3 ms·

But didn't they outsource a lot of the work (~70%), including wing design? Not very conservative if you ask me. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/dev

But didn't they outsource a lot of the work (~70%), including wing design? Not very conservative if you ask me. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/dev_team.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/dev_team.html

jacquesm 17y ago
They'll test it to the hilt on integration, you can literally depend on that. Conservative wrt to testing, documentation and procedures as well as a healthy dose of skepticism about new technology. Just try adding a new piece of avionics to an existing plane or changing something after the airworthiness certificate has been issued.
smhinsey 17y ago
Apparently this is largely the result of new management. After Alan Mulaly left for Ford, their culture shifted dramatically from the engineering/conservative mindset to a bottom-line-driven outsourcing model.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "Bottom-line-driven" and "aerospace-engineering" don't mix very well... I hope Boeing gets its act together. It would be a shame to have only one company designing and building big passenger planes...
  - smhinsey 17y ago
    It definitely seems like your notion is being borne out. Personally, I think it's indicative of a larger cultural problem in the US, so I don't have particular optimism that it will be corrected in time at Boeing, but I certainly hope that it is. It seems unlikely to me that the federal government will allow such a strategic supplier to simply fade away, I just hope they don't end up turning into zombie Boeing.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      Boeing is, effectively, "too strategic to fail". I too find it unlikely that it gets corrected in time, mostly because those who drove Boeing into this mess will keep their bonuses intact while grinding Boeing to a thin shell. Sad. But there could be hope. The engineers will end up working somewhere else. And the money to design and build planes will still exist, somewhere. This and maintenance contracts for all those 7*7s around will keep some money flowing.

jacquesm 17y ago

They'll test it to the hilt on integration, you can literally depend on that. Conservative wrt to testing, documentation and procedures as well as a healthy dose of skepticism about new technology. Just try adding a new piece of avionics to an existing plane or changing something after the airworthiness certificate has been issued.

smhinsey 17y ago

Apparently this is largely the result of new management. After Alan Mulaly left for Ford, their culture shifted dramatically from the engineering/conservative mindset to a bottom-line-driven outsourcing model.

rbanffy 17y ago
"Bottom-line-driven" and "aerospace-engineering" don't mix very well... I hope Boeing gets its act together. It would be a shame to have only one company designing and building big passenger planes...
- smhinsey 17y ago
  It definitely seems like your notion is being borne out. Personally, I think it's indicative of a larger cultural problem in the US, so I don't have particular optimism that it will be corrected in time at Boeing, but I certainly hope that it is. It seems unlikely to me that the federal government will allow such a strategic supplier to simply fade away, I just hope they don't end up turning into zombie Boeing.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Boeing is, effectively, "too strategic to fail". I too find it unlikely that it gets corrected in time, mostly because those who drove Boeing into this mess will keep their bonuses intact while grinding Boeing to a thin shell. Sad. But there could be hope. The engineers will end up working somewhere else. And the money to design and build planes will still exist, somewhere. This and maintenance contracts for all those 7*7s around will keep some money flowing.