NEARLY a decade ago All Nippon Airways (ANA) brushed aside doubts about Boeing’s as-yet unbuilt 787 “Dreamliner” and placed the biggest launch order for a new jet in the planemaker’s history: 50 aircraft. Today, Japan is the world’s largest market for the 787. ANA and its domestic rival Japan Airlines (JAL) between them fly half of the 49 Dreamliners in service. As they have now discovered, that makes them the guinea-pigs in a complex aviation experiment.
The decisions this week by regulators in Japan, America and elsewhere to ground the 787 follows a string of safety problems, including two fuel leaks and an electrical fire aboard a domestic flight that required an emergency landing. There is particular worry about the potential for the plane’s lithium-ion batteries to catch fire. The news hit Boeing’s shares and ANA’s. But their executives will not be the only ones losing sleep.
Japanese firms make about 35% of the Dreamliner, under a novel system of global outsourcing that cost it years of production delays. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries built one of the world’s largest furnaces to produce carbon-fibre reinforced plastic for the aircraft. Fuji Heavy Industries is the sole supplier of the Dreamliner’s centre wing box, connecting its wings to the fuselage. Shares in both also took a beating on Wednesday, on fears of big delays in the planned ramp-up of 787 production.
New planes go through extensive testing and certification before they are allowed to carry paying passengers. But the real test begins when airlines put them into service and work them remorselessly round the clock. The first commercial jetliner, the De Havilland Comet, was temporarily grounded after a series of fatal crashes following its entry into service in 1952. But, like the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10, which suffered a similar fate in the 1970s, the Comet returned to the skies, its flaws fixed, and went on to deliver years of reliable service.
After past disasters, it is no surprise that regulators have taken the precaution of halting 787 flights while its technical faults are investigated. They may yet turn out to be minor and quickly fixable. However, Sandy Morris of Jefferies, an investment bank, argued in a report that if there are any serious repercussions, they may apply equally to other planemakers, and their suppliers. He points out that Airbus’s A350 (a forthcoming rival to the 787 which is already more than a year behind schedule) uses lithium-ion batteries like the ones suspected of causing some of the 787’s problems. So if they are to blame, the A350 programme may suffer too.
There is some risk that the detailed review of the 787’s safety launched by America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) turns into an examination of the way the FAA and its equivalents worldwide go about certifying new planes. If so, and if there is any suggestion that the regulators should have required more tests before letting the 787 fly, then all the other new airliners now being worked on—Japanese, Canadian, Chinese, Russian and Brazilian as well as American and French ones—may take longer to get airborne.
No comments:
Post a Comment