Al Jazeera investigates Boeing 787 TV Wed 2100 IST

Impetus

http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/default.html

Al Jazeera has produced an investigation into the "Dreamliner". Undercover cameras at a plant that assembles them - many employees working in the plant would not fly on one. Due to quality of manufacture etc.

Complaints echoed by retired senior executives responsible for QC. Staff at the plant taking dope, etc.

See link for video and broadcast timings - starts 21h00 IST (2000 UTC) 10.09.2014.

billie1b

Airbus must have given some big brown envelope to get that piece of shoddy crap published

Tenger

Al Jazzera must be hard up for schedule fillers.

IMHO this type of programme smacks more of US election style tactics.

arubex

An interesting conflict of interests given that Qatar Airways are one of the foremost 787 operators!

MuffinsDa

arubex wrote: »

An interesting conflict of interests given that Qatar Airways are one of the foremost 787 operators!

And also the launch customer for A350.

Impetus

billie1b wrote: »

Airbus must have given some big brown envelope to get that piece of shoddy crap published

The programme doesn't air until tonight - just have a look at all the Boeing and ex Boeing employees who are involved with its construction saying that they would not fly on it. Before one judges. Al Jazeera generally presents the least biased news of any international TV station - any time I hop around the news channels.

If there is bias anywhere - I smell it here, in this very thread.

billie1b

Impetus wrote: »

The programme doesn't air until tonight - just have a look at all the Boeing and ex Boeing employees who are involved with its construction saying that they would not fly on it. Before one judges. Al Jazeera generally presents the least biased news of any international TV station - any time I hop around the news channels.

If there is bias anywhere - I smell it here, in this very thread.

Easy there cowboy, it was a joke

markfla

I work with a former engineer on the dreamliner, had a good chat over pints about the plane. Nearly choked on half me pints. Wouldn't go anywhere near one.

windowspotter

markfla wrote: »

I work with a former engineer on the dreamliner, had a good chat over pints about the plane. Nearly choked on half me pints. Wouldn't go anywhere near one.

Does this go for the 787-9 also or have they largely fixed the problems?

My bucket list may just have grown one item shorter :-(

kona

markfla wrote: »

I work with a former engineer on the dreamliner, had a good chat over pints about the plane. Nearly choked on half me pints. Wouldn't go anywhere near one.

Go on what did he say? The aircraft is certified so it can't be that bad.

BuffyBot

I once made a cup of tea for a guy.

He wouldn't sit on a chair from Ikea.

Fabio

Come on spill the beans...

Impetus

Last night's programme is now on youtube at up to 1080i resolution (HD). Best watched at this resolution in full screen mode.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

Bang_Bang

Impetus wrote: »

Last night's programme is now on youtube at up to 1080i resolution (HD). Best watched at this resolution in full screen mode.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

That was a very good documentary, as an engineer myself, (albeit not in aviation) over the years I have had the very same experience, sacrificing Quality for cash and output, at the directions of Wall St thugs. Outsourcing was and is one of the most dangerous practices you can do when you have people lives at risk.

Contract manufactures have to do more with less. Penalties apply when your scheduled parts don't arrive etc.. I could go on. "New business model" every time I have heard this over the years, it always means do more with less, cheaper and ultimately at the price of Quality.

People shouldn't dismiss this so flippantly. I'm sure they will over time fix the issues at hand and I know they have fixed a number of issues already. There's plenty of reputable people interviewed in this documentary. I don't think they are telling porkies.

I have observed exactly the same "New business model" over the years.

The real question is, who is really behind the documentary? Airbus or someone else? The documentary has one agenda and one agenda only, that is to paint Boeng in a really bad light, make their employees look like a bunch of stoners, possibly hurt their share price and scare the public away from their aircraft and their future composite aircraft 777X etc..

I'm sure if one really wanted to, the same documentary could have been made about Airbus.

I have worked with guys over the years that have worked for Team Aer Lingus and they have told some stories about aircraft, but I have yet to witness one fall out of the sky. So I'll just sit on the fence here.

rightyabe

In Perth, Australia and on front of the West newspaper is a 4 page pull out on the launch of Air New Zealand's 787-9. Just what exactly is wrong with these planes, they look bloody nice.

smurfjed

Looks like Boeing isn't too impressed with the show....

Boeing Responds to Al Jazeera English Documentary on 787
Boeing issued the following statement prior to the airing of the television program on Al Jazeera English. The company will not be providing any further comment.

We have not been afforded the opportunity to view the full program, but the promotional trailer and published media reviews suggest that what has been produced is as biased a production as we have seen in some time. It is unfortunate that the producers of this television program appear to have fallen into the trap of distorting facts, relying on claims rejected by courts of law, breathlessly rehashing as “news” stories that have been covered exhaustively in the past and relying on anonymous sources who appear intent only on harming The Boeing Company.

When first contacted by the producers, we accommodated them in order for them to produce a fair and objective report including facilitating factory access, interviews and providing full and open responses to their questions. The 787 is an outstanding airplane delivering value to our customers, but we have also talked candidly in public about its challenging development process. There are no tougher critics about our early performance than Boeing.

Unfortunately, the reporting team appears to have chosen to take advantage of our trust and openness and abused their position from the outset by deliberately misrepresenting the purpose, objective and scope of their planned coverage.

This specious production appears to have ignored the factual information provided by Boeing and instead based the majority of its reporting on unnamed sources pursuing their own agendas and a disgruntled former employee engaged in a legal dispute with Boeing. In one instance, the producers resorted to ambush tactics normally seen only in tabloid-style TV news. The anonymous sources the TV program depends on are clearly working with those who seek to harm Boeing and its workers. They appear to have no real interest in truth, safety or better informing the public.

Even on-the-record sources seem to have changed their stories for the producers. For example, former Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) President Cynthia Cole said this about the 787’s first flight in 2009: “Today’s flight is a testament to the skill, hard work and diligence Boeing employees put in to get this airplane ready to fly,” SPEEA President Cynthia Cole said in a news release. “Boeing returned to engineering, and that’s what made today possible and successful.” Now, she states in the documentary trailer that Boeing “shortchanged the engineering process.”

Instead of an objective view of the 787’s development, viewers and our employees will see a television program that is neither balanced nor accurate in its portrayal of the airplane, our employees, or our suppliers. This program and those involved with it do a disservice to the hard-working men and women of Boeing and our supplier partners who designed and build the 787.

Furthermore, the program presents a false impression of Boeing South Carolina and the quality of work performed there. Airplanes, whether delivered from South Carolina or Washington, meet the highest safety and quality standards that are verified through robust test, verification and inspection processes. Our data of the current 787 fleet in service show parity in the quality and performance of airplanes manufactured in both locations.

Bang_Bang

smurfjed wrote: »

Looks like Boeing isn't too impressed with the show...<SNIP>.

I'm not surprised, as one employee points out to the undercover camera, "we build these to sell not to fly" He is 100% correct in his statement. "Contract" or "partners" are usually given certain time frames and schedules, their contract is about getting paid per unit, not whether it works or not,(using this term loosely) just get it out the door. Quality always in my experience will come second. And that's naturally because of the way the contracts are setup.

When a large MNC of any type of business out sources their manufacturing business from inhouse to cut costs, you will always have major Quality issues for the first few years until the process stabilises. I will give you an example.

A major contract manufacture in China produces phones, laptops, servers desktops, tablets, but pays for all of it's machine and product raw material parts and the products are assembled there. IF any of the parts go missing, or deliveries are missed they pay huge penalties. Where does quality stand in that type of situation? Second? third?

The same company made the Xbox 360 with the Red Ring of Death issue. It ended up costing more to rework in the end, because of the "build it, ship it and get paid" contract. Quality was last thing on their minds at that time. They were paid per unit shipped.

Now Boeng have ventured into this area, it's a murky area when it gets to building planes. Boeing could audit their partners, every 1/4 to make sure they are applying the Boeing QMS (Quality Management System) but their will always be loopholes in this kind of system. It just takes years to get right.

I just hope planes are not going the ways some cars have in the last few years. The last thing I want to hear in aviation is "Well they don't build them like they used to"

gordongekko

Anyone I know that works in manufacturing will say that they wouldn't go near their products after seeing how they are made. It does not mean there is any problem with the product.

arubex

An interesting angle would have been to investigate how the McDonnell factor influenced the 787's development.

When McD took-over Douglas they pushed engineering to third-tier behind accounting and marketing; the MD-11 was a prime example of the result, as was the dallying and indecision over the MD-90 and MD-12.

When they took-over Boeing they apparently did the same* and the 787 was the first clean-sheet design since the merger.

* the Boeing board was completely dominated by MDC people. As the adage goes, they bought Boeing with Boeing's money.

Bang_Bang

arubex wrote: »

An interesting angle would have been to investigate how the McDonnell factor influenced the 787's development.

When McD took-over Douglas they pushed engineering to third-tier behind accounting and marketing; the MD-11 was a prime example of the result, as was the dallying and indecision over the MD-90 and MD-12.

When they took-over Boeing they apparently did the same* and the 787 was the first clean-sheet design since the merger.

* the Boeing board was completely dominated by MDC people. As the adage goes, they bought Boeing with Boeing's money.

Yeah, there was no real in-depth look at what the merger really consisted of, in terms of the makeup of the financial investors. The angle from my perspective was to demonise Boeing as a whole company and make their employees look like a bunch of stoned and coked up hicks that really did shoddy work. Im not completely absolving Boeing of any wrong doing.

When you have guys that have worked for Boeing for ~30 years, they are completely institutionalized and probably well paid. There is most likely someone elsewhere doing the same job for peanuts on the 787, so it's probably just stop off in their career, not a job for life like the Boeing Everett plant used to be. Contractual obligations and output, come first. Quality and engineering slip down the slope slightly, but it's still there in the background. The Quality and engineering will remain with Boeing, if anything as a result of this programme going viral, Boeing will beef up the engineering side of things and do more plant visits and inspections around the globe to ensure the QMS standard is fully met.

It's has been said for as long as I can remember about RYR "former Pilots" and "employees", that one of their 737's will fall out of the sky due to contractual obligations and fuel issues, but alas this hasn't happened. RYR was demonised as a company by Dispatches on C4 and there was pilots and employees telling a different variant of the Boeing story told by Al Jazeera.

kona

gordongekko wrote: »

Anyone I know that works in manufacturing will say that they wouldn't go near their products after seeing how they are made. It does not mean there is any problem with the product.

Tbh most people who go on like that are thicks who are just looking for attention.
Similar to the people who constantly look for a alternative angle to everything in order to come across as smart.

Bang_Bang

kona wrote: »

Tbh most people who go on like that are thicks who are just looking for attention.
Similar to the people who constantly look for a alternative angle to everything in order to come across as smart.

Unionised drones ?

Impetus

Bang_Bang wrote: »

That was a very good documentary, as an engineer myself, (albeit not in aviation) over the years I have had the very same experience, sacrificing Quality for cash and output, at the directions of Wall St thugs. Outsourcing was and is one of the most dangerous practices you can do when you have people lives at risk.

Contract manufactures have to do more with less. Penalties apply when your scheduled parts don't arrive etc.. I could go on. "New business model" every time I have heard this over the years, it always means do more with less, cheaper and ultimately at the price of Quality.

People shouldn't dismiss this so flippantly. I'm sure they will over time fix the issues at hand and I know they have fixed a number of issues already. There's plenty of reputable people interviewed in this documentary. I don't think they are telling porkies.

I have observed exactly the same "New business model" over the years.

The real question is, who is really behind the documentary? Airbus or someone else? The documentary has one agenda and one agenda only, that is to paint Boeng in a really bad light, make their employees look like a bunch of stoners, possibly hurt their share price and scare the public away from their aircraft and their future composite aircraft 777X etc..

I'm sure if one really wanted to, the same documentary could have been made about Airbus.

I have worked with guys over the years that have worked for Team Aer Lingus and they have told some stories about aircraft, but I have yet to witness one fall out of the sky. So I'll just sit on the fence here.

No smoke without fire. There is a massive difference between education standards in France and Germany where most of the Airbus system is made and the Mac Edu in the US - aside from the few who go to Harvard & co. Virtually everything out of Harvard and similar ends up on Wall St. Just like GB where "bright" people end up in "the City". Trading derivatives rather than deploying their brains to create real things like aircraft and cars, and TGV trains and autobahnen where the intelligent driver can drive at 200 km/h+ legally. eg the Bugati Veyron, made by VW, in France, using an Italian marque - capable of 400 km/h on the ground. It seems to me that Boeing is operating like a hedge fund when it comes to the 787. Outsource everything. and leverage the "brand name"

Tenger

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Unionised drones ?

Play nice please

kona

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Unionised drones ?

Mostley yes, but I did pick up that the unionised Everett plant came out a hell of a lot better than the North Carolina plant.