U.S. launches safety review of 787 after recent issues

Comments (14)
tmc wrote:

Seems all we ever do now is try to “manage” things into existence without actually doing the work. Off-shoring, diversified supply line, whatever you want to call it, just produces junk. We need to change our approach to capitalism soon or someone else (globalization) will.
While the baby-boomers wallowed in their self-proclaimed glory, the world advanced around them. The “greatest generation” I would say was still in power long enough to end not only WWII, but also the cold war. The BB gen was so wrapped up in themselves they didn’t see globalization occurring over the last 30 years. Time to wake up and get caught-up with how do thrive in this new world. It will be difficult, but for once an older generation should learn from the younger ones. They were born with their eyes open, and since most boomers out-sourced parenting to the school systems, they have been taught a different history and present than their parents. I’m getting off topic so I’ll quit.

Jan 11, 2013 7:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

I wonder how much the EU (Airbus) is paying for the constant trash stories about Boeing? Can’t have Boeing being the number one aircraft producer in the world, can we? Boeing took a LOT of business away from Airbus but I am sure the Airbus deaths and their planes falling apart in the air had nothing to do with that.
Next we will hear who there is a snag in the isle carpet on a Dreamliner.
Oh the horror!

Jan 11, 2013 7:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

Make it cheaper, fly it cheaper, keep raising airfares, until it kills people.

Business as usual.

Jan 11, 2013 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
corynoone wrote:

@JL4

Boeing is a corporation and will act as a business does; however, they also (for the most part) make a quality product. Most of the problems we are seeing a likely a function of trying to integrate new systems into an aircraft that the likes of which has never been seen before. Carbon fiber presents some challenging issues when used on a scale like that of the dreamliner and trying a new approach such as hydraulics and generators is something that, to my knowledge, hasn’t really been tried before. It’s a beautiful bird and an exciting step in aviation. I hope they manage to work these kinks out.

I would argue that airliners are more likely to kill people over cost saving measure than Boeing is. If their planes don’t fly right and aren’t safe, people won’t buy their product and they’ll go out of business.

Jan 11, 2013 9:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

A cracked windscreen and an oil leak are not issues associated with the main innovation, that being the carbon composite body. I wouldn’t worry about the erosion of public confidence, the majority will never even be aware of this. Indeed, even if they are the point I just made about these issues not being associated with the innovation aspect of the project would be beyond their comprehension. Sure, it’s some sloppy work, but that is different than a failed technology. Now, if you said the carbon composite doesn’t appear to be adequately strong, then that would be different, but that is not what is being said.

This new material could put out of business the folks that make aircraft aluminum, you know, the copper aluminum alloy stuff that weakens when flexed over 20 years of use.

Jan 11, 2013 10:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:

Imagine the headlines and comments if this plane was made in China!!!

Jan 11, 2013 10:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
jscott418 wrote:

Their is enough evidence to show multiple issues with this aircraft. From manufacturing mistakes to parts failures to assembly personel not being trained properly. If the FAA was so inclined to put safety first how come these planes are not being grounded? Are we going to wait until a major crash? This is certainly a government agency that is taking the side of protecting Boeing before the general public. If this was a foreign plane maker they would be calling for a immediate grounding and refusing to allow the plane in US air space. Anyone remember the Supersonic jet from France? In the end we are slow to react to potential problems and disasters in favor of protecting a companies bottom line.

Jan 11, 2013 10:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
sensi wrote:

@ americanguy
Take your bigoted, nationalist, delusional and overall sick garbage where it belongs: to the trash.

Jan 11, 2013 11:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
texas100 wrote:

Now you see why Boeing is trying hard to move 787 production to South Carolina; getting away from the lousy union workforce in Washington;

Jan 11, 2013 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
peaceisgreat wrote:

Boeing is moving production from the West Coast to SC because the cost of production is lower there – the wages there are among the lowest in the country

Jan 11, 2013 1:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ronryegadfly wrote:

On Monday at Logan airport there was a fire in a battery case on a Dreamliner that began, evidently, when nobody was around. The following day at Logan airport somebody leaves a fuel valve open and it is widely reported by the media. Makes you wonder if the same careless employee who left the fuel valve open on Tuesday was working on Monday. This is a billion dollar business and Boeing and Airbus have lots at stake.

Jan 11, 2013 1:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

@Corynoone, you wrote:

“If their planes don’t fly right and aren’t safe, people won’t buy their product and they’ll go out of business.”

But businesses acting as businesses do, they’ll wait until one falls out of the sky with 250 passengers before they’ll say they aren’t safe. Will someone please define “SAFE”?

Here’s the flaw in the logic: If there were, for example, a problem with the same lever on some of these planes, and it was identified as a minor design problem and fixed across the board, I’d be more likely to agree that these are just “birth difficulties” but these planes each seem to have a different thing wrong with them on different days in different planes – all within 10 days of each other. One has a battery fire, another has a cracked windshield…

I’m wondering what will be wrong with the next one, in the air, with 250 passengers on board. But hey, if you guys want to buy a ticket on one, be my guest. I have a choice and I choose to stay out of a Dreamliner – I don’t care how well-respected Boeing is.

Jan 11, 2013 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

The 787 is a machine – a machine built, maintained, and operated by human beings. The FAA takes safety very seriously but they happen to be human beings also. Not making any excuses here, just reminding folks that there is no such thing as perfect safety in anything people do. The people who design, build, operate, and maintain aircraft are not trying to get anyone killed. To say otherwise is foolish. Are there problems with the 787? No doubt. Will they get looked at and fixed? No doubt. Is the 787 safe? Much safer than the car that takes you to the airport.

Jan 11, 2013 4:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shyguy151 wrote:

The 777 was built from the ground mostly assembled and produced in the US. It is one of the planes built and has been imitated in many firms by Airbus. They could have used the new wing and engines on a redesigned 777 and had them flying safely and doing the job. Now with all the outsourcing Boeing has produced a plane plagued with problems and with all the finger pointing from the outsourcing it is very likely one will crash before they truly get thus thing right if at all. This is a sad statement in American industry, the 787 is having serious issues.

Jan 12, 2013 12:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.