More Dreamliners Grounded
Another day, another Dreamliner dashed:
The emergency landing followed a string of problems in the past month with the Boeing 787, known as the Dreamliner, including a battery fire, fuel leaks and a cracked cockpit window. All Nippon said the problems Wednesday involved the same lithium-ion batteries that caught fire last week in Boston on a Dreamliner operated by Japan Airlines.
Last week, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ordered a comprehensive review of the Dreamliner’s manufacturing and design, with a focus on the plane’s electrical systems. During a news conference last Thursday, the U.S. transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made no mention of grounding Dreamliners. But if the problems continue, tougher measures could presumably be taken.
Aeronautics is just about the toughest business in the world. For scale and complexity, probably only auto manufacturing competes with it. The jetliner makers might not have to worry about as many models as carmakers do — although maybe more than you think, if you include all the variations on each — but the potential problems and potential losses dwarf what any carmaker faces.
There are very few big players — just two, really, building the big passenger jets. And the younger player, Airbus, had to be willed into existence by European governments with big, fat checkbooks. Russia tries. China wants to try. But the jetliner business is really just Boeing and Airbus, because you need immense scale to take those risks and absorb those losses.
The safety considerations are… we need a bigger word than “immense” here. We’re not talking about adding some side airbags to a vehicle that can turn left and right and rarely travels faster than 75MPH. We’re talking about a jet traveling at 36,000 feet, carrying hundreds of civilians who don’t take kindly to getting set on fire or plowing into a mountain.
I’ve followed the Dreamliner’s production since Boeing first announced it, because it really did seem like the Passenger Jet of Tomorrow. There were bunches of reasons big (much lower fuel consumption) and little (bigger windows, making for happier passengers) and wonderful (space-age airframe allowing for higher pressurization and much happier passengers). But if you asked me today if I’d like to hop on board a 787 for a five-hour flight, or take a crappy, beat-up seat on the ancient 737 just down the tarmac, I might just take the old ’37.
Boeing has a real nightmare going with the Dreamliner.
Aside from the Lithium Ion batteries issue, (which is troubling. “Fire Bad” says my German friend with the bolts in his neck), none of these problems are terribly unusual when compared to other aircraft of recent manufacture. For example, the Boeing 777 program was once bedeviled by the same sort of teething problems but has since gone on to be the single most successful aircraft in Boeings history( so far).
Jon Ostrower (aviation blogger, who now works for WSJ) is a great reporter on the subject of the 787. Here is a write up about the 777, in it you can see many of the same concerns and issues that 15 years downstream dont really hold up under historical performance:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/earning-its-upkeep-11562/
On the whole, Boeing learned a lot with this aircraft about what to do and what not to do, and I think it will still be a game changing aircraft.
Here’s to hoping — I’ve been dying to fly on one of these planes.
My favorite pond-crossing platform is still 747 (no, I don’t rate the upper deck fare…). Here’s hoping 787 will raise where 777 couldn’t.
Wasn’t this the plane that Boeing wanted to build in a Right-to-Work state? And were coerced into building it in a closed union shop?
Not that unions would ever do something to cause issues with their employer/product…
Or shoot themselves in the foot by doing so…
/sarc
Yeah, but THOSE few aircraft have all gone to Air India.
Thank God we have those crazy, wild ass Japanese cowboy people to do our test flights for us!
Um, but seriously, what’s up with that?
Please don’t dis my airplane Stephen. As a guy who works on these, I’m heartsick at the recent troubles. But I also know that problems like this can be fixed, and they can be fixed quickly. Those planes have accumulated 50,000 hours of flying time, so it’s inevitable that something will crop up.
Even though I know how the sausages are made, I still can’t wait for the chance to fly on one. That should count for something.
I hope Bill never sees this. If you were thin-skinned rock-star types, this would be how Trifecta breaks up.
While this is a serious problem, the cost of replacing all of the batteries in all aircraft produced to date is a tiny fraction of, say, one RR engine on an A380.
New airframes have issues. The bigger they are, the more issues they have. The reason the 737-777 are so bullet proof is that they’ve been in service a very, very long time.