Losing track of Boeing 787 Dreamliner's failures
Filed under: Company News
Boeing (BA) has already delayed the first delivery of its 787 Dreamliner several times. But today's unintended announcement that the aircraft manufacturer has actually shut down production at the plant of a supplier in Naples, Italy is causing me to lose track of the number of delays in the 787 program.
In June, Boeing announced what I counted was its fifth delay in the 787 program due to problems with composite materials where the wing joins the fuselage. But today, a June 23rd memo leaked to the press reveals that Boeing canceled production at the Naples plant because its supplier, Alenia, was making parts for the 787's mid-fuselage whose composite skin was wrinkling.
CEO James McNerney came to Boeing to clean up ethical problems, but by deciding not to officially announce this latest problem, it appears that concerns about transparency are undermining his clean-as-a-whistle reputation.
The timing and the content of this memo are both significant. The memo suggests that Boeing knew about the Alenia problem at the end of June when it announced the latest 787 delay due to a separate technical problem -- weakness where the wing and fuselage join -- but neglected to share the Alenia closing information with the public. Boeing now claims that the Alenia problem is minor and a workaround is being designed and installed. Yet the Alenia plant is still idle.
The second reason that this memo is important is that it reveals yet another problem with the composite material -- supposedly stronger and lighter than aluminum -- that is such an important part of Boeing's ability to promise greater fuel efficiency.
Earlier this year I published a book on Boeing that describes McNerney's management techniques. I devoted a chapter to analyzing the problems of its Dreamliner -- an aircraft which has garnered 850 orders due to its promise of greater fuel efficiency and passenger comfort.
Why is Boeing having all these problems with the 787? As I wrote in my book, Boeing took two big risks in its approach to the 787. First, it used a new technology, composite materials, and second it outsourced both the design and manufacture of 60 percent of the aircraft in order to lower the financial risk to Boeing. I question whether Boeing has figured out how to manage these risks.
As things stand, it is unclear when Boeing will deliver the 787 -- it has not set a new date. Nor is it clear that Boeing can solve the technical problems that are inherent in its use of this composite technology. Boeing's computer models have failed to predict the aircraft's real-world physical behavior.
Boeing has overcome such problems in the past. But with the leak of this June memo about Alenia, one has to wonder what other "minor" problems are lurking beneath Boeing's surface.
Peter Cohan is a management consultant, Babson professor and author of eight books including, You Can't Order Change. Follow him on Twitter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
8-14-2009 @ 9:56AM
john said...
with all these problems you won't see me flying on it!!
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 10:36AM
Praise the Lord said...
I thought Boeing made everything in the US?? Isn't that why Congress said they should win the bid for military airplanes versus Airbus?
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 11:13AM
paul said...
Balony ! This guy will say anything to sell books. Just look at all the problems Airbus had with A380 before they got one of those in the air...
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 11:27AM
whenpigsfly said...
Boing has nothing to worry about, they are TOO BIG TO FAIL! I am sure our government has an extra trillion or two to help them outsource this plane. Just keep in mind all of the great news stories lately involving Air France Airbus planes and relax.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 11:40AM
CncrndCtzns said...
Serves them right for sending good paying jobs to Italy. These companies should build their planes here in the US. I stoppped flying because of the increased problems with maintance in the US airline fleet.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 1:37PM
kelly said...
maintenance
8-14-2009 @ 11:45AM
sckaymon said...
The technology BAE is using on the fuselage is not new technology, it is the same technology used on the Peacekeeper launch tube back in the 1980's. Unfortunately for Boeing, they forgot how much trouble they had creating such a large composite structure.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 12:51PM
Art said...
Careful to avoid interchanging BAE and BA. BAE (British Aerospace) is a very large UK defense firm with international presence. BA is Boeing.
8-14-2009 @ 11:58AM
Geordi said...
I'd say Boeing should begin to watch out as customers will begin to cut contracts with the repeated delays. On the other hand though, if there's one company that the government would bail out hands-down no-questions-asked it would be Boeing. It wouldn't be any loan either but a flat-out gift. They'd probably take the money from NASA's budget.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 12:06PM
Charles Carter said...
They should check the bank accounts of the person that was responsible for subcontracting out to Italy.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 12:26PM
John Burnett said...
I think most of you miss the point, its not Boeing it's MacDonald Douglas. They used Boeing money to buy Boeing, there are no Boeing Managers left in the company and look how they are preforming, just like Mac Donald douglas
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 12:50PM
Charlie said...
Wow, ALL the Boeing managers are gone. Who would have thought.
P.S. It's McDonnell Douglas for you aviation buffs.
8-15-2009 @ 8:28AM
Bob said...
I don't know where you got your info from, but I was there when it was sold. I worked at General Dynamics when they quit building MD-11 fuselages and closed. I was then hired by McDonnel Douglas who sold out 3 years later to Boeing who then closed us down at Longbeach a little over a year later. Doulglas did not buy Boeing out, it was the other way around.
8-14-2009 @ 12:47PM
doc said...
i wonder how much airbus is paying peter cohan to wack away at boeing?
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 1:02PM
jjmartin said...
Yet another example of why accountants should not be allowed to run anything. Ask almost anyone working in the US what their experience with outsourcing has been, and you will find failure after failure. And every failure comes with a cost, which of course the accountants who pushed the outsource will never accept responsibility for. Accountants are not engineers, or scientists, or IT, HR, or HSE professionals. We have always boasted about "American ingenuity" and our work ethic. But it's hard to be productive when your work is undermined by "the lowest bidder" who has no stake in the operation, and may even be actively working against you.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 1:09PM
Secret Agent said...
I used to work for McDonnel Douglas in Longbeach when we were bought up by Boeing and sumarily shutdown and put out of business. They cut up the jigs for our "competitor" aircraft and made a big pile on the lot so fast it made our heads spin in spite of the options for more Douglas aircraft held by customers. They blew it then and they're blowing it now because Boeing doesn't treat people well, employees or customers, they just don't care about them. Douglas has the best engineers in the business. It's too bad Boeing doesn't have them now. They could use a little "knowhow."
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 3:05PM
bob said...
I worked their. for 28 years .the best thing i did was retire in 2006. isaw how much boeing cared for us,they only wanted the military stuff.
8-15-2009 @ 8:52AM
Bob said...
Yepper, I worked in the MD-11 program and was brought in from General Dynamics (K2B) to Longbeach and was promised 5 years or better of work and got the shaft when Boeing bought Douglas out 6 months shy of vestment. I still remember the airlines that had MD-11 options trying to sue Boeing and make them build the rest of the ordered MD-11's. Boeing won and closed us and told those airlines by their 777 freighters ect or nothing, those airlines chose nothing and bought airbus instead, which is why and how Boeing lost 15% of the market 6 months after they bought out Douglas. (Work harder/smarter to save your jobs) was Boeings favorite saying those last 6 months.
8-14-2009 @ 1:16PM
matt said...
Good old Boeing. Wanted to get some cheap labor and now look at them. THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY DESERVE.
They are just a big scam company anymore. They used to have a small surpluss business, but the workers were corrupt and would over price everything and then buy it themselves and put it on ebay!
They had a work force in house that could have built the plane to spec, but they wanted to be cheap. I guess they learned all this crap when they moved the headquarters into the great city of CHICAGO.
Reply
8-16-2009 @ 5:02AM
Wes said...
We in Chicago have a bigger airport, and are not a redneck town. That is 1 reason for Boeing to be here.