Airplanes grounded for being crappy...

[Risottia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

The problem goes back to when they bought McDonald Douglas...another legendary aircraft manufacturers that, unfortunately, since the mid 1980's onwards decided that kids with MBA's knew more about building airplanes than engineers.

So Boeing, instead of getting rid of the MBA's, shafted the engineers instead.

[Vitaphone Racing]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

[Ethel mermania]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

agreed, but this stuff should have been caught by internal qc, and then by the folks who certify the planes as flight worthy. it bodes well for no one, that these planes made it into passenger service, when they are still unsafe.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

Sorta...Airbus has its own challenges in terms of management as well. Notwithstanding the entire multi-country approach to design, in terms of the 350 the mistake Airbus made was react to the Dreamliner and instead of designing something decent, decided a fastest to market approach was best. Hence Airbus customers basically demanded a total re-design. Adding more pressure on the 350 budget.

Craziness abounds...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

agreed, but this stuff should have been caught by internal qc, and then by the folks who certify the planes as flight worthy. it bodes well for no one, that these planes made it into passenger service, when they are still unsafe.

Well in terms of the Dreamliner Boeing had its wake up call when the lamination technologies (outsourced to factories abroad btw) utterly failed when they load tested the wing sections.

Of course soon after it went back to sleep.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

agreed, but this stuff should have been caught by internal qc, and then by the folks who certify the planes as flight worthy. it bodes well for no one, that these planes made it into passenger service, when they are still unsafe.

Yet there are countless examples of this happening for decades and decades. If you're going to crucify the 787 design team over this, at least crucify everybody.

Hell, you should look at the DC-10.

[Northern Dominus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

It's not like Boeing hasn't had quality issues before. And their penchant for corporate espionage and lobbying as major parts of their business operation is also well known.

That being said with a high-end product like the "Dreamliner", meant to be the face of the company for years to come, you would think Boeing would take care and over engineer...

The problem goes back to when they bought McDonald Douglas...another legendary aircraft manufacturers that, unfortunately, since the mid 1980's onwards decided that kids with MBA's knew more about building airplanes than engineers.

So Boeing, instead of getting rid of the MBA's, shafted the engineers instead.

That very well could be. Car enthusiasts will recall that the same thing happened to Mercedes-Benz. Right up until the late 90s, the driving force at Mercedes (tee hee), was the engineers, and their cars were legendary for not only the technological advances but the over-engineered quality of the cars that absolutely refused to break down catistrophically more often than not. Thats why there are so many Mercedes' from the late 70s and early 80s on the road, they're just that well built. However, in the late 90s the MBAs and marketing directors took over, and around that time the cars certainly became flashier and more "blinged out" while the quality went down.
Hell the same thing is happening to Honda today. They used to build geekily well-engineered cars and sell them at affordable prices, and the result is a LOT of Hondas from the 80s and 90s still on the road today. Nowadays quality has gone down at Honda and the industry rags have noticed it and lamented as well.

Boeing seems to have that same sort of problem as RCV2 mentioned. However, I think there's something else afoot here: lack of competition. Boeing has to only compete with Airbus today, but wind the clock back over half a century and Boeing was definetly top dog.
What was the big lifter of the skies from the 1930s right into the 1950s? The Douglas DC3, and the damn things are so rugged and reliable that they're still flying today. Boeing's competitior, the 247 was a decent aircraft, but it still had to compete not only with the DC3 but also the Lockheed Model 10 and Beechcraft Model 18 at home, let alone foreign companies like Avro, Junkers and Saab.

Boeing doesn't have to work as hard these days, doesn't have to build a better product for less money, and so you see quality start to slip as well.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Every aircraft has teething problems. This isn't news. Airbus' equivalent competitor which hasn't even entered production yet still makes the 787 look like an impeccable and utterly flawless aircraft.

Sorta...Airbus has its own challenges in terms of management as well. Notwithstanding the entire multi-country approach to design, in terms of the 350 the mistake Airbus made was react to the Dreamliner and instead of designing something decent, decided a fastest to market approach was best. Hence Airbus customers basically demanded a total re-design. Adding more pressure on the 350 budget.

Craziness abounds...

I think you're being a bit too nice: Airbus fucked up completely with the A350. The problems the A350 is facing at the moment make for comedy, probably until somebody gets killed.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Sorta...Airbus has its own challenges in terms of management as well. Notwithstanding the entire multi-country approach to design, in terms of the 350 the mistake Airbus made was react to the Dreamliner and instead of designing something decent, decided a fastest to market approach was best. Hence Airbus customers basically demanded a total re-design. Adding more pressure on the 350 budget.

Craziness abounds...

I think you're being a bit too nice: Airbus fucked up completely with the A350. The problems the A350 is facing at the moment make for comedy, probably until somebody gets killed.

Same can be said for Boeing as well...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

The problem goes back to when they bought McDonald Douglas...another legendary aircraft manufacturers that, unfortunately, since the mid 1980's onwards decided that kids with MBA's knew more about building airplanes than engineers.

So Boeing, instead of getting rid of the MBA's, shafted the engineers instead.

That very well could be. Car enthusiasts will recall that the same thing happened to Mercedes-Benz. Right up until the late 90s, the driving force at Mercedes (tee hee), was the engineers, and their cars were legendary for not only the technological advances but the over-engineered quality of the cars that absolutely refused to break down catistrophically more often than not. Thats why there are so many Mercedes' from the late 70s and early 80s on the road, they're just that well built. However, in the late 90s the MBAs and marketing directors took over, and around that time the cars certainly became flashier and more "blinged out" while the quality went down.
Hell the same thing is happening to Honda today. They used to build geekily well-engineered cars and sell them at affordable prices, and the result is a LOT of Hondas from the 80s and 90s still on the road today. Nowadays quality has gone down at Honda and the industry rags have noticed it and lamented as well.

Boeing seems to have that same sort of problem as RCV2 mentioned. However, I think there's something else afoot here: lack of competition. Boeing has to only compete with Airbus today, but wind the clock back over half a century and Boeing was definetly top dog.
What was the big lifter of the skies from the 1930s right into the 1950s? The Douglas DC3, and the damn things are so rugged and reliable that they're still flying today. Boeing's competitior, the 247 was a decent aircraft, but it still had to compete not only with the DC3 but also the Lockheed Model 10 and Beechcraft Model 18 at home, let alone foreign companies like Avro, Junkers and Saab.

Boeing doesn't have to work as hard these days, doesn't have to build a better product for less money, and so you see quality start to slip as well.

Yeah...that and my old man having been a MD engineer for thirty years...at the end it just got to be far too surreal...marketing guys commenting on engineering matters...

Lack of competition is also a pretty big factor as well I agree.

[Northern Dominus]

That very well could be. Car enthusiasts will recall that the same thing happened to Mercedes-Benz. Right up until the late 90s, the driving force at Mercedes (tee hee), was the engineers, and their cars were legendary for not only the technological advances but the over-engineered quality of the cars that absolutely refused to break down catistrophically more often than not. Thats why there are so many Mercedes' from the late 70s and early 80s on the road, they're just that well built. However, in the late 90s the MBAs and marketing directors took over, and around that time the cars certainly became flashier and more "blinged out" while the quality went down.
Hell the same thing is happening to Honda today. They used to build geekily well-engineered cars and sell them at affordable prices, and the result is a LOT of Hondas from the 80s and 90s still on the road today. Nowadays quality has gone down at Honda and the industry rags have noticed it and lamented as well.

Boeing seems to have that same sort of problem as RCV2 mentioned. However, I think there's something else afoot here: lack of competition. Boeing has to only compete with Airbus today, but wind the clock back over half a century and Boeing was definetly top dog.
What was the big lifter of the skies from the 1930s right into the 1950s? The Douglas DC3, and the damn things are so rugged and reliable that they're still flying today. Boeing's competitior, the 247 was a decent aircraft, but it still had to compete not only with the DC3 but also the Lockheed Model 10 and Beechcraft Model 18 at home, let alone foreign companies like Avro, Junkers and Saab.

Boeing doesn't have to work as hard these days, doesn't have to build a better product for less money, and so you see quality start to slip as well.

Yeah...that and my old man having been a MD engineer for thirty years...at the end it just got to be far too surreal...marketing guys commenting on engineering matters...

Lack of competition is also a pretty big factor as well I agree.

I can just imagine the conversation.

"Those engine mounts look like they have far too many bolts holding it on. Is there any way you can cut back on the number of bolts? It adds up over time y'know."

"Uh..those bolts are there to make sure the engine doesn't fall off. The reason we use so many is because if a few fail because of a defect in the metal that we can't detect the others can hold it in place long enough for the plane to safely land."

"Yeah....so about removing some of the bolts from the engine mount..."

I'm guessing it was something along those lines?

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think you're being a bit too nice: Airbus fucked up completely with the A350. The problems the A350 is facing at the moment make for comedy, probably until somebody gets killed.

Same can be said for Boeing as well...

Not on the same scale of Airbus. Airbus is still trying to figure out how to make the wing entirely out of composites (or weighing up whether or not to cheat like Boeing did) and find suppliers for everything. Not to mention the other problems remaining exclusive to the ultra-strech -1000 variant at the moment.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Same can be said for Boeing as well...

Not on the same scale of Airbus. Airbus is still trying to figure out how to make the wing entirely out of composites (or weighing up whether or not to cheat like Boeing did) and find suppliers for everything. Not to mention the other problems remaining exclusive to the ultra-strech -1000 variant at the moment.

Indeed...but not halfway across the world and without due diligence...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah...that and my old man having been a MD engineer for thirty years...at the end it just got to be far too surreal...marketing guys commenting on engineering matters...

Lack of competition is also a pretty big factor as well I agree.

I can just imagine the conversation.

"Those engine mounts look like they have far too many bolts holding it on. Is there any way you can cut back on the number of bolts? It adds up over time y'know."

"Uh..those bolts are there to make sure the engine doesn't fall off. The reason we use so many is because if a few fail because of a defect in the metal that we can't detect the others can hold it in place long enough for the plane to safely land."

"Yeah....so about removing some of the bolts from the engine mount..."

I'm guessing it was something along those lines?

Well he was more on the defense side but conversations along those lines? Oh yes.

Its like that entire O-ring thing for the shuttle...when the Morton-Thiokol snr management told the head of engineering to take off his engineer hat and put on his management hat...when he was holding out for a launch delay for temps to rise...

[Machtergreifung]

Ryanair's mainstay in ten years.

[Northern Dominus]

Same can be said for Boeing as well...

Not on the same scale of Airbus. Airbus is still trying to figure out how to make the wing entirely out of composites (or weighing up whether or not to cheat like Boeing did) and find suppliers for everything. Not to mention the other problems remaining exclusive to the ultra-strech -1000 variant at the moment.

And you know what? Good for them for taking extra time to figure things out and work on problems. That way when A350s are being delivered they won't have problems with cracking glass, fires, or wings snapping off. They'll be well engineered, quality machines that don't put aircrews and passengers at undue risk.

I can just imagine the conversation.

"Those engine mounts look like they have far too many bolts holding it on. Is there any way you can cut back on the number of bolts? It adds up over time y'know."

"Uh..those bolts are there to make sure the engine doesn't fall off. The reason we use so many is because if a few fail because of a defect in the metal that we can't detect the others can hold it in place long enough for the plane to safely land."

"Yeah....so about removing some of the bolts from the engine mount..."

I'm guessing it was something along those lines?

Well he was more on the defense side but conversations along those lines? Oh yes.

Its like that entire O-ring thing for the shuttle...when the Morton-Thiokol snr management told the head of engineering to take off his engineer hat and put on his management hat...when he was holding out for a launch delay for temps to rise...

Gawd, it won't be the terrorists but the bean counters that kill us all. And have we learned from that mistake? Let's see, now that spaceflight is ENTIRELY in the hands of the private sector...

In that case then the conversation probably went like this:

"Excuse me Mr Engineer, but what is the point of these mounting brackets at the bottom of the cockpit?"

"Uh, Mr. Bean Counter, those mounting brackets are for the ejection seat..."

"Ejection seat? Why does an aircraft need an ejection seat? Couldn't we use a seat from one of the first-class cabins?"

"Uh...Mr. Bean Counter, this is an F-15C Eagle."

"Yes it's a big aircraft with only one seat, seems rather wasteful.."

"It's an air superiority fighter. It's so big and only has one seat because it's meant to fly very fast and carry a lot of missiles."

"Uh huh..."

"And because it will be flying fast and carrying a lot of missiles in enemy territory, odds are at some point it will be shot at."

"Okay, I'm listening, go on Mr. Engineer..."

"And if an aircraft gets hit by a warhead while flying at 1.5 times the speed of sound, 99 percent of the time it will be unflyable."

"Yes, flying at supersonic speeds and warheads..."

"So if that happens Mr. Bean Counter the ejection seat will launch the brave pilot out of the aircraft and deploy a parachute, allowing him to land safely and be picked up by search and rescue, whereupon he can then be put into another F-15C Eagle that we sold them to fight another day."

"...I hear what you're saying, but couldn't you just install a big comfy seat from a first class cabin and give it bigger belts? Why can't he assume the position like airline passengers do if his airplane becomes unflyable?"

"...oh for fuck's sake..."

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is what happens when you wall street-ize products where quality is a necessity. Trying to outsource and lowball on parts and labor for products that absolutely demand nothing short of perfect quality is fucking dumb.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not on the same scale of Airbus. Airbus is still trying to figure out how to make the wing entirely out of composites (or weighing up whether or not to cheat like Boeing did) and find suppliers for everything. Not to mention the other problems remaining exclusive to the ultra-strech -1000 variant at the moment.

And you know what? Good for them for taking extra time to figure things out and work on problems. That way when A350s are being delivered they won't have problems with cracking glass, fires, or wings snapping off. They'll be well engineered, quality machines that don't put aircrews and passengers at undue risk.

You aren't seriously trying to imply that Boeing didn't put the 787 through intensive screening are you? Airbus has little choice but to figure things out and work on these problems.

The F-22 couldn't in heavy rain nor could it cross the international date line when first released. Shit just happens some times.

[Ethel mermania]

agreed, but this stuff should have been caught by internal qc, and then by the folks who certify the planes as flight worthy. it bodes well for no one, that these planes made it into passenger service, when they are still unsafe.

Yet there are countless examples of this happening for decades and decades. If you're going to crucify the 787 design team over this, at least crucify everybody.

Hell, you should look at the DC-10.

i have flown on dc10's. i feel old......

[Northern Dominus]

And you know what? Good for them for taking extra time to figure things out and work on problems. That way when A350s are being delivered they won't have problems with cracking glass, fires, or wings snapping off. They'll be well engineered, quality machines that don't put aircrews and passengers at undue risk.

You aren't seriously trying to imply that Boeing didn't put the 787 through intensive screening are you? Airbus has little choice but to figure things out and work on these problems.

The F-22 couldn't in heavy rain nor could it cross the international date line when first released. Shit just happens some times.

I don't have to imply anything. Look at the failure rate of Dreamliners and try to tell me that they were as extensively tested and not sub-contracted out into oblivion. I know new aircraft have a higher failure rate than average, but the kinds of things that are going wrong with Dreamliners should have been worked out in early testing.

And I agree, the F-22, while an amazing feat of engineering, also had a few issues as well that should have been worked out in prototyping. Chief among them was the NBC filter that gave pilots the infamous "Raptor Cough", as well as stupid bean-counting methods of fixing problems like re-installing a crappy valve for high-altitude maneuvers that didn't work in the F-15 or F-16. And don't get me started on the JSF either.

As NEMT put it, aircraft design and engineering has been infecetd with Bean Counting to an intolerable level know, and it will get people killed one day soon. Budget and profits should be their only concerns, not executive meddling in engineering.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Not on the same scale of Airbus. Airbus is still trying to figure out how to make the wing entirely out of composites (or weighing up whether or not to cheat like Boeing did) and find suppliers for everything. Not to mention the other problems remaining exclusive to the ultra-strech -1000 variant at the moment.

And you know what? Good for them for taking extra time to figure things out and work on problems. That way when A350s are being delivered they won't have problems with cracking glass, fires, or wings snapping off. They'll be well engineered, quality machines that don't put aircrews and passengers at undue risk.

Well he was more on the defense side but conversations along those lines? Oh yes.

Its like that entire O-ring thing for the shuttle...when the Morton-Thiokol snr management told the head of engineering to take off his engineer hat and put on his management hat...when he was holding out for a launch delay for temps to rise...

Gawd, it won't be the terrorists but the bean counters that kill us all. And have we learned from that mistake? Let's see, now that spaceflight is ENTIRELY in the hands of the private sector...

In that case then the conversation probably went like this:

"Excuse me Mr Engineer, but what is the point of these mounting brackets at the bottom of the cockpit?"

"Uh, Mr. Bean Counter, those mounting brackets are for the ejection seat..."

"Ejection seat? Why does an aircraft need an ejection seat? Couldn't we use a seat from one of the first-class cabins?"

"Uh...Mr. Bean Counter, this is an F-15C Eagle."

"Yes it's a big aircraft with only one seat, seems rather wasteful.."

"It's an air superiority fighter. It's so big and only has one seat because it's meant to fly very fast and carry a lot of missiles."

"Uh huh..."

"And because it will be flying fast and carrying a lot of missiles in enemy territory, odds are at some point it will be shot at."

"Okay, I'm listening, go on Mr. Engineer..."

"And if an aircraft gets hit by a warhead while flying at 1.5 times the speed of sound, 99 percent of the time it will be unflyable."

"Yes, flying at supersonic speeds and warheads..."

"So if that happens Mr. Bean Counter the ejection seat will launch the brave pilot out of the aircraft and deploy a parachute, allowing him to land safely and be picked up by search and rescue, whereupon he can then be put into another F-15C Eagle that we sold them to fight another day."

"...I hear what you're saying, but couldn't you just install a big comfy seat from a first class cabin and give it bigger belts? Why can't he assume the position like airline passengers do if his airplane becomes unflyable?"

"...oh for fuck's sake..."

excellent work!

Yet there are countless examples of this happening for decades and decades. If you're going to crucify the 787 design team over this, at least crucify everybody.

Hell, you should look at the DC-10.

i have flown on dc10's. i feel old......

Same here...hell I even flew in "Sir" Freddie Laker's DC-10's...

[Risottia]

i have flown on dc10's. i feel old......

I've flown on DC-10s and even on Tu-134s.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

i have flown on dc10's. i feel old......

I've flown on DC-10s and even on Tu-134s.

De Havilland Comet anyone? With Dan-Air...

[Vitaphone Racing]

You aren't seriously trying to imply that Boeing didn't put the 787 through intensive screening are you? Airbus has little choice but to figure things out and work on these problems.

The F-22 couldn't in heavy rain nor could it cross the international date line when first released. Shit just happens some times.

I don't have to imply anything. Look at the failure rate of Dreamliners and try to tell me that they were as extensively tested and not sub-contracted out into oblivion. I know new aircraft have a higher failure rate than average, but the kinds of things that are going wrong with Dreamliners should have been worked out in early testing.

And I agree, the F-22, while an amazing feat of engineering, also had a few issues as well that should have been worked out in prototyping. Chief among them was the NBC filter that gave pilots the infamous "Raptor Cough", as well as stupid bean-counting methods of fixing problems like re-installing a crappy valve for high-altitude maneuvers that didn't work in the F-15 or F-16. And don't get me started on the JSF either.

As NEMT put it, aircraft design and engineering has been infecetd with Bean Counting to an intolerable level know, and it will get people killed one day soon. Budget and profits should be their only concerns, not executive meddling in engineering.

I still have a problem that you seemingly think Boeing deliberately cut corners on the 787 yet Airbus decided out of nothing more than goodwill to engineer their aircraft properly. The 787 is not the first aircraft in the world to experience problems coming into service. The 737 and the 747, two of Boeing's most successful aircraft to date, had problems early on and they were fixed.

The failure rate for Dreamliners isn't out of the ordinary, battery pack aside.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/16/trave ... index.html

Like the article says; leaks and cracked windscreens happen all the time. If the 787 wasn't under such intense scrutiny then nobody would bat an eyelid. The 787 is the first aircraft to receive a vastly different battery pack to what the previous norm was and li-ion battery packs are known to have problems with temperature. Boeing has been professional and responsible about the whole issue. This is media sensationalism at it's finest, nothing more.

You keep talking about Boeing always looking for new ways to cut costs and that, but haven't offered any proof apart from saying MBE's and not engineers are running the show. I can't imagine Boeing is any more concerned about developing aircraft at the lowest cost possible than what they were in years gone by, nor any other company regardless of what they produce. It isn't good business to release flawed products, certainly not airliners, and I'm guessing Boeing knows this.

Either way, expecting products to be flawless and without fault is ridiculous. More often than not, a new line in any industry will be plagued with problems. Would you rather Boeing accepted the accusations on the chin and dealt with the battery pack issue (like they're doing) or pass it off as an isolated incident and let things work themselves out?