Posted on 07/13/2021 8:15:36 PM PDT by algore
Boeing will cut production of its large 787 airliner for several weeks after discovering a new structural flaw in some planes that have been built but not delivered to airline customers.
The Chicago company said Tuesday that it now anticipates that it will deliver less than half of the 787s remaining in its inventory this year. That is a retreat from CEO David Calhoun's statement last month that the company hoped to deliver a majority of the planes, estimated to be fewer than 100, in 2021.
The slower rate of deliveries will hurt Boeing's cash flow because the company gets a large portion of the price of a plane upon delivery.
“We will continue to take the necessary time to ensure Boeing airplanes meet the highest quality prior to delivery," the company said in a prepared statement. “Across the enterprise, our teams remain focused on safety and integrity as we drive stability, first-time quality and productivity in our operations.”
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said the new problem near the nose of some undelivered 787s "poses no immediate threat to flight safety." The FAA said that it will decide later whether any changes are needed to 787s that airlines are already using.
Shares fell 3% shortly after the opening bell.
Boeing had been producing five 787s per month. It did not disclose the temporary lower rate.
It's another setback for Boeing's two-aisle 787, which is popular on longer routes. Deliveries were halted in 2020 and again in May to fix production flaws affecting how pieces of the carbon-fiber fuselage are joined, and how to inspect the planes.
(Excerpt) Read more at king5.com ...
fortunately this slowdown will give the employees a chance to catch up on their social inclusiveness training.
there was a time in the dark ages before TSA people said if it ain't boeing I ain't going.
Today I just ain't going (unless it is private of course)
This doesn’t surprise me at all. I began a long/detailed article about commercial air travel and your closing statement reflects my conclusion. I should really finish that article, but since I escaped social media I have nowhere to post it until I create a dreaded BLOG (that’s a dig at a particularly grouchy FReeper).
You’re aware of the 737 manufacturing issues, I presume?
I wanted to know your and other people’s opinions about boarding a 737MAX. Southwest and other airlines have a quite few in their fleet.
Realistically that would depend on what country I was in.
more specifically Southwest is a good airline and their pilots never had a problem with the 737max
The airline in the US with the lowest fatal accident rate is Southwest Airlines, with zero fatalities. Between 1985 and 2009, the airline conducted 17.87 million flights and suffered no fatalities, with the exception of one fatality on the ground. As a percentage of the total number of flights, Southwest Airlines has the lowest fatal accident rate in the world, with Delta Airlines close behind, followed by Lufthansa.
I cannot possibly imagine this could in any way be associated with the corporate decision to move from only somewhat corrupt Seattle to wholly corrupt Chicago.
Now with the production being moved from its very homebase to various and sundry distant places with NO connection to the history of Boeing, there couldn’t POSSIBLY be any repercussions, now, could there be?
you have to go further back,
Boeing died when they became McBoeing
FRA:...production flaws affecting how pieces of the carbon-fiber fuselage are joined, and how to inspect the planes.
This should not worry anyone....
How to inspect? Look for cracks.
This fuselage fails at 500mph you will see a large strings of carbon fiber wafting gently down.
So, accepting Airbus standards is the way to go?
“Structural flaw” are not words I want to hear about an aircraft. Brings back memories of the Lockheed Electra.
“Structural flaw” are not words I want to hear about an aircraft. Brings back memories of the Lockheed Electra.”
Or worse yet, the DeHavilland Comet.
Or early versions of the DC-10. Y’know, the ones where the pylon mounted #2 engine would grenade and take out all of the hydraulics. Or the rear cargo door would fail in flight, collapsing the rear rows of passenger seats and also...taking out all of the hydraulics. Sering a pattern here?
CC
You need to look at McDonnell’s history before you make such statements. It shows your ignorance. MacBoeing’s problems started with the move of corporate headquarters to Chicago and retirement of the boomer generation. Everything to do with work ethic and pride. When you deliver aircraft to the military load with trash and lost tools you’ve lost your focus. Take some time to look up the results of MD’s contract and delivery performance. In the mid ‘90s MD knew that the economy would not support the number of large defense contractors then extant. MD selected Boeing to merge with. It was decided to keep the Boeing name but to adopt the MD logo. The rest is history.
Sign me, Involved.
The ceo at the time of the move to Chicago had a girlfriend who wanted to live there so he moved the headquarters and disrupted thousands of people’s lives just for .....
He was removed by the board when found out the reason and I guess other things like not paying attention to business.
Denver crapped on Boeing. Pretty much gave them the finger.
Dallas couldn’t commit to plans. Dallas is the current home of Boeing Global Services, 1/3 of Boeing. (Commerical and Defense are the other two division) Dallas is a city with many areas and they all fought against each other.
Chicago was willing to give Boeing ANYTHING to move to Chicago.
Who paid for all the extra bullet-proofing on the buildings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.