HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Source: Boeing to propose...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:28 PM

Source: Boeing to propose 787 battery fix to FAA

Source: AP

WASHINGTON -- Boeing has developed a plan that it intends to propose to federal regulators to temporarily fix problems with the 787 Dreamliner's batteries that have kept the planes on the ground for more than a month, a congressional official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Ray Conner is expected to present the plan to Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, in a meeting on Friday, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Boeing Co. spokesman Marc Birtel said the company doesn't talk in advance about meetings with federal officials.

"Everyone is working to get to the answer as quickly as possible, and good progress is being made," Birtel said.

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130220-source-boeing-to-propose-787-battery-fix-to-faa.ece

9 replies, 1703 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Source: Boeing to propose 787 battery fix to FAA (Original post)
TexasTowelie Feb 2013 OP
burrowowl Feb 2013 #1
Trajan Feb 2013 #2
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #4
Populist_Prole Feb 2013 #5
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #6
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #7
Trajan Feb 2013 #9
longship Feb 2013 #3
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #8

Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:37 PM

1. Ummh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:58 PM

2. Boeing was so arrogant when this news first broke ...

They were so nonchalant ... Swearing there was little to be worried about, and little that needed to be fixed ...

HUGE blunder ....

They needed to get on top of shit, immediately, and get to the failure analysis part, immediately ... Instead; they hemmed and hawed ...

Now they find problems in the wiring - This is flight certified production hardware, and it's their design - They can easily lose a certification if they don't respond appropriately, and fix it ....

Boeing's in a race with Airbus ... They lost some credibility last month ... They lost some market share ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 AM

4. The practical problem is even 100% airworthy the 787 might be a permanent drain on the company,

They sold hundreds of these things at impossible discounts and have paid out billions of dollars in penalties to the customers who were supposed to begin receiving their planes Spring 2008, it finally limped into service in the Fall of 2011 but catching up with the order backlog and ceasing the penalty payments to airlines will take years.

At some point the MBA's who conceived this monster might decided it is time to take it out back the courthouse and shoot it with a bankruptcy filing to wipe-out the liability of the order backlog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:18 AM

5. Boeing wanted it to be a scab airplane from day one

So much for being a "virtual manufacturer".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:32 AM

6. I don't know if that is how I would phrase it,

Boeing wanted to be more like Airbus, which after the disastrous run that followed the McDonnell Douglas merger wasn't entirely a bad idea.

The problem was that they skipped the most important part of the Airbus story. The Airbus consortium members were not random industrial interests that answered RFP's with the lowest bid, they were independent commercial aircraft makers. Hawker Siddeley and Aerospatiale had both independently developed and delivered commercial jets. Either could have built the A300 alone, they just lacked the resources to do so independently. Boeing partners such as Vought were so far in over their head that it was doomed from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:20 PM

7. I thought they did get on top of it immediately...

Since the planes aren't making $$$$ for anyone while grounded....

Granted, for PR reasons I wouldn't expect them to spill every facet of their investigation to the media, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:21 PM

9. Their immediate response prior to the grounding

Boeing's PR has been rather lackluster of late

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:08 AM

3. I worked at Boeing for years.

I worked in the military branch, but we kept the KC-135 flying (aka, the commercial 707) up to 2009, from its birth in 1956. It was a wonderful airplane, the first big time intercontinental jetliner that made it good. But it was refueling planes in the air before it was flying people to Paris.

In the 1980's Boeing re-engined and re-skinned the entire fleet of KC-135s. The engines were the GE/Snecma CFM-56 which doubled the thrust of the KC's JT-3s and made it more efficient, and much more quiet (my job, as an acoustical engineer).

I flew to my home state in one of the last commercial 707s one week. The pilot got into a severe wind sheer problem while starting his descent into Cleveland. The wings were flapping like a bird, and we plunged thousands of feet in much too short of time for passenger comfort. The damned thing was plummeting like a rock, but I knew the pilot put nose down to regain lift to cancel the stall due to the wind sheer. We were all scared shitless, but I knew the plane. That pilot not only gained control easily, but he brought that beautiful bird in and landed it without as much as a bump.

When I deplaned, I told the stewardess that I worked on KCs at Boeing and I wanted to have a word with the captain. I simply told him, nicely done. It was indeed, a beautiful maneuver. Scared the shit out of everybody, but beautiful nonetheless.

The 707/KC-135 was a helluva aircraft.

The KC-135R:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

8. Great insights...

The 707 and its variants have certainly had a long, storied service life...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread