November 2010 Archives

Airbus will launch a re-engined version of its A320 family aircraft Wednesday, for entry into service in 2016, say industry sources.

Just out from Boeing:

Boeing has readied ZA002, the 787 flight test airplane that experienced an electrical fire on Nov. 9, to be flown from Laredo, Texas, to Seattle. Maintenance technicians replaced the damaged P100 power distribution panel, repaired damage to interior composite structure and installed new insulation material.

The team in Laredo, Texas, has completed a series of ground test operations and inspections to validate the repairs. The flight, which is expected to occur soon, will not include test operations.

Boeing says ZA002 will ferry to Boeing Field, joining ZA001, ZA003, ZA005 and ZA006. ZA004 flew to Everett for maintenance operations on November 21. ZA002 is scheduled to depart Laredo at 2 PM local time for a return to Boeing Field at 4:24 PM PST, though departure, enroute and arrival times tend to vary greatly.

In other 787 production news, JA822J, the third aircraft for JAL was fitted with its twin General Electric GEnx-1B engines. This will make it the first production 787 with GE engines.

The fitting provides a good indication of the potential delivery order for the early aircraft, with program sources saying Airplane 23 will likely be the third or fourth production aircraft to fly in with the pack of Airplanes Seven, Eight and Nine for ANA. The aircraft's destination: Lackland Air Force Base for activation of Boeing's 787 change incorporation and refurbishment operation in San Antonio, Texas.

Though, production flights are farther down a short but non-negotiable to-do list for Boeing, which first has to establish a new schedule for the program while designing, validating and implementing its electrical system software and hardware changes, while satisfying the FAA that the 787 test fleet can return to flight operations.

"We have another several weeks of work to do to get the fix in place," Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh told Reuters today. "Once we understand the fix, we'll be able to tell you what the impact on the schedule."

First day back at my desk in DC since November 12 following China and Thanksgiving, and I'm a bit slow getting back up to speed today, but wanted to share some Monday news items to chew on:

ANA says 787 delays are "a great disappointment" and the carrier is "pushing" Boeing to "present the detailed cause of the irregularities" resulting from the November 9, ZA002 fire, while China Eastern is considering canceling its order for 15 787s over the delays, which are estimated to stretch another six months.

Meanwhile, A350 supplier Aerolia plans to begin production of the composite nose panels and shells for MSN001 on Tuesday after Spirit AeroSystems made its first 64ft 6in Section 15 crown panel in North Carolina last week. Delivery of the first production aircraft is now slated for the second half of 2013. Meanwhile in Sydney, the Qantas A380 fleet is returning to service again, gradually.

On the engine front, CSeries' PW1524G powerplant has passed 80h of testing, and Pratt & Whitney says: "We have not uncovered anything that tells us we need a major design or architecture change." Though Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker has cooled again to CSeries, just as SAS says it's the leading contender for a 55-aircraft order.

On the business jet side of things heading for the Middle Eastern Business Aviation show in Dubai next week, it looks like landing gear supplier Heroux-Devtek has won a contract for a Dassault business jet that Dassault whose existence the airframer has not yet announced.

Over on the new content side of things, here's an up close look at the ARJ21 from Zhuhai:

Boeing says its first 787 delivery will slide due to software and minor hardware changes to the electrical system, an assessment the company says will be completed within "the next few weeks."

The airframer needs to implement changes to the software that manages and protect power distribution on the aircraft, as well as a minor hardware change to the P100 distribution panel to prevent foreign object debris (FOD) ingestion.

"We have successfully simulated key aspects of the on-board event in our laboratory and are moving forward with developing design fixes," says 787 vice president and general manager Scott Fancher

Boeing says foreign debris "most likely" caused the November 9 fire aboard ZA002 that has halted 787 certification operations.

The company adds that "engineers have determined the fault began as either a short circuit or an electrical arc in the P100 power distribution panel" which sits against the left wall of the 787's aft electronic equipment bay and manages power generated by the aircraft's left engine.

Randy Tinseth, Boeing vice president of marketing, says: "Whatever this foreign debris was, it wasn't something big - such as a tool - it was probably something small. We're taking the right steps to ensure the power distribution panels are better protected against foreign debris."

Boeing says it remains unsure how the FOD got into the P100 panel in the first place, and could have been in the panel for sometime, though the company concedes it won't know how it got there.

As for the six grounded flight test aircraft, Boeing has not yet determined whether or not the design changes would have to be implemented before resuming certification activities, saying only: "Boeing is developing a plan to enable a return to 787 flight test activities and will present it to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as soon as it is complete."

In the interim, Boeing will continue ground testing the fleet and may ferry ZA003 from Everett to Boeing Field in the near future.

Boeing says it is now "assessing the time required to complete the design changes and software updates that are being developed."

In the 15 days since ZA002, Boeing's second of six 787 flight test aircraft, suffered a fire in its aft electrical equipment bay, forcing a fleet-wide halt in certification testing, the airframer is days, if not hours, away from releasing its findings of its investigation and disclosing the impact to the aircraft's first delivery, say company and industry sources.

An additional delay to the 787's entry into service with All Nippon Airways is now a virtual certainty, the length of that delay, however, is yet unknown.

While some analysts have suggested the 787's first delivery could slip to 2012, an additional delay of more than nine months, Boeing's previous six delays have never shifted the schedule more than six months at a time. A six month slide beyond today's February 2011 plan would place handover to ANA around August of 2011, more than three years after its original target.

Equally important in establishing the root cause of the fire, reported to be foreign object debris (FOD) that caused a short in the panel, is ensuring primary electrical system redundancy remains intact if such an incident were to reoccur. One program source indicates FOD clogging an air duct that cools the P100 panel may be a culprit.

The Seattle Times, citing a source close to the program, reported the 787 fleet, including 23 production aircraft in Everett, have been searched for FOD.

Though the fire, which happened while on approach to Laredo, Texas, and its root cause, revealed an Achillies heel in the 787's electrical system that must be resolved before the Dreamliner can enter service.

In an internal message to program employees last week, Scott Fancher, 787 program manager and general manager said "we have made good progress in replicating the effects in our integration labs".

While the specific "effects" have not been disclosed, under normal operation, a drop out of the P100 panel, feeding electricity from the left engine's twin variable frequency starter generators (VSFG) to aircraft systems, should have compensated by prioritizing the flow of electricity from the right VSFGs into the healthy P200 panel for distribution. Instead, the fire caused 787 to perceive it had lost electrical power completely, causing the Hamilton Sundstrand-built ram air turbine (RAT) to deploy.

The RAT supplies just 10 kVA of electricity, a fraction of the up to 1.45 megawatts of power generated by the aircraft's primary systems, including the APS-5000 auxiliary power unit (APU). Sources familiar with the incident say the APU, which supplies power to the P150 power distribution panel, was not running at the time of the fire.

The result, was the loss of four of five, heads down displays (HDD) and the twin heads up displays (HUD), as well as autothrottle control and a "cascading" series of failures.

However, Boeing concluded that with its twin Trent 1000 engines still running, ZA002 was "in a configuration that could have been sustained for the time required to return to an airport suitable for landing from any point in a typical 787 mission profile," a defense of the 2008 Federal Aviation Administration's special condition imposed on the aircraft's electrical system, as well as its sought-after extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) certification.

Since their November 9 grounding, Boeing has received permission from the FAA to relocate three 787s. ZA001 and ZA005 returned to Boeing Field from remote testing in South Dakota and California, respectively, and ZA004 was ferried to the company's Everett facility for maintenance.

Fancher added "re-positioning these airplanes back to Seattle will better prepare us for any modification that are needed as a result of this event."

The extent of those modifications is another unknown and covers a wide spectrum of possibilities from a limited software modification all the way to complete redesign of the more-electric systems architecture of the 787.

At its inception, the Boeing used the 787 to push the outer envelope aerospace manufacturing, materials and systems, the three attributes that define an aircraft's development.

The airframer had encountered great pain with the 787's globally distributed supply chain in 2007 and 2008, a composite structural flaw in the aircraft's side-of-body in 2009, and now in 2010 a potentially significant change to the aircraft's electrical system.

Late discovery of design changes following treacherous incidents is not new to Boeing commercial development programs. 

Nearly 28 years to the day earlier, the third of five 757 flight test aircraft suffered severe engine damage during a natural ice build up test on its Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, 

An FAA representative onboard the aircraft, which was also being co-piloted by an FAA pilot, said at the time of the incident remarked: "We almost lost one."

The incident prompted a late design change engine that was not validated by the FAA until nearly the last minutes before the type was handed over to Eastern Airlines in late 1982, followed by its January 1983 entry into service. 

HONG KONG -- In an customer memorandum dated Wednesday, November 17, Airbus's Toulouse-based Flight Safety Department issued an incremental update to its findings on Qantas Flight 32. The brief memo is a clear, if not directly stated, defense of the A380's redundancy following the QF32 investigation into the uncontained failure of the aircraft's number two Trent 900 engine.

The report also adds additional technical color on the state of the aircraft after the engine failure and its publication comes a day after other internal Airbus reports were leaked illustrating the extent of the damage sustained by VH-OQA.

A380 / RR TRENT 900 - QANTAS VH-OQA INCIDENT ON 4th NOVEMBER 2010.

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

Subject: A380 / RR Trent 900 - Qantas VH-OQA incident on 4th November 2010

Our ref.: QF32 AIT 3, dated 17th November 2010


This AIT is an update of the AIT 2 following the in-flight engine failure during flight QF32 from Singapore to Sydney, on 4th November 2010.

This AIT has been approved for release by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who leads the on-going ICAO Annex 13 investigation.

The second RR inspection program applicable to the Trent 900 engine family and covered by EASA Engine Airworthiness Directive has been published allowing continuous operations of the fleet. Together with its partners, Airbus is providing support to the operators for engine logistics to minimize interruptions to the fleet.

One single high energy fragment is considered from a certification requirement viewpoint. The damage assessment has established that the IPT disk released 3 different high energy fragments, resulting in some structural and systems damage, with associated ECAM warnings. Therefore the crew had to manage a dynamic situation.

Despite the situation, amongst the various available systems supporting the crew to operate the aircraft and return safely to Singapore were:

- Flaps remained available (slats were jammed retracted).

- All flight control surfaces remained available on the pitch and yaw axis.

- The roll control was ensured through: (a) on the left wing: inner aileron, spoilers 1, 3, 5 and 7; (b) on the right wing: mid and inner ailerons, spoilers 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

- The flight control laws reverted to Alternate law due to the loss of the slats and of some roll control surfaces. Normal law was kept on longitudinal and lateral axes.

- Flight envelope protections were still active.

- The autopilot was kept engaged till about 700 feet Radio Altimeter, time at which the crew took over manually. Flight Directors were ON.

- Manual control of engines 1, 3 & 4 was maintained till aircraft stop.

- Landing in SIN took place about 1 hour 40 minutes after the engine 2 failure with flaps in
configuration 3.

- Normal braking was available on both body landing gears with antiskid, and alternate braking without antiskid on both wing landing gears. The crew modulated braking in order to stop close to emergency services.

- After the aircraft came to a stop, the reason engine 1 could not be shut down has been determined: 2 segregated wiring routes were cut by 2 out of the 3 individual disk debris.

Airbus continues to work in support of the on-going investigation to complete the detailed analysis.

An update to operators will be provided as soon as further consolidated information is available.

Australian reporter Ben Sandilands has published an extraordinary visual and technical account of the damage sustained by VH-OQA when its number two Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine suffered an uncontained failure on November 4 six minutes after takeoff from Singapore's Changi International Airport. Sandilands' report originates from the preliminary Airbus assessment for the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation into incident aboard Qantas Flight 32.

The document's authenticity has been confirmed by Airbus.

The explosion, now traced to an excessive oil build up in the intermediate and high pressure turbines of the Trent 900 engine, caused engine debris to be violently expelled into the surrounding structure of the A380.

Airbus has grouped the damage to VH-OQA in several main areas, including to "perforations" to the aircraft's wing, which entered in the bottom skin of the wing and exited the upper skin. Additionally, two additional perforations were sustained to the lower panel of the wing, as well as the belly fairing and inboard flap track fairings.

The first, and larger, of two major punctures was suffered by the droop nose 2 on the wing's leading edge structure. In the line of fire was the drive motor for the droop nose which was "badly damaged" and "seems ot [sic] have been on the direct path of trajectory through the wing." The debris entered in front of wing rib 13 on the lower panel and exited at the topskin just in front of rib 12.
 
The second major puncture came as engine debris tore into the lower side of the droop nose panel, and continued its path through the front wing spar (CATIA rendering pictured above). As the debris transited the A380's wing structure, a fuel pipe and wiring were severed near wing rib 9 where it exited.

Additionally, the lower skin on wing panel 1 was punctured in two locations, causing a leak in the A380's left wing inner tank. The first, was at rib 7 at stringer 0 and the second at rib 10 and stringer 6.

The result of the punctured fuel tank was a steadily increasing imbalance in the aircraft's center of gravity as the left wing tank emptied its contents over Batam Island.

Immediately following the explosion in the number two engine, the crew was presented with 53 electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) messages, including the confirmed failure of the A380's green hydraulic system. The severed wiring also appears to have locked out control of engine number one to the crew.

Sandilands addresses the questions of the A380's system redundancy directly, writing:

"The wing of the jet shows remarkable structural strength in sustaining damage that might have destroyed the airliners of earlier decades, but the questions as to whether control system revisions are necessary to deal with some of the consequences in terms of failed hydraulics and fuel imbalance are said to be very actively under consideration."

The ATSB plans to release its preliminary factual report on December 3.

ZHUHAI -- Few companies on the planet are as disciplined as Boeing with their words, so how the US airframer chooses to express itself can illuminate how the company's leadership is thinking. Boeing released its third statement Tuesday on the November 9 fire that occurred while ZA002 was on approach to Laredo, Texas. The most important line in the statement at first pass is positive for the 787, taking a glass-half full approach to system redundancy.

"The incident demonstrated many aspects of the safety and redundancy in the 787 design, which ensure that if events such as these occur, the airplane can continue safe flight and landing".

Morgan Stanley aerospace research analyst, Heidi Wood, reads between the lines, remarking:

"The vagueness alerts us, as it sidesteps claiming the systems all worked. This tells us the multiple redundancies may not have performed as they should have, which dovetails with what our sources have been asserting. We're impressed by the honest admission; we believe this is an FAA chief concern. "

Exactly what redundancy was not provided after the P100 panel failed is unclear at this point, but Wood does not expect the flight test fleet to return to testing anytime soon, estimating a December or January resumption of the certification campaign, which "could push first delivery to 2012" with changes to aircraft hardware and software.

ZHUHAI -- With six 737s with Boeing's new Sky Interior now handed over to airlines, the airframer is looking ahead to what's next and may be turning its attention to updating the narrowbody's front office.

ZHUHAI -- Rolls-Royce, beset by criticism over its public handling of the uncontained failures of its Trent 900 and 1000 engines, has canceled its planned Airshow China show briefing.

The engine-maker offered no explanation for the cancellation, leaving media attending the show only to speculate on its sudden change of plans.

ZHUHAI -- It's very late here in China at the moment. Wanted to do a very quick post on ZA001 and ZA005 heading home to Boeing Field from Rapid City, South Dakota and Victorville, California, respectively. Following the ferry flights to BFI, the fleet will remain grounded. Flightglobal has the latest details on the ZA002 fire investigation.

ZHUHAI -- At a briefing and announcement at Air Show China Tuesday morning, Comac announced an order for 100 narrowbody C919 aircraft to Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan Airlines, CBD Leasing and GECAS.

While foreign journalists were banned from the event hosted by state-owned aircraft maker Comac, a side door was left ajar prior to the commencement of the event. Though it was staffed with a police officer, some journalists, includling this one, were provided an unobstructed view of a marketing film for the C919 produced by Comac. Most notably was the presentation of the latest specifications of the new aircraft, but also featured six models that are planned.

These models included the single-class 168-seat (156-seat two class) baseline model, as well as stretched, shrunken, freighter, business configuration and "special" variants. With these plans revealed, Comac's six models appear to be readying for competition against Boeing's 737-700, -700C, -900ER, BBJ and Airbus A319, A321, A320P2F and ACJ.

Air India's first 787 Dreamliner, registered VT-ANA, has been moved from the paint hangar to the Everett flight line. Airplane 25 is slated for a second quarter 2011 delivery to the Indian flag carrier.

Photos Credit Moonm

ZHUHAI -- Comac's C919 narrowbody is set for its mega debut here at Air Show China with orders from six launch customers, including GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS).

While the total size of the order has not yet been disclosed, Air China, China Eastern, China Southern, Hainan Airlines, Chinese lessor CLC and GECAS are lined up to be the first customers for the 160-seat, CFM Leap-X-powered jetliner.

China's domestic market is forecast to be the fastest growth market on the planet with 7.9% year-over-year average growth between 2009 and 2029, according to Boeing. Seventy-one percent, or 3,090 of the 4,330 aircraft needed in China over the next two decades are estimated to be narrowbodies supporting the intra-China market.

An official announcement is expected at 10:30 AM local time here in Southern Eastern China.

SAN FRANCISCO -- I'm heading West...to go East. After a 5hr hop this afternoon to San Francisco, I'm picking up this Singapore Airlines 777-300ER (Flight 1) for a 14hr 30m flight to Hong Kong for Air Show China in Zhuhai. This aircraft, 9V-SWT, was handed over to SIA at the beginning of 2009 and was the 759th 777 built in Everett. It will be Monday morning by the time I arrive at Chek Lap Kok and then on to nearby Zhuhai by water shuttle.

This week will undoubtedly prove to be one for the aviation history books with the first order for the Comac C919, while it may be ceremonial, the order represents a significant step for China's ascent as a commercial aerospace aspirant. We can only hope this week will bring additional technical clarity about the aircraft as well, despite being six years from its entry into service. I'll have much more on the C919 and ARJ21 as the week unfolds. Next stop, China.

ShareApture™

by Jon Ostrower

An FAA pilot was flying ZA002 at the time of the aircraft's emergency landing in Laredo, Texas, confirm those with direct knowledge of the incident.

Photos have surfaced of ZA002 being worked on in Laredo, Texas after a fire in the aircraft's aft electrical equipment (EE) bay Tuesday crippled the 787 following an emergency landing. The photos, taken by flickr user Stevie.Eliz, were apparently taken yesterday. While the damage to ZA002 was entirely internal, the photos show the deployed ram air turbine (RAT) as well as crews accessing both the forward and rear EE bays.

Meanwhile, ZA001 remains stranded in South Dakota, while ZA005 is in Victorville, California and ZA003, ZA004 and ZA006 are at Everett (3) and Boeing Field (4 & 6). Earlier in the week a Gulfstream G-IV and Bombardier Challenge 600 series business jets made the trip between Boeing Field and Laredo, which was possibly the dispatch of a new P100 panel.

View Enlarged Graphic

Two days after a fire forced the grounding of the 787 test fleet, a power control panel, responsible for distributing electrical power generated by the aircraft's left engine, is at the center of the investigation.

Program and supplier sources confirm the panel, known as P100, caught fire as ZA002 was passing through 1000ft during its final approach into Laredo, Texas on Tuesday.

Initial inspection appears to indicate that a power control panel in the aft electronics bay will need to be replaced on ZA002. We are inspecting the power panel and surrounding area near that panel to determine if other repairs will be necessary.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Smoke in the cabin of ZA002, Boeing's second 787 flight test aircraft prompted an evacuation of the 30-plus test personnel on board. The test aircraft was enroute to Harlingen, Texas for trials of the aircraft's nitrogen generation system, when smoke was seen in the main cabin. Boeing says ZA002 "continued its approach and landed safely in Laredo, Texas." Adding that the "crew evacuated the airplane safely."

Update 6:57 PM ET: Boeing says ZA002 is on the ground in Laredo, Texas with its evacuation slides deployed. Boeing is "continuing to collect data" on the source of the smoke, which is currently unknown. The FAA says the aircraft landed at 2:54 PM Central Time.

Update 7:30 PM ET: A source familiar with the incident says ZA002 touched down in Laredo after a fire broke out in the aft electronics equipment bay causing the flight deck primary flight displays and auto throttle to fail, additionally the ram air turbine was deployed on landing. The aircraft landed in visual flight rules (VFR) conditions.

Update 8:04 PM ET: Hamilton Sundstrand, which is responsible for the 787's electrical system, says it is in touch with Boeing and is participating in the investigation. A spokesman for the company had no additional details regarding the incident. 

Update 10:56 PM ET: Program sources say all planned flight tests for Wednesday have been postponed until Thursday at the earliest. ZA001, ZA005 and ZA006 have been shifted to ground tests as a result of ZA002's in-flight fire. ZA003 and ZA004 had been previously scheduled to conduct ground testing.

Update 10:08 AM ET: Boeing released some additional details this morning, including the total occupancy of the aircraft, which stood at 42 at the time of the incident. That number is not uncommon when beginning a remote stay as the plane acts as a ferry for test crews. Boeing says "contrary to some reports" the pilot did not lose primary flight displays during the fire, though did not specify if any of the five were inoperative at the time of the fire.

Additionally, programmes sources say ZA002 test crews in Texas are being updated on the status of the aircraft in a briefing this morning. 

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Five days into the investigation of the uncontained engine failure aboard Qantas Flight 32, several reports have focused attention around oil leaks in the intermediate pressure turbine inside the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 that flies under the wing of the the Australian carrier's A380s. 

SEATTLE -- Operating as Giant 4151 late Friday afternoon, one of Boeing's four modified 747-400 Dreamlifters operated by Atlas Air touched down at Paine Field in Everett, Washington carrying a set of wings for the 31st 787, marking the restart of structural deliveries following a two week halt. 

Twenty-four hours after the A380's first major incident, a continuing question remains around the state of the aircraft upon touchdown in Singapore and to what extent the aircraft's systems were impacted due to the uncontained failure of engine two. Commercial jetliners for years have been designed with multiple levels of redundancy to endure even the most brutal damage. The A380's safe return to Singapore is further evidence illustrating how the redundancy of aircraft systems provide an extra margin of designed-in safety to commercial air travel.

One video posted by Russia Today (and includes Flightglobal's Cory Matthews footage immediately following the landing of QF32 in Singapore) shows the spoiler operation upon touchdown as filmed from the lower deck of the A380. The video shows only half of the A380's spoilers deployed upon touchdown, further suggesting damage to the Green Hydraulic system following the engine failure. The lack of operation of the wing slats, is consistent with a failure of the Green hydraulic system as well.

Also included below (for a bit of technical background) are three slides from the Airbus Flight Deck and Systems Briefing for Pilots which describes the redundant attributes of the A380's hydraulic system and identifies which flight controls are on which system.

What do we know?

Boeing is once again examining its 787 delivery schedule as it seeks to address the mountain of post-certification rework required to turn partially completed airframes into deliverable passenger aircraft, confirm multiple program sources.

Staff from around Boeing and its supply chain tell FlightBlogger that driving the current schedule review is the formulation of a plan on how to tackle the expansive amount of work required to bring each airframe up to a certified production standard.

Today, Boeing is aiming to hand over its first 787 to Japan's All Nippon Airways in February, just shy of three years since the original May 2008 delivery, though a verdict on the necessary rework is expected in the coming weeks and could impact initial deliveries anywhere from weeks to several months depending on the customer.

"Flight testing is a dynamic process and we constantly review and manage risks and opportunities to the program schedule. Our plan remains first delivery of the Boeing 787 mid-first-quarter 2011," says the airframer.

One program engineer says that in order to meet the mid-February delivery target for ANA all of the design changes for Airplane Seven (JA801A), the first production 787, had to be released by engineering by the close of October, however the source adds "there are some design changes that are not released yet but must be implemented to have the airplane certified" ahead of first delivery.

Program and industry sources suggested Airplane Seven's delivery could be made to ANA on time in February, but how long after it entered revenue service pending additional changes, and how long after that more deliveries followed, remained an open question.

Boeing has remained reluctant to provide guidance on how many 787s it expects to hand over to carriers in 2011, though Jim McNerney, the company's CEO, identified post certification rework a chief priority for the program.

"We are intensely focused on managing the change incorporation process on airplanes already built or in flow," McNerney said in the company's third quarter earnings, which maintained the February first delivery target. "The early delivery schedule is comprised of a mix of airplanes coming off the production line and airplanes completing the change incorporation process."

Photos Credit Airlinereporter.com

Q: Have you been in conversation with Alenia about what specifically has been happening on 787?

A: Yes. Obviously Alenia doesn't reveal to us what's going on with them and Boeing. Our discussions have been more around the aspect that: are you following, our supplier management recipe? Almost in a kind of an auditing sense, we've had a specific meeting with them since those things have become public to say, "Okay, now you understanding, we heard what's happening. We're not going to be rude and try and bug you about that." We're just going to be here and say, "look this is our process, I don't care what Boeing's processes and how they managed you, this is the Bombardier way on how we manage a supplier. And In case you're doubting it and say no we should follow the Boeing way, well no you're going to follow our way, because this is how we started this in 1995 managing off shore design-to-build suppliers."

It includes: You log in and put your schedule in our system. We will have executive program reviews at this frequency. You will supply us burn down plans every month. You will update our weight program at this frequency. And we will be watching you.

Our reputation is staked on you and we're not going to let you mess with us.

The biggest crux of that meeting now that we've heard of the Boeing/Alenia issues is to firmly reestablish our processes, because we know our processes work, ever since the Global [Express] we've been making planes like this with international supply chains so we know it works.

Q: Has Alenia been receptive?

A: The one thing most suppliers have said to us is you know "you're strict, you guys have a different process, but you communicate." And we talk, we meet regularly, we have a process for being able to go back and forth on things.

We can't be draconian and say, "thou shalt do this and thou shalt do that." Because remember why did we pick Alenia? Because they're good at what they do. They make good flight surfaces, in this case the horizontal and vertical stabilizer. We pick specialists in their field.

So when Bombardier picks a supplier, we are picking them for their expertise. That why it's design to build not build-to-print, they are completely responsible.

So, we can't go in there with a big hammer and say, "you're doing it wrong, you're deisgning wrong and all of that" because that defeats the whole purpose. Then it becomes a blame a game, they they could turn around and say, "you told us to do that, so don't blame us".

This way you say, follow our process, meet our goal posts, the rest is up to you. But meet our goal posts and follow the process and that's something Bombardier had to learn, that's taken us years to learn because otherwise you end up in the blame game or you just don't have that relationship.

Photo Credit Bombardier