Al Baker needs to go pound sand. He knows how to run an airline, but has no knowledge of what it take to actually takes to design and build an aircraft. He wanted his airline to be among the first to fly the 787.

Al, It goes with the territory... Deal with it dude...

 

 

Al Baker (the Al is part of the surname btw, not his first name) probably knows more about designing a plane then you think. He also loves to make provocative statements. He's probably trying to pressure Boeing into giving him a discount on his next order by kicking up a stink now. Loud complaints about planes or aircraft manufacturers are all part of his style, give the name a quick Google and you'll see both Boeing and Airbus have been on the receiving end of an Al Baker press statement numerous times.

Al Baker (the Al is part of the surname btw, not his first name) probably knows more about designing a plane then you think. He also loves to make provocative statements. He's probably trying to pressure Boeing into giving him a discount on his next order by kicking up a stink now. Loud complaints about planes or aircraft manufacturers are all part of his style, give the name a quick Google and you'll see both Boeing and Airbus have been on the receiving end of an Al Baker press statement numerous times.

 

I'll do so, Thanks for the info.

 

I just get tired of his attitude with plane makers, like you said he blows alot of hot air to ruffle their feathers.

Qatar is a little fish in the airline world, but bluff and bluster doesn't get you what you want. Respect is something he needs to learn... You earn that, It's not given because you can scream and shout alot.

A little honey beats alot of vineger anyday...

 

I remember his Airbus rants too.

 

If needed, the Mod would be done in the field with engine on the airframe.

And will be done only on the engines that Engineering determines need the Mod.

Wiggens Fittings are the couplings in question here and are used all over the aviation world and are well known for their reliability and design.

Bad O-rings, or a number of other things could be the problem here.

Remember, this was designed in a computer, where EVERY part is perfect in every way. Real world isn't so perfect.

 

Raptor

 

Yea they could mod it on wing i suppose. Yea the mod would normally be called to engine serial numbers that were affected, but being new engines i would have thought that it would include all the engines . I work at an engine overhaul facility on many engine types so i know exactly what you mean by 'real world isnt perfect' :lol: And where did you hear they were wiggins fittings?

" Yea the mod would normally be called to engine serial numbers that were affected, but being new engines i would have thought that it would include all the engines . I work at an engine overhaul facility on many engine types so i know exactly what you mean by 'real world isnt perfect' :lol: And where did you hear they were wiggins fittings? "

 

What the defect is, and where and when the defects were found, an investigation is done to see which engines are affected with the condition, then you go fix those engines.

 

The serial number would be determine wether it was an affected engine or not. Being a new engine isn't necessarily the determining factor. The engine serial number is recorded in the aircraft paperwork to track what airframe which engine was installed on. Ex: A bad batch of O-rings would be investigated to see which engines they might have been installed on, then you go fix only those engines. There are batch numbers that are tracked in the build process for such parts like those. MSP is tracked in a similar manner. (Miscellaneous Small Parts:Bolts, screws, nuts washers clamps etc)

 

The AD and the notice to the airlines is online to see at the FAA website. They look like wiggens fittings, threaded type, then safety wired to lock them from loosening over time. They are Wiggens or something similar to them used in aviation. Kind of like AN, NAS fittings seen on all types of aircraft for alot of fluid systems.

 

Cheaper to send a field team, than ferry it back to Seattle, with questionable fuel system connections. Changing plumbing fittings is a very easy to accomplish in the field, even with the engine still installed on the wing. Lots of access panels allow work access to the plumbing that runs thru the pylon area. Hydraulic, electrical, pneaumatic, bleed air, fire supression, all have things that can break and need repair in those areas. You don't remove the engine these days if you can avoid it.

 

 

Quote:"Al Baker (the Al is part of the surname btw, not his first name) probably knows more about designing a plane then you think."

 

After looking this guy up, he is a business man who wouldn't have a clue how his airplane is designed and built.

He is good at running a business, but wouldn't know what an Adel clamp is if he saw one. And it is one of those things he is ranting about here. Trying to get a cheaper price this way ain't going to get him there. The manufacturer has a range they can work with in negotiation, but they aren't going to sell it at a loss. Perhaps he can wait for the nearest thing to a 787, if he wants a better deal. But, the A350 is late and has it's own problems right now. And will still have to get thru the same teething problems the 787 has had to get thru. Composite aircraft bring their own set of issues to the aviation game.

One saying in aviation goes: Don't buy the first few or the last few of a new type of plane. If you are going to be the "First on the Block", you incur certain risks. Mr Baker is learning that lesson.

Raptor

 

 

What the defect is, and where and when the defects were found, an investigation is done to see which engines are affected with the condition, then you go fix those engines.

 

The serial number would be determine wether it was an affected engine or not. Being a new engine isn't necessarily the determining factor. The engine serial number is recorded in the aircraft paperwork to track what airframe which engine was installed on. Ex: A bad batch of O-rings would be investigated to see which engines they might have been installed on, then you go fix only those engines. There are batch numbers that are tracked in the build process for such parts like those. MSP is tracked in a similar manner. (Miscellaneous Small Parts:Bolts, screws, nuts washers clamps etc)

 

The AD and the notice to the airlines is online to see at the FAA website. They look like wiggens fittings, threaded type, then safety wired to lock them from loosening over time. They are Wiggens or something similar to them used in aviation. Kind of like AN, NAS fittings seen on all types of aircraft for alot of fluid systems.

 

Cheaper to send a field team, than ferry it back to Seattle, with questionable fuel system connections. Changing plumbing fittings is a very easy to accomplish in the field, even with the engine still installed on the wing. Lots of access panels allow work access to the plumbing that runs thru the pylon area. Hydraulic, electrical, pneaumatic, bleed air, fire supression, all have things that can break and need repair in those areas. You don't remove the engine these days if you can avoid it.

 

 

Ive just gone to read the AD, im surprised at the cost of the repair, and also id like to think they would do this on wing also now.

 

I understand the engine serial number and tracability of the components, i do it everyday. I dont think i worded my answer right so sorry about that. You are right though. I think in this instance new seals and lockwiring is going to take place plus some other bits, should be no problem on wing.

 

Obviously i've never seen or got my hands on a 787 engine so cant comment on the fixtures that they have used. AN and NAS fittings are all i've ever come across. And obviously pipes with pre formed packaging gaskets for like fuel flow meters and in line filters etc...

 

And i dont envy the on wing guys, its hard enough when the engine is sitting in a cargo stand let alone hanging off the wing

<br />Obviously i've never seen or got my hands on a 787 engine so cant comment on the fixtures that they have used. AN and NAS fittings are all i've ever come across. And obviously pipes with pre formed packaging gaskets for like fuel flow meters and in line filters etc...<br /><br />And i dont envy the on wing guys, its hard enough when the engine is sitting in a cargo stand let alone hanging off the wing <br />

 

Same here, just add an airframe and it's the same type of work. Oh, and add scissor lifts to access the pylons and cowlings and it's the same process.

Torque stripe and Safety wire... sounds like you know the routine...

 

If it get to involved, they will drop the engine on a dolly and do it on the ground though.

 

Raptor

 

Yep, all to well! I just hope they get it sorted ^_^

I just get tired of his attitude with plane makers, like you said he blows alot of hot air to ruffle their feathers.

Qatar is a little fish in the airline world, but bluff and bluster doesn't get you what you want. Respect is something he needs to learn...

Aircraft, especially new models, are very expensive, and I would personally find it difficult to accept and tolerate such significant manufacturing defects. In an industry where customers can be quickly lost to competitors, costs and punctuality are extremely important to airlines.

 

If you think that it is acceptable for new aircraft to possess serious production issues, and that Qatar Airways should not have been surprised, you are seriously setting low standards for Boeing. If Qatar Airways should not have purchased the inevitably imperfect B787, which airline should have?

 

In my opinion, Al Baker is being perfectly respectful (e.g., not as blunt as the CEO of Ryanair), and has every right to be tough when a manufacturer does not deliver what was promised in a $200 million product.

 

Lastly, I wouldn't agree that Qatar Airways is a little fish. It is quickly becoming prominent for its quality and rapid expansion.

Edited December 20, 201213 yr by zowen11

 

Qatar is a little fish in the airline world,

 

I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aircraft, especially new models, are very expensive, and I would personally find it difficult to accept and tolerate such significant manufacturing defects. In an industry where customers can be quickly lost to competitors, costs and punctuality are extremely important to airlines.

 

If you think that it is acceptable for new aircraft to possess serious production issues, and that Qatar Airways should not be surprised, you are portraying Boeing negatively and setting low standards. If Qatar Airways should not have purchased the inevitably imperfect B787, which airline should have?

 

In my opinion, Al Baker is being perfectly respectful (e.g., not as blunt as the CEO of Ryanair), and has every right to be tough when a manufacturer does not deliver what was promised.

 

I wouldn't agree that Qatar Airways is a little fish. It is quickly become prominent for its quality and rapid expansion.

 

Any piece of new technology has teething issues. That was probably true for the first stone tools we used, and it's certainly true for complex machines that take ten thousand people a decade to design and build. That there will be small problems to be worked out on the first models of a plane is a given, which is why they are usually sold cheaper. I agree that Qatar is not exactly a small fish though, and talking tough is all part of Al Baker's style, so it must be working for him.

Any piece of new technology has teething issues. That was probably true for the first stone tools we used, and it's certainly true for complex machines that take ten thousand people a decade to design and build. That there will be small problems to be worked out on the first models of a plane is a given

I edited my post a few minutes ago in order to make it sound less negative, but then again, fuel leaks and missing fuel components are not really "small issues".

Heat is on Boeing for supposd lack of Quality Assurance, as evidenced by the 280 Boeing 777s that's were found to have been delivered with missing clamps and loose wiring, and now the 787s delivered with fuel line connectors not installed.

 

A Qatar 787 was forced to make an emergency landing with a faulty generator.

 

Quoting the Qatar chairman:

 

“These problems are unacceptable because this aircraft has been flying for the last 14 months,” Al Baker said in an interview. “They have to get their act together very fast because we at Qatar Airways will not accept any more defects.”

 

“Two aircraft having the same problem -- the same major problem -- so quickly is a cause of concern,” Al Baker said, adding that Doha-based Qatar Air will ask Boeing to cover its losses. “Definitely we will demand compensation. We are not buying airplanes from them to put in a museum.”

 

Well this is interesting. Recently, I was at the Boeing 787 assembly plant up in Everett Washington, and found that after BOEING QA engineers sign off on EACH PLANE each step of the way during assembly, the CLIENT AIRLINE has their OWN QA team of engineers come right behind BOEING and sign off for the AIRLINE -. step-by-step all the way down the assembly line.

 

So while your post certainly gives cause for concern, it is within the realm of possibility that some of the new-car bugs are surfacing as they always do in ANY new airplane. The 787 has a totally different external skin, and eliminated over 50,000 rivets by using lighter and more fuel-efficient composite material instead of the old aluminum panels.

 

It's unfortunate that aircraft are still assembled by human beings. There will always be the possibility of human error - and thus the importance of QA is magnified, no question. That 280 aircraft got through production with this issue is incredible, because Everett only builds 2.5 Dreamliners per MONTH. That's right, 2 and 1/2. Not 20 or 100. They build 30 747's a month in the SAME plant. That tells you that production is very slow on the Dreamliner, probably because it's so very new!

 

14 months of production experience is not a very long in the development cycle of an airliner that has several revolutionary design changes. Also, the engines themselves are not made by BOEING but by GE or Rolls-Royce, and there have been some issues reported with the engines. I recognize FUEL COUPLERS are NOT engine issues.

 

My point is simply that say five years from now, there will have been a lot more 'real world' production and airborne flight hours of experience to refine the Dreamliner. Meanwhile, It's a good bet that ALL the engineers (both manufacturer and client-side) will be working feverishly to prevent mistakes such as this in future.

 

The greatest danger to passengers, though, still isn't manufacturing defects. It's pilot fatigue. I remember a flight out of Detroit where distracted pilots let a last-minute departing runway assignment change on the taxiway (by ATC) cause them both to forget to set the flaps prior to takeoff.

 

The Captain missed a taxiway turn, adding to the distraction. The pre-takeoff checklist never got run. The pilots were in a hurry to depart to avoid threatening weather, and were tired and at least 30 minutes behind schedule as they were about to take off on the second leg of a three-leg flight plan. Visibility was bad and it was nighttime.

 

The plane barely got into the air then crashed and disintegrated near the airport. Forgot to set the flaps before takeoff? Really? Maybe a new GA pilot-in-training, but two seasoned professional pilots working for a major airline?

 

Turns out that many commercial pilots are guilty of routinely disabling some of the onboard protective alarms so they can taxi with a single engine and not have to hear the warning horn squawking. They deliberately pull the circuit breaker on the warning horns prior to taxiing, and there was evidence of that on this plane's circuit breaker panel.

 

About 200 people lost their lives. There are flap warning horns on the airplane that would have sounded automatically when the captain raised the throttles to takeoff position, but because the breaker was pulled, no warning was heard on the black box recorder.

 

All the QA in the world won't stop things like that from happening, no matter how well-designed and well-engineered an airplane is. Honestly, that scares the heck out of me.

Posting about these specific problems with this or any aircraft program leads me to think.....When does an aircraft not have problems??? I don't believe that is ever possible.

Aircraft, especially new models, are very expensive, and I would personally find it difficult to accept and tolerate such significant defects. In a world where customers can be quickly lost to competitors, costs are extremely important to airlines. If you say that it is acceptable for new aircraft to have issues, and Qatar Airways should not be surprised that there are a few, you are seriously portraying Boeing negatively and setting low standards. Which airline do you expect to purchase them then? Al Baker is being perfectly respectful (not as blunt as the CEO as Ryanair), has every right to be tough when a manufacturer does not deliver what was promised.

 

I wouldn't agree that Qatar Airways is a little fish. It is quickly become prominent for its quality and rapid expansion.

 

No new ground breaking aircraft has EVER gone without having what are known in the industry as Unk-Unks (AKA: Unknown Unknowns that all the computer modeling and flight testing can hope to uncover.) Problems will manifest themselves in normal service and will be taken care of in due course.

Mr Bakers screaming about it, doesn't get his airplane fixed any faster... Trust me, it doesn't work that way. Whom ever has the greatest number of planes affected will be toward the front of the fix it line.

The Comet is but one glaring example of trial and tribulations of bringing a new aircraft into service, and Unk-Unks.

No one saw metal fatigue as an issue, and the fix so simple to introduce.

Many issues won't manifest theirselves until the aircraft is in service and gets to fly real world flights in real world conditions.

Thats what AD's and manufacturing bulletins are in place to do. It works the same way that a recall for a car does.

 

The A380 didn't exactly go smoothly either. Wiring issues, as in not long enough to reach where they were supposed to go. Now Airbus is working on wing strength fixes for the aircraft in the field, very similar to the composite problems on the 787. Sounds like this Boeing issue, doesn't it ???

The A350 is behind it's schedule for alot of the same reasons the 787 was delayed. That time is being well used by Airbus to work out the details and potential issues.

A Generator going down isn't very uncommon. BTW, it was one of four such 250 Kva generators driven by the engines, not to mention the two 225 Kva APU driven ones, that can be brought on line if the need arises.

A precautionary landing was done and a replacement generator will be installed free of charge to Mr Baker under warranty.

They are a relativly small airline when one looks at the numbers from the IATA data.

 

Raptor

 

I edited my post a few minutes ago in order to make it sound less negative, but then again, fuel leaks and missing fuel components are not really "small issues".

 

Depends where the fuel leak is. Not being sarcastic, but it really does matter. There is a allowace that engineering allows for in the operations documentation that comes with each aircraft. If you have a steady stream, of course not. But a puddle can be just fine, depending on location.

No new ground breaking aircraft has EVER gone without having what are known in the industry as Unk-Unks (AKA: Unknown Unknowns that all the computer modeling and flight testing can hope to uncover.) Problems will manifest themselves in normal service and will be taken care of in due course.

Mr Bakers screaming about it

True, but you seem to over-criticize and exaggerate. Al Baker was not screaming, and has every right and valid reasons to be dissatisfied as a customer of such an expensive product! As a manufacturer, you should be prepared to take criticism when you do something incorrectly.

 

They are a relativly small airline when one looks at the numbers from the IATA data.

Small does not equate to insignificance. Airlines become quite influential when they are highly regarded by customers and the industry as Qatar Airways is.