Boeing Statement on 787 Center Wing Box

If the problem with the centre wing box is a 'a normal part of the development of a new airplane', then why on earth didn't Boeing factor contingency time for it into their original development timeline?

Why did the company set itself such an ambitious schedule for a project that involved new technology, new business processes and new working practices? Why didn't the project management take account of the extra time needed for the problems that would inevitably arise?

It cannot be 'normal' in that this time the box has been farmed out. Boeing kept this piece to themselves in prior programs due to its crucial nature as the heart of the plane (so to speak, carries the load and allows the attitude (looks) of the thing).

Also, isn't it premature to claim that the technologies being used are 'reliable and effective' given the current situation? Or, is Boeing just saying that the technology is great, the people aren't?

Has there been a test flight as of yet?

These word games are not flattering.

To Anonymous posted on March 21, 2008 1:18 PM
It is not true that Boeing kept this piece (center wing) to themselves in prior programs.
737 - Spirit Aerosystems (Formerly Boeing Wichita)
747 - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
757 - Boeing
767 - Vought Aircraft (Formerly Grumman)
777 - Fuji Heavy Industries
It is true that material used is different.

yasobara

That yasobara clarified part of the issue is good; we can see that Boeing was already farming out work prior to the 787.

By the way, those who know ought to participate here and in other forums.

But, this might have been what Anonymous (3/21/08 1:18 pm) may have meant. Boeing did not formerly farm out the design to the extent that was done with the 787.

What was farmed was 'build' not 'define' using DCAC's terminology, for the most part.

Picking up a design and making it, according to the instructions, is doable as we see demonstrated all the time (but, there does have to be ability and resources).

Doing the design presupposes all sorts of knowledge that no current computer technology can provide. 'Expertise' is still a factor in most complicated situations.

Therein lies one rub, as Boeing was sold on an integrated package (of French origin) and system upon which has been piled a whole lot of belief. It is probably apropos that Boeing and the 787 get to pioneer the handling the troubles that come from such a move toward advanced systems and to work toward a more reasonable approach. One solution is people-in-the-loop; the surge of Boeing people out to the suppliers (to what level did they penetrate? as farming out, begets farming out [recursively]) is an example; yet, at the end of the farming out chain (inverse of the supply chain), what capability is there that adequately replaces the years of experience obtained in Boeing (the whole notion is silly, Jim M and all you managers who do not understand - when will Harry's fantasy we seen as such and work brought back in?)?

Methinks that Boeing may have a problem with bulimia.

Will we hear about the details that are involved with this 'perfect storm' (which is, hopefully, for Boeing's sake, of small magnitude)? Probably not.

This is what happens when the talkers replace the doers.