ETOPS, The Wick On Boeings Lamp.

The battery issue is tied to FAA ETOPS evaluation, in that ETOPS is an intermediate control mechanism for the 787 long route service for which it was designed. The FAA can turn that wick back from 330 minutes, 180, or 120 minutes. Once the Boeing work-around on Boeing's battery fix returns to service, an FAA directive limiting the 787 to shorter runs using the ETOPS governance. That constraint will be in place until Boeing's intermediate route running satisfies its battery fix, with sustained flight without any faults. Boeing's wick won't turn up to a 360 minutes ETOPS until it has trimmed off all the electrical faults once and for all.

Dreamliner 787s: FAA says not considering extended ETOPS

Cricky:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The latest FAA guidance on the Dreamliner 787 situation says that no matter what it does and when about the current grounding order, it is no longer considering a Boeing request to extended its ETOPS rating from 180 minutes to 330 minutes.

Nor did it clarify whether or not it intended to restore the ETOPS 180 minutes rating the 787s had when they were grounded just over three months ago after failures in heavy duty lithium ion batteries in a Japan Airlines and an All Nippon Airways jet.

The top U.S. aviation regulator said on Tuesday he expects to decide “very soon” whether to approve Boeing Co’s redesigned 787 Dreamliner battery system, potentially ending a three-month ban on flights by the high-tech jet.

Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta, testifying to a congressional committee on air safety, said the agency is reviewing tests and analysis submitted by Boeing and will approve it when “we are satisfied Boeing has shown the redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements.”

Huerta told reporters after the hearing that he expects the battery decision to be made “very soon.”

Huerta said the FAA was working closely with the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating battery problems on two separate 787s in January, but would not necessarily link its decision to an NTSB hearing next week.

“We’re on our own timetable in terms of completing the analysis,” Huerta told reporters. “Once we’re ready to move and make a determination, we will.”

He also told the committee the FAA was considering separately whether to certify Boeing’s 787 for extended-range operations, known as ETOPS. The plane was approved for flights over remote areas of up to 180 minutes when it was grounded for two battery meltdowns in January.

Before the grounding, Boeing had requested an upgrade to 330 minutes, but Huerta told reporters the agency was “not considering any expansion beyond that (180) at this time.”

Reading those comments from a Qantas perspective, the Boeing interest in ETOPS 330 is irrelevant, because neither the airline, nor Australia’s air safety regulator CASA, have ever shown any official interest in a rule that allowed a 787 to fly up to 330 minutes single engine speed from a suitable and open emergency airfield.

CASA as the national safety regulator, has to approve the ETOPS rating of an Australian registered airliner even if the jet is certified to that standard at the hangar door by US standards.

This is because ETOPS reliability isn’t just built into an engine/airframe combination, but comes with some very tough maintenance procedures and reliability obligations which have to met by the airline concerned. ETOPS is not just what it is, but how it is done.

Critically, if a reliability problem arises with an ETOPS certified engine/airframe combination, that approval is revoked until the airliner and airline concerned both demonstrate that the unforgiving standards the process set for them has been restored. The grounding of the 787 means that its ETOPS 180 rating need not be restored as a matter of course when the grounding is lifted. It may be, but it may also be reduced to 120 minutes, or less.

Qantas subsidiary Jetstar, which on latest guidance may not get the first of 14 Boeing 787-8s on order until as much as several months after the intended initial delivery this August, needs ETOPS 180 to have an efficient and useful Dreamliner. Like all other modern twin engined wide body western jets in service with airlines world wide, Jetstar’s fleet of 10 Airbus A330-200s are ETOPS 180 rated.

They are to be returned to Qantas for mainly domestic use as Jetstar replaces them with Dreamliners. Anything less than ETOPS 180 is likely to seriously disrupt that process.  So already has the 787 grounding, and it is very important for the Qantas group that the 787-8s experience no more delays.

Boeing has said that fixing (after a fashion) the 787 battery problem with a super fire box to cover all eventualities has delayed by an unspecified period its work on the enhanced and stretched higher capacity longer range 787-9 Dreamliner, for which Qantas holds options or purchase rights from 2016.

Next week the US safety investigator, the NTSB, will hold public hearings into the process by which the Boeing 787 was certified by the FAA, and other related matters."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Battery/Electrical issues must be conclusively extinguished before proceeding and expanding ETOPS.

So Boeing 787 is left holding a 180 minute ETOP bag if lucky  probably, with the FAA. It may be reduced to 120 minutes if the confidence in the fix reduces. Boeing must make a valiant effort with its customers and FAA to preserve the 180 minute standard for  its 787. The 330 minute standard remains a pipe dream until 787 customers and Boeing demonstrates a confident maintenance, and operational standards that would support the 330 minutes. The maturation of the 787 and its systems need to catch up to The FAA's need for reliance in the aircraft.

Update #1: Boeing Is Leaving The Chips In the Pot Awaits NTSB/FAA Thumb Direction

The NTSB has stated the following:

“Boeing has to identify and properly mitigate the risks to the FAA’s satisfaction,” Hersman said. Lifting the grounding “really is up to the FAA.”

Has Boeing done that what is asked?

Does it know what causes thermal runaway with empirical data?

The answer appears to be a convoluted picture drawn by risk mitigations, contingency plans for safely flying during battery faults, and ground level factory assurances, before the battery is even installed. Does this plethora of  mitigations answer the two above questions offered by FAA?

Boeing has appeared to move its 787 beast forward by announcing new delivery schedules:


Etihad 2014 Boeing Announcement

In a statement on UAE news agency WAM, Boeing Senior Vice President, John Wojick said “Boeing is committed to engaging Etihad Airways as it will deliver the agreed aircrafts in the first quarter of next year.”

Etihad Airways to get 12 Boeing aircraft in 2014

The signed order includes 10 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners. This would bring the total number of aircraft purchased by Etihad to 41, to be delivered between 2014 and 2019.

Boeing to deliver Etihad Airways Aircrafts Early 2014

John Wojick has commended Etihad Airway's decision of buying 12 Boeing Aircraft at a total value of AED10.3 billion. The signed order includes 10 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, thus bringing the total of aircrafts purchased by Etihad to 41, to be delivered between 2014 and 2019, rendering it the largest operator of this model in the world.

A telling commitment is found with these above announcements.

Below are points to ponder:

Boeing, not one for being ahead of themselves, or over confident in the fix is moving ahead without any further hesitation. The following points are as follows:

1. They know what FAA and NTSB have before them, and what they want is found in the first two questions of this blog.

2. They have with certainty placed a solution that will not fail with rigorous further testing, through hearing, or examination.

3. Marketing is now acting to regain market momentum as the FAA and NTSB ponder its way through to a conclusion of Boeings workmanship on a solution. They, Boeing, have sufficiently presented a case that peer industry, and 3rd party technology concurring the state of the art, will sustain Boeing's case. The FAA and NTSB must on its own counter the solution with empirical data, or evidence that Boeing is wrong in its findings. Boeing is confident that after "due diligence" is given by the governing bodies, no such evidence will surface, and by May 2013, this will elevate to a provisional level where Boeing can fly while further testing is ongoing for supporting its solutions by Boeing.

4. Finally, after a clean track record, the electrical system will be accepted with all its layers of safety implemented, during normal operations, over the next several years it will fly with provisional monitoring, and then it will be put rest with a follow-on validation report by the FAA if no further problems occur within the provisional period.

Updated-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wall Street Journal 4-16-2013  Link to full article.

Boeing 787 Has Completed Tests, FAA Says

Lead in: 

By ANDY PASZTOR, WSJ

"The Federal Aviation Administration said Boeing Co. BA -0.30% "has completed all required tests and analysis" intended to demonstrate the safety of battery fixes on its 787 jets."

LiftnDrag Opinion:

The FAA does not have the scientific or leading edge technology of its own, other than that Boeing has acquired in making this technology fly. They have placed themselves into a position of decision-making over a multi billion dollar industry using Boeing's data as a basis for judgement, of which it lacks first hand expertise on the subject matter. I find it difficult for the FAA to stall further out of its own ignorance on the subject, where few people have the expertise on lithium-ion batteries and electrical architecture. 

The FAA knows this and so does Boeing. What I see is a pause on the decision until FAA catches up on Boeing's solutions and it can also amass some third party input before rendering a decision. A decision will be made as soon as FAA can position itself as some kind of authority over the issue, and has confidence in its decision over Boeing, while using the company's (Boeing) own solution as basis of its decision. Bottom line, the FAA wants to remove itself from any future claim if the Battery/electrical system faults and remain an authority over aviation's progress.

How can a new future technology innovated by Boeing, be governed by FAA conventional wisdom? Who, as a governmental agency, does not obtain or can evaluate that empirical evidence other than from the same company that it is examining? This conundrum is the holdup of the FAA. There is no subject matter expert to call up,  other than Boeing on this application of the Lithium-Ion battery used in an all electric airplane. Boeing has exceeded the relevant range of the FAA knowledge.  Now Boeing must wait until the governing body catches up.  When you talk in weeks its really an assent of faith by the FAA in Boeing's technological status, as a safe airplane maker. It will be a leap of faith by FAA to approve the fix.  Boeing knows this and it stakes its reputation on this conundrum of procedural approval. I have confidence in the fix without high level inside information. The FAA needs a reason to have that same level of confidence. It will take years for them to catch up to Boeing for having the same level of knowledge gained from Boeing's 100's of thousands of engineers and workers.

Two steps yet remaining on the table for immediate 787 flight.

Boeing= We need an approval document please, the work is done and complete!

FAA= We need to issue a CYA (cover your a**) document with good rational, after we learn What Boeing Knows  (WBK)!

The 787 When Will It Profit

The words, “when will it profit”, always seems to come up concerning the 787. This latest foray into the unknowns of glitch and change sets all the profit timetables back some, but not out.  The big picture is the overall new technology that will define air travel for some years to come. Whether it will be for the 777X program or for the 787 9-10’s. The profit picture no longer hangs on current sales, but on the overall impact of the change model Boeing has built in the 787. The program is still a risk which is steadily being squeezed down into simple manageable risks. This latest problem with the battery/electrical is a turning point for the program. Once settled there are just a few outstanding items possibly that could turn-up just as a matter of new aircraft refinement. Where hours, cycles and supply chain normally reveal during the maturing process, but only in limited numbers and severity. The electrical area is the big ticket item that requires this process a full understanding, and a full resolution. Airbus has a strategy or tendency for side stepping road blocks by selecting old technology over new when trying to make a mad dash of catching Boeing’s technological advances. Airbus may return to Lithium-ion once Boeing, FAA, and NTSB solve the issues. Airbus sees it as, nothing visible to passengers and nothing risked by its customers keeps aircraft selling. Boeing sees it as a quantum play for leaping ahead of Airbus once all the irons have cooled down in the fire.

Having stated this proposition of how the effects of new technology on the profit line for Boeing, it would be difficult to pinpoint a time when this will show up on the bottom line. Right now it is suspended in a gamblers nightmare of; do you let the money ride while throwing more money in to kept the game alive? If you do, Boeing would make all its money back in bucket loads, when the other hands fold. Boeing is at that crossroad on the 787 gamble. It will stay all in and ride it out, because that is the only way it can win. The investors know it and have responded as Boeing’s stock has elevated during the last three months. Airbus has backed off of Lithium-ion where it will add some weight, lose some battery performance and avoid a timetable crunch to get the A350 airborne.

Does Boeing gain enough by sticking with a heavier encasement for the battery? The 150 pound weight gain found in the 787 battery solution brings it closer to Airbus’s A350 battery weight. However, the performance of the lithium keeps the 787 a better performing Aircraft. I am sure Airbus is keenly watching this development as it has already switched back to the older, heavier and underperforming battery system as compared to Boeing’s Lithium-ion setup  The 150 weight gain may have to come out of reducing some parts items at one ounce at a time. Airbus could switch back to Lithium-Ion once the Aircraft is moved onto the flight line, letting Boeing do all the heavy lifting on this issue.

Quoting The Press:

“In this context, and with a view to ensuring the highest level of programme certainty, Airbus has decided to activate its plan B and therefore to revert back to the proven and mastered nickel cadmium main batteries for its A350 . . . programme.”

Aspire's Aviation, Boeing 777X Analysis

Aspires Aviation Featured Points of Interest: 

(Everything below the ("cut") and above the ("paste") is Aspire Aviation's clips from its Article) please read the article for additional information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------cut----------------------------------------------------------------------------

• GE9X to feature 16 blades, versus 18 on GEnx engines
• Folding wingtip to be operated hydraulically
• Folding wingtip to improve lift-to-drag by 12%
• Folding wingtip 800lbs weight penalty, against 777-200′s 3,200lbs
• 777X to remain ICAO Code E aircraft on aprons
• 787-styled tail fin, elimination of overwing exit confirmed
• Elimination of overwing exit saves 1,000lbs of weight
• 787-styled larger dimmable windows, lower cabin altitude being studied
• 777-8X & -9X range boosted to around 8,100nm
• 777-8X to compete with A350-1000, banks on commonality advantages

Read full article on Link:

Kudos to Aspire Aviation as it lays out the 777X progress and arguments as a competitor.

“I think they are ready to go on that. I am hoping that within the next two or three weeks, we will engage with Boeing almost on a formal basis,” Emirates president Tim Clark was quoted as saying.

------------------------------------------paste-----------------------------------

Boeing is getting ready reach an important moment on the 777X. What is happening on the 787 affects the 777X program. Case in point, The 787 ETOPS will be resolved shortly with the assurance of the FAA after its testing and validation. A required step for full 787 functionality, stating the 787 is fit for service. 

Why the hesitation? Simplistic answer is that the FAA, NTSB and others must show its done its due diligence in certifying a troubled system. Before releasing the 787 back to its pre battery fire status. They must take Boeing to the brink and back again in the sweat box of examinations and posturing to appease all critics of Boeing's 787. Boeing is sweating and is scrambling and they will pass. 

The 777X is on because Boeing has the assurance that the 787 solution will pass an ETOP's review, IF they complete another ETOP's battery of tests. The caveat is found in the word, "If".

So with that in mind what has Boeing and Aspire wrought for the 777X? 

LiftnDrag summy of  Aspire Article in Bullet Points:

• Acceleration of 777X program during March 2013
• Movement of VP's, Best fit for specific project maturations such as for 737 Max, 787 and 777X
• 777X incorporates more 787 features for commonalities, linkage to Battery solution and ETOPs
• Carbon Fiber Wings not necessarily folding!

---------------------------------------cut-----------------------------------------

This folding wingtip, along with a 787-styled wing, is going to enable Boeing to achieve a 12% improvement in lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio with a minimal weight penalty at 800lbs (362.8kg), compared to the 3,200lbs (1.45 tonnes) weight penalty associated with the original folding wingtip design studied on the 777-200, while adding 30m² (322.9ft²) wing area added to the 777-300ER’s one of 436.8m² (“Boeing 777X & 787-10X unfazed by 787 battery woes“, 14th Feb, 13).

---------------------------------------paste---------------------------------------

• Skin Technology is changing, 12% weight savings:

---------------------------------------cut----------------------------------------------

"On the other hand, while the fuselage material choice remains wide open in selecting either the traditional aluminium or 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium for the 777X, Aspire Aviation believes choosing Alcoa’s 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium that will reduce weight by 12% and 6% reduction in skin friction is pivotal to providing a larger window size and lowering the cabin altitude despite the higher cost involved.

Crucially, 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium technology is a proven and mature one that is readily available today, such as Alcoa’s Al-Li 2060-T8E30 product has an around 16.7% higher specific strength than the Al 2524-T3 used on today’s 777 to around 175 MPa/(gm/cm³) from its predecessor’s 150 MPa/(gm/cm³), with a higher stretch form-ability  Moreover, choosing the aluminium-lithium for the 777X will require no change in production tooling but only a change in coating, a misconception disproved by Spirit AeroSystems’ 737 rear fuselage panel using the Al-Li 2060 material with existing production tooling."

-----------------------------------------------------------------paste-------------------------------------------------------------

• 787 like flight surfaces note: Vertical stabilizer like 787

So  lets call the 777X another Max aircraft. They are stripping technology off the 787 like its a pick-apart jalopy salvage yard. Nothing is wrong with that approach, and Boeing is doing something sensible by building on technology paid for with money lost on the 787 project. Its the lessons learned jalopy going from the yard to formula one racing. A very crude analogy but the description shows a transition from the 787, back to an upgraded 777X,  without starting with a clean chalkboard for its all new 777X designs. Jeep came out with a badge on its 4x4 Jeeps as "Trail Rated".  The Max and the 777X should wear a Badge on its hull as "787 Optimized".

However, that should wait about two years until the battery problem is discharged. ETOPs restriction is not a bluff, or will it not really become an implementation of the FAA. The Boeing company will fiercely do its job and get the 787 to ETOPs certification once again, through a demonstration over the next six months on no Battery issues. Even if it has to buy the battery company and do it right. Shared technology risks are a bugger too, it can bit back if your supplier fails to execute when depending on that execution. Risks are called risks because of the uncertainty of absolutes.  Nothing is absolute and everything is risky. The closer Boeing diminishes risks and defines absolutes by intersecting at the FAA, the better Boeing becomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------cut-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	A350-900	A350-1000	777-300ER	777-8X	777-9X
3-class pax no.	314	350	365	353	407
Range (nm)	8,100	8,400	7,825	8,100	8,100
MTOW (kg)	268,000	308,000	351,530	315,000	344,000
MLW (kg)	205,000	233,000	251,290	n/a	n/a
MZFW (kg)	192,000	220,000	237,683	n/a	n/a
MEW/MWE (kg)	115,700	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
OEW (kg)	n/a	n/a	167,829	n/a	n/a
Overall length (m)	66.89	73.88	73.9	69.55	76.48
Wingspan (m)	64.75	64.75	64.8	71.1	71.1
Diameter (m)	5.96	5.96	6.19	6.19	6.19
Cabin Width (m)	5.61	5.61	5.86	n/a	n/a
Engines	Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84	Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97	General Electric GE90-115B	General Electric GE9X	General Electric GE9X
Thrust (lbs)	84,000	97,000	115,300	~90,000	~100,000

Sources: Airbus, Boeing, Aspire Aviation estimates

------------------------------------------------------paste--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Boeing Battery Paradox.

From all the articles written gains an understanding of a paradox on the electrical systems fault of battery vs electrical current. What has been discovered is:

·      Some voltage irregularities in its battery charging.

·      Internal electrical shorts occurring in its battery

·      An understated fire protection, and exposure of gaseous discharges, compromising hull atmosphere existed.

·      Lack of diligence for its battery production and testing.

·      No known causal listing of how a battery fails under operational tasks.

At this point Boeing can only break down the system in a series of controls that isolate probable causes for a failure. Establish a safety protocol for an unknown cause, but towards eliminating known risks within the electrical system and Lithium-Ion Battery performance.

So, without knowing causal steps towards for: run away instability, fire, and overheating, Boeing remains stumped on quantifying a solution specifically for the Lithium-Ion battery’s melt down.  All those flights and cycles made without an incidence, then bam, two hot batteries within a short space of time.

Boeing has to review the age of the affected system, cycles and parts through its parts batch numbers. Any anomaly from parts production on those aircraft can trace back to origin. They are now past that phase of the investigation.  Then they looked at the charging unit and any factors that contribute to the Lithium-Ion battery health, as its charging unit inputs or discharges through voltage regulation.

Boeing determined an occasional spike from the charging unit, could contribute to degradation of the battery health by creating the possibility of electrical shorts or fault at battery cell level. This could continue to strain the battery as more shorts continue to occur, and the demand increases on the healthy cell area of the battery.

The operational range of the battery is compromised with these “shorts”, and leads to an overheating battery, discharging heated gases and finally fire.  No one can absolutely confirm this type of battery failure with these progressions, while under its operational load. Boeing now has monitoring of a battery’s thermal load and efficiency skewed towards thermal values which would indicate a degrading battery function is occurring from shorts. The front line of Boeing’s robust solution is at the factory level of:

·      Checking it twice before leaving the factory floor.

·      Voltage range regulation having tighter low and top range numbers where no anomaly can pass affecting cell integrity from shorts and a depletion of its cellular performance, which would cause a heat, gas fire condition.

·      Securing the battery from heat propagation from cell to cell under failing conditions.

·      Denying fire its oxygen.

·      Containing the battery in a sealed stainless steel fire proof enclosure.

·      Venting deadly gases over board.

The first two bullets are for chasing unknown rainbows of cause, and taking on these measures could be the simple solution. By not ever having a fire/heat/gas problem again, would suggest somewhere in there was the problem and the solution. 

If Boeing never has another fire in that area over the next million or so hours, then they guessed correctly with solid assumptions. If “they” somehow, missed the mark on those two bullet point, then they have a robust safety containment system that will get everyone home safely. 

Boeing has given the FAA, NTSB and others this assurance, techno paper, and its best effort for a resolution.  The FAA will test the assumptions and logic as a valid substitute in place knowing causal factors.  The containment and safety systems makes root cause a moot point.

Boeing's Tail Problem Of Self Inflicted Arrogance

During a time when humility should have a liberal application of salve applied to the wounds. Boeing strikes at the scabs before they are healed. They wag the dog! During its dog and pony show in Japan, not so long ago, Boeing tries to lead The Federal Aviation Handlers across aviation's dance floor. The NTSB and FAA were not amused, enchanted, or enthralled by the two left feet of Boeing's Dog wagging tail in front of Japanese stone faced clients. Even though it was slightly noticed by the few in the know, a significant Faux Pas had occurred. 

Yes the verbal slight of hand, occurred on no less than Live Streaming, for all the world to see. Here are some news clips of the problem.

NTSB:(Angry)
“The NTSB’s primary concern is that during their March 15 briefing in Tokyo on the modifications to the 787 battery system, Boeing representatives provided their own analysis and conclusions regarding an ongoing NTSB investigation,” Kelly Nantel, an safety board spokeswoman, said in a statement.




Boeing: (Lawyered Up)

“We have received the correspondence, and remain fully committed to support the NTSB and other regulatory authorities in their investigations into the cause of the 787 battery incidents, and also continue our around-the-clock efforts to return the 787 fleet to service,” said Marc Birtel, a Boeing spokesman.

Mike Sinnett "All In" Along Side "The Fix"

If this were a criminal trial, and Boeing being the client for the defense, went out on the street and talked to reporters during the trial explaining its innocents; when they were told to keep its mouth shut until after the trial; then Boeing is really stupid like a ditsy Blond from an old Perry Mason TV episode. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Bloomberg Report Paste in below dashes)

Using Bloomberg's Case In Point

Briefing Comments:

Boeing officials at the briefing in Tokyo said their proposed design changes to the Dreamliner’s battery systems may allow commercial flights to restart within weeks, pending the FAA’s approval. While the NTSB is investigating the incidents, it doesn’t have authority over flights.

Mike Sinnett, vice president and chief project engineer for the 787, said that the NTSB’s preliminary findings on the Jan. 7 fire in Boston indicated there hadn’t been flames within the battery case.

“It was widely reported that there were flames, explosions and fires,” Sinnett said. Referring to the agency’s initial findings, he said: “In the factual report you can see that the only report of flame was two small three-inch flames on the front of the battery box on the connector. There were no flames inside the battery.”

When asked about the comments the next day, Peter Knudson, a safety board spokesman, said investigators hadn’t ruled out fire within the battery case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Bloomberg Report paste in above dashes)

Somewhere in between a haystack fire and a match, lies the truth. Boeing crosses the line of investigative etiquette, and blabs its own reality on the street. Read the full Bloomberg article for a good accounting. Boeing is under a lot of pressure for saving the program. They did not keep its powder dry nor did it wait to see the whites of their eyes. They blew off the war of 1812 and didn't listen to Andrew Jackson.  If this is all true as reported from Bloomberg, a line is crossed during an investigation for proprieties sake, then Boeing's panic attack was all over the internet. Note to Boeing, take a Xanax and a nap before hyperventilating into a lunch sack in Japan.  

Was the NTSB talking about thermal runaway or Boeing's public executive anxiety attack? These issues, although not imperiling the recovery of the 787 program, suggests that Boeing's feet are firmly in the fire, and it is really starting to hurt. That presentation held in Japan was an outgrowth to do something quickly, and Boeing did something quickly. NTSB's jaw dropped!

Mean while back at the Boeing plantation, what is happening would happen anyways regardless of Boeing's Tokyo anxiety attack. The NTSB, et al, is really perturbed, but the show goes on regardless of Boeing's lost nerve, and its blabbing.  Once again nothing has changed in the progressions of moving forward while solving the problem. Sometimes viewing the big picture lets you know the inner working of a corporate dysfunction. 

All will be fixed in short order. Boeing needs to have a coming out party, later rather than sooner. The airplane wars aren't won by wide margins, but by the tinniest of margins. Boeing must not blink or have public anxiety attacks when the NTSB team that will help you during your day in court says, "play by the rules", then play by the rules, and don't blab on the street.  

Ryanair CEO Calls Boeing 787 Problems 'Regulatory Crap'

Mr. Michael O'Leary is my poster CEO this week!

Date Line: 12/28/2012 My Link on the old O'Leary Blog

"Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary on Thursday, speaking about a plan to swoop in on jet orders he believes other carriers will drop, again voiced a negative opinion of the Boeing CO.’s 737 MAX.

Listen and Watch Then read below:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100568271

I take everything I said badly about Ryan Air and Mr. Michael O'Leary "BACK", after this interview!  Too much fun to keep this guy down!

My Blog Quote:  Not long ago, it was reported by the head cheese from Ryan Air, that the 737 Max is Rubbish. That CEO is still employed having Ryan Air under his careful guidance.  Why the name calling and hate mongering for Boeing's new product? I hope to answer that question after we examine a "brief" on the 737 Max. First here is an excerpt from March 29, 2012 news clippings.

This interview is a hoot. And really tells what happening in Western Europe. Let alone with Ryan Air's 175 Next Generation 737. Airbus will have its hand full with the Max coming online in the next three years.

O'Leary wants seats, the Rubin remark is a fire for effect attention getter. Attention he got with the 175 ordered NGs.

Further Blog Insert from WSJ:

WBJ site report from the Rubbish pile: Citation below by Daniel McCoy of WBJ

"Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary on Thursday, speaking about a plan to swoop in on jet orders he believes other carriers will drop, again voiced a negative opinion of the Boeing Co.’s 737 MAX.

Although he said Airbus’ A320neo “does credibly deliver” on its promised fuel savings, the 737 Max “as a product, is rubbish,” according to a report from Bloomberg.

This isn't the first time O’Leary has voiced his opinion on the 737 MAX, Boeing’s new engine variant of the 737.

In January, he said he was “unimpressed” with the aircraft and expected that weight issues would offset the fuel savings Boeing says the plane will offer.

The leader of European low-fare carrier also said he is interested in a jetliner that he’s hoping will be developed by China."