The 737 Fiasco

[achace]

Just been playing with numbers on what the fastener fiasco is likely to do to Boeing.

Just like the fastener issue on the 787, it would be fair to assume that a good number of them will not be readily accessible, so lets assume 1 hour per fastener, plus the cost of the fastener say $2 each.

So we start with $456,000, assuming that with overheads, Boeing costs are $150/ man hour.

3000 hours is probably a one month delay per airframe. This would represent a 2% delivery penalty based on half percent per month to a maximum of 5% of contract value.
At $60 million each, the penalty becomes $1.2 million per airplane, and they build around 30 per month.

On top of this is the lost (delayed) revenue, so conservatively they are losing $2 million per plane.

Expand that to the 787 line issues, the 748 problems and the numbers are horrendous.

[jan_olieslagers]

fiasco? B737? wasn't that one of the most succesful airliners ever? what did I miss?

[Prevangor]

Their sub-sub-contractor has assembled several 737 fuselages with fasteners ("nutplates") that are missing the ani-oxidation cadmium coating.

An interesting summary of Boeing's on-going disasters:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ource=mypi

[BrightCedars]

Outsourcing of your core business often comes in pair with increased overhead cost, increase oversight spending, and these kinds of risks. As usually the decision to outsource is more financially motivated than anything else and so this necessary new spending is overlooked to make the proposition more attractive. It is only later that one (company) realizes how much more expensive it becomes than it used to be. But by that time often the bean counter that sprouted the idea of outsourcing has been promoted to the post of CEO thanks to (temporary) better yields on the share value, and so the mess gets even bigger and the medicine will only need to be stronger.

I am far from protectionist but outsourcing your core business is bad business practice, and wrongly evaluating some essential parts of your business as non-core will be a deadly mistake.

[jan_olieslagers]

Their sub-sub-contractor has assembled several 737 fuselages with fasteners ("nutplates") that are missing the ani-oxidation cadmium coating.

An interesting summary of Boeing's on-going disasters:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ource=mypi

Must be a matter of vocabulary. To me "fiasco"* indicates an utter failure, and "disaster" means a lot of people got killed. Stories of this kind are to me "issues" or "problems" and every entrepreneur gets her/his share of those. That said: I never understood the urge to outsource, not even of non-core activities. It sure became a buzzword but in my own job I see little success from it, and lots of problems and frustration.

*this word seems Italian to me - is there a native speaker of that lingo around, who could illustrate the original meaning?

[flightlover]

Lets dont get this in to a lingual discussion. But this is just a figure of speach.

For most people a fiasco is when something is going terribly wrong as happened with Boeing and their nutplates.

And out-sourcing for me is only a good idea when there are specialist tools and people u need to make or do something that u do not need to often. So it wouldn't be economicly interesting to acquire it your self.

[smokejumper]

737 issues, 747-8 issues, 787 isssues - seems like the wheels are coming off the wagon!

[regi]

Dear members, please allow me to intervene here.
I personally referred to this fastener problem a long time ago already, that it was a shame that this happened. I have the right to speak about it because it is my professional activity.
First of all: fasteners (easely said: nuts and bolts ) are not the core business of Boeing, Airbus or any other airplane manufacturer. If you would know the investment cost to install hot and cold forming machines, heat treatment installations, plating, turning and milling, grinding, tread rolling, just name it, it would "double" the price of an airplane. Certainly in the view of the very small amount of parts that they need. ( compared to the car industry )
There are many fastener manufacturers , and some are specialised in the aviation industry.
Secondly , it is a very big mistake to save some money on fasteners, bearings and seals. Remember the disaster with the Challenger, due to 1 failing O-ring.
These items cost "nothing" compared to the overall cost. But it is very easy to buy fasteners for half of the actual price.
My humble personnal view is that it went wrong in the total quality procedure of Boeing. For example: if you apply (cadmium) plating, you can have it in several colours. Boeing should have ordered the parts being plated in a specified colour. If the parts come in , uncoloured, well ,immediately they would have known that the parts were not plated. ( small correction: even if the parts are colour plated, you still have to trust the subcontractor for the amount/quality of plating )
It is too easy to blame the subcontractor: mistakes happen everywhere. But it is Boeing that uses the parts on its airplanes.
I know for example how Rolls Royce makes partnerships with some of its suppliers of critical parts ( such as fasteners) . The quality inspectors of RR are allowed to enter the manufacturing site unanounced, walk straight into every department ( manufatcuring, finishing, treatment, packaging, quality etcetera ) and do an inspection. In some cases the company director hears about the visit after the controller has gone already . No time to cheat or hide. The reward is a partnership instead of a lose customer-supplier relationship.

[regi]

for people who have time, go through this website of a DIY experience of making a small airplane.
http://n7zs.net/050701/
a lot of details and pictures, and certainly a lot about the problems with rivets, also a kind of fastener.

[smokejumper]

Dear members, please allow me to intervene here.
I personally referred to this fastener problem a long time ago already, that it was a shame that this happened. I have the right to speak about it because it is my professional activity.
First of all: fasteners (easely said: nuts and bolts ) are not the core business of Boeing, Airbus or any other airplane manufacturer. If you would know the investment cost to install hot and cold forming machines, heat treatment installations, plating, turning and milling, grinding, tread rolling, just name it, it would "double" the price of an airplane. Certainly in the view of the very small amount of parts that they need. ( compared to the car industry )
There are many fastener manufacturers , and some are specialised in the aviation industry.
Secondly , it is a very big mistake to save some money on fasteners, bearings and seals. Remember the disaster with the Challenger, due to 1 failing O-ring.
These items cost "nothing" compared to the overall cost. But it is very easy to buy fasteners for half of the actual price.
My humble personnal view is that it went wrong in the total quality procedure of Boeing. For example: if you apply (cadmium) plating, you can have it in several colours. Boeing should have ordered the parts being plated in a specified colour. If the parts come in , uncoloured, well ,immediately they would have known that the parts were not plated. ( small correction: even if the parts are colour plated, you still have to trust the subcontractor for the amount/quality of plating )
It is too easy to blame the subcontractor: mistakes happen everywhere. But it is Boeing that uses the parts on its airplanes.
I know for example how Rolls Royce makes partnerships with some of its suppliers of critical parts ( such as fasteners) . The quality inspectors of RR are allowed to enter the manufacturing site unanounced, walk straight into every department ( manufatcuring, finishing, treatment, packaging, quality etcetera ) and do an inspection. In some cases the company director hears about the visit after the controller has gone already . No time to cheat or hide. The reward is a partnership instead of a lose customer-supplier relationship.

It is Boeing's (and any other airframe manufacturer) respnsibility to ensure that all parts meet specifications. A rigorous test program or test certification (by the actual part manufacturer) documents that all parts meet spec. In the case of the Boeing 737, Boeing designed the plane (and its' parts). The actual 737 fuselage is assembled by Spirit Aviation in Wichita (Kansas) to Boeing's design. Spirit procures the parts from a nnumber of venders and assembles the fuselage (you can see them on rail cars behind the Spirit factory awaiting shipment to Renton (Washington - distance 1850 mi. or 3000 Km.). When any part is received, it is the asssembler's responsibility to test it and ensure that it meets specs. Boeing is ultimately faulted by not ensuring that Spirit documented the parts as meeting specifications.

[regi]

Thank you Smokejumper to give some extra details.
So you do agree that it is ultimately Boeing fault that it went wrong with some 10 cent / piece fasteners ?
It almost sounds unbelievable that during such a important manufacturing step, there was no ( constant ) quality control by Boeing on site.

[RC20]

Some comments from a mechanic who works with fasteners (not on aircarft)

Shuttle O Rings: The O ring was not at issue, nor any of the quality of the components.
What was at issue was taking those componenrs (the O ring and sealant materiel ) below the temperature that they had been flight certified at. I.e. if you want to launch at 20 degrees, flight certify the O ring for 0 degrees or better (and its joint sealing material).

Some time back I cam across one 0of our high quality fastener supplier who had stared to outsource their stuff overseas (we are talking grade 5/8 and 8+ class stuff, not the cheap stuff). Their take was they could do it at a lower cost.
What happened was sub grade fasteners started slipping in. Batches of them.

The answer, no, lets not go back to those US fasten makers who we had no problems with in the past, lets setup a huge laboratory to test the fasteners. Hmmmmmmm.

US manufactures are close to their source, accountable and likely to suffer losses of the entire business if they screw up. Overseas, they can get away with it because they can just sell the junk someplace else.

Unfortunately that also seems to be creeping into the US (some misadventures took on parts of the 787 they could not deliver hoping that they could fake their way through it).

As the Fram oil filter guy said, you can pay me now or pay me latter (and it turned out that Fram outsourced their filters to the Philippines and we w0und up paying for that as well)

[RC20]

More comment:

I would not call this a fiasco, that would be something that requires a major design change and holds up a program (all the 787s issues combined are approaching if not exceeding Fiasco level)

Its a screw up, and not a horribly serious one.

The ones that are in the field will have these easily removed when they do the D check as its not structural and only long term corrosion issue.

IN production ones an annoyance, depending on how finished they are. Probably take 5 minutes a fastener to replace. Insulation has to be striped, so cargo hold not a problem, upper areas yes if they have that installed. Cabin interior more so. Fly em to Dallas where they await 787s to complete and put the boys to work. Actually its a back to work program for a struggling economy (if you want to look on the bright side)