In late January, Boeing suspended deliveries of the 787, which wasn’t good news for airlines relying on these new planes to operate their schedules. The good news is that Boeing has just received the green light to resume these deliveries. Let’s go over the basics of what happened.
In this post:
Boeing 787 deliveries delayed due to “analysis error”
In late January, Boeing suspended deliveries of the 787 Dreamliner, so that the company can do additional analysis on a fuselage component. The company hasn’t delivered a 787 since January 26, and it couldn’t resume deliveries until it could show the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that it has resolved the issue.
During this period, Boeing has continued production of the 787, and hasn’t anticipated that the issue would require additional work on the planes. Here’s how Boeing described this in a statement:
“In reviewing certification records, Boeing discovered an analysis error by our supplier related to the 787 forward pressure bulkhead. We notified the FAA and have paused 787 deliveries while we complete the required analysis and documentation.”
“There is no immediate safety of flight concern for the in-service fleet. We are communicating with our customers and will continue to follow the lead of the FAA. While near-term deliveries will be impacted, at this time we do not anticipate a change to our production and delivery outlook for the year.”
Boeing can now resume 787 deliveries
As reported by Reuters, there’s a positive development here. The FAA has today approved Boeing resuming 787 deliveries as of next week. Boeing has completed the analysis needed to confirm that aircraft meet requirements, and no further production or fleet action is required to meet FAA standards.
Boeing is now coordinating with customers to resume 787 deliveries.
Boeing 787 deliveries had only recently resumed
Boeing hasn’t been having much luck with delivering 787s in a timely fashion. In May 2021, Boeing had to suspend deliveries of the 787, and deliveries only resumed in August 2022, so that lasted for well over a year.
That issue was due to production flaws related to gaps between panels of the carbon-composite fuselage. In addition to the production issues as such, the other problem was in regards to the FAA’s oversight of the delivery of these jets, so a more transparent and regulated inspection process had to be figured out there as well. Even prior to that, Boeing also had to suspend deliveries for five months in 2020.
While it’s normal for there to be some delays with aircraft manufacturing and delivery (given how complex it is), Boeing hasn’t had much luck the past several years between its 737 MAXs and 787 Dreamliners. Fortunately the issues this time around didn’t last for nearly as long.
Bottom line
For the past several weeks, Boeing has had to halt deliveries of the 787, due to an “analysis error” by a supplier related to the forward pressure bulkhead. Fortunately this issue has now been resolved, and the FAA has given Boeing permission to resume 787 deliveries as of next week.
It’s normal for airlines to plan their networks based on future aircraft deliveries, so it’s good that the delay here didn’t last longer this time around.
What do you make of deliveries of the Boeing 787 once again being resumed?
But where is sassy gurl YinDaoYan?? Her exquisite pearls of wisdom put ConcordeBeing and Eskimoo to shame..
At least this suspension didn't last as long as last time.
Boeing definitely needs a change. Ever since the McDonnell Douglas merger they've been having quality & production (and worse) issues with pretty much all their aircraft (except maybe the 747-8). When will they learn to prioritize making safe, reliable aircraft instead of short-term profits?
Also, regarding the 787, are these issues something inherent with the design of the aircraft, or is it simply...
At least this suspension didn't last as long as last time.
Boeing definitely needs a change. Ever since the McDonnell Douglas merger they've been having quality & production (and worse) issues with pretty much all their aircraft (except maybe the 747-8). When will they learn to prioritize making safe, reliable aircraft instead of short-term profits?
Also, regarding the 787, are these issues something inherent with the design of the aircraft, or is it simply the manufacturing process?
At what point will the hate against Boeing for being successful ever abate?
Two fourth world inexperienced crew were unable to comprehend spacial orientation to solve an existing problem.
Let the hate go on.
For those whose agenda is to destroy Boeing, I hope you fail. I'm on a 787-9 and it's the best ride in the air. (Other than the 747-8 parked beside us)
@Ben why do you let this racist stay on the comment section?
"Boeing Resuming 787 Dreamliner Deliveries After Suspension"
Yay! So what is this, the 3rd or 4th time? Honestly asking, since it's so easy to lose count.
Who's got odds on the 5th?
VFTW has pictures of an American 787 that has significant fuselage damage after a lightning strike suffered on a flight from Tokyo to DFW.
The very public Qatar Airways/Airbus spat was specifically about the loss of lightning protection on the A350 as a result of paint degradation, something Airbus said was cosmetic.
It is ironic that it is now a Boeing 787 that has some of the worst lightning damage of a CFRP (new generation, plastic plane)
Correct me if I'm wrong Tim, but the Airbus issue was as you said above, the paint wearing down quickly, therefore the plane loses lighting protection (chronic). The Boeing issue was because of 1 strike, an accident/incident (acute). I'm not sure these are quite the same thing.
The point is that aircraft are supposed to have protection so that what happened to the AA aircraft shouldn’t happen.
Or A350s manage to avoid those kinds of thunderstorms
There is a common theme here - Boeing is profit oriented. Yup - a private company.
Airbus is supported and financed by European Government Grants.
Does government support shortcut safety issues and hide problems? Airbus has a horrible safety record if you ignore all those "pilot error" findings by government supported agencies.
Maybe an independent agency should investigate some of Airbus problems instead of trying to kill Boeing?
the charges of subsidies by Airbus and Boeing against each other have been litigated in the highest courts that deal w/ commercial cases in the world - and both companies appear to be in truce after findings found both guilty.
There have been multiple reports of pilot error involving all aircraft types. The A350 or A330 has not had a fleetwide grounding for decades (the A350 hasn't even been flying for a decade) if ever....
the charges of subsidies by Airbus and Boeing against each other have been litigated in the highest courts that deal w/ commercial cases in the world - and both companies appear to be in truce after findings found both guilty.
There have been multiple reports of pilot error involving all aircraft types. The A350 or A330 has not had a fleetwide grounding for decades (the A350 hasn't even been flying for a decade) if ever.
Creating conspiracy theories because you don't like the facts that actually exist doesn't work.
Meanwhile, the 787 faces ANOTHER production or delivery delay because of the FAA's concerns about the program.
and Airbus and Boeing are both publicly traded companies.
Airbus stock has been a far better investment over the past 5 years than Boeing.
I only read negative reports against Boeing. Is there a bias? Lithium battery problems created delays - manufacturer specs? 2 crashes with airlines using pilots with extremely limited experience - when most major airlines had thousands of take offs and landings without incident. And now this?
Is there any reason to suspect that the oversight paid to Boeing is perhaps significantly more than was ever paid to Airbus wither there 320 Series crashes and control...
I only read negative reports against Boeing. Is there a bias? Lithium battery problems created delays - manufacturer specs? 2 crashes with airlines using pilots with extremely limited experience - when most major airlines had thousands of take offs and landings without incident. And now this?
Is there any reason to suspect that the oversight paid to Boeing is perhaps significantly more than was ever paid to Airbus wither there 320 Series crashes and control problems?
Are all the negative comments from Airbus supporters?
I love the Dreamliner.
Did Boeing not send enough contributions to the Democrats? "Just asking"
Perhaps.... or, you could ask actually pertinent questions, like:
When's the last time we saw an Airbus crash for a reason other than pilot error?
...or be grounded by multiple civil aviation authorities the world over?
...or had a product stuck in a half-decade's worth of certification hell, due to recurrent unforeseen issues, despite being solely a variant of an existing product?
Then you might come to an actually reasonable conclusion, versus for example, the...
Perhaps.... or, you could ask actually pertinent questions, like:
When's the last time we saw an Airbus crash for a reason other than pilot error?
...or be grounded by multiple civil aviation authorities the world over?
...or had a product stuck in a half-decade's worth of certification hell, due to recurrent unforeseen issues, despite being solely a variant of an existing product?
Then you might come to an actually reasonable conclusion, versus for example, the one you actually came up with. Just food for thought.
Since when is 5k, 6k, and 8k hours considered "extremely limited experience?" Only the ET co pilot was a noob. Or did you just assume this because they are non-white?
I’ve yet to fly on a 787 but all the travel videos that I’ve watched (and they’re filming when they land) seems like those things just “shake, rattle and roll” once they hit the pavement. Not sure if any other new builds do this but all that plastic in them makes them sound cheap and not well built.
Boeing has become extremely sloppy. Period.
Not only re 787 deliveries, 737 Max fiasco and 777-9 delays, but the way they let the Bombardier gem become an Airbus (A220) and then pulled the plug on Embraer which could have closed the capacity gap... They are not quite there yet but the duopoly is collapsing and Boeing slowly sinks to the level of Tupolev and Ilyushin. In terms of problems, they start reeking of Sukhoi Superjet.
This is what happens when a company turns against engineering, and focuses solely on current share price.
And to be honest, it was inevitable, because in America we've tolerated the legality of pay based on current stock price.... so every publicly-owned corporation has all the incentive in the world, to operate as a giant pump-and-dump scheme:
(1) do whatever it takes a raise the share price,
(2) cash out and run,
(3)...
This is what happens when a company turns against engineering, and focuses solely on current share price.
And to be honest, it was inevitable, because in America we've tolerated the legality of pay based on current stock price.... so every publicly-owned corporation has all the incentive in the world, to operate as a giant pump-and-dump scheme:
(1) do whatever it takes a raise the share price,
(2) cash out and run,
(3) let the corporation fall to pieces with the expectation that the taxpayers will bail it out, and
(4) bring in some new lauded wonder-team, and repeat the process in a decade or so.
This is how it is, and how it will be, until it becomes illegal to base corporate officer compensation on current share price. But fat chance of THAT ever happening, when the lawmakers who'd have to do so, are the ones underhandedly cashing-in with insider information on those very shares--- and quite unashamedly at that!
Not a big deal at all, but I notice that you use the word 'regards' when the correct word is 'regard'. Regard should be used when making reference to something.
This, like many other issues, probably would not even become public enough if it weren't because of the problems of the MAX which laid bare that the FAA was allowing Boeing to do oversight work that the FAA should have been doing.
Aircraft are incredibly complex and it is doubtful that the risk is only to undelivered aircraft if there is an analysis error on a component or system that exists on in-service aircraft.
This, like many other issues, probably would not even become public enough if it weren't because of the problems of the MAX which laid bare that the FAA was allowing Boeing to do oversight work that the FAA should have been doing.
Aircraft are incredibly complex and it is doubtful that the risk is only to undelivered aircraft if there is an analysis error on a component or system that exists on in-service aircraft.
People are commenting that Airbus hasn't had the level of difficulty as Boeing, and while that is true, Airbus developed nearly all of its models AFTER the corresponding Boeing model; the A350 was developed a couple years after the B787. There are huge advantages including learning from what Boeing does wrong and in creating better economics.
Boeing tried to dramatically redo too much about commercial aircraft production with the B787 and it is a given that they wouldn't get alot right. Add moving production from Seattle to Charleston in order to cut costs and the problems have only mushroomed.
Boeing will overcome and the B787 continues to sell well but their mistakes continue to be extraordinarily costly and create a great deal of angst among airline managers that cannot accurately build network and fleet plans.
"Luck" has nothing to do with Boeing's problems. They are self-inflicted.
Incredible how it’s gone from “if it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going!” to “if it’s Boeing, I ain’t going” in just a handful of years.
Only going to get worse with the CSuite folks moving even further from Everett, from Chicago to DC. At least it’ll be easier to lobby their way out of any new safety/manufacturing issues. Who cares if innocent ppl die or if planes are delivered with poor manufacturing, protecting their bonuses is more important!
I couldn't agree more. Boeing management are NOT to be trusted. Period. This is what happens when a company turns against its own people.
I fly Southwest, the largest US airline by domestic passangers carried. I havent seen people abandon the carrier due to it flying Boeing. I dont think airlines are upset with the delayed deliveries since this is the slowest point are airlines.
Boeing's quality and reliability has gone down the dumps since HQ separated. It should to be restored to an engineer lead company.
Every time I fly Airbus I pray.
I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast but by no means do I understand the complexities of production. If anyone is able to share why Airbus is not experiencing such issues would be greatly appreciated. From memory the last time Airbus had a significant issue was when the cables for the a380 were not measured properly and had to be ripped out and replaced as they were too short? The a220, a350 variants seemed...
I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast but by no means do I understand the complexities of production. If anyone is able to share why Airbus is not experiencing such issues would be greatly appreciated. From memory the last time Airbus had a significant issue was when the cables for the a380 were not measured properly and had to be ripped out and replaced as they were too short? The a220, a350 variants seemed to have launched smoothly and also the a330neo if I am not mistaken?
The A350s delivered new to Qatar had serious fuselage defects. It destroyed the relationship between the two parties.
Yes Regis, but that was between Airbus and a single airline manufacturer, nor did it force the complete stoppage of deliveries of the aircraft type. 787 deliveries have been stopped completely (including a grounding, if memory serves) 3 times now, I believe. That's not even bringing the MAX into it.
@John K it's useful to remember that the A220 is originally the product of Bombardier, not Airbus. But yes, it does seem that Airbus has...
Yes Regis, but that was between Airbus and a single airline manufacturer, nor did it force the complete stoppage of deliveries of the aircraft type. 787 deliveries have been stopped completely (including a grounding, if memory serves) 3 times now, I believe. That's not even bringing the MAX into it.
@John K it's useful to remember that the A220 is originally the product of Bombardier, not Airbus. But yes, it does seem that Airbus has a tighter lid on managing manufacturing processes and flaws. I don't think that's so much in praise of Airbus as it is damning to Boeing, who previously had a good track record of delivering.
The company's substantial organisational issues, which appear to stem largely from corporate greed and a shift away from being engineering-driven (because that costs more), have been well documented. The move of HQ to DC does little to inspire confidence it will change, as others have said.
My guess would be incompetence and apathy. It's still the same toxic company culture from the 737 MAX incidents. Sure, the CEO has been replaced since then, but the rank and file and upper management is still more or less the same.
In this latest "analysis error," my bet would be they chose the lowest bidder without doing their due diligence on the company. And as a result, this is a classic "you get what you pay for" mistake.
It seems Airbus keeps issues quiet. With the exception of the big brouhaha with Qatar it seems they have some sort of understanding especially with customers not to reveal anything. Might a similar issue with their A350 not see the light of day even from their EASA? A350 industrialization can't be perfect. Who knows.
Maybe it's their past relationship with owner-governments that keeps things hush? But they I'd venture most all commercial contracts across industries...
It seems Airbus keeps issues quiet. With the exception of the big brouhaha with Qatar it seems they have some sort of understanding especially with customers not to reveal anything. Might a similar issue with their A350 not see the light of day even from their EASA? A350 industrialization can't be perfect. Who knows.
Maybe it's their past relationship with owner-governments that keeps things hush? But they I'd venture most all commercial contracts across industries are pretty hush for competitive concerns; some regions keep it closer the their chest than others. Who knows.
A220 IS A BOMBARDIER C300 - not a bloody Airbus.
It was properly designed in Canada. Not like the rest of the Airbus fleet that has had significant safety issues and deaths covered up by "pilot error" findings in Europe and India.
As a Canadian I'd love to adopt this stance too, but it's not just accurate.
First, the longest-standing Airbus aircraft - the A32X and A330 series' have proven extremely safe. Yes, of course there have been crashes, but that's reflective of the years of service combined with their popularity. Statistically, something was much more likely to happen to them. Besides, weren't the last A320 hull losses in Europe due to a suicidal pilot and...
As a Canadian I'd love to adopt this stance too, but it's not just accurate.
First, the longest-standing Airbus aircraft - the A32X and A330 series' have proven extremely safe. Yes, of course there have been crashes, but that's reflective of the years of service combined with their popularity. Statistically, something was much more likely to happen to them. Besides, weren't the last A320 hull losses in Europe due to a suicidal pilot and a bomb onboard? Are we questioning that? It's like declaring the 737 an unsafe aircraft because it is the most common type to crash. That ignores its popularity and dominance (the 737-800 is considered the safest aircraft in the world, statistically).
The reality is the A220 has comparatively few examples flying relative to almost every other Airbus model. In fact, it only recently surpassed the A380. It's way too early to declare the A220 a safe aircraft, although I expect it is. This also ignores the fact that the A220 bankrupted Bombardier.
Delta just hit the jackpot with their plane strategy... no 787s, no 737 MAX. I wonder why they are not being shamed for being "un-American" for ordering so many Airbus
I think they have 100 MAX's on order for later in the decade.
Yep, 100 firm, option for 30 more MAXs. Delivery beginning 2025.
What were you saying Dave?
"What were you saying Dave?"
I don't speak for this person, but what he said makes sense when placed in context.
DL didn't have MAXs during the grounding+media frenzy that cost its peers major money. THAT's the gist of it all.
That they're getting them a half-decade after the problems have supposedly been ironed out, doesn't really change that.
That said, I'm not going to send here and pretend that that was some master...
"What were you saying Dave?"
I don't speak for this person, but what he said makes sense when placed in context.
DL didn't have MAXs during the grounding+media frenzy that cost its peers major money. THAT's the gist of it all.
That they're getting them a half-decade after the problems have supposedly been ironed out, doesn't really change that.
That said, I'm not going to send here and pretend that that was some master strategy, as opposed to just not having a place for it in their orders at the time they were topping off A321/A321Ns.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than smart.
airbus : its $$$ time
No wonder AI is making the A350 their flagship aircraft...
Is that something that they said? Because they ordered the far larger 777-9, so....
another (common) Boeing L
Agreed, and there's been wayyyy too many of those lately, for there to not be recognition thereof.
It's a shoddy plane with crappy production methods done by an unethical company focused on profit more than anything else. Also, objectively ugly. Looks like a fish. I'm so done with Boeing being crap and people still somehow fangirling. Get with the programme.
While everything you say is spot on, you do realize your avatar is of a Etihad Boeing 787, don’t you?
@TravelinWilly
It looks like a 777 to me. I think the 787 has a more tapered tail, and the APU has the distinctive squared-off 777 shape
Lockheed needs to get back into the airliner business. Also, I would like to see Embrarer or Elon Musk buy Boeing.
Would never happen due to national security concerns.
Lockheed needs to get back into the airliner business.
I'd personally love to see a j/v between Lockheed/Embraer or even Lockheed/Airbus.... at least the engineering quality would be there.
or Elon Musk buy Boeing.
You're joking right? lol
The hell would that moron do, other than make it even worse off than it is now?
@ConcordeBoy
Elon would have better use of his money to get rid of future threats like Apple.
Like Twitter, all he needs to do is buy it.
Good luck to you to design a cutting edge product that is the industry standard on efficiency. If its safe and efficient,I am on board. I dont care if it looks like a fish or a pencil. Hate what you think the A380 looks like.