Will Boeing delay the 787 Dreamliner another two years?
Filed under: Company News, Technology, Columns
My recent post about Boeing's (BA) leak that it had shut down Alenia, one of its suppliers in Naples, Italy, encouraged several people close to the company to contact me. One of these people, who requested to remain anonymous, told me he spent two years working as a consultant with the 787 program across several of Boeing's systems and manufacturing organizations.
While I have only exchanged emails with him and spoken to him once, his concerns about the 787 program seem plausible. And he estimates that the 787's problems could take at least another two years to solve.
How so? My source told me that there are significant problems with a number of systems for the 787 -- news of which has so far not reached the public. The delays to date have been blamed on a variety of ills -- including suppliers not meeting deadlines, an insufficient number of fasteners, a machinist strike, problems with the 787's wing assembly -- which is causing problems where the wing attaches to the fuselage and most recently, fuselage skin wrinkling.
But I was stunned by his claim that several of the systems -- which are being made by Hamilton Sundstrand (HS) -- a United Technologies (UTX) subsidiary -- are not working. He identified the the 787's Environmental Control System (ECS), which is intended to pressurize the aircraft, as a particular problem. He says he believes there is not a technological solution to the problem.
When I asked Boeing for comment, a spokesperson said, "The 787's systems are working, including the environmental control system that pressurizes the airplane. We are continuing to improve and mature the systems, as is normal for a development program." A Hamilton Sundstrand spokesperson told me that he had no knowledge of such problems.
However, my source told me he spoke just yesterday with an engineer employed by a current Boeing partner who confirmed that this problem has not been solved. In addition to the ECS problems, he says that the 787's electrical system has not lived up to expectations and several redesigns are necessary before the aircraft enters into service.
I don't know what my source's motivations would be for providing this information, but given all the delays and leaks, I thought it worth reporting.
There is a deeper problem with the 787 and that has to do with Boeing's management style. As I wrote in my book, Boeing has a long history of command-and-control leadership -- where top executives tell everyone else what to do. Under its new CEO, Jim McNerney, Boeing had adopted a so-called Transformational Leadership (TL) approach which empowered workers to make decisions, have ownership, and to take responsibility for success and/or failure.
TL was behind Boeing's radical decision to outsource 60 percent of the 787 design and manufacturing to its suppliers. In the past, Boeing had given its suppliers very detailed specifications. But with the 787, Boeing let the suppliers do the design and manufacturing. The first manager of the 787, Mike Bair, was a transformational leader.
Bair took the blame for the 787's delays and Boeing replaced Bair with Pat Shanahan from Boeing's defense unit. As such, Boeing reverted back to its old command-and-control style of leadership. My source claims that when Boeing spent three days in the spring of 2008 with HS, the supplier of the 787's electrical systems, Boeing issued orders to its supplier about how it wanted HS to fix the problems.
Rather than listen to what HS thought would work, Shanahan's team issued orders. And according to my source, HS agreed to what Shanahan wanted even though it did not believed that his ideas or time-line would work.
This story, if true, is deeply troubling because it suggests that Boeing could be panicking and reverting back to its old style of working -- but this time without sufficient technical know-how to make the right decisions. If Boeing is suffering from this deeper management problem, delivering the 850 787 Dreamliners that the airlines have ordered is going to be an even bigger nightmare than I had previously thought.
Peter Cohan is a management consultant, Babson professor and author of eight books including, You Can't Order Change. Follow him on Twitter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.
Why is Oprah going to cable? A hint: It's nothing to get teary about
Kisses from Hershey: Candymaker may court Cadbury with $17 billion bid
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
8-19-2009 @ 5:22PM
Greg said...
Why would you print something you have no idea is true or not. It's not reporting it's washer woman gossip.
Greg
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 5:49PM
George said...
You better hope it's washer woman gossip. If the Dreamliner drags on for two more years there may no Boeing left to build it.
8-19-2009 @ 5:39PM
Ron said...
McNerny left 3M in a horrible mess and now it looks as though he's going to do the same to Boeing.
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 5:47PM
George said...
Well, when they finally come out with it, our President can have Dreamliner Cash for Clunkers deal, buy a Boeing Dreamliner and get a $4,500,000 rebate.
Reply
8-20-2009 @ 1:09AM
JKT said...
More than a bit off-topic, don't you think? Why is it that the anti-Obama crowd is so obsessed they see any topic as a chance to bash him? This is a story about Boeing. STICK TO IT.
8-19-2009 @ 6:01PM
Dave said...
I can confirm the problems with the electrical system are true. No idea about the environmental control but I would be surprised if it was.
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 7:31PM
Mark said...
Why is it with all the technology that systems cannot be made correctly, and then they take years to fix or modify. During WWII planes were being made at the rate of 9 to 10 per day!
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 10:20PM
tom Williams said...
all WWII planes had to do was fly from point A to point B, not in comfort, not with 600 people aboard, and not at 35-40k feet..... so what's your point
8-20-2009 @ 1:20AM
JKT said...
Actually, Tom, Mark is right. There is something fundamentally wrong with the direction aircraft manufacturing has gone. History, if you learn more about it, will tell you that 1) The point of any aircraft is to go from point A to point B, 2) there certainly were "comfortable" aircraft during WWII (though true, they didn't have 100 movies per seat), 3) the 787 doesn't carry 600 passengers.
It seems to me that Boeing should just get this aircraft off the ground. Forget the environmental controls for now, forget the entertainment systems, JUST GET IT FLYING. Once the airframe is worthy, then add the contents. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Otherwise, I honestly do get the feeling I'll ride in an A350 before a B787, which is something I never, ever thought would come to pass.
8-19-2009 @ 8:38PM
Kev said...
It is the governemnet red tape (of which some is necessary), and the union, which make the incredible price tag and delays!
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 1:28AM
BUW said...
Hey Kev,
The 787 Issue is not the union, and there are many unions at Boeing,. Which leads me to wonder how well you know Boeing.
How can you blame unions when real issue was the massive outsourcing of so much of the 787 design and build jobs.
So why did Boeing have to buy Vought? Have issues with Italian suppliers?
Or is that some how the fact, like both have unions, Vought - IAM.
This really was the boeing board of director and execs going down wrong path on 787 outsourced build plan.
8-20-2009 @ 3:13PM
Rob said...
You're kidding right? About the union that is. How can the union be responsible for poor craftmanship abroad? How can the union be responsible for supplier parts not fitting, working or being available. If you honestly feel a 57 day strike can equate to a 2 year or possibly 4 year delay you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You've fallen victim to all the media propaganda trying to blame the union for it's failure. Don't forget, the 747-8 is just about to roll out the door...so if your assumtion about the union holds true, the -8 should be 2 years behind as well and it's not; it's built by the same union folks!
8-19-2009 @ 8:50PM
Ian said...
It's not as bad as we've been told.
It's much, much worse.
Composites used for the structure are not giving the claimed weight-savings, raise problems of crashworthiness and flammability, lightning strike protection, inspection methodology, repairability.......
Time for a complete re-think of the concept.
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 8:45PM
andre levesque said...
Boeing is the leader in commercial airplane . Give them time to build it right
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 9:30PM
Carlos de Vasconcellos said...
Boeing is NOT the leader in the commercial aviation industry. Not in orders, not in deliveries, not in innovation. The 787 is a desperate, hysterical reaction to the measured and planned gradual progress of Airbus. Afraid of incremental evolution of Airbus planes and their success with airlines, Boeing made promises for the 787 that are not supported by available technology. In other words, it promised an imaginary plane they cannot and will not deliver. The Airbus-350 XWB will be a plane far better than the 787 that will (maybe not) delivered. These delays are proof that Boeing cannot produce what it promised.
8-20-2009 @ 3:11AM
bob dobbs said...
ha! Not the way they outsource the work...c'mon
andre levesque said...
Boeing is the leader in commercial airplane . Give them time to build it right ....
Is it possible that they can fail at this? Is it possible for wrong decisions to be made? Take a look at American companies now....This "we are the leader" crap is outsourced now and failing...when America starts to produce it's own products, AT HOME and not some foreign land, maybe we can start becoming the leaders we wish to be and bring back the spirit of this country...right now people are not happy with this system, get your head out of the sand and start waking up people....no this is not about Republicans or Democrats, that's a farce because they are one in the same, no this is about Americans becoming to fat and lazy to get the jobs done right, allowing monopolies and corps to take over, buying into the false lies and media hypes about petty things....you ever seen the movie WALL-E?
My wife works for Boeing as a 787 mechanic, she tells me about the issues and about the direction Boeing is heading and it is not pretty...if they are the leader in comm airplanes then why didn't they stick with their older formula that works?? You can be innovative and modern and still use a business formula that worked. A lot of the workers are just hoping to keep their jobs and not get laid off or outsourced...they can't even get plane one off the ground let alone solve the various problems that plague the dam dream-liner planes...wtf is happening to America??? Time to wake up!
8-20-2009 @ 11:14PM
Joe said...
Carlos, are you kidding us?
Take a look at all of the orders for the Boeing 737 alone, and then for all Airbus aircraft. And let's not forget about the Boeing 777, which to this day, nearly 15 years old, and still never had a fatal crash. The A350 is supposed to compete with both the 777 and the 787. The main reason why it's not in the air yet is because of a structural flaws, and the economy. What makes you think that the Airbus A350, is doing much better than the 787, if it is pretty much proposing some of the same technology? These delays are no proof for anything about what Boeing has promised, but proof on how hard it is to make an entirely new airplane from scratch. Wouldn't you want an aircraft to fly safe, than to be rushed through to try to fit a schedual? Boeing is right now trying to keep one very important thing they promised, and that is for a safe aircraft, Just like the 777.
8-19-2009 @ 9:36PM
Larry A. Pohl said...
You may be on to something. This is not the first reference to the 2-year delay because of design issues. Existing program schedules have been pushed out 2 years as well, directly because of the design issues.
Reply
8-19-2009 @ 9:47PM
Daedalus said...
Add to Ian's litany the cabin air quality. With the whole composite body giving off noxious fumes it must deteriorate, especially on long distance flights. Combine that with interior plastic emissions and you have a pretty unhealthy cocktail that no A/C system will fix without continuously renewing the cabin air. That option would be prohibitively expensive and add extra weight to an already overweight plane.
That scenario applies to the A 350 as well.
Reply
8-20-2009 @ 1:54AM
Jonathan said...
Thanks for mentioning the A350 too. There have been many composite aircraft, including various Airbuses, and they seemed to have solved the interior air problem. If they just could keep them from falling apart in severe turbulence . .