This is not a good story for Boeing or the poor people obliged to spend lots of time in flying metal tubes.

I only make about four shortish flights a year now.

Usually on Airbus 'planes.

Composite tubes in this case, which I think is the problem. Gaps in the layup - maybe they used regular plywood not marine plywood?

and they used quite expensive paint (*) to cover the gap properly. You can't see it, therefore it isn't there.

(*) water soluble, of course, to protect the environment

*only* four flights a year!? Guess you are from North America.

I only make about ONE flight every four years, and will probably take the train from now on wherever possible. It takes a bit longer, but so much more fun.

I really fucking hate flying because :-

o It hurts my ears.

o You have to queue for hours to get through security theatre / baggage, etc.

o It's just stressful.

o I hate being squashed into a tiny seat.

o The noise.

o The food.

So, basically this is just one more reason to add to my list of avoiding flying. If I could afford business class then it would remove many of these things from my list, but I can't.

If I'm going from England to Scotland I'll just drive or take the train. To Europe I'll take the train.

Probably by the time I reach retirement, It'll be like the Cote D'azure in Scunthorpe, so not much reason to fly for warm weather.

(For the benefit of some Americans - I'm joking - Scunthorpe has an interesting middle bit in the word which used to flummox profanity filters, but that's about all)

Why would anybody want to filter out the name of the Norse god of weather?

Fly the Boeing board to a meeting on a 787

Que sera sera.

Put the boardroom in a 787.

No 737 Max 8

I seem to remember Boeing claiming something else was perfectly safe, yet two planes full of people died.

Maybe they were talking about the safety of their bottom line and bonuses.

Did you think they meant the passengers/victims of corporate irresponsibility?

" The issues raised have been subject to rigorous engineering examination under FAA oversight. "

The thing is, most of Boeing's problems have stemmed from the FAA looking over their work.

Oversight is a useful word.

The problem is conservatives have allowed Boeing employees to be the FAA inspectors.

Greetings, visitor from a different timeline.

Boeing has been at the pointy end of a lot of criticism recently, and deservedly so. But that's usually a result of their poor working practices, cutting corners, shaving costs, etc. i.e. Just plain doing their job wrong .

In this case though, all the whistleblower is saying is that, in his opinion, the actual design of the aircraft is wrong. The same design that actually does go through a LOT of rigorous testing and sign-off. (regardless of how shoddily it's all assembled at the end). If there really were fundamental flaws in the blueprints, someone else absolutely would have noticed.

This smells more of someone wanting their 15 minutes of fame.

Deficiencies in the construction of early 787s (specifically in how the sections are attached) has been raised multiple times over the years by different people. The different sections would end up with quite different diameters making joining them together difficult, they managed to get the variation down on the later made ones.

All of the early Dreamliner's will be going through a D check soon as they get to 12 years of age, so hopefully if there are any issues they will be caught at that stage.

No, Actually.

The Allegations are that the manufactured items are not close enough to the spec designs, reuslting in larger gaps than the design allows.

The solution would be to manufacture to better tolerances, but Boeing, to use your phrasing, is cutting corners and instigating poor working practices in order to shave costs.

So yeah, they are still doing the "thing" that has caused them so much recent trouble : profits over sound products.

And it's not opinion. It is a standard assembly practice to MEASURE the gaps, and if within tolerances, apply *designed* corrections.

But for that you need to keep records, right ?

I find it totally bizarre that you reach for the "15 minutes of fame" cover excuse. If you are going to mindlessly defend Boing, then I'd appreciate a little more effort.

This smells of pointlessly argumentative.

I recently changed my plans, at my own cost, to avoid flying on a Ryanair Max 8. I was concerned that when confronted by the plane at the airport gate, I wouldn't be able to make myself get on board.

However, if you look at the statistics, even the "crashy" Max 8 is far, far, far safer than your drive to the airport in your car/taxi/bus.

Yes, especially if you let my father in law drive you to the airport.

You know at this point in history, I will gladly side with the person who thinks its unsafe.

It strikes me as very suspicious and handwaving to say there is no issue on the basis of "trust me bro"

Even if it is a worry on that one plane, you bring it in, assess, then tell them yes or no if it was a good idea a founded in reality.

If issues as described arrived on the one plane you immediately ground all others and remediate the problem followed by extensive testing and recertification of those craft before returning it to service.

Then you can confidently say yes we looked, here are the results, there indeed was or wasn't a problem and you can rest assured.

The fobbing off of potential lives at risk is hard to take from the company that deliberately crash 2 planes killing 346 people, after ignoring the same warnings before.

Well duh. It's not like you're going to actually say anything like : "well we are considering grounding our entire fleet for an extensive security review".

That would basically shut down the company. Permanently.

So no, head chief engineer and all spokesdrones are going to be "confident" in their planes - even though they avoid flying on them.