It’s Tuesday evening, Feb. 19, and we are at SPEEA headquarters to watch the ballot counting on the contract vote offered by Boeing.
It’s 6:25pm and it’s too soon to spot a trend. However, as we watched the ballots separated from he envelopes were could see a lot of “Accepts” and a lot of “Rejects.” As can be expected, the Accepts do not approve of a strike authorization and those rejecting the contract OK a strike.
Final results aren’t expected until after 9pm. Stay tuned here for updates as well as on Twitter @leehamnews
6:45pm PST: Counting underway, tilt toward Accept at one table.
7:00pm PST: Can see several stations; it’s too close to call a trend.
7:15pm PST: As we scan the room at the counting tables we can see, it looks like this vote will be close. Caveat: we can only see perhaps 25% of the voting stations. Best we can see, it looks like the tilt is toward Accept. This is not at all like the IAM 751 vote in 2008, in which the Reject was obvious and clear early in the evening.
7:20pm PST: SPEEA reminds us there are two employee groups voting tonight, the Professional engineers and the Technical group. One group could Accept and one group could Reject. One could OK a strike, the the might not.
7:25pm PST: In response to Shuper, “Accept” or “Reject” refers to the contract itself. “Do” or “Do Not” Authorize a strike is the other vote. We’re not trying to identify the Do or Do Not because these are basically tracking Accept or Reject. There is no visual on ballots (as there was with the IAM): both questions are on the same ballot (they were separate at the IAM, so a visual card stacking was obvious). The votes are tallied by the old-fashioned five-count hash marks on a sheet of paper. That’s what we are spotting.
8:00pm PST: Kind of quiet. One Professional vote counter says his table is neck-and-neck. A Techie tells us his group tends to be more militant but he doesn’t have a feel for the vote.
8:15pm PST: A bit of a surprise: several vote counting stations appear to be done.
8:30pm PST: Results will be coming “soonish.”
9:00pm PST: SPEEA first told us 20-25 min, now saying 45-60 min.
Twitter: The Herald @EverettHerald
RT @chcktylr: For you engineers, that’s 79.17068889864% of membership. RT @sbhatt: 18,043 ballots cast in #speea vote on #boeing contract
9:15pm PST: While we are killing time here at SPEEA, there is speculation that the FAA may not approve the temporary fix of the 787 (no news there) and this means a full replacement of the battery design might take as long as 18-24 months. We don’t have enough data to give credence to this timeline but–if it were to be this long, the Airbus A350 might enter service before the 787 re-enters service. Think about that.
The results are here.
787 Battery short-term fix: The Seattle Times has this story which recounts Boeing’s effort to design a short-term fix to get the 787 fleet flying again. The scenario outlined in the article suggests the 787 will be grounded at least until May. The story also paints a picture that if the grounding lasts nine months, production would have to slow and financial impacts will start to hurt Boeing.
More on Batteries:
The A350: Reuters has this story on Airbus’ switch from lithium-ion to current technology batteries.
The New York Times has this story about the different directions Airbus and Boeing are taking.
The Puget Sound Business Journal has a good story about the evolving technology of lithium ion batteries and even though the 787 is currently the world’s most advanced airplane, battery technology has advanced beyond the 787. PSBJ787Batteries
On Other Stuff
Boeing issued its annual 10K report on February 11. We were already engaged in the PNAA conference Feb. 12-14 and didn’t have a chance to read it until after the conference. The following excepts are from the 10K.
747 Program: The accounting quantity for the 747 program increased by 25 units in 2012, reflecting the normal process of estimating planned production under existing and anticipated contracts. We continue to incorporate changes identified during flight testing into previously completed airplanes. First delivery of the 747-8 Intercontinental occurred in February 2012.
The production rate increased from 1.5 to 2 airplanes per month in May 2012. Ongoing weakness in the air cargo market and lower-than-expected demand for large commercial passenger aircraft have resulted in pricing pressures and fewer orders than anticipated in 2012. We have a number of unsold Freighter and Intercontinental production positions beyond 2013. If we are unable to obtain orders for multiple Freighter aircraft in 2013 consistent with our near-term production plans, we may be required to take actions including reducing the number of airplanes produced and/or building airplanes for which we have not received firm orders. We also remain focused on reducing out-of-sequence work, improving supply chain efficiency and implementing cost-reduction efforts. If market and production risks cannot be mitigated, the program could face an additional reach-forward loss that may be material.
[787 Information]
[787 test airplanes]: During the fourth quarter of 2012 we finalized an order for one of the three remaining flight test aircraft. We continue to believe that the other two 787 flight-test aircraft are commercially saleable and we continue to include costs related to those airplanes in program inventory at December 31, 2012. If we determine that either of the remaining aircraft cannot be sold, we may incur additional charges.
[787 grounding]: We are unable to reasonably estimate a loss or a range of loss at this time because such estimates are dependent on the ultimate finding as to cause and the timing and conditions surrounding a resolution and return to flight. Any such resolution could have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Airbus, A350 and Lithium battery: Airbus has dropped plans to use the lithium-ion battery in the A350. An Airbus official told us, “We confirm we are opting for nickel cadmium for the A350 main batteries to protect the programme schedule. This decision is about protecting the integrity of our program schedule… (it’s not about any safety concerns about Li-ion batteries, we continue in parallel to mature for the A350. With so much uncertainty raised by the Boeing 787 investigation, we are being prudent in order protect our programme schedule. This is business as usual.”
“As a result of making this decision now, Airbus does not expect it to impact the A350 XWB Entry Into Service schedule,” an Airbus statement added.
Each airline region of the world is different and many going through transitions US went through previously, says Bob McAdoo, the airline analyst for Imperial Capital (a boutique investment banking company in California).
McAdoo is speaking at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in suburban Seattle today. Highlights:
ICAO says no to lithium-ion batteries: The UN organization ICAO apparently will reverse itself and say that lithium-ion batteries should not be shipped as cargo on passenger airliners. This seems like a prudent move, considering the history of fires involving this battery type, even before the Boeing 787 incidents.
Dendrites and the 787: It sounds like something out of your biology class. Microscopic things called Dendrites might be the root cause of the lithium-ion battery fires on the 787, according to the first reporting from The Wall Street Journal. (Subscription required. Here is a Reuters story on the same topic.)
Deleting Flightblogger: Alas, we deleted Flightblogger from our bookmarks. Jon Ostrower created this blog and built it into a major aviation resource. When he departed Flight International for The Wall Street Journal, Flight half-heartedly (if that) continued the column, but there hasn’t been an entry since August.
Rolls-Royce Certifies Trent XWB: Rolls-Royce received certification for the Trent XWB, which will be used for the Airbus A350.
Airbus still ponders battery future: Airbus is still considering what to do about the plans to use the lithium-ion battery in the A350. A Seattle TV station reported Airbus made the decision to drop these batteries in favor of older, proven technology. Airbus told us this isn’t so (yet). Says a spokesman:
We are following the 787 investigation closely and will evaluate whether any recommendation applies to us.
We have a robust design. If this design has to evolve, we have the time to do that before first delivery.
Nothing prevents us from going back to a classical plan that we have been studying in parallel.
We have all options open, which we keep evaluating in pace with the ongoing investigation.
Note: The National Transportation Safety Board will brief the media today at 11am ET. We will have a live update on this blog.
********************************************************************
The flurry of news late yesterday for the Boeing 787, its grounding, a ferry flight, potential interim actions and fixes to get the airplane back in the air, and comments from the NTSB chairperson all combine to suggest to us–and to others–that Boeing indeed is making good progress.
Although Deborah Hersman, chair of the federal investigatory agency, said it will be weeks before definitive answers are forthcoming about the cause of the Japan Air Lines battery fire and the ANA battery thermal runaway, this was immediately seen as a positive development. “Weeks” instead of “months” is the key take-away from this.
Hersman went on to say that she would not “categorically” call the lithium ion battery “unsafe,” but that risks posed by the technology had to be properly “mitigated.” This is a very important statement.
Update, 4:15pm: From Twitter–Glenn Farley is the aviation specialist for KING 5 TV, Seattle:
Looks like Boeing test airplane ZA005 is being readied to carry out battery related test flights. Lots of activity
Original Post:
FAA Outsourced to Boeing: The Seattle Times has a story about how the FAA outsourced certification work to Boeing. Coming from The Times’ Washington bureau, the story notes that “few people” realize this happened. For those of us who follow the industry, this is not new. We also wrote about this shortly after the FAA announced a program review. As our post notes, the FAA’s reliance on OEM representatives has been happening since the agency was formed and by its predecessor.
Responding to fires: Airbus, at its annual safety conference in March 2012, noted that fires can get out of control in as little at eight minutes and aircraft may have as little as 15 minutes to make an emergency landing. These conclusions were unrelated to lithium ion batteries, but referenced fires generally. All we can say is, Holy smokes! Airbus Smoke and Fire Analysis