Flightglobal:

Qatar Airways has begun the final countdown to the termination of its Boeing 787 order after losing patience over negotiations about delivery delays....

Author: Max Kingsley-Jones

Date: 19 June 2009

Read the full article

I'm sure Boeing want to deliver a safe and superb aircraft. Mr Akbar insisting that Boeing hurry up and get it delivered is questionable especially from a CEO of an airline. I would rather wait 3 years and get a safe aircraft, not one that has been rushed!

 I guess Qatar are trying to run a commercial operation where things like delivery schedules, forward capacity planning and costs are important

 as opposed to a certain large company in Seattle................................

 Go ahead, cancel your order Qatar. That will help other carriers that really want this aircraft move up their deliveries. You can go to Airbus and buy their A350's that will be delayed just like the 787's and then cry to them too, because just like the A380, there will be at least a 2 year delay in deliveries, if not more.

How about we give you the first 7- 787 aircraft that don't have the weaker areas fixed yet, because you are so complaining about deliveries. If something happens to those aircraft, you can't say anything about it. We will eventually fix your aircraft, of coarse taking them out of service to do that and causing extra loss of revenue. But you will be happy then.

 Aircraft safety doesn't seem to matter to them it appears, only bottom line.

 

I can appreciate the request of Qatar's Boss only because this aircraft may 'look like another' but it is structurally far different and complex than previous Boeings. This new technology requires complete testing for purposes of certification and reliable in service use. Its a process that simply cannot be hurried. Any structural weaknesses must be assessed and addressed as necessary. Better information sharing between the relevant depts within Boeing & how they release this information to customers is advised..

I'm quite looking forward to seeing the B787 make its first test flight. But, only when she's ready with a satisfied maintenance & development team and flight test crew. Safety first always...

The problem Akbar has is a serious one. Boeing massively underestimated the technical challenges they had got themselves into and consistently alienate their customers by pretending they didn't and making it worse by claiming they will be back on track by a date they then go on to miss. If airines new they would not get 787s until three years after their original expectations, many would have bought A330's or 777's, but Boeing would have retained some credibility with its customers.

The issue is not that a new plastic plane is hard to make and may take a while to get right.

It was that Boeing claimed it wasn't and wouldn't and have told enough lies about it that no-one believes anything they say any more..

Akbar is indeed a driven individual but surely he (and others) would have competent advisors on real time contingencies for his (their) operation? The development of any new aircraft (especially a revolutionary 'plastic one') to a satisfactory airworthy standard cannot be rushed, by any manufacturer..

I'm certain most manufacturers have departmental communication errors. Clearly these continue to be exacerbated by the internal/external pressures & demands. The assurances of sales executives given to customers at initial type development/prior test flight even? Maybe those sales personnel were possibly not in a position to give those assurances? Maybe the feedback gleaned from engineers testing the Iron bird's findings were correct at the time, later to be proven incorrect? Who knows..  But, in defense of fellow Engineers/Technical personnel we all make mistakes - I include myself. I'd like to meet someone in aviation who has never ever made a mistake! Refer to the UKCAA Publication CAP715 for more information. 

Many, many people of various skillsets are involved in the creation of a new aircraft type. Some personnel are more talented then others, both in their skills and how they (or their teams) communicate. All these contributions to the final product have to be proven and certified as airworthy. Because the B787 structurally represents such a great step in technology, it must undergo the extra load testing, NDT, detailed inspections & possible resultant modification required for certification. In closing, I'm not ignorant of the financial implications but my loyalty as an Aircraft Maintenance Technician remains with airworthiness, period. No amount of money can ever replace any lost life, safety must come first always.

Forget the glib tongued smooth talking salesman; this isn't a rusty second hand car being passed off as one careful lady owner; this is an aircraft order worth billions of Dollars with a watertight contract with dates specified for deliveries with liquidated damages for delays; I would sincerely hope.  So what you say about safety and development is all well and good but read the contract; Rolls Royce did in 1970 and called in the receiver.  Dan Haughton and Lockheed went by the contract for the RB211 delays were going to cost them big bucks; and don't for a second think that Boeing wouldn't do it to an engine supplier if that supplier was declaring a 2 year delay.

Options are limited to Qatar, I can't see them cancelling then asking Boeing for a price and delivery on B777, can you, and the A350 is as far away as the 787, so they are limited to A330 and 340's as I see it.

Boeing secured significant market share for its new aircraft on the basis of an a very aggressive development schedule . Airlines believed they could and would do it . It does not matter how hard it is to make a safe aircraft , Boeing knew when airlines signed on the dotted line that they were going to be held to account. In being so aggressive Boeing killed the A330X and forced Airbus (with the help of Udar Hazy) to go try again (A350) .  Boeing again slipping the program is causing a whole bunch of airlines a nightmare in additional costs to keep older aircraft longer than planned .

If you think for one minute that Boeing's sales team was acting without top level management endorsment -then you don't know Boeing .

Boeing put themselves under pressure , no one forced them to commit to developing such an ambitious product in such a short timeframe. They chose to do that for commercial reasons.They have lost a chunk of the Qantas deal , which maybe routed in the economic crisis , but the delay would not have helped. We will see more cancelations over the coming weeks as airlines review the impact of this latest delay .

I write WRT watertight contracts & consequences for delays Dellboy45. So, regardless of the true actual airframe, engine & system status, the aircraft should have just completed all construction & development phases error free, performed it's rigorous flight testing program somehow with NIL defects and promptly certified by the FAA/EASA ALL to schedule??? Just what planet or sphere of aviation do you occupy sir? Not another overpaid hideous lawyer one hopes... 

In the previous post, I simplified how an aircraft manufacturer interfaces with its customer. I'm not actually picturing any glib tongued smooth talking salesman. I'm certain Boeing intended the B787's development to go much more smoothly. Clearly, things could have been better but now its definetly more about moving forward and learning from these errors.

Maybe using the Lockheed/RB211 was a suitable example, the complex 3 shaft Turbofan was in its infancy and did cause RR to seek a bailout in 1970. But, what company with a complex aircraft (such as the L1011 was then) would select just one engine producer - a new & highly complex engine at that and not expect any delays??? Again, alternatives, options and contingency! Moving on nearly 40 years, the relatives of that early -22B powerplant are everywhere now in the form of RR211 -535Cs, -524HTs & the Trents - I'm sure some of those initial hard times have been paid for!

Back to subject, I will not apologise for taking a simple view on this.. Billions, Trillions, whatever. No money can replace any lost life. Airworthiness first. Why compromise the high standards all passengers and operators deserve and expect?

It's bizarre to see people confusing contractual issues with safety. Boeing contracted with Qatar and all of their other customers to deliver an aircraft that was both on time and certified. Al Baker has every right to point out to Boeing that it has yet to deliver on a contractual issue. That says nothing about his attitude to safety, if says everything about his responsibility to take action when his company is actively being damaged by Boeing's failure to meet a contractual obligation. Delivery schedules are fundamental to business plans and network development. If the aircraft do not arrive then Qatar and others are losing money in rebuilding business plans, cancelling expansion, running on older, less efficient (less safe!) aircraft. Undoubtedly there are penalty clauses for failure to deliver, but they will have been designed for delays running into weeks or months, when the delays run into years airlines are fully entitled to say 'this far and no further'. If Boeing doesn't want Qatar to walk they have just been told to put an offer on the table, whether that offer is purely financial or includes interim deliveries of 777s, 747s, or even A330s is for the supplier and customer to decide between them. The deal is Boeing's to keep or to lose, by creating the appearance that they have deliberately misled the entire industry, but in particular their customers, during Paris week they have just made their task enormously more difficult. Safety is an absolute, it can never be compromised for financial reasons, but to use safety as an excuse to deny that financial and contractual concerns are also fundamental to a business reflects a failure to understand that a sound industry needs both in place. A business which cannot deliver a safe product will not survive, but nor will one which simply cannot deliver. I did my time on the sharp end of 777 development and flight testing, I know that the internal engineering reality is often poorly reflected in the press, but the contractual issues are clear and the ethics of recent behaviour by Boeing executives are not. That said, the desire of the whole industry, both airframers and airlines, to deliver and operate safe aircraft is not in doubt.

prceisley.

 It isn't the airlines job to take  a view on how long it will take to develop a safe plane - it's the manufacturers surely.

 What makes it worse is that Boeing have never come clean with their customers - at Paris they were saying (on the record) that they only had " a few days minor testing left before first flight by the end of next week"

 As soon as they get home they issue a statement  saying there is a structural issue and they'll give out a new schedule "in a few weeks" . 

 Why should ANYONE put any trust in what they are saying?     The airlines, in all good faith have made plans based on what they were being told - and then Whoops! .......  mistake!! 

Their jobs and companies are on the line - more so than Boeing's - no wonder they are screaming.

The fact its also happening with the ridiculous A400M is no help to be honest.....

hmmm, this is beginning to remind me of the MD-11 scenario when Singapore Airlines if my memory serves me correclty cancelled an order for 20 plus aircraft in favour of the A340.

Even after all of the PIP (performance improvement programmes) that MD-11 under-took it did turn out to be a fine Aircraft alas it was too little too late. The A340 and 777 stole the march on the MD-11 and we all knew rest interms Mcdonnell Douglas's history.

Now i'm not for one momment speculating that failure of the 787 will end Boeing as an airframer, in fact far from it. However with the A350 looming upon the 787 just the A340/777 did to the MD-11 in the early 90' and the DC-10 to the L1011 in the 70's their is more than just a lot ridding on this 787 project.

I get the feeling that 787 will need to outperform its design specification in terms of range/payload/efficiency for it beat the threat of the A350. Either that or that A350 faces its on development issues.

Whilst on the topic of Mcdonnell Douglas and Lockheed, wouldn't it be great to see a new player or an old adversary return in the short to long haul market!!!???

 

" ...Mcdonnell Douglas and Lockheed, wouldn't it be great to see a new player or an old adversary return in the short to long haul market!!!???"

Alas I think they all find military work more profitable (and McDonnell Douglas are now Boeing).

(Reuters)