Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleBoeing 787 Dreamliner was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
July 9, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2015Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 15, 2009, October 26, 2011, and January 17, 2013.
Current status: Delisted good article

One aviation incident?[edit]

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)

Quality-control issues in lead[edit]

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.

POV material in "Incidents" section[edit]

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.[1][2]

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)


  1. ^ "Boeing: Problems with 787 Dreamliner "Normal"". December 16, 2012. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
  2. ^ "Boeing 787 Dreamliner: a timeline of problems". The Telegraph. London. July 28, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
  • 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)