Boeing Reschedules Initial 787 Dreamliner Deliveries and First Flight

One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
the link to the document:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2003889769.pdf


----------------- Boeing press Release ----------------------
The Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html
Boeing Reschedules Initial 787 Deliveries and First Flight

* Financial impact not material to earnings
* Earnings guidance unchanged for 2007 and 2008

CHICAGO, Oct. 10, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE:BA] today announced
a
six-month delay in its planned initial deliveries of the 787
Dreamliner due to continued challenges completing assembly of the
first airplanes.

Deliveries of the strong-selling Dreamliner are now slated to begin in
late November or December 2008, versus an original target of May 2008.
First flight is now anticipated around the end of first quarter 2008.

The company said the financial impact of the delay would not be
material to earnings and that its earnings guidance for 2007 and 2008
remained unchanged.

"We are disappointed over the schedule changes that we are announcing
today," said Boeing Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Jim McNerney. "Notwithstanding the challenges that we are experiencing
in bringing forward this game-changing product, we remain confident in
the design of the 787, and in the fundamental innovation and
technologies that underpin it."

Early last month, Boeing announced a delay in the planned first flight
of the 787 citing ongoing challenges with out-of-sequence production
work, including parts shortages, and remaining software and systems
integration activities. The company also acknowledged increasing risk
to the delivery schedule, indicating that the margin to accommodate
unexpected issues had been eliminated. The newly revised schedule for
first flight and first delivery addresses the production challenges
and restores margin for the program to deal with issues that may be
uncovered in final ground or flight testing. Boeing also said today
that flight control software and systems integration activities are
not pacing items in the revised schedule for first flight.

"While we have made some progress over the past several weeks
completing work on our early production airplanes and improving parts
availability across the production system, the pace of that progress
has not been sufficient to support our previous plans for first
delivery or first flight," said Scott Carson, president and CEO of
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "We deeply regret the impact these delays
will have on our customers, and we are committed to working with them
to minimize any disruption to their plans.

"The most important commitment we've made to our customers is to
deliver an airplane that performs to their expectations over the long
life of the program. These changes to our schedule will help ensure we
do just that," Carson said.

The company will hold a conference call to discuss the 787 schedule
changes today at 12:30 p.m. Central Time, which will be accessible at
the company's website
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....ails&c=85482&e
ventID=1667937 .

Boeing will provide its next quarterly financial performance update as
planned on October 24.

On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
the link to the document:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2003889769.pdf


Regardless of the alleged whistle blowing, program delays don't
surprise me considering the complexity of 787. I hope we don't see a
repeat of the A380 debacle.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:01:04 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787.

There was skepticism in the Seattle press about Boeing meeting the 787
first-flight date far, far before the public comments by the former employee.
With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
completion over this?

The prototype *is* an experimental category aircraft, after all; it's not like
it requires much more than cursory FAA approval. If the guy is right, the
program's screwed, but the aerodynamics probably wouldn't change much. The
company could get a lot of useful data by flying the prototype during any
redesign effort.

And if the guy is wrong, Boeing would take a huge loss in delaying the program
needlessly.

Ron Wanttaja

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote in
:

With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
completion over this?

If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
employee them, IMO. I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
the design will be held to.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:36:02 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote in
:

With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
completion over this?

If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
employee them, IMO.

Prototypes rarely match the production models; that's one reason why companies
like Boeing retain them for company "hacks." The allegations have nothing to do
with how the airplane's going to fly; any changes will be internal. Yet the
test period does typically reveal the need for mechanical/aerodynamic changes.
*If* there are delays triggered by the allegations, flight testing the prototype
would allow *other* changes to be incorporated in parallel.

I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
the design will be held to.

I suspect you mean, "Final ruling," rather than "final rule." AFAIK, there's no
change in FAA policy pending over the allegations. The controversy is over a
difference in engineering opinion, rather than a revelation of hidden flaws.

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:19:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:36:02 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote in
:

With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
completion over this?

If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
employee them, IMO.

Prototypes rarely match the production models;

That's understandable given the reasons for testing in the first
place, and serves little disincentive for aiming for a prototype as
close as possible to the final design goal as it is envisioned at the
time of testing.

that's one reason why companies
like Boeing retain them for company "hacks." The allegations have nothing to do
with how the airplane's going to fly; any changes will be internal.

The response to the FAA Rules Docket cites concerns with the
structural integrity of composite materials Boeing has specified for
the Dreamliner, as I recall. Because of that, Boeing may choose to
refine its engineering in that area.

Yet the
test period does typically reveal the need for mechanical/aerodynamic changes.
*If* there are delays triggered by the allegations, flight testing the prototype
would allow *other* changes to be incorporated in parallel.

It's my understanding that flight testing isn't the only thing being
delayed.


I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
the design will be held to.

I suspect you mean, "Final ruling," rather than "final rule." AFAIK, there's no
change in FAA policy pending over the allegations.

Until the final ruling is published, how would you know the effect on
the FAA of 46-year former Boeing employee Weldon's seventeen page
comment?

The controversy is over a
difference in engineering opinion, rather than a revelation of hidden flaws.


There are a number of points raised in Weldon's comment:

1. The large number of failure modes for the relatively brittle
composite structure used in the 787.

2. The difficulty in testing the composite structure used in the
787.

4. The FAA's apparent intent to not thoroughly test Boeing's
prototype that represents a re-definition of jetliner design.

5. Boeing's corporate policy of intimidation of employees who
raise ethical questions about design and testing issues.

6. The sensitivity to hot/wet and freeze/thaw conditions an
through-thickness crack growth that represent fatigue-like failure
modes thought to be nonexistent in composites.

7. Visually undetectable impact caused micro-cracking as might
occur with hail damage.

8. The combustibility of composite materials reduces the
evacuation time window.

9. The design decision not to continuously electrically bond the
Faraday cage along the length of the joints of adjacent major
structural segments which may result in composite damage due to
arcing.

10. Lack of adequate testing of the system for nitrogen inerting
the fuel vapor above the liquid level in fuel tanks.

11. The FAA's issuance of crash worthiness special conditions and
inadequate testing requirements.

12. The smoke from burning carbon-epoxy composite structure of
the type used in the 787 is so toxic that it has been banned from use
in the interior of aluminum jetliners.

13. ...



Ron Wanttaja

On Oct 10, 8:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
the link to the document:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2003889769.pdf


None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
all due to systems integration problems...

Dean

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
. com:

None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
all due to systems integration problems...

What is your source for that information?

On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
. com:

None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
all due to systems integration problems...

What is your source for that information?

Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
all surprised by the announcement.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:37 -0700, wrote in
. com:

On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
. com:

None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
all due to systems integration problems...

What is your source for that information?

Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
all surprised by the announcement.

What do you know about Weldon? His comment to the FAA sounds like he
was unhappy with the lack of regard Boeing showed his engineering
analysis, and when he retired, he sold his name and knowledge to Alcoa
marketing. After all, if Boeing re-defines the jetliner as being of
composite construction, aluminum foundries stand to lose a substantial
portion of their market. Is his comment genuine or just underhanded
aluminum industry propaganda?