I think that the Dreamliner represents a quantum leap in technology and innovation in commercial airline manufacturing. Giving the obvious financial constraints of innovation on a grand scale and the company’s perennial labor problems Boeing took a substantial risk putting the airplane in production. Yet there are those that believe that the airplane represents America’s abdication as a leader of innovation. Writing in the Wall Street Journal on January 24, Brad Stone and Susanna Ray express this exact view. In an article entitled “Boeing’s Dreamliner and the Decline of Innovation” the two unsuccessfully attempt to make a connection between the airplane’s technical and production problems and the company’s failure to have risked more of its money into producing a better quality product. The argument is seductively attractive on purely political grounds but the writers to not make the connection on the facts. The piece goes to great lengths to recount Boeing’s illustrious history as an innovator in the passenger airlines industry. The airline manufacturer repeatedly revolutionized commercial aviation. According to Mr. Stone and Ms. Ray Boeing’s efforts to keep costs down is the reason why the Dreamliner has been plagued by technical problems and severe delays in delivering the planes on time. The writers believe that today’s companies of which Boeing is one are not investing sufficient resources into risk taking to produce a superior product. “Public markets simply do not reward big risks.”

In my opinion the writers’ conclusions are not support by any tangible or empirical data. Their acknowledging the impact that Boeing has had in the advancement of commercial aviation vitiates their central premise. It seems naïve to believe that a corporation would spend billion bringing a product to market without thinking about its bottom line. In my opinion neither Mr. Stone nor Ms. Ray understand the problems of financing and delivering on time a new complex product like the Dreamliner. Based upon writers own observations the Dreamliner must represents innovation at its best.

On or about March 6 federal and industry officials confirmed that the FAA was ready to approve the start of testing of Boeing’s solution to the 787 battery problem. Most industry experts believe that the start of testing would constitute a major step towards returning the 787s to the skies. Yet I have not read or heard of any reports that the company’s engineers had discovered the exact causes for the batteries malfunctions.

The smoke incident on board the ANA 787 while the plane was in flight is more cause for alarm than the Boston 787 incident. An in-flight fire on a commercial flight is a nightmare scenario for even the best trained and experienced pilot. Data from the ANA computers suggest that the temperatures in the batteries spiked close to tolerance limits. The incident in the battery compartment forced the pilot to declare an emergency. 

Boeings “permanent fix” must be approved by Michael P. Herta; head of the FAA, and Ray LaHood, transportation secretary before testing can begin. It is possible that  Boeing will be directed to make additional or different changes as a condition to begin testing. Boeing officials probably lack confidence that all will go its way in the approval process. The government must weigh the public’s safety against the need to get the 787s up and flying again. In January Mr. LaHood was quoted as saying that the “planes won’t fly until we’re 1000 percent sure they are safe to fly.”

Boeing officials have defended the company’s use of the lithium-ion batteries. Airbus, Boeing’s main rival in the commercial passenger market, has announced that it was reversing its decision to the use the volatile batteries in its newer airplanes. The European consortium will revert back to using less efficient nickel cadmium batteries in all of its planes.

In my opinion Boeing’s claim to have found a permanent solution to the battery problem cannot be correct. In order to have fixed the problem Boeing’s engineers would have to know the exact cause for the batteries’ malfunctions and how the incidents physically progressed. At this point in time Boeing does not know this; consequently, the problem(s) must still exist. I believe that the solution to the batteries overheating and or short-circuiting will be a work in progress. As more in-flight data is collected on the batteries performance engineers at Boeing along with their consultants will discover how to improve their performance, reliability and safety. I am not a chemical engineer or expert in lithium batteries. From what has been written about the 787’s battery problems and the general inherent instability of lithium I think the Dreamliners batteries are being asked to do too much.

After the FAA certification tests are complete it will become clearer if Boeing has in fact solved the 787’s battery problem.