12 ms·

Boeing yanks eight 787s from service over structural issue

188 points by throwaway713 6y ago

msoloi 6y ago
This is a good sign, they have realized that it would've destroyed the company if they had another jet liner fall from the sky due to a problem they chose to ignore. This way, they appear to be doing their due diligence, even though they made a mistake in manufacturing.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  The real question now is how are they identifying these issues now and how many more have they identified or failed to identify.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    It sounds like they're combing over historical manufacturing records: > The company “conducted a thorough review of the manufacturing data with respect to both shimming and skin surface profile. Based on that analysis we were able to determine that both conditions affected these eight airplanes only,” said the Boeing spokesman, who added that it has notified the Federal Aviation Administration “and are conducting a thorough review into the root cause.” Who knows why they decided to review that data. Maybe they have a project to try to spot problems they missed before, or maybe someone just noticed a problem on a newer plane and they went back to find out if any others were affected by that same problem.
    - stevehawk 6y ago
      Someone knows why and there's likely a non conspiracy reason behind it. Such as: one of them went in for an inspection (they're inspected a lot) and someone noticed something wrong in a significant capacity. Which then made it's way through Boeing because it shouldn't happened and they realized a potential problem.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > This is a good sign No it's not. Boeing has struggled with the same 787 composites mfg. problems since 2010, plus wing-root cracks and Lithium-ion battery fires. Failure of a pressure bulkhead in flight usually causes loss of the airplane. I wouldn't fly on the 787. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
abhiminator 6y ago
Reading this while sitting in a 787-9 that's just about to take off isn't very comforting. Jokes aside, this again brings up the fact that Boeing as a company has deep quality control issues and I really hope this "structural issue" (vague sounding terms aren't comforting either) is limited to the 8 aircrafts in question and hope many more don't pop up, else it'll be a serious blow to public confidence on Boeing, especially after the MAX situation.
- fatnoah 6y ago
  >Reading this while sitting in a 787-9 that's just about to take off isn't very comforting. In a similar vein, that reminds me of the time I was stuck in my seat on plane that had pushed away from the gate, but was just sitting on the tarmac because the captain "didn't like the look of an engine indication". About 45 minutes in to just waiting there, there was a commotion as everyone's phones/Blackberries started chirping. Apparently, some plane had just landed in the Hudson river.
  - adanto6840 6y ago
    Did your flight eventually take off? Was the captain legitimately concerned about an indication, or was he just aware of the emergency declaration of Flight 1549 and waiting to see how it played out?
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      The time between the beginning and end of the 1549 emergency was far less than 45 minutes.
      - adanto6840 6y ago
        I'm aware; there was certainly lag time between the event & the reporting, though. It's relatively likely that the PIC knew of the emergency declaration 10-20 minutes before it was triggering push notifications on devices. Regardless, I'm legitimately curious what the outcome of his flight was that day.
tyingq 6y ago
If it's really slow loading: https://archive.is/vz3kE https://archive.is/vz3kE
jpm_sd 6y ago
It'll be interesting to see whether similar problems occur with Boom's supersonic all-composite airframe.
- scarier 6y ago
  This isn't a fundamental issue with composites. Although they do require more stringent process control than traditional metal structures, with good procedures and QC they are extremely strong (and have significant advantages over metal structures--we've just been working with metal for so long that we know a lot about its issues). The main question is whether or not Boeing fundamentally has good procedures and QC--if those have been compromised, they can't really be trusted to make mostly-metal airplanes, either.
fallingfrog 6y ago
It’s a good sign, they’re learning to take these things more seriously.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It's a bit late I think.
- coliveira 6y ago
  This is not the first time such issues have been reported. I wonder if there will be any change in behavior, specially now that the company is in a bad financial situation.
fnord77 6y ago
site is being slashdotted, the gist: > The source of the newly-discovered structural issue has been traced to a mating point inside the aft fuselage between two carbon fiber composite barrels, known as Section 47/48 where the two barrels meet with a large bulkhead that caps the pressurized cabin. The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant and then delivered for final assembly to the company’s nearby final assembly building or flown to Everett, Wash.
fred_is_fred 6y ago
It might be easier to just list what is still in-service at this point. 737 Max, 737-7s both have issues. 747s are being retired. Unsure what's left.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  737-200, -300, -400, -500. 737-6, -8, -9. (Assuming that the -7s are temporarily out of service as you've said) 747 (cargo) 757 767 777 787 (all but these 8) So still quite a few lines flying.
  - sjm-lbm 6y ago
    your listing of 737's isn't quite correct: 737-600s, 737-700s, 737-800s and 737-900s are part of the 737NG/Next Generation series that debuted in 1998. They are still flying and are safe. 737-8s are part of the 737MAX series (which includes 737-7s, 737-8s, 737-9s, and 737-200s), and they are all unsafe/grounded. As far as I know, the 737-8 is the only MAX variant to actually have been delivered so far, but I can't find a proof of that at the moment.
    - liability 6y ago
      > 737MAX series (which includes [...] 737-200s), The 'MAX 200' is the 737-8200. The 737-200 is one of the originals from the 1960s.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Yeah, I should have said -600, -700, -800, -900 instead of -6, -7, -8, -9. For some reason I got that naming convention mixed up, and forgot that the -800 was NG while -8 was MAX. The 737-200 is one of the first-gen 737s, and still active today, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#737-200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#737-200
      - sjm-lbm 6y ago
        Sibling comment got it, but I was thinking about the MAX 200/737-8200, which is a variant of the -8 that has more exit doors and therefore can have a higher seating density. Totally agree that the model numbers are confusing, though (obviously).
linuxftw 6y ago
It's almost as if there was a documentary released 6 years ago that documented the serious structural problems and manufacturing incompetence. Boeing has outsourced all core competencies, including manufacturing the main fuselage. They are more or less a last-step assembler at this point. There's no reason to get in a 787, and I'll never, ever step foot into a MAX.
- deeblering4 6y ago
  > and I'll never, ever step foot into a MAX Aka the 737-8, which is what they have low-key renamed the MAX.
x87678r 6y ago
There is so much publicity over Boeing problems. I'm wondering if 30-50 years ago they were more thorough or just it was more accepted to have accidents. Probably the latter. I'm just worried there is too much safety everywhere and no one takes risks any more. Its a wonder Tesla autopilot is still allowed.
- thrawayjpikaf 6y ago
  No, the problem is apparently boeing has been getting away with BS at their south carolina plant because of lax oversight, and that wouldn't have "flown" previously: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-proposes-fining-boeing-1-25-million-fine-for-exerting-undue-pressure-on-safety-reps-in-south-carolina https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-p...
- dave5104 6y ago
  > I'm just worried there is too much safety everywhere and no one takes risks any more. If this is really true, then I personally think it's wonderful that no one is taking a risk with my safety when I'm flying on an airplane.
  - x87678r 6y ago
    What I mean though if we always had this approach we probably wouldn't have had airplanes.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      Safety was always a concern even in the first days, except for the daredevils which exist in every field. The only difference is that nowadays we have more safety exactly because of this mindset. Imagine if people now start to think it is ok to "take risks" with aviation.
    - dave5104 6y ago
      I highly doubt that. There's a difference in expectations on the safety of the first airplanes versus airplanes for mass consumer daily usage. Or in other words, a matured technology. If what you think is true, no one would be bothering to explore self driving cars. Once that technology is matured enough, I absolutely expect (and hope) that they reach the same level of safety standards and requirements that airplanes take on.
thrawayjpikaf 6y ago
> The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant At least one airline has refused to accept airplanes from boeing's SC plant because of the poor manufacturing policies practiced there. if boeing does shut down it's everett assembly plants as part of the downturn, i will stop flying any recent (post classic 737) boeing equipment for my own safety.
- liability 6y ago
  > Classic 737 I think there are only a few hundred of those left, they stopped making them 20 years ago. NGs seem fine to me, I've never thought twice before flying on one.
  - thrawayjpikaf 6y ago
    yeah, i mean '737s made before the MAX body length extension.' thanks for making me clarify.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Why? The existing planes that were assembled in Everett were still assembled in Everett, whether or not they close the plant. You either want to only fly stuff built before the SC plant opened, or you want to fly individual planes that were built in Everett. Whether the plant stays open has nothing to do with it.
russb 6y ago
"The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant and then delivered for final assembly to the company’s nearby final assembly building or flown to Everett, Wash." Not the first time quality control has been an issue at the N.C. plant. From a New York Times article back in 2019: "Ever since, Qatar has bought only Dreamliners built in Everett." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline...
- flowerlad 6y ago
  And yet they are closing the Everett factory: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/losing-787-would-be-major-headwind-for-regions-economy/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/losing-787-would-be-ma...
  - hinkley 6y ago
    That’s a speculative piece and the one it links to is as well. The 787 was designed to not require as much infrastructure as the Everett plant has to offer. I’m out of the loop, but Wikipedia still lists most of the rest of their catalog as being produced in Everett, and the new 777 is coming online. Sounds more like having to choose between 787 capacity and other production lines. I’m not sure where they get losing the 787 meaning nothing to backfill it. For those specific employees, changing programs may be difficult and not all of them will be picked up, but for the region, I don’t see how this means 30k fewer jobs. Also Everett does other things besides assembly. I think most of their IT and a few other programs are there.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Yes, as part of a long-running union busting campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/03/boeing-union-workers-fired-south-carolina https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/03/boeing-union... > Boeing’s mere presence in South Carolina was already viewed as a union-busting move when the company first opened an aircraft production plant there in 2011 rather than Washington state, where Boeing had unionized operations. South Carolina has the lowest union membership rate in the United States at just 2.7% of workers. The National Labor Relations Board filed a federal complaint against Boeing for the move, accusing the company of violating federal labor law, before dropping it after the company came to an agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).
ulfw 6y ago
Al Jazeera reported about the horrible South Carolina plant issues six years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
- piva00 6y ago
  Coincidentally I wrote this comment [0] now, 20 minutes past yours, before scrolling down... It's not a new thing on that plant. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24306431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24306431
noctune 6y ago
Bizarre - the site has javascript that disables selecting text on the article because "Content is protected".
- rasz 6y ago
  It gets better, open chrome devtools and look at the Source tab - its empty? Reload with devtools open on source tab gets it populated, weird. Anyway, for 'copy protection' they are using wpcp_disable_selection https://myprogrammingnotes.com/protect-web-page-copied-using-javascript.html https://myprogrammingnotes.com/protect-web-page-copied-using... , it hooks document.onselectstart and document.onmousedown. onselectstart is very abuse-able and has no place in User Agents just like the likes of onbeforeunload navigator.sendBeacon and window.opener, meaning you should probably hardcode disable it (userscript, or directly modding own browser). onmousedown is a bit more problematic and cant be dealt in automatic fashion. You will have to manually go to devtools every time and delete all onmousedown event listeners.
Pfhreak 6y ago
I think there's a reasonable case for nationalizing Boeing to remove the profit motive. I'm not saying it's the only play, but Boeing is a strategic interest to the nation (both economically and strategically), it's already receiving massive subsidies, and huge paychecks are being cut to executive leadership. It might be worth it to continue to manufacture these planes in the US, with an emphasis on safety and providing good jobs, even if that meant it wasn't strictly profitable to do so. If we're giving them billions in tax cuts anyways, which they then use to layoff workers and move plants, maybe we should cut out the song and dance.
- hinkley 6y ago
  It has been mumbled in many a kitchenette that if St Louis were to sink into the river a lot of these problems would go away. There is something more cynical and, some argue, rotten about the way the MD executives are running things. 10 years ago they were cutting research but keeping the management chain. Fewer people to bill hours for that the same overhead. Yeah that probably didn’t work out. ETA: the US govt is substantially responsible for this situation. They had the bright idea to reduce the diversity of defense contracts and that they meant to accomplish this by having some of the contractors merge. I believe they actually facilitated the Boeing-MD as well. So I’m not sure how them taking over entirely will fix this. Defense contracts have always been political chips for Congress. Giving them more control won’t help that.
- christophilus 6y ago
  I’ve briefly been on the inside of government projects. I wouldn’t trust them to build anything like this, unless they allowed NASA or some similarly engineering-orientated agency to manage it.
  - donor20 6y ago
    Even NASA with cost plus space launch system style contracts would spend 10B with nothing to show for it. I too have been inside a govt project. Delivering a product of value to end user on commercially reasonable basis is not the goal of such efforts for better and worse. There is no profit motive.
CryptoBanker 6y ago
And Boeing announced last year they were planning to significantly reduce their quality control inspectors. Whoops... https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-overhauls-its-quality-controls-more-high-tech-tracking-but-fewer-inspectors/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
tus88 6y ago
That's why I make my planes out of titanium.
Animats 6y ago
"Boeing has identified two distinct manufacturing issues in the join of certain 787 aft body fuselage sections, which, in combination, result in a condition that does not meet our design standards," said the company's statement. It said it is conducting a thorough review into the root cause of the problem. Wow. And that's the PR-approved press release. More details will probably appear in Aviation Week. Is this a problem with joining carbon fiber?
- scarier 6y ago
  >Is this a problem with joining carbon fiber? Fundamentally? No. That said, I imagine there's a lot of pressure from the management to make big, expensive, slow-to-manufacture subassemblies fit together, even when they maybe don't quite. Not sure if it's an issue with their tolerances, or if something bigger is going on (the skin roughness they mention is troubling, because it implies the carbon layup might not have been compressed enough during its cure, and would require significant reinforcement at the very least to meet minimum strength requirements--an aircraft that can't even reach its limit load is fantastically unsafe to fly), but joining composites is mostly about having good procedures and following them religiously.
thehappypm 6y ago
Boeing has a really interesting strategy right now, essentially, they want to do DaaS —- Design as a Service — and leave that icky business of manufacturing to contractors. It’s a bold move; for decades Boeing has been doing design and build, pretty solidly verticalized. But now, they seem to want to outsource manufacturing entirely, and leave their core competency to be design, supply chain, regulatory logistics, and sales. A huge shift. And one that is not going super well. But perhaps there’s wisdom to it.

188 points by throwaway713 6y ago

This is a good sign, they have realized that it would've destroyed the company if they had another jet liner fall from the sky due to a problem they chose to ignore. This way, they appear to be doing their due diligence, even though they made a mistake in manufacturing.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
The real question now is how are they identifying these issues now and how many more have they identified or failed to identify.
- ardy42 6y ago
  It sounds like they're combing over historical manufacturing records: > The company “conducted a thorough review of the manufacturing data with respect to both shimming and skin surface profile. Based on that analysis we were able to determine that both conditions affected these eight airplanes only,” said the Boeing spokesman, who added that it has notified the Federal Aviation Administration “and are conducting a thorough review into the root cause.” Who knows why they decided to review that data. Maybe they have a project to try to spot problems they missed before, or maybe someone just noticed a problem on a newer plane and they went back to find out if any others were affected by that same problem.
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    Someone knows why and there's likely a non conspiracy reason behind it. Such as: one of them went in for an inspection (they're inspected a lot) and someone noticed something wrong in a significant capacity. Which then made it's way through Boeing because it shouldn't happened and they realized a potential problem.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> This is a good sign No it's not. Boeing has struggled with the same 787 composites mfg. problems since 2010, plus wing-root cracks and Lithium-ion battery fires. Failure of a pressure bulkhead in flight usually causes loss of the airplane. I wouldn't fly on the 787. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

abhiminator 6y ago

Reading this while sitting in a 787-9 that's just about to take off isn't very comforting. Jokes aside, this again brings up the fact that Boeing as a company has deep quality control issues and I really hope this "structural issue" (vague sounding terms aren't comforting either) is limited to the 8 aircrafts in question and hope many more don't pop up, else it'll be a serious blow to public confidence on Boeing, especially after the MAX situation.

fatnoah 6y ago
>Reading this while sitting in a 787-9 that's just about to take off isn't very comforting. In a similar vein, that reminds me of the time I was stuck in my seat on plane that had pushed away from the gate, but was just sitting on the tarmac because the captain "didn't like the look of an engine indication". About 45 minutes in to just waiting there, there was a commotion as everyone's phones/Blackberries started chirping. Apparently, some plane had just landed in the Hudson river.
- adanto6840 6y ago
  Did your flight eventually take off? Was the captain legitimately concerned about an indication, or was he just aware of the emergency declaration of Flight 1549 and waiting to see how it played out?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    The time between the beginning and end of the 1549 emergency was far less than 45 minutes.
    - adanto6840 6y ago
      I'm aware; there was certainly lag time between the event & the reporting, though. It's relatively likely that the PIC knew of the emergency declaration 10-20 minutes before it was triggering push notifications on devices. Regardless, I'm legitimately curious what the outcome of his flight was that day.

tyingq 6y ago

If it's really slow loading: https://archive.is/vz3kE https://archive.is/vz3kE

jpm_sd 6y ago

It'll be interesting to see whether similar problems occur with Boom's supersonic all-composite airframe.

scarier 6y ago
This isn't a fundamental issue with composites. Although they do require more stringent process control than traditional metal structures, with good procedures and QC they are extremely strong (and have significant advantages over metal structures--we've just been working with metal for so long that we know a lot about its issues). The main question is whether or not Boeing fundamentally has good procedures and QC--if those have been compromised, they can't really be trusted to make mostly-metal airplanes, either.

fallingfrog 6y ago

It’s a good sign, they’re learning to take these things more seriously.

jacquesm 6y ago
It's a bit late I think.
coliveira 6y ago
This is not the first time such issues have been reported. I wonder if there will be any change in behavior, specially now that the company is in a bad financial situation.

fnord77 6y ago

site is being slashdotted, the gist: > The source of the newly-discovered structural issue has been traced to a mating point inside the aft fuselage between two carbon fiber composite barrels, known as Section 47/48 where the two barrels meet with a large bulkhead that caps the pressurized cabin. The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant and then delivered for final assembly to the company’s nearby final assembly building or flown to Everett, Wash.

fred_is_fred 6y ago

It might be easier to just list what is still in-service at this point. 737 Max, 737-7s both have issues. 747s are being retired. Unsure what's left.

DuskStar 6y ago
737-200, -300, -400, -500. 737-6, -8, -9. (Assuming that the -7s are temporarily out of service as you've said) 747 (cargo) 757 767 777 787 (all but these 8) So still quite a few lines flying.
- sjm-lbm 6y ago
  your listing of 737's isn't quite correct: 737-600s, 737-700s, 737-800s and 737-900s are part of the 737NG/Next Generation series that debuted in 1998. They are still flying and are safe. 737-8s are part of the 737MAX series (which includes 737-7s, 737-8s, 737-9s, and 737-200s), and they are all unsafe/grounded. As far as I know, the 737-8 is the only MAX variant to actually have been delivered so far, but I can't find a proof of that at the moment.
  - liability 6y ago
    > 737MAX series (which includes [...] 737-200s), The 'MAX 200' is the 737-8200. The 737-200 is one of the originals from the 1960s.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Yeah, I should have said -600, -700, -800, -900 instead of -6, -7, -8, -9. For some reason I got that naming convention mixed up, and forgot that the -800 was NG while -8 was MAX. The 737-200 is one of the first-gen 737s, and still active today, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#737-200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#737-200
    - sjm-lbm 6y ago
      Sibling comment got it, but I was thinking about the MAX 200/737-8200, which is a variant of the -8 that has more exit doors and therefore can have a higher seating density. Totally agree that the model numbers are confusing, though (obviously).

linuxftw 6y ago

It's almost as if there was a documentary released 6 years ago that documented the serious structural problems and manufacturing incompetence. Boeing has outsourced all core competencies, including manufacturing the main fuselage. They are more or less a last-step assembler at this point. There's no reason to get in a 787, and I'll never, ever step foot into a MAX.

deeblering4 6y ago
> and I'll never, ever step foot into a MAX Aka the 737-8, which is what they have low-key renamed the MAX.

x87678r 6y ago

There is so much publicity over Boeing problems. I'm wondering if 30-50 years ago they were more thorough or just it was more accepted to have accidents. Probably the latter. I'm just worried there is too much safety everywhere and no one takes risks any more. Its a wonder Tesla autopilot is still allowed.

thrawayjpikaf 6y ago
No, the problem is apparently boeing has been getting away with BS at their south carolina plant because of lax oversight, and that wouldn't have "flown" previously: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-proposes-fining-boeing-1-25-million-fine-for-exerting-undue-pressure-on-safety-reps-in-south-carolina https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-p...
dave5104 6y ago
> I'm just worried there is too much safety everywhere and no one takes risks any more. If this is really true, then I personally think it's wonderful that no one is taking a risk with my safety when I'm flying on an airplane.
- x87678r 6y ago
  What I mean though if we always had this approach we probably wouldn't have had airplanes.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    Safety was always a concern even in the first days, except for the daredevils which exist in every field. The only difference is that nowadays we have more safety exactly because of this mindset. Imagine if people now start to think it is ok to "take risks" with aviation.
  - dave5104 6y ago
    I highly doubt that. There's a difference in expectations on the safety of the first airplanes versus airplanes for mass consumer daily usage. Or in other words, a matured technology. If what you think is true, no one would be bothering to explore self driving cars. Once that technology is matured enough, I absolutely expect (and hope) that they reach the same level of safety standards and requirements that airplanes take on.

thrawayjpikaf 6y ago

> The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant At least one airline has refused to accept airplanes from boeing's SC plant because of the poor manufacturing policies practiced there. if boeing does shut down it's everett assembly plants as part of the downturn, i will stop flying any recent (post classic 737) boeing equipment for my own safety.

liability 6y ago
> Classic 737 I think there are only a few hundred of those left, they stopped making them 20 years ago. NGs seem fine to me, I've never thought twice before flying on one.
- thrawayjpikaf 6y ago
  yeah, i mean '737s made before the MAX body length extension.' thanks for making me clarify.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Why? The existing planes that were assembled in Everett were still assembled in Everett, whether or not they close the plant. You either want to only fly stuff built before the SC plant opened, or you want to fly individual planes that were built in Everett. Whether the plant stays open has nothing to do with it.

russb 6y ago

"The pieces are fabricated and joined with the aft pressure bulkhead at Boeing’s North Charleston, S.C. plant and then delivered for final assembly to the company’s nearby final assembly building or flown to Everett, Wash." Not the first time quality control has been an issue at the N.C. plant. From a New York Times article back in 2019: "Ever since, Qatar has bought only Dreamliners built in Everett." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline...

flowerlad 6y ago
And yet they are closing the Everett factory: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/losing-787-would-be-major-headwind-for-regions-economy/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/losing-787-would-be-ma...
- hinkley 6y ago
  That’s a speculative piece and the one it links to is as well. The 787 was designed to not require as much infrastructure as the Everett plant has to offer. I’m out of the loop, but Wikipedia still lists most of the rest of their catalog as being produced in Everett, and the new 777 is coming online. Sounds more like having to choose between 787 capacity and other production lines. I’m not sure where they get losing the 787 meaning nothing to backfill it. For those specific employees, changing programs may be difficult and not all of them will be picked up, but for the region, I don’t see how this means 30k fewer jobs. Also Everett does other things besides assembly. I think most of their IT and a few other programs are there.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Yes, as part of a long-running union busting campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/03/boeing-union-workers-fired-south-carolina https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/03/boeing-union... > Boeing’s mere presence in South Carolina was already viewed as a union-busting move when the company first opened an aircraft production plant there in 2011 rather than Washington state, where Boeing had unionized operations. South Carolina has the lowest union membership rate in the United States at just 2.7% of workers. The National Labor Relations Board filed a federal complaint against Boeing for the move, accusing the company of violating federal labor law, before dropping it after the company came to an agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

ulfw 6y ago

Al Jazeera reported about the horrible South Carolina plant issues six years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

piva00 6y ago
Coincidentally I wrote this comment [0] now, 20 minutes past yours, before scrolling down... It's not a new thing on that plant. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24306431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24306431

noctune 6y ago

Bizarre - the site has javascript that disables selecting text on the article because "Content is protected".

rasz 6y ago
It gets better, open chrome devtools and look at the Source tab - its empty? Reload with devtools open on source tab gets it populated, weird. Anyway, for 'copy protection' they are using wpcp_disable_selection https://myprogrammingnotes.com/protect-web-page-copied-using-javascript.html https://myprogrammingnotes.com/protect-web-page-copied-using... , it hooks document.onselectstart and document.onmousedown. onselectstart is very abuse-able and has no place in User Agents just like the likes of onbeforeunload navigator.sendBeacon and window.opener, meaning you should probably hardcode disable it (userscript, or directly modding own browser). onmousedown is a bit more problematic and cant be dealt in automatic fashion. You will have to manually go to devtools every time and delete all onmousedown event listeners.

Pfhreak 6y ago

I think there's a reasonable case for nationalizing Boeing to remove the profit motive. I'm not saying it's the only play, but Boeing is a strategic interest to the nation (both economically and strategically), it's already receiving massive subsidies, and huge paychecks are being cut to executive leadership. It might be worth it to continue to manufacture these planes in the US, with an emphasis on safety and providing good jobs, even if that meant it wasn't strictly profitable to do so. If we're giving them billions in tax cuts anyways, which they then use to layoff workers and move plants, maybe we should cut out the song and dance.

hinkley 6y ago
It has been mumbled in many a kitchenette that if St Louis were to sink into the river a lot of these problems would go away. There is something more cynical and, some argue, rotten about the way the MD executives are running things. 10 years ago they were cutting research but keeping the management chain. Fewer people to bill hours for that the same overhead. Yeah that probably didn’t work out. ETA: the US govt is substantially responsible for this situation. They had the bright idea to reduce the diversity of defense contracts and that they meant to accomplish this by having some of the contractors merge. I believe they actually facilitated the Boeing-MD as well. So I’m not sure how them taking over entirely will fix this. Defense contracts have always been political chips for Congress. Giving them more control won’t help that.
christophilus 6y ago
I’ve briefly been on the inside of government projects. I wouldn’t trust them to build anything like this, unless they allowed NASA or some similarly engineering-orientated agency to manage it.
- donor20 6y ago
  Even NASA with cost plus space launch system style contracts would spend 10B with nothing to show for it. I too have been inside a govt project. Delivering a product of value to end user on commercially reasonable basis is not the goal of such efforts for better and worse. There is no profit motive.

CryptoBanker 6y ago

And Boeing announced last year they were planning to significantly reduce their quality control inspectors. Whoops... https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-overhauls-its-quality-controls-more-high-tech-tracking-but-fewer-inspectors/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...

tus88 6y ago

That's why I make my planes out of titanium.

Animats 6y ago

"Boeing has identified two distinct manufacturing issues in the join of certain 787 aft body fuselage sections, which, in combination, result in a condition that does not meet our design standards," said the company's statement. It said it is conducting a thorough review into the root cause of the problem. Wow. And that's the PR-approved press release. More details will probably appear in Aviation Week. Is this a problem with joining carbon fiber?

scarier 6y ago
>Is this a problem with joining carbon fiber? Fundamentally? No. That said, I imagine there's a lot of pressure from the management to make big, expensive, slow-to-manufacture subassemblies fit together, even when they maybe don't quite. Not sure if it's an issue with their tolerances, or if something bigger is going on (the skin roughness they mention is troubling, because it implies the carbon layup might not have been compressed enough during its cure, and would require significant reinforcement at the very least to meet minimum strength requirements--an aircraft that can't even reach its limit load is fantastically unsafe to fly), but joining composites is mostly about having good procedures and following them religiously.

thehappypm 6y ago

Boeing has a really interesting strategy right now, essentially, they want to do DaaS —- Design as a Service — and leave that icky business of manufacturing to contractors. It’s a bold move; for decades Boeing has been doing design and build, pretty solidly verticalized. But now, they seem to want to outsource manufacturing entirely, and leave their core competency to be design, supply chain, regulatory logistics, and sales. A huge shift. And one that is not going super well. But perhaps there’s wisdom to it.