All
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing Reports Cracks in Wings of Undelivered Dreamliners
Boeing said Friday that it will conduct inspections of the wings on some of its undelivered 787 Dreamliner aircraft to look for hairline cracks. The beleaguered aircraft manufacturer said that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which supplies wings for the Dreamliner, .... (www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
thanks Donna, this is about flight MH370 .
Dreamliner, you kidding, this is the nightmare-liner. If it is not the battery it is the cracks or something else, a new issue almost every fortnight.
Totally agree, chalet. Seems this airliner was born with more than a modicum of misplaced overconfidence of what can be achieved.
Just because a method worked for the design and construction of the 777 does not mean that adopting the same method for a brand new airliner will result in success.
Many would suggest that short cuts (and too many assumptions) were taken during the design stage which are now becoming evident in the physical.
Riding the crest of a success carries a responsibility - one of which is to retain common sense.
Just because a method worked for the design and construction of the 777 does not mean that adopting the same method for a brand new airliner will result in success.
Many would suggest that short cuts (and too many assumptions) were taken during the design stage which are now becoming evident in the physical.
Riding the crest of a success carries a responsibility - one of which is to retain common sense.
Dear friends chalet and James Eaton, a few months ago one of the able aviators gave a very useful and interesting observation relating to marketing policy adopted by some manufacturers, and very cleverly applied it to high value capital equipment like B787 ! And since I rose from the ladder of Marketing I found it very relevant.
And the gist of what was stated is as follows -
Some manufacturers choose to launch a product WITHOUT sufficient product research(testing) in the fond hope that they will solve problems if and as they come ! And in the process(in their opinion) save the valuable time and cost of testing !
And the gist of what was stated is as follows -
Some manufacturers choose to launch a product WITHOUT sufficient product research(testing) in the fond hope that they will solve problems if and as they come ! And in the process(in their opinion) save the valuable time and cost of testing !
yes, totally agree with your comments Er.
Some manufacturers knowingly produce products that have incorrect specifications and rely on the user to identify the problem and seek restitution. Saves the manufacturer a lot of money, of course.
Ideally we should live in a world of "moral" capitalism, in reality "it ain't so". Look forward to the day when that precept changes - if ever.
Some manufacturers knowingly produce products that have incorrect specifications and rely on the user to identify the problem and seek restitution. Saves the manufacturer a lot of money, of course.
Ideally we should live in a world of "moral" capitalism, in reality "it ain't so". Look forward to the day when that precept changes - if ever.
You must be kidding James. With legislation these days I cannot see any maker sign off a device that is knowingly unserviceable. Genuine mistakes do happen. But negligence? Nah...you are willful negligence? I can see some products are used as political pawns as were those Yuasa batteries in the 787. Yuasa were genuinely trying the best they could do. Some would argue that was not adequate or the products were not fit for purpose.
hey Roland - what you say is fine in theory. But the world is not as clearly defined as you make out i.e. reality is not defined in black and white: there are shades of grey.
My best effort might not really be sufficient to meet required standards i.e. not fit for purpose even though quality control (at all levels - seller and buyer) passed the lot. Who is held responsible then? Is it the design, the manufacturer, the transporter, the fitter, the user, etc. Shades of grey can hide a mountain - a bit like annonimity is guaranteed in a city. Life is not a science - people make mistakes (sometimes deliberately if it suits their agenda [if that makes sense to a scientific mind]).
Thank goodness I am a human so acknowledge that you believe what you do and am more than happy to do so.
My best effort might not really be sufficient to meet required standards i.e. not fit for purpose even though quality control (at all levels - seller and buyer) passed the lot. Who is held responsible then? Is it the design, the manufacturer, the transporter, the fitter, the user, etc. Shades of grey can hide a mountain - a bit like annonimity is guaranteed in a city. Life is not a science - people make mistakes (sometimes deliberately if it suits their agenda [if that makes sense to a scientific mind]).
Thank goodness I am a human so acknowledge that you believe what you do and am more than happy to do so.