Back to Squawk list

Boeing adds resources to improve Norwegian 787 reliability

At a press conference in Oslo Jan. 24, Boeing VP 787 support and services Mike Fleming said the reliability rate had increased from 97% in October to “around 98%” now. Norwegian has faced a series of glitches and teething troubles with its 787s, the first of which was delivered in June, resulting in the carrier having to hire in replacement aircraft at short notice. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

PhotoFinish 4
Norwegian is paying for GoldCare. So they do deserve the special treatment.
Kent Thompson 1
So Boeing gives one customer better service (when it comes to fixing problems) than it does with another customer for the same type of airplane if they pay Boeing extra to get it?
PhotoFinish 1
Sure. Norwegian is paying for that service. All other airlines are paying someone to service the plane or are servicing the planes themselves.

Each airline can pay their maintenance service companies and/or in-house maintenance dept to set up a similar level of service.

Every airline had the option to pay Beoing to service their Dreamliners. The airlines that don't pay for the extra service can't expect to get that extra service for FREE.
Er.A.K. Mittal -1
Will Norwegians be still to blame IF something goes wrong with 787 ?
Another interesting Q for the sake of knowledge.
The whole world, including Non Americans have been operating for decades Boeing 7XX fleets without any out-of-the routine problems. So why with 787 ?
Any feedback from American users of 787 ?
Or 787 was created for Non Americans only ?
My aim is to correct the anti Non American attitude that floats so often on this supposedly neutral internet portal "FlightAware" .
Todd Baldwin 3
A quick search will show that United had it's share of 787 problems. I have seen one or two commenters with definite biases (one of whom I haven't seen commenting in awhile, I don't see a site wide non-american prejuidice as you claim.
PhotoFinish 2
I figured it was wiser to address the topic and ignore the baiting.
Todd Baldwin 1
I thought about that, right after I hit enter. The Oh No second.
PhotoFinish 1
If you read some of the other articles, you will notice that it took 4 years after launch to get the 777 to 99% reliability. The 787 is on the same trajectory.

If not for the battery issue and the temporary fleet grounding, the two planes would've has very similar initial troubleshooting periods.

A few notes:
1. The world is more connected so every little incident gets wide exposure.
2. The 787 includes lots of new technologies, so the introduction of these may cause slightly more troubleshooting than otherwise necessary.
3. The 787 was widely sub-contracted out. Boeing had to build up its' competencies in coordinating a complex supply chain. They outsourced some of the design of individual components to their fabricators. Getting all the parts to work together took additional effort. These competencies will be useful in making future new planes.

4. If the whole plane had been built in-house by Boeing, it would've had fewer issues.

5. At worse, the plane had about 96% reliability, which is only about an extra 1% (as compared to 777, the most reliable widebody's initial reliability.

6. Boeing has been actively tracking each plane, noting every incident and every indication, tracking each issue, and redesigning any part that continues to creates 'issues' and affects customer flight reliability.

They'll probably need another redesign on the battery, as they come to understand the underlying design issues. The current work-around should capably handle most battery malfunctions, protecting the plane and passengers. Lightweight battery power technolgies perfected for the 787 will be useful for all future planes.
Gary Bennett 1
Thank you for #3 and #4 we are in agreement...


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!