Boeing 787 work being moved in house after failed Outsourcing

[777 fixer]

Don't forget the A380 development cost came to ~$17B, using slightly less cutting edge technology. the 380 also had its own groundings, and still has an issue with cracked wing spars to deal with.

One thing Airbus was smart enough not to do was not contract out work on the A380 they had traditionally done. Boeing would have nearly as many problems as they have had if they done the same.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Boeing has only been manufacturing planes for about 80 years so I will trust their judgement over a message board.

The SC plant was a smart business decision for the health of the entire company. On so many levels. Union, non-union and managers.

Outsourcing production cemented relationships with other nations too. Nations that buy the planes. Note: Airbus now building a 320 plant in Alabama.

The lithium ion batteries are the problem. I know these things. They are a problem on airplanes. This board should be cheering on Boeing to engineering a solution (good ole USA know-how, eh?) for these batteries that will benefit us all.

Why? Because every personal electronic device is powered by these devilish little power sources. You know hot hot your cell phone gets in your hand. Imagine how much heat a 66 pound lithium ion battery generates....

Outsourced/insourced, union/non-union --- I don't care. First one to fix the problem is my hero!

 

[delldude]

The lithium ion batteries are the problem. I know these things. They are a problem on airplanes. This board should be cheering on Boeing to engineering a solution (good ole USA know-how, eh?) for these batteries that will benefit us all.

Why? Because every personal electronic device is powered by these devilish little power sources. You know hot hot your cell phone gets in your hand. Imagine how much heat a 66 pound lithium ion battery generates....

Outsourced/insourced, union/non-union --- I don't care. First one to fix the problem is my hero!

Looking like they are a problem everywhere.

Looking like a Green fed bridge too far?

Technologists and safety experts had long warned of problems with the lithium ion battery when in 2009 the president began betting billions of tax dollars that it should be the green power of choice for cars, trucks, and even aircraft.
Just three years before that, a UPS cargo plane made an emergency landing when a shipment of lithium ion batteries it was carrying caught fire. The plane landed safely but was destroyed by the ensuing conflagration.
Small lithium ion batteries are widely used in consumer electronics, but powering vehicles like a car or an aircraft is a much greater challenge. The 787, for example, has to generate 1.5 megawatts of electrical power, enough to light up several hundred homes.

The problem, according to the MIT Technology Review, is that "because the electrolyte materials used are flammable, no lithium-ion batteries are completely safe."

Some experts believe the batteries have been oversold to the public.
"Lithium ion batteries just won't do the trick in the kind of mass vehicle applications that the environmental community is pushing for," said Jon Entine, founder of ESG Media Metrics, a Cincinnati-based environmental consulting firm.
"It's kind of glib environmentalism or kind of enviro-romanticism," said Entine, who is also a senior fellow at George Mason University's Center for Health and Risk.

Before the Dreamliner's troubles, a Chevrolet Volt caught fire during its crash tests by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in May 2011. The agency gave the Volt a clean bill of health after an investigation.
Then last year, electric truck manufacturer Smith Electric Vehicles warned potential investors that the lithium ion batteries "on rare occasions have been observed to catch fire or vent smoke and flames" in the firm's prototype military trucks.
Even in the smaller consumer electronics applications, lithium ion battery fires were reported in Apple and Dell laptop computers in 2005 and 2006.

Despite these incidents, Obama has poured federal subsidies on the lithium ion battery industry with mixed results. The first grant was for $249 million under the Obama economic stimulus program in December 2009 to A123 Systems, a lithium ion battery manufacturer.
But A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy last October and has since been bought by a Chinese company.
Obama toured the LG Chen lithium ion battery plant in Holland, Michigan in August 2011. The South Korean company got $151 million in federal subsidies, but it has yet to produce a single battery and furloughed its workers last fall.
Ener1, an Indianapolis-based lithium ion battery maker, received $118.5 million in federal money in 2009, but filed for bankruptcy last year.
The president awarded $529 million to electric car company Fisker, which utilized lithium ion batteries supplied by A123. At least two battery fires have been reported in Fisker vehicles, all of which have been recalled.
Obama issued a $465 million loan guarantee to Tesla Motors. The lithium ion battery in a Tesla reportedly burst into flames last year after not being recharged for a long period of time.
Several high-powered K Street lobbyists are pushing battery powered vehicles, including Tony Podesta, whose brother was President Clinton's chief of staff. Podesta was tapped in 2010 to represent the Electrification Coalition.
The coalition has spent $400,000 lobbying, according to congressional lobbying records. Its membership includes the former chairman of bankrupt Ener1. The Electric Drive Train Association, have spent $840,000 lobbying. Its members include A123, Tesla Motors and Smith Electric.

http://washingtonexa...53#.UP9ZVfJLqSo

 

[777 fixer]

Why? Because every personal electronic device is powered by these devilish little power sources. You know hot hot your cell phone gets in your hand. Imagine how much heat a 66 pound lithium ion battery generates....

Outsourced/insourced, union/non-union --- I don't care. First one to fix the problem is my hero!

Lithium Ion batteries are but a small problem. For anyone to call them thee problem is obviously putting their head in the sand and ignoring the facts. Fact, Boeing lost quality control over the production of the 787. Not only did they award contracts to companies that could not deliever they gave away core technology, i.e the wing. Current Boeing management has admitted that they went to far in their rush to outsource. Whatever money they might have saved they have spent twice that in trying to fix the problems.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/02/04/2014130646.pdf

 

[777 fixer]

The SC plant was a smart business decision for the health of the entire company. On so many levels. Union, non-union and managers.

Do you know why they even have that facility? Becasue they had to buy out Vought, the original owner of it, becasue they could not deliver the product that they said they did. Now Boeing has doulbed down by duplicating something they already have in Everett.

 

[777 fixer]

Boeing has only been manufacturing planes for about 80 years so I will trust their judgement over a message board.

It should be obvious to everyone that they used poor judgement when it comes to the 787. Unfortanetly the people who made those decisions don't have to pay the price for them.

 

[delldude]

If they give off explosive gases and if they are more explosive than acid or ni-cad, I don't see much a future here.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Lithium Ion batteries are but a small problem. For anyone to call them thee problem is obviously putting their head in the sand

No need to attack me with a nonsensical statements.

Again, my point is lithium ion batteries aboard airplanes are a bigger problem than just this 787 incident. Millions of these volatile power sources are flying every day inside cellphones etc. It is the batteries stowed below in the aircraft bellies (i.e. the ones you don't see) that are the problem. Planes have already crashed (i.e. UPS in Dubai, Lufthansa in Riyadh) and the problem persists.

As for the Boeing SC facility location I believe this was a chess move by Boeing. The company wanted a second manufacturing plant in a right-to-work state. If Boeing had announced plans to build the SC facility there would have been a war in Seattle. However if a supplier 'chose' to build in SC then Boeing averts a PR disaster. Supplier quality-control issues accelerated the Boeing takeover.

 

[777 fixer]

No need to attack me with a nonsensical statements.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. They are just statements of fact.

 

[777 fixer]

As for the Boeing SC facility location I believe this was a chess move by Boeing. The company wanted a second manufacturing plant in a right-to-work state. If Boeing had announced plans to build the SC facility there would have been a war in Seattle. However if a supplier 'chose' to build in SC then Boeing averts a PR disaster. Supplier quality-control issues accelerated the Boeing takeover.

So Boeing purposely choose a supplier knowing they would mess it up and thus would have to buy them out spending around a billion dollars on the facility? Add to that the stock price of both companies taking a hit and customers beating on their door demanding compensation for late deliveries? Is the fact that Beong won't make money on the aircraft till around ship 1000 part of their master plan as well?

 

[787nightmare]

Pretty accurate.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130125/BIZ/701269999#Dream-on-hold-again

 

[777 fixer]

Pretty accurate.

http://www.heraldnet...m-on-hold-again

This statement tells you what wnet wrong...

But this was no longer the trailblazing, risk-taking Boeing of a generation earlier. The company had acquired rival McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Many McDonnell Douglas executives held leadership positions in the new company. The joke was that McDonnell Douglas used Boeing's money to buy Boeing.

The 707 and 747 were blockbuster bets that nearly ruined the company before paying off. McDonnell Douglas executives didn't have the same appetite for gambling.

 

[chris perry]

This all goes back to the cheapest bidder.I worked flight test at general Dynamics,we had a few projects that were contracted out.
(McDonald Douglas) built our instrumentation pod for a flight test program series.We had to completely scrap it and start over just because the engineers had a communication issue.If it were built in house that would have been stopped or caught before several million dollars were wasted.Just because it was built to spec doesn't mean it works properly.

 

[chris perry]

http://seattletimes....rmid=obinsource

Lots of batteries failing,it seems most were discharged.I do a little RC flying (helicopter) and use lipo's. Yes they are pretty dangerous if over discharged and recharged.The system shouldn't allow that to happen.I'm not sure how much safer lithium-ion are but I overcharged a lipo and it melted a coffee can when it caught fire.I can tell you this your not putting the fire out easily,its doubtful halon would even phase it.I emptied a whole ext of dry chemical and nothing. That's just three little cells one pack! My charger malfunctioned major fire white hot.
I was lucky I was warned those batteries were volatile and I always charged them out of the helicopter and outside in a bunker.

 

[777 fixer]

This all goes back to the cheapest bidder.I worked flight test at general Dynamics,we had a few projects that were contracted out.
(McDonald Douglas) built our instrumentation pod for a flight test program series.We had to completely scrap it and start over just because the engineers had a communication issue.If it were built in house that would have been stopped or caught before several million dollars were wasted.Just because it was built to spec doesn't mean it works properly.

That's what happens, you lose quality control.