLE! Also, I think someone may have stuck gum under the arm rest. Problems happen in every environment. Every. Single. Fucking. One. There is no such thing as perfection in engineering. You need to suck it up, cupcake. Now let's talk about safety margins and risks.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    37. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing has long depended on other suppliers for major assemblies. The 787 just stepped it up even more, including farming the design of some large assemblies out to the suppliers.

    38. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the US, but the world. What airplane maker has produced a new airplane on time and close to budge lately?

    39. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a recommended read for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

    40. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's standard practice for Airbus to manufacture aircraft parts in several countries and fit them together on one site but it's aircraft don't suffer from such problems.

    41. Re:Outsourcing Manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windshield made by PPG, a a US union shop.

  2. Dear Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HaHa! Sincerely Airbus

    1. Re:Dear Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scarebus, Screamliner - all the same mate

    2. Re:Dear Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Ha ha? Did I miss Airbus releasing their first carbon fiber aircraft? No? Then they can shut up until they do. I seem to remember there being a couple of Airbus crashes in the past few years. Perhaps Airbus can focus on fixing their planes instead of laughing at Boeing.

      Don't get so worked up about this. For a long time we patiently listened to our American cousins gloating about the Airbus 380's problems and how well everything is going with their Dreamliner, then production delays happened and now this... and alluvasudden the gang on the other side of the grew awfully quiet. It's our turn to enjoy some schadenfreude you guys have been going to town with that since the A380 wiring fiasco.

    3. Re:Dear Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Those fucking airbus commies should just go suck stalin's dick or something! USA!! USA!! USA!!

      (nevermind the fact that Airbus has nothing to do with this at all, and isn't mentioned anywhere except in a joke reply by someone I'm pretty sure is not an Airbus employee.)

  3. Not good enough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems that most revoloutionary aircraft have nearly sunk the parent company. The 787 hasn't come close to sinking Boeing, so one can conclude that it's not good enough.

    Sillyness aside, new aircraft always have teeting problems (the A380 blew up an engine during flight) and this is a particularly new and unusual aircraft. So, expect lots of teeting problems.

    They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.

    That said, I've never seen an explanation as to how to do the equivalent of replacing a skin panel when the skyfood loading truck reverses into the plane.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, I've never seen an explanation as to how to do the equivalent of replacing a skin panel when the skyfood loading truck reverses into the plane.
       
      Super glue. Duct tape. Saran wrap and a heat gun.
       
      Those are a few of my guesses.

    2. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the A380 blew up an engine during flight
      No, an engine which was attached to an A380 blew up during flight. The A380 didn't blow it up. It isn't even "part of" the A380 in the sense that it isn't designed or manufactured by Airbus or even bought from them (the customer negotiates the purchase with the engine manufacturer directly).

    3. Re:Not good enough. by ibwolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.

      Or in other words; wait for the first service pack before flying...

    4. Re:Not good enough. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, I was stationed at Dover when the first C5-As were rolled out. You wouldn't believe the trouble they had... landing gear not coming up/down, engines falling off, fires, hell even one of the giant cranes that serviced the aircraft's tailsection fell over at another base and killed two guys, grounding the whole fleet of C5s for a few weeks.

      A year or two later they pretty much had all the bugs ironed out. After that the worst that happened was one poor guy I worked with was towing one and hit a hangar door with a wing and did ten million dollars worth of damage (he got off the hook, the wing walker got the blame).

    5. Re:Not good enough. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse the engine with the aircraft. Generally the manufacture recommends an engines, but the customer can pout whatever engine they want' into it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Not good enough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You jest, but that's not actually that far from the truth.

      After a few years, they'll start making the 787-2 or some equivalent which will fly fine out of the factory. Many of the critical changes will be retrofitted on to the original 787s as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats not what happens. As problems are found and corrected, the FAA issues airworthiness directives (AD) that require the fleet to undergo fixes in a certain amount of time. Sometimes they ground the fleet until all aircraft are fixed.

      Different model numbers usually refer to stretched versions of the same airframe. It cuts costs as stretching the fuselage isn't considered a new aircraft type, so you don't need to go through the whole type certification again. The 787-200 or whatever will carry more people. Airliners are designed with this in mind, engines and wings are oversized for the smaller models, and the type will grow eventually.

      You can see this in the 737. there are 8 or 9 models, all of them are flown under the same type certificate.

    9. Re:Not good enough. by Checklist · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't matter how advanced the plane is-you will still get 2 inches of legroom,crappy food, rude personel etc,etc as part of your flying experience

    10. Re:Not good enough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't confuse the engine with the aircraft. Generally the manufacture recommends an engines, but the customer can pout whatever engine they want' into it.

      Only up to a point. The planes are genrally available with only a very small number of engine options. Also like with many big new aircraft the trent 900's were made specially for the A380. Though of course RR will hope for new customers, too.h

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Not good enough. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in the day my friend's dad used to fly 707's (yes, it's a very old story) and whilst taxiing, they managed to gouge a chunk out a wing. This was at a US airport. They needed to get the plane to Australia to get the replacement wing so they moved the plane somewhere quiet at the airport and duct taped up the wing. They were told to be careful no one saw what they were up to. They then had to take off at night when it was quiet so no one could spot the bodged up wing.
      .
      My friend's dad was good at that sort of thing. Another time he lost 2 of the 4 engines flying over the UK and was told to dump most of his av-gas to lighten the load so he could land in France for repairs. That involved opening valves that let the gas pour out over the wings. It was bad enough he dumped most of his fuel over a populated area (nice, greasy, thanks mate) but he also had to do it in the middle of a raging thunderstorm. He got struck twice whilst doing the dumping. Amazingly, he and the plane survived to fight another day,

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    12. Re:Not good enough. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.

      Or in other words; wait for the first service pack before flying...

      ...and don't ever book a flight on Patch Tuesday.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    13. Re:Not good enough. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Aren't you being a little obtuse? The aircraft manufacturer works with the engine manufacturer and certifies only certain engines. Boeing didn't make the battery that caught fire, but they are still responsible for it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.

      Or in other words; wait for the first service pack before flying...

      First service pack is not enough, wait 'til the second or third one.
      Just remember, if the plane CRASHES you can't reboot it.

    15. Re:Not good enough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      OK, I glossed over some bits.

      There will various directives issued which will be fixed.

      Probably reasonably soon, the base model wil be phased out. A new versionwill be introduced will all those fixes plus some new extra features. Like the 747-400, versus the original. It has all the older AD stuff integrated, plus new wings, instrumentation etc.

      I's a different certificate but not that much different from 747 service pack4. Basically they've figured out how to get the most out of that basic airframe now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't use duct tape, you use speed tape, and it is qualified for these kinds of purposes.

      Fuel dump evaporates before it hits the ground.

    17. Re:Not good enough. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not unbelievable at all.

      Another related anecdote: I know of a structural engineer (friend of a friend) who wanted to photograph an old concrete shell hangar at Heathrow(?) before it was demolished, as it was an excellent example of tension shells.

      Being from Cambridge, he was able to actually get to talk to people who would be able to allow such a thing.

      They refused.

      The reason is that it was full of aircraft in peices. Apparently, the policy is to not let on to the public that aeroplanes come apart and are in fact safe monolithic flying machines. They didn't want the risk of the photos getting out.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:Not good enough. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhm, no. The 747-400 is a derivative type of the 747-100, introduced by Boeing for the specific reason of updating the design, and it has now been superseded by the 747-8. AD based improvements make it onto the next plane in the construction process that can take it, regardless of the version - a 777-300 built today is a lot different to a 777-300 built a decade ago, it incorporates all AD changes and incremental design changes made to the baseline model in that time, but it's still a 777-300.

      The 787-8 will be built for the next 25 years, the 787-9 is a stretched version already in design, and the 787-10 is a heavyweight version planned for EIS after the -9.

    19. Re:Not good enough. by A10Mechanic · · Score: 1

      Having flown on C-5's several times, I concur!

    20. Re:Not good enough. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0

      Actually, anyone can certify a new engine-airframe combination, not just the airframe manufacturer, so if someone wants to put a Trent 900 on a Boeing 767 and they find a safe way to do it, they can put it forward for certification just the same as Boeing.

    21. Re:Not good enough. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      LOL wow. There's what looks like a "small aircraft junkyard" at the airport nearest me. You can't see it from the terminal but you can drive by it or see it if you look out the right of the plane during takeoff.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Not good enough. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      2 inches of legroom? Oh Mr. Fancy-pants business class has come to brag about his legroom.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Trent 900 that "blew up" was due to a mechanic not following the proper procedure during routine maintenance of the engine. Rolls Royce went to a fair amount of time and effort verifying the failure, and coming up with a solution to the issue. The engine was tested again with the modifications and did not show a single problem at all. I know this as I spent some time with several Rolls Royce engineers who were part of the retesting program. I have no problem flying on an A380.

    24. Re:Not good enough. by ethorad · · Score: 2

      Why do you think they make you close all the windows and reopen them during a flight? It's because the pilot's control panel has frozen up

    25. Re:Not good enough. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fuel dump evaporates before it hits the ground.

      Fair enough but what's all the greasy residue you get all over your house, car etc if you live near an airport? General exhaust gunk?

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    26. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fly in any african air lines.... you'd be surprises how many pieces fall off during flight or after flight. Many of it are engine panels.

      Hell, I've seen panels having both torx heads and phillips heads holding it to the plane. Thats an indicatin it fell off before.

    27. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military has always been willing to accept new aircraft designs with more kinks and problems than are acceptable to an airline buying a new airliner design.

    28. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't matter how advanced the plane is-you will still get 2 inches of legroom,crappy food, rude personnel etc,etc as part of your flying experience

      I agree. When flying coach long distance I've often felt that death wouldn't be such a bad option. Perhaps this can be sold as a feature of the 787.

    29. Re:Not good enough. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly that.

      A note about the tape, too: of course that's only good if the skin is damaged. The frame is the important part, the skin just flows the air around the frame. The tape can do the same job, temporarily.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    30. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I was stationed at Dover when the first C5-As were rolled out.

      Doesn't seem to have helped your terminology. It was the C-5A.

    31. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a mechanic for a major U.S. Carrier for 33 years. The stories he's told me about the conditions that planes have arrived in, and been ferried in, would shock most of you to the core. Airliners that meet the U.S. building standards that were practiced by Mc Donald-Douglas, Boeing, and Lockheed (back when they built commercial airliners) are incredibly redundant and reliable things that have considerable structural strength and resistance to all sorts of abuses. This level of robustness has been the primary factor in why Airline Travel is still the safest means of travel in the world. I've flown on hundreds of trips in my life thanks to ticket discounts from my dad's employment. As a result, I've been on many planes that have experienced various failures in flight, including major engine failure, loss of a skin panel, damage from a hail storm, failed primary hydraulic system (my dad pointed out to me what was going on for that one), and other less notable issues. In each case, the planes performed as designed and we all made it home safely.

      What they patched up that plane with was speed tape (as referenced below) which is an adhesive strip designed for TEMPORARILY repairing minor dings, nicks and dents in fuselage panels and wing surfaces. It can be used to repair larger openings in a pinch if you can find a structural backing for it to adhere to. A fairly common practice is to use a rigid wire mesh (think chicken wire, but thicker) and bend it to approximate the shape you need, screw or rivet that mesh to the edges of the opening, then use the speed tape over that. There are standard guides, policies and procedures that govern how you are allowed to do that, but, if management wants a plane moved, those procedures are often ignored and they "make it work".

    32. Re:Not good enough. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      A note about the tape, too: of course that's only good if the skin is damaged. The frame is the important part, the skin just flows the air around the frame.

      Alegendly it was about 4 feet of damaged area. Can't ask him now, he died a few years ago,

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    33. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A great example of this is the DC-9, originally from the factory with low bypass turbojets, it was later retrofitted with engines from CFM international that were considerably more efficient and powerful as well. While Douglas was on board with the project, they weren't the principle if I recall.

    34. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fly in any african air lines.... you'd be surprises how many pieces fall off during flight or after flight. Many of it are engine panels.

      Hell, I've seen panels having both torx heads and phillips heads holding it to the plane. Thats an indicatin it fell off before.

      Good american airliners too.. as for Continental which doomed the Concorde in Paris..

    35. Re:Not good enough. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you fell victim to a BS-artist's tall tales.

      1) You might want to look into the differences between duct tape and speed tape. The former may make a better storey. But the latter is far, FAR, more likely.

      2) Boeing 707s didn't burn avgas. (They may have been theoretically able to do so. Turbine engines are amazingly tolerant about what they burn, at least in the short term. But certainly no 707/engine combo was rated for avgas.) Like all other civilian turbine-driven aircraft, they were fueled with Jet A in the US, Jet A-1 in most of the rest of the world, and Jet B in extremely cold climates.

      3) The fuel-dump outlets on the 707, and on pretty much every aircraft that has a fuel-dump system (Not all aircraft do.), are on the trailing edge of the wing. Fuel could not be pouring "out over the wings" unless the wing tanks were actually punctured and leaking.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    36. Re:Not good enough. by mpe · · Score: 1

      You can see this in the 737. there are 8 or 9 models, all of them are flown under the same type certificate.

      However unfamiliarity with the changes Boeing had made with the 737-400 were factors in the crew of G-OBME shutting down the wrong engine.
      IIRC all 747s are the same type. Even though the 100, 200 & 300 have a Captain, First Office and Flight Engineer whereas the 400 & 800 have only a Captain and First Officer.

    37. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alegendly it was about 4 feet of damaged area.

      allegedly
      That's a new one; have to add it to my list...

    38. Re:Not good enough. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The GP has been reading too much Crichton. Crichton goes to great lengths to describe the plane/engine relationship in that book (page 116 or so).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    39. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_tape

    40. Re:Not good enough. by mpe · · Score: 2

      Back in the day my friend's dad used to fly 707's (yes, it's a very old story) and whilst taxiing, they managed to gouge a chunk out a wing. This was at a US airport. They needed to get the plane to Australia to get the replacement wing so they moved the plane somewhere quiet at the airport and duct taped up the wing. They were told to be careful no one saw what they were up to. They then had to take off at night when it was quiet so no one could spot the bodged up wing.

      More likely "speed tape", which is intended for this kind of repair. You wouldn't replace the whole wing either.

      My friend's dad was good at that sort of thing. Another time he lost 2 of the 4 engines flying over the UK and was told to dump most of his av-gas to lighten the load so he could land in France for repairs.

      It this was a B707 would have been the wrong fuel...

    41. Re:Not good enough. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or service pack 2 or 3 for me. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    42. Re:Not good enough. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I only flew on one once (although I did get to play with the simulator, that was one cool computer) but it was on the way back from Thailand. Bugs were pretty much worked out by then. The navigation did go out in Japan where the pilots didn't want to stay, they were pissed. It touched down so softly I couldn't tell when we were on the ground.

      They wanted to stay in Alaska (had to do with per diem), they bounced it three times on landing but weren't able to break it. All us passengers got bumped for a fire truck.

      And people wonder why I didn't reenlist...

    43. Re:Not good enough. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 0

      Jesus you lot, give me a break. I'm recalling stories I was told when I was about 11 or 12 and I'm nearly 50 now. Yes, it probably was speed tape, yes it was probably not avgas, yes it poured off the trailing edges not the wings. Don't forget the typo too. I just wanted to pass on some stories I found fun as a kid. Really, really sorry. OK?

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    44. Re:Not good enough. by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

      Everyone enjoys having their trivial flaws pointed out. No?

    45. Re:Not good enough. by G-Man · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the engine that fell into some farmer's field. A classic.

      Though not at Dover, don't forget the Operation Babylift crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Tan_Son_Nhut_C-5_accident

    46. Re:Not good enough. by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      If you're not sure, avoid excess detail: it's av-tur / Jet A (roughly kerosene), not av-gas (roughly car gas). Both can just be called fuel.
      Also dumping fuel doesn't pour it over the wings, there are nozzles on the trailing edge of the wing for that purpose. No need for extra dramatisation.
      Surviving is about as amazing as the F-111 surviving every time it did a dump and burn :/
      Can you tell that I don't like exaggerated stories?

    47. Re:Not good enough. by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realise how much effort that is. For at least the A380, all the load cases for stress calculations are repeated and recalculated for the other engine type. So if you were to redo independently, you'd probably have to redo all the stress analysis.

    48. Re:Not good enough. by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      Either you are completely wrong, or the offset counterbore in the oil pipe has something to do with a mechanic. Please elaborate.

    49. Re:Not good enough. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      don't forget the Operation Babylift crash

      I missed that one completely; by then I was at Beale, a SAC base in Northern California and no TV signals, twenty or more miles to the nearest town. I was two months away from the end of my enlistment. Prior to that I'd spent a year at Utapao, Thailand (another SAC base) so it was almost two years since I'd seen a newspaper or TV show.

    50. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if it makes you feel any better, I for one, enjoyed the story.

    51. Re:Not good enough. by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Not sure how old you are, but I remember a time when commercial passenger aircraft fell from the sky almost weekly, and the industry claimed that flying was still safer than driving. Kind of like when smoking was considered perfectly safe and didn't cause lung cancer.

      Those were such fun times, seems Boeing must want to relive them again ..

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    52. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed tape is acceptable as a repair for minor damage so long as you can justify that it will survive the flight. I once did the calcs of pressure load vs adhesive strength of speed tape for a nice neat hole punched through an engine final nozzle assembly. I was able to do this because I also did the aerodynamic design of the nozzle. The hole had been made by a fork-lift truck.

  4. Not a big deal. by T-Bucket · · Score: 2

    It's really not that big of a deal. I've had all of those problems on a SINGLE TRIP in the embraer. (Ok, the electrical issue was caught before it was an actual fire, but still). It's a new type, this kind of stuff happens.

  5. This was to be expected by whizbang77045 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Whenever you introduce new technology on an aircraft design, you open the door for problems you haven't seen before. If you introduce a lot of new technology, you get a lot of new problems, some of which are almost certain to catch the public eye. Look what happened to Airbus on the A320 some years back!

    They'll no doubt find the problems, but more are likely to occur. Whether Boeing is able to maintain a good image for the airplane is another question.

    1. Re:This was to be expected by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Whenever you introduce new technology on an aircraft design, you open the door for problems you haven't seen before.

      This is very true for many things.

      The problem with applying your premise to this situation is that the aspects these craft are having problems with (brakes, fuel lines, windshields, electrical wiring) are old, well-established technologies.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:This was to be expected by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      If your A320 comment is related to the famous crash video, that had nothing to do with the aircraft - it was the pilot which screwed up there.

    3. Re:This was to be expected by mpe · · Score: 1

      If your A320 comment is related to the famous crash video, that had nothing to do with the aircraft - it was the pilot which screwed up there.

      Rather pilots. There were two of them in the cockpit of that plane.

    4. Re:This was to be expected by antdude · · Score: 1

      That's the same for computers too. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:This was to be expected by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0

      It was the senior pilot who made the decisions and was subsequently sentenced to jail time for the crash.

  6. Too Radical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You either build a radical new airframe with cutting edge materials and do it in-house OR you radically outsource your operation to cut costs building a traditional airframe. Boeing chose to do both. This is the result.

    1. Re:Too Radical by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You either build a radical new airframe with cutting edge materials and do it in-house OR you radically outsource your operation to cut costs building a traditional airframe. Boeing chose to do both. This is the result.

      Why is it better to build up knowledge and processes for cutting edge technology in-house rather than using a vendor that already knows how to do them?

  7. Re:A true union built aircraft by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course your post is both a troll and falimbait.

    The 787 is built from components made around the world, mostly by non-union workers. The Boeing plant in South Carolina that does 787 assembly is non-union.

    You are an idiot.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  8. Nothing in the new stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The really new technology is the carbon fibre used in the aircraft. Not seen any reports of faults with that yet though.

    1. Re:Nothing in the new stuff by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

      Mod+1

    2. Re:Nothing in the new stuff by Palamos · · Score: 1

      Airbus use a lot of carbon fibre and have done for some time, there's no bad reports so far.

  9. 787 is safe. When composite burns it releases... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Balanced information:

    U.S. regulators say Boeing 787 is safe but needs review.

    FAA Orders Review Of Boeing 787 Dreamliner quote: "... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."

    A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons. I haven't seen any discussion of Boeing's view of that. Here is a PDF file: Postcrash Health Hazards from Burning Aircraft Composites.

    There is NO intent in saying that to imply that a 787 might crash. But if there is a runway or other accident, would passengers be less likely to survive?

  10. Re:A true union built aircraft by zlives · · Score: 0

    +1 idiot

  11. Outsourcing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA quality made in China, put together by average Joe who thinks he's a rocket scientist.

  12. +1 funny by zlives · · Score: 0

    haha and its a good morning :)

  13. Re:A true union built aircraft by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, several months of the original 787 delay was down to the IAM union strike in 2008 which shut down the Seattle FAL (although the strike lasted just 8 weeks, the FAL took 3 months to come back up to speed) - the SC FAL was only chosen and built after this strike.

  14. Re:FIRE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apparently you are supposed to care. Logging in would lend the bullshit scare message so much more legitimacy. Moderators would be falling over themselves just to give it a +1 Informative or +1 Insightful. Slashdot would grind to a halt and Cpt_Kirks would be labeled a "Hero of the Internet". The GNAA would end its reign of terror and millions of lives would be saved. Justin Bieber fans would stop cutting themselves over his drug use. The world would be better.

    But, no, it is not going to happen. He failed to log in and now we are all fucked.

  15. Li-Ion batteries are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the above.

    They're buying their batteries from a DELL supplier.

    1. Re:Li-Ion batteries are the problem by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Which totally can explain the fuel, brake, and cockpit window issues...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Li-Ion batteries are the problem by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Fuel was probably just a case of overfilled tanks.
      Shit happens with brakes in every airliner from time to time, same goes for cockpit windows.

  16. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually this is a beautiful capitalists' dream "free market" aircraft. Parts outsourced overseas, pitting one state against another for the purpose of paying workers less--it's all there.

    Anybody who just wants to union bash over this is an unbelievable moron. Or a Tea Party Republican. Hard to tell the difference.

  17. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    "When composite burns it releases poisons. "
    unlike everything else?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    Everything that goes on a plane is made not to burn. I'm sure they tried to light a mock fuselage on fire to see what happens.

  19. Re:A true union built aircraft by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering all of the aircraft that have thus far had issues came from the Seattle FAL, I'd say that the union product isn't much better - the fuel system is installed by union workers, it has had several major QA issues, the electrical equipment which was at the centre of the recent issue is installed by union workers.

    I'm not particularly pro or anti union, but the arguments for and against unions in this thread are ridiculous.

  20. Re:A true union built aircraft by craigminah · · Score: 0

    Are you in any way affiliated with a union? I think unions have some merit but generally are a bad thing. Please disclose the source of your bias.

  21. Did They Install the Latest Firmware Update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please download the latest firmware release available for your airplane from the Boeing support website and retest.

  22. Stating the obvious by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A spokesman for Boeing said they were "absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the 787,"

    Why do they ever bother with these quotes - what else are they expected to say? As Mandy Rice Davies once said when asked to comment about a Lord denying he had anything to do with her, "Well, he would, wouldn't he"

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Stating the obvious by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Corporate spokespeople would be among the easiest to replace with a small shellscript. In fact I'll start right now with this piece based on part of a disk status checking script I use on my home server:

      DANGER=`echo -n "$1" | grep -i 'break\|broke\|caught fire\|failure\|fell off\|no signal'`
      if [ -n "$DANGER" ]
      then
      echo "We are absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the $PRODUCT"
      fi

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Stating the obvious by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it's that if they don't say it, then people freak out even more and start generating conspiracy theories wondering why the company isn't responding.

    3. Re:Stating the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat... backslashing a pipe inside of a single quote. also, not damn funny

      echo "$1" | grep -iqE "break|broke|caught fire|failure|fell off|no signal" &&
              echo "We are absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the $PRODUCT"

  23. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Anybody who just wants to union bash over this is an unbelievable moron. Or a Tea Party Republican. Hard to tell the difference.

    what an insult to unbelievable morons .. have some sensitivity!

  24. Classic 2nd system effect by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2

    The 787 is having problems because of the bloated feature creep that went into its design. It will eventually be seen as a classic example of 2nd System Effect.

    1. Re:Classic 2nd system effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 787 is having problems because of the bloated feature creep that went into its design.

      Clearly a bloated design, unlike say a clean *nix utility. Wings, fuselage, pressure cabin, ailerons, flaps, rudder, elevators, self-retracting landing gear, anti-skid brakes, engines (with thrust reversers!), fuel tanks, pumps and lines, windscreen, APU, backup batteries, radar, radios, both GPS and inertial navigation, and lavatories! Small wonder it has problems.

    2. Re:Classic 2nd system effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, planes don't need any of that junk.

  25. Re:A true union built aircraft by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm guessing you're in the US where the role of unions seems a little more unhelpful. I get the impression over there they're all about protecting lazyness and wierd working practices. Elsewhere, they tend to do rather more good, working more constructively with employers and employees.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  26. Re:FIRE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It certainly won't burn better than all the fuel in it. Not to mention that aluminium isn't exactly inert either.

  27. New name for 787 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of the Dreamliner, maybe we should start calling it the 787 Screamliner?

    1. Re:New name for 787 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go for Binliner myself :)

  28. Re:FIRE! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I imagine not very well if they add fire retardant to the resin.

    Aluminum burns nicely, too - and can't be put out with water. Thing is, usually people are more concerned about the jet fuel, which makes up a large percentage of the weight of the plane itself and is meant to burn.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  29. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I start my day by inhaling the fumes of jet fuel and aluminum, myself. Would never touch that composite smoke, unless it came from carpet, upholstery, and cabin interior plastics.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  30. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Erm, unions are generally a good thing. They protect the worker's rights and keep employers in line. You must be thinking of the neutered version of unions you guys have in the US. Then again, the US is a shithole when it comes to work, so it's not surprising for you to think that way.

  31. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by swalve · · Score: 1

    If the outside of the plane starts burning, then the people that were inside probably don't have many worries left.

  32. Releases poisons - misrepresents the design by ace37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You seem to be under the impression fires in composite aircraft pose a risk of poisoning or harming passengers.

    It's not that simple though. Composites (FRP) are made from a fiber and a resin, which can be thought of like a glue. Most plastics can be used as a resin. On an aircraft, they use many different resins in different places as they are tailored to the local requirements. Also, these plastics are subjected to a number of tests that are used to determine toxicity in a few reasonable ways; most of them concentrate on what happens when we burn the plastic.

    Near passengers, they have requirements ensuring the parts are self-extinguishing in a short (1 minute) time frame and have no toxicity in their smoke (The flammability test is UL 94, V0 is a typical requirement; I forget the smoke and toxicity test numbers I've used). So the plastic that holds your luggage above your head is made of a less weight-efficient material because it must meet design requirements focused on passenger safety in the event of a cabin fire. And of course, in the middle of the wing, it doesn't much matter if the smoke from a fire would make a passenger sick--passengers aren't anywhere near there--but fuel is probably nearby, so the design requirements and fail-safe measures for flammability and smoke are different there and in other zones of the aircraft.

    In the paper you cited, note that the focus was on emergency response personnel. If as a passenger you're exposed to such an explosion, respiration of the fibers that carry potentially toxic plastics isn't the top concern - if you're inhaling that, I would be wondering what punched a hole in the fuselage and how many people are dead. The respiration and other hazards are a big deal to a ground crew or fire department who would put out non-crash-related fires. But the words in bold, "A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons," are easy to misinterpret as a major passenger safety hazard unique to this aircraft.

    1. Re:Releases poisons - misrepresents the design by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It certainly would not be unique as of course Airbus also uses composites in the A380.

  33. Legalization of Pot in Washington Quality Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Washington State pass a referendum in the last election to legalize the use of pot?

    Considering that Boeing is in Washington State wonder how that affects quality control in the manufacture of these planes?

    It might explain Microsoft though.......

    Part of that race to the bottom.

  34. Re:A true union built aircraft by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea of unions vs the reality of unions just end up being very different things in the US.

    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
  35. Re:A true union built aircraft by ethorad · · Score: 4, Informative

    I assume by "Elsewhere they tend to do rather more good" you're not including the UK. Over here in the UK they are also all about protecting lazyness and weird working practices such as holding back modernisation, reinstating bullies, etc

    (I know this is a generalisation, and therefore I'm sure there are exceptions, however the biggies such as train staff in particular and public sector unions fall into this category)

  36. Blaming Union Doesn't Add Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does a two month strike by the union result in a 3 year delay? In a word, no. If you look a little closer, you'll see that non-Boeing suppliers had a major impact on schedule.

    1. Re:Blaming Union Doesn't Add Up by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0

      And if you look closely at what I posted, you will infact see what I really said rather than something you think I said. I could point out a heck of a lot of stuff which happened on the Seattle FAL which was the direct cause of some of the delay, stuff which was done by union workers... Stuff which resulted in a fire, weeks of rework on built aircraft, months of slow production etc etc.

  37. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    "... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."

    Unless the wings were about to fall off they couldn't say anything stronger. That's the way it works when your biggest national aircraft manufacturer has a problem. The FAA don't want to cause panic or lost sales, but at the same time need to cover themselves if something does happen.

    So basically we can't tell anything from their statement, and assuming their obviously biased opinion is "balanced" isn't so smart.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  38. Management response by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    to Dreamliner's problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_P77VEPKA

  39. Cooperating fully with the FAA's investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't have a choice in the matter: either they co-operate or the 787's certification is revoked.

    Why do PR lackeys come off with this same line every time?

  40. Re:A true union built aircraft by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm guessing you're in the US where the role of unions seems a little more unhelpful. I get the impression over there they're all about protecting lazyness and wierd working practices.

    Let me tell you a recent union-related story, and the public perception of it:
    1. Management goes to the union and says "We need to cut your wages 30% in order to keep the company afloat."
    2. Union agrees.
    3. Management celebrates by giving themselves large bonuses.
    4. 2 years later, management goes to the union and says "We need to cut your wages 50% in order to keep the company afloat."
    5. Union threatens to strike.
    6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  41. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're confusing management decisions with engineering ones.

    The economy would indeed be better off if certain short-term gain decisions weren't made, because they are long-time losses.

    Also check out the concept of a race to the bottom.

  42. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Indoctrinated" does not mean "disagrees with me". And yes, that IS how you meant it. That makes you a liar.

  43. Re:A true union built aircraft by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before concluding that Unions support laziness, consider that workers in the U.S. are generally expected to work more hours with less vacation than the vast majority of the free world. So according to employers, trying to achieve parity with the E.U. is promoting laziness.

    As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./

  44. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sgt Saucedo is that you? I had a supply sgt that I was helping one time. He noticed that I was using Crtl-P to print. He made me stop, asked me what I was doing.. "I'm using a shortcut SGT." "Dont do that, we dont use shortcuts of any kind here in supply." You just reminded me of him.

  45. Re:A true union built aircraft by dywolf · · Score: 1, Informative

    Neutered? When people think of unions over here they tend to think of the Detroit autoworkers...you know, the guys who recieve in excess of 100-120k a year in non-wage compensation, on top of their normal pay. even the guy who just turns one nut on every car that goes past on the line. Or they think of the chicago teacher's union, where the ag salary is 78k a year. Meanwhile teachers around the rest of the country make do with between 33 and 38k a year.

    Neutered? Not hardly.

    but you are right when you say unions are different here. Here they dont exist to keep employers in line or protect rights (we have laws to do that).
    No, they exist to push political agendas and safeguard/extort excessive pay, beyond what the market would otherwise bear.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  46. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize that airliners have been using composites from one degree to another since the 80s? Also, many of the interior and insulating materials release toxic fumes when they burn. Its trading one hazard for another.

  47. Even al-Baker defending 787 teething problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100364929/Boeing_Confident_About_787_Despite_039Teething_Problems039

    al-Baker is a notorious public complainer, but even he is defending the problems being found on the new plane:

    "Of course there will be teething problems from time to time, but this is foreseen with any new aircraft program," Qatar Airways' Akbar al-Baker told reporters in Doha on Wednesday.

    Qatar Airways is the largest customer of the Dreamliner in the Middle East with an order for up to 60 of the aircraft -- 30 firm orders plus an option on acquiring 30 more. It currently has a fleet of five 787 jets.

    In this video clip taped for the CNBC documentary “Dreamliner, Inside the World’s Most Anticipated Airline,” CNBC's Phil LeBeau shows how building a 787 Dreamliner is a well-choreographed, but challenge-packed ballet of man and machine where the plane's seven major sections are hoisted and fastened together. The documentary debuted in 2011.

    "Since the first issues we had with our newly delivered airplanes, we've had no other technical issues with the fleet of five Dreamliners we are operating now," Baker added.

  48. Re:A true union built aircraft by Zemran · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Unions are like communism, it sounds good in theory but is impossible to get it to work in practice. I used to be deputy FOC of a print union so I do have some background with them.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  49. Re:A true union built aircraft by PRMan · · Score: 1

    And don't forget longshoremen, who make in excess of $100K to move containers around and block any software to reduce costs. Then they go on strike because they aren't making enough for a high-school dropout.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  50. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know what I watch or what I believe. You are repeating your lie in the hopes that it will become the truth. It will not.

  51. I'm not sure. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure. The correct method would be for Boeing to make sure the public understood all the issues before they started building 787s. Now they risk public relations hassles.

    1. Re:I'm not sure. by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      There are tons of things you shouldn't set on fire and then breath deeply. Like computers and crack. Generally if something is on fire and it's not supposed to be you have a whole host of problems.

  52. Re:A true union built aircraft by timeOday · · Score: 2
    Perhaps the issue is more that you're seeing American unions through the filter of American culture, which is very business friendly, and could be summarized as: "be thankful you have a job." Unfilled $12/hr job openings are sometimes featured on the evening news, the subtext being that it is a crime by the lazy against the economy, and a personal insult to employers.

    .

    Granted, I've never even worked in a union myself. But honestly, if a German union and all its workers were suddenly transported here, with all the time off and other benefits they receive, can you imagine anything but mortal conflict with US management?

    Blue collar America has taken an incredible beating with a huge decline in standard of living over the last 30 years, today's auto workers are lucky to make half of what their fathers did. Unions are the instrument by which they've struggled, without much success, to fight against that decline. It is hard to imagine some ugliness not resulting from such a struggle.

  53. Re:A true union built aircraft by Zemran · · Score: 0

    Thank you for that pile of bull, we needed a good laugh and you have reached a new height in Slashdot stupidity.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  54. The Dreamliner is a really lovely plane to fly on by Isara · · Score: 1

    I flew on them to and from Australia to the US. Well worth the cost to get on one, but on the return trip, we were delayed for 4 hours due to some engine problem. They did fix it, and we were back in the air, but the experience, and other subsequent reports, makes me nervous about them. I hope they get the problems resolved, as they really are a joy to fly on for long trips.

    --
    BOOP!
  55. Re:Legalization of Pot in Washington Quality Contr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straw man, go take a seat in the corner, dunce.

  56. Choose your plight by MouseR · · Score: 1

    Between those and cracks in the Airbus 380 carbon wing, I'm not sure which is safer.

    1. Re:Choose your plight by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      You can hardly claim that the A380 has a carbon wing. Some ribs are carbon and it's the aluminium rib feet that join them to the wing that cracked. The important ribs, spars and skins are aluminium.

  57. Re:A true union built aircraft by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Anonymous troll very effectively led the topic of discussion astray.

    Maybe slashdot should order comments by score rather than by time as default. Even youtube does that these days.

  58. Reversion to mean by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Granted, I've never even worked in a union myself

    Nor have I but I'd dealt directly with them almost daily at times. I've had wrenches thrown at me because I dared to produce a stopwatch. (I'm an industrial engineer - that's what we do) I don't hate unions but I think they've forgotten their real purpose and have become far too adversarial with the companies.

    But honestly, if a German union and all its workers were suddenly transported here, with all the time off and other benefits they receive, can you imagine anything but mortal conflict with US management?

    The benefits any pay for workers in certain unions such as the UAW are second to none. I've seen guys with no college degree who make upwards of $80-100K+ for an assembly line job. Until very recently average wages of a GM worker was $39.69/hour and benefits tacked another $33.58/hour on top of that. We're not talking about specialty skilled labor here either. Guys with little to no special skills used to be able to get jobs that paid far better than the requirements of the job dictated. That has proven to be unsustainable.

    Blue collar America has taken an incredible beating with a huge decline in standard of living over the last 30 years, today's auto workers are lucky to make half of what their fathers did.

    Their fathers got a deal that was out of line with what could actually be sustained by the profits of the companies. Blue collar america is simply experiencing a reversion to the mean. They've had a good run for a while and now the bill has come due.

    1. Re:Reversion to mean by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up if I could. Unbeleivably, the ILA and ILWU have it even better than the UAW. I'm not going to get into details that I'm not privy to divulge, but the recent strike that crippled shipping in December had plenty of details on CNN that you can dig up if you'd like (hint: a pay raise to $192k wasn't good enough because the industry balked at them requiring featherbedding guarantees).

    2. Re:Reversion to mean by hguorbray · · Score: 1

      If you could say the same about the captains of industry you might have a point, but the disparity between executive and worker pay

      http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/ceos-got-a-big-raise-how-about-you-brush.aspx

      goes a long way towards explaining the current antipathy towards the 1 percent and the growing resentment of the shrinking middle class (not that this has much to do with Airline Production and Safety except that there were probably some big executive bonuses at stake in getting the Dreamliner out)

      -I'm just sayin'

    3. Re:Reversion to mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German factory workers will make a net income of 24000 Euros per year if they have a good income. That is about 35k dollars.

  59. Re:A true union built aircraft by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    6. Company bankrupt. At least half the public blames the union.

    The public arrives at this conclusion, aided in no small part by the conservative media, as part of it's lesson that the noble class is to be catered to in every whim, because that's the only way anyone has jobs.

  60. Another outsourcing fail by dave562 · · Score: 1

    With the 787, Boeing went from being an engineering firm to an assembly firm. They outsourced the various pieces to a bunch of third parties and then assembled them in house to create the final product. Oddly enough, the various parts that were never tested as a complete system are now having problems.

    Nobody could have seen that coming....

    I am almost certain that if they do an after the fact accounting of what they will end up spending on fixing all of these issues, they are going to realize that they spent as much, if not more than they would have spent if they had done it all in house.

    (sarc) Why would we want to handle the future of our company in house? It is so much more profitable for our share holders if we derive operational synergies by engaging our trusted partners to collaborate with us on this monumentous undertaking. As our friends in Redmond have shown us, it is not done until SP1. The 787 is a true, 21st century airliner. We can leverage agile development methodologies to push numerous, incremental improvements to key systems once the product has been successfully launched. (/sarc)

    1. Re:Another outsourcing fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the Boeing unions had the company firmly at the balls. They nearly pulled a GM, it seems to me.

  61. Re:A true union built aircraft by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    So, tell me... If this is a "union labor" issue, why don't we see these problems with the 767, built in Seattle by your dreaded union labor? Probably because the issue has nothing to do with union vs non-union.

    If anything beyond a "bleeding edge" technology issues, it's outsourcing major components that should be looked at.

    But thanks for your red herring political screed⦠Howâ(TM)s the Tea Bag holding up?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  62. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On the order hand, capitalism works as intended, 99.9% of you are in fact worthless and should be serfs to the choose elites, born fromagical diamond wombs.

  63. Re:A true union built aircraft by willy_me · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Management celebrates by giving themselves large bonuses.

    You can bet those bonuses amounted to far less then the amount saved by a 30% pay reduction to all employees. I'm not saying it is right, but had management not taken the bonuses, the company would likely still fail. In this scenario, it is the union who deserves most of the blame while management is only guilty of antagonizing the union.

  64. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, several months of the original 787 delay was down to the IAM union strike in 2008 which shut down the Seattle FAL (although the strike lasted just 8 weeks, the FAL took 3 months to come back up to speed) - the SC FAL was only chosen and built after this strike.

    Indeed. I live in the area, and I saw the news coverage. The union representatives spoke boldly of the power they had; Governor Christine Gregoire came and visited the striking workers, and left without talking to management. According to the news, the strike cost Boeing over a billion dollars.

    That's the purpose of a strike: to inflict costs and problems on the employer, to get concessions.

    So then Boeing announced that they were going to open another facility in South Carolina, and I saw the news coverage of that. The union said "But we have the trained and experienced people, the best people. How could Boeing even think about going to another state?"

    Really I think it was inevitable: why should Boeing keep all its eggs in one basket, when they had the opportunity to spread their operations across multiple states. It just makes sense, so I think it would have happened even without the strike. But the strike makes it particularly ironic for the union to wonder why Boeing would do such a thing.

  65. Re: A true union built aircraft by deathguppie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've worked in both union and non union shipyards my whole life. For the past twelve years I've worked non union. As far as quality of work, its tough to say if one is better than the other. As far as qualified journeymen there is no doubt that unions provide people with an already appreciable skill level. Whereas non union yards have an enormous turn over rate. The yards here in Seattle can send someone back to the hall if they feel they are unqualified and if you're sent back from three sequential jobs the union will drop you. The yards get the benefit of qualified workers as well as lower employee medical costs as the group rate covered by the union is lower. On the flip side after nearly thirty years of working in the industry since I have chosen to work non union my pension now amounts to the few thousand dollars I've been able to scrape into my 401k (profit sharing has been offered more than once then stripped again) and I can feel my body slowly deteriorating. There is no job security and as I have seen before when you can no longer produce there will be no more work. I hope every day that my coding skills will get good enough that I will come to the attention of someone, because when I cannot carry 100lbs up a ladder I'm done.

    --
    once more into the breach
  66. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strawman arguments are lies.

  67. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now on to null-routing slashdot.org. Kindly fuck off, the lot of you.

    Please, kiddo. You've been F5'ing to check for responses ever since you posted, and you won't stop until at least Monday. And everyone can tell.

  68. Re: A true union built aircraft by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

    Hate to tell you but there is zero demand for grey haired coders. See ya at the soup kitchen!

  69. Re:A true union built aircraft by Meeni · · Score: 1

    Unions are like communism, it sounds good in theory but is impossible to get it to work in practice. I used to be deputy FOC of a print union so I do have some background with them.

    Disclaimer

    The above comment is bollox.

    It is bollox, indeed. The particular implementation in the us seems defective, it does work very well in many other places (unlike communism, see).

  70. Re:A true union built aircraft by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Well, no. If a company goes tits-up it's by definition the fault of management - they failed at their job, managing things. Ifat the same time, they were also ripping off the shareholders by taking a bigger slice of the piehey are not just incompetant but also corrupt.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  71. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can tell the 2 million plus ID's by the content-free nature of their posts.

    These days, slashdot has the level of quality of a common newspaper forum, with all the emotional outbursts, lack of logic, name-calling, and the inability or unwillingness to address the point at hand.

  72. Re:A true union built aircraft by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    As for weird working practices, for each and every 'crazy' union rule, there is a corresponding previous attempt by management to cheat in some way either to edge the union out or to extract more work than agreed upon or to pay less than agreed upon./

    From personal experience in workplaces I've been at trying to unionize, and from people I know that work for the unions, the number one cause of getting people to unionize is bad management. Pay rarely figures into the equation these days. What a union might get the company to increase is easily lost to the union by the workers. Rather it's being told they have to work back to back shifts again because the manager decided to change the schedule without notice, have to come in on the weekend because somebody else quit, and generally being expected to dance when some bad manager yells to dance, usually to try and cover up for their own bad management. ("I am altering the schedule. Pray I don't alter it any further.") Where I work now, even the managers who were around before the union say its better now. Everybody has guidelines and knows what is expected of them and there are no more yelling fights with workers and everybody is happier and gets more done.

  73. Rolls Royce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are big-time technology whores. British whores; and that means they are infected with 25 STDs, probably not AIDS and they will "muddle through" licking your dicks with herpes.

    So, that was the obligatory whore analogy and thank god, the rest of the aircraft had serious German input and took the British shrapnel.

    1. Re:Rolls Royce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wings that took the shrapnel are also are British designed and built you fucktard

  74. Never Trust British Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia:
    "In a preliminary investigation report of the engine failure of Qantas Flight QF32, released 3 December 2010, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau outlined safety actions taken already, including the issuing of a safety recommendation about potential engine problems with the Trent 900.[15] The safety recommendation relates to a possible manufacturing issue with a misaligned counterbore in some pressured oil pipes, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage, oil fire, and engine failure.[16]"

    That's what you get from a nation that is in a state of irony and cynical jokes 100% of time.

  75. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boeing did not enough testing and FAA shifts the blame on them. That's 100% OK. Why should the million-dollars per month "executives" get away with "ahh FAA said it was good. Blame it on that 80k/year government engineer who approved our flying shitball".

    The PHBs are consciously risking lives because they know their life is secured with a golden parachute that deploys when they fuck up. The current RR CEO should have been hanged for neglicence on Trent 900 testing, but guess what ? He got a bonus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_900#Notable_incidents

    "Born in Blantyre, Malawi,[1] Rose earned his MA degree in psychology from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland in 1975. Before joining Rolls-Royce, he had a career in banking with the First National Bank of Chicago and Security Pacific.[2]"

    "Rose joined the company in 1984 and held a number of roles. He served as Director of Corporate Development from 1989 to 1994, and in February 1993 assumed the role of President and Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce Inc, responsible for Rolls-Royce activities in North America. On 1 January 1995 he became Managing Director of the Aerospace Group until he finally became the Chief Executive of the company on 1 May 1996[3] after serving on its Board of directors for four years. On 30 September 2010 he announced his decision to retire from Rolls-Royce and his position of Chief Executive. He left his post at the end of March 2011 with John Rishton taking over the Chief Executive position."

  76. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7. Twinkies become history.

  77. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the unions had not been so insane, Boeing management would not have made consequential insane decisions.

  78. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Experienced coders of all ages are in high demand everywhere. Note the word "experienced", though.

  79. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7. Union demands insane stuff like "job banks"

    8. Union demands wages for unskilled workers on the level of junior engineers with an MS.

    9. Company accepts that because they are GM

    10. GM goes under

  80. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i say we just ban AC's and fix the problem

  81. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most German non-management workers live a very austere standard of living as compared to America. If you have kids, you will need to actively look at cost of food, own two pairs of jeans and so on.

    Germany is competitive because Germans can suck it up and live austere lives. Look at history and see how Germans pulled through tough times like WW1 and WW2. It was always by common people doing their work for austere pay. Obviously, unions are playing their part in this austere German world. Big talk, lots of compromise.

    If you don't work for a tier #1 manufacturer, your wage is actually close above the minimum level guaranteed by the state ("Hartz IV").

    But yeah, Germany can compete with China while America has fucked itself up. So much to "get rich quick".

  82. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, Nixon saved the world by showing off fleet of B52s with live weapons running against their borders. The worst danger to mankind was America, cowboy.

    I would not be surprised to learn that the British cooperated with the Russkies to send Kennedy into cowboy heaven and made sure Nixon was ejected.

    Sometimes your politicos need to be castrated by your own allies.

  83. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always try to spice my insults with some facts and proper arguments. Did I hurt you ?

  84. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you could attack arguments instead of attacking the messenger. My feeling is that there is a lot wrong with the financial industry AND with unions.

    Everybody is on a destructive drive of greed and the FED "finances" it by generating fantasy money at an accelerating rate.

  85. Re:A true union built aircraft by slick7 · · Score: 1

    And the non union product is crap.

    That's the idea, divert attention away from the TSA and onto some executive decision causing Americans to lose their jobs, while the executive rakes in millions in bonuses.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  86. Re:787 is safe. When composite burns it releases.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when plastics in the interior cabin burn they release toxics as well. So what is your point, exactly?

  87. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the disconnect "management", and especially executives, have in the US, that forgets they are employees of the company as well. Management/executives feels like they are the company, and the other employees are just leacherous "human resources", so...

  88. Re:A true union built aircraft by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    One thing we can agree on in union vs. non-union debates, is that it's always management's fault.

  89. Re:No, it's caused by 'diversity'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or a LACK OF WHITE PEOPLE...

    Yes, because white people can't ever ever ever be stupid, like, ever. Right? Exhibit A: you

  90. Re:The Dreamliner is a really lovely plane to fly by MiG82au · · Score: 1

    Huh? There are 787 (Dreamliner) services between Aus and US? Nope. You're thinking of the A380 or 777. The 787 only started flying passengers in Oct 2012 with a Japanese airline (ANA).

  91. Re:A true union built aircraft by sphazell · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you're in the US where the role of unions seems a little more unhelpful. I get the impression over there they're all about protecting lazyness and wierd working practices. Elsewhere, they tend to do rather more good, working more constructively with employers and employees.

    Elsewhere? You obviously havnt been to Australia and seen how efficient the MUA are!

  92. Problems with other Boeing projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boeing has had other problems in quality and reliability.

    In 2005, FIA (run by Boeing) was canceled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture) - The New York Times called it "perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects."

    (http://www.space.com/16077-nasa-space-telescopes-failed-nro-program.html) - "But Boeing quickly ran into troubles on the highly ambitious and complex FIA program, which fell years behind schedule and overran its budget by billions of dollars."

    In 2011, the SBI Net program was canceled. (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/homeland-security-cancels-boeing-border-fence-program/article_0257faa8-203d-11e0-9d4b-00127992bc8b.html) - "It was originally envisioned to stretch the 1,969-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico but initial phases of the $1 billion project took longer than anticipated to complete and covered just a small portion, 53 miles, since the project began."

    In 2011, the "Joint Tactical Radio System" project, run by Boeing, was canceled. (http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-cancels-jtrs-gmr-long-live-jtrs-gmr/2011-10-17) - ""Based on growth in the unit procurement costs, I am terminating the program," Kendall wrote. DoD estimates placed the total cost of JTRS GMR at $19.5 billion."

    (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-08-06-boeing-side_N.htm ) - more recent problems with Boeing. For example, "V-22 Osprey. The tilt-rotor aircraft, made in partnership with Bell Helicopter, is under congressional scrutiny because of concerns about its high cost of operation, reliability and safety" and "Joint Tactical Radio System Cluster 1. Boeing's management of the project for the military was so bad it received a stop-work order from the Defense Department. Eventually, the program was restructured rather than canceled but with Boeing in a diminished role."

    What's going on with Boeing?

  93. self awareness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An apples to oranges comparison.

    As if you didn't make your own apples-to-oranges comparison by comparing planes to automobiles.

    I'm referring to the efficiency of the manufacturing process. You're referring to problems with the engineering and design process.

    You're hand waving and arguing about distinctions without a difference.

  94. Re:A true union built aircraft by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    One thing we can agree on in union vs. non-union debates, is that it's always management's fault.

    In Boeing's case, demonstrably true.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  95. Re:A true union built aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got butthurt and turned full asshole mode on just because I typed an uncomfortable truth on the internet. Take a hard look at yourself.