Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

One aviation incident?

The article currently states "Boeing 787 has been involved in one aviation incident". It's not clear from the article text which of the various incidents is being counted as the "one aviation incident". Is it the NH-692 battery fire? — RockMFR 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And you did the right thing by updating it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I updated that summary text. There are a total of five incidents listed now per the Aviation Safety Network site. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I mixed up. Thanks Fnlayson!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, 50 injuries on the March 2024 LATAM flight between Australia and New Zealand.Newzild (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Quality-control issues in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given Boeing's engineering problems for the 737 MAX, the recent quality-control problems for the 787 seem significant enough for the lead, especially given the years of reporting covering quality issues for the 787. Indeed, the 787 stands out among Boeing planes for the number of whistleblowers fired over quality and safety objections. The quality issues for the 787 have also prompted the FAA to investigate basic production and quality processes across Boeing. Including a brief mention of these problems in the lead provides a more well-rounded description of the 787 as a whole. A number of planes have already experienced a second grounding due to these issues. Must the FAA ground the entire fleet again to warrant a mention in the lead? Please clarify the bar for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS all provide arguments for not adding it to the lead just yet. With the latest issue potentially affecting around 90% of the fleet, it does indeed seem likely that this will take on considerable importance. The corresponding section in the body will get expanded, and the issue will then meet the bar for due weight. But not yet. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A specific explanation of significance for this topic would be helpful. For the third grounding (and first repeat grounding) for Boeing in recent memory, in conjunction with the ensuing FAA investigation, I fail to see how a brief mention in the lead adds undue weight, acts as a crystal ball, or serves as a newspaper. Additionally, passengers like myself would like to know, at a glance, about any high-level FAA investigations and airframe issues. The FAA itself has noted "Boeing’s request for more time to resolve some issues 'adds to the risk of the fleet.'" (WSJ) i.e., prompt notification before larger problems arise is in the flying public's interest. 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Right now it is not an overwhelming problem: no fleet grounding, no large financial impact yet. It could be the case in the future, but not yet, and perhaps never.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would argue the 787 defects, following the MCAS debacle, already evidence a very significant shift away from Boeing's original engineering culture. The FAA likely would not have opened a broad review otherwise. Omitting these issues in the lead paints a very different and incomplete picture of the aircraft's reputation, verging on misleading, in my opinion. 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Prematurely accusing the 787 of being botched because the 737 MAX was the variant too far is misleading, in my opinion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how briefly mentioning an ongoing FAA investigation and recent defects prematurely accuses Boeing of botching the entire program. On the contrary, omitting any mention in the lead gives the faulty impression the 787 has been free of quality problems after the battery fires. 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Lead is supposed to summarize the whole article without giving undue weight to specifics. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, on the contrary, I would argue omitting the recent defects entirely gives an unbalanced understanding of the aircraft as a whole. If the defects themselves are still judged too specific for the lead, please consider adding just one sentence mentioning the ongoing FAA investigation, which surely holds some significance and keeps the lead current. 2600:1700:10A1:2E80:C587:ED7C:7B1F:62A7 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This shimming issue is covered in detail in the "Quality-control issues" subsection under Development. There are mentions of earlier shimming issues in this article also that did not get this much attention. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The most recent incident (LATAM flight from Australia to New Zealand) left 50 people injured. We've crossed that threshold now that it needs to be in the lede.Newzild (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Newzild Has the final report been released which determined the cause of the incident? It is not Wikipedia's job to put premature blame on any one party, so until the investigation is complete, we have not crossed any such threshold. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The incident has been widely reported in newspapers and is in the public domain. There is certainly a lot of public interest in the incident, which is clearly significant enough to be included in this article.

We must wait for the investigation to determine the cause of the incident to avoid prematurely casting blame in this article. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

POV material in "Incidents" section

I removed the following self-evidently POV material:

In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney stated that the 787's issues were no greater than those experienced with the introduction of other models such as the Boeing 777.

The deletion was reverted by Marc Lacoste (talk) - no reason given in the edit summary.

The statement is self evidently POV, and the CEO is equally self evidently not a Reliable Source - because not independent. Now, I have no idea if the claim is true or not, but if it is true we need a NPOV RS, and if it contested then we are giving undue weight to one side of the argument, and none at all to the other side.

Grateful for views. Springnuts (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes, this message is from a biased source but that is clearly stated in the text. The 787's overall safety record does seem comparable to the 777. The Operational problems and the battery problems subsections should be shortened and summarized more for proper weight of coverage, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• • no reason given in the edit summary: this is not true, I stated "not hidden" in the edit summary, in response to your edit summary "POV statement" as the POV of Boeing's CEO was clearly labelled as that, so it was not hidden. As explained by Fnlayson above, it is possible to quote people with an opinion if it's clearly stated, and it's a good thing Wikipedia can quote both sides. See WP:NPOV and WP:quote. If you want an other side of the story, you can search for that, for example in disappointed customers who could seek a compensation. It happened after the 737 MAX groundings. It may have happened for the 787, but I don't remember.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste My apologies - you did indeed give an edit explanation. I misread it as an automatic wiki generated tag I had never seen before! I have struck through. Springnuts (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. A balanced subsection about overall safety record would suit. If it is a significant point of interest then it would deserve its own section. Ideally where it is now, since I suspect that is the natural place for it. The usual summary of number of incidents, some statements about overall frequency, a little about claims that it’s more frequent than average, a little about claims that its average or less. The CEO statement would be happily situated there. Springnuts (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at its date it is not about the operational incidents at all - it pre-dates them all. So, I moved (here: [[1]]) the statement into the flight test programme section. I also amended slightly to clarify that in so far as the Boeing CEO can be a reliable and non-POV source, he is so only for Boeing products. I hope this is all OK with y'all. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak. Still, on its own it is a defensive response to ... well what? It needs context, otherwise it’s stuff. I’ll have another look at the sources. Springnuts (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving the text was OK, but it's one section too early. I moved to down to text closer to December 2012 timeframe. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - much better location. I have added some context from the sources. Springnuts (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Delivering?

According to this - if I read it correctly - [[2]] deliveries are not going to start again until November. But I understood deliveries were resumed in March? Springnuts (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Quality-control failures and production difficulties 2019-2021 section

Apologies for confusing rollback and re-rollback - and thanks to those who have worked on this section. I did restore the timeline as it breaks up an otherwise rather bitty large block of paras. Springnuts (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The dates are clearly stated in the text now. So the year labels are redundant. It'd be far better to use meaningful subsection labels. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Locations?

I've visiting Seattle, and a local said they are no longer being built in Everett, only in the non-union South.

True? 199.36.255.20 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Production was in Everett and North Charleston until Boeing concentrated all production at the latter location beginning in mid-2021. The text in the article covers this briefly; check the supporting references there for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Elegant variation as brochure language

Brochure:

The initial 186-foot-long (57 m) 787-8 typically seats 242 passengers over a range of 7,355 nmi (13,621 km), with a 502,500 lb (227.9 t) MTOW compared to 560,000 lb (250 t) for later variants.

The stretched 787-9, 206 ft (63 m) long, can fly 7,635 nmi (14,140 km) with 290 passengers; it entered service on August 7, 2014, with ANA.

The further stretched 787-10, 224 ft (68 m) long, seating 330 over 6,430 nmi (11,910 km), entered service with Singapore Airlines on April 3, 2018.

The words are different, and if that's not already enough, the order is different, too.

Terse and boring, but also dryly and efficiently informative (as trimmed of duplicate units for my own notes):

The 787-9, stretched to 63 m, flies 7,635 nmi with 290 passengers; it entered service in August 2014 with ANA.

The 787-10, stretched to 68 m, flies 6,430 nmi with 330 passengers; it entered service in April 2018 with Singapore Airlines.

We really should strive as hard as possible not to sound like a Boeing press release. Not that glowing PR is a bad thing, but it's readily available concerning this sensationally charismatic megaproject dreamchild everywhere else. — MaxEnt 17:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed as a Good Article

A while back this article was removed from the "Good Article" list because it didn't meet certain criteria. I don't see any specific reasons why it was taken off of the list even though the remark states that there are. Dose anyone else see any specific reasons that were given why it was taken off the list?

The 787 is an iconic, and in a lot of ways historic airplane, and there has been a lot of time and effort put into the article. I've been working to improve it and hope others will work on improving this great airplane's article. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

New incident

Take it away, boys. 2804:D4B:7924:6B00:7CF4:20A3:5476:3386 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)