Boeing’s Dreamliner 787 series was touted as a perfect international career when it was launched in 2011. It was large and state of the art. But the wonder bird has been dogged by technical and safety issues right from the word go.
It regularly faced regulators’ strictures, whistle blowers’ exposures, forced stoppage of deliveries, and abandonment of flights in mid-air.
The horrendous crash in Ahmedabad India on June 12 was the first of that kind since the 787 entered global aviation 14 years ago. But that is no consolation. On June 15, three days after the Ahmedabad crash, American Airlines 787 flight number AA278 declared an emergency on approaching Edinburgh. A London-Chennai Dreamliner flight of British Airways returned to London due to a “technical issue.”
The Telegraph of UK reported on June 12, that the Boeing 787 had made four emergency landings in a month. On June 7, a 787 was initially forced to return to Amsterdam after a problem with its flaps was detected shortly after take-off for Philadelphia. The aircraft dumped fuel over the North Sea before landing at Schiphol airport at a higher than normal speed, attributed to the flaps problem. The flight was cancelled after its crew discovered a hydraulics issue. In the following weeks, the 787 was forced to abort flights to Philadelphia from Dublin, Barcelona and Zurich.
Faulty engineering
The Telegraph further said that Sam Salehpour, a Boeing engineer, came forward in 2021 with claims that Boeing had cut corners on the Dreamliner, allowing “faulty engineering and faulty evaluation of the data” which meant that defective parts had potentially been installed in some planes.
Salehpour claimed to have noticed issues with the filling in of gaps between fuselage segments, known as shimming, which he said could cause fatigue cracks over repeated flights.
John Barnett, another whistle-blower, alleged that Boeing repeatedly falsified or ignored vital quality checks at a plant in North Carolina where some of its 787s are assembled. Barnett – a quality inspector who was later found dead aged 62 – also warned of problems with emergency oxygen systems. His discovery of metal shavings that he said posed a risk of shorting to electrical systems. Barnett claimed that paperwork had been falsified.
Two smaller Boeing 737 Max planes claimed 346 lives. The Max, Boeing’s top seller, was grounded around the world for more than 18 months after investigators found that the crashes in 2018 and 2019 had been caused by software meant to improve the aircraft’s handling. The Max was allowed to return to service, but a cap was imposed on build rates, reducing deliveries to a trickle.
In February 2023, Boeing temporarily halted deliveries of the 787 to conduct additional analysis on a fuselage component. Deliveries could not resume until the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was satisfied that the issue had been addressed.
Trouble visited Boeing again in 2024, when the FAA said it was investigating claims by a staff engineer that parts of the fuselage (body) of the Dreamliner were improperly fastened together.
Root cause
In an in-depth report on the Dreamliner, the Aero News Journal (ANJ) dated March 17, 2025 (see https://www.aeronewsjournal.com/2025/03/boeings-dreamliner-turning-into.html) said that the troubles stemmed from Boeing’s policy of outsourcing its work. Seventy percent of the design, engineering, fabrication and testing of the aircraft had been outsourced to a global network of suppliers.
This was intended to reduce costs. But costs actually mounted, ANJ said. While the initial cost projection was US$ 5 billion with the first deliveries slated for 2008, it ballooned to US$ 22 billion by the time the first deliveries were made in 2011.
Outsourcing had led to incompatible parts being supplied. The company found it difficult to integrate the disparate components. The production process was fragmented due to outsourcing. Suppliers struggled to meet Boeing’s time-table, which resulted in substandard work.
The Dreamliner’s production woes gained renewed attention recently because of perceived inefficiencies in Boeing’s plant in North Charleston, South Carolina. Unlike the company’s traditional manufacturing hub at Everett, Washington, the South Carolina plant was trying to reduce labour costs by using a “non-unionised workforce” (or poorer quality). Naturally, quality issues emerged, the Journal said.
Speed was prioritised over precision, compromising safety standards. An undercover investigation revealed that some employees had even expressed reluctance to fly on the very planes they built.
According to the Aero News Journal, the FAA repeatedly intervened, halting deliveries of the Dreamliner 787 multiple times since 2020 to address manufacturing flaws. “The issues ranged from improperly spaced fasteners and gaps in the fuselage to substandard titanium components sourced from suppliers.”
Problems with the Dreamliner came to light again in early 2025 when the Italian authorities uncovered a massive fraud involving over 4,800 defective parts installed in Boeing 787s. The investigation centred on an Italian contractor and his collaborators who allegedly falsified quality certifications for components supplied.
“These parts, ranging from structural fittings to hydraulic systems, were deemed non-compliant with aerospace standards. In response, the FAA ordered inspections of 145 operational Dreamliners to identify and replace the faulty components,” the ANJ said.
Beyond airframe issues, the Dreamliner faced challenges with its engines, supplied by Rolls-Royce and General Electric. “The Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, one of the two engine options for the 787, has been plagued by durability problems, including blade cracking and corrosion.”
Critics said that the company’s shift toward cost-cutting in the late 1990s and 2000s, prioritised profit over engineering excellence.
“Former employees, including engineers and quality inspectors, alleged that Boeing pressured staff to overlook defects or approve substandard work to keep production on track. The FAA and congressional investigations substantiated some of the concerns, levying fines and mandating corrective actions,” ANJ said.
Aviation problems due to aircraft defects are compounded in India, by maintenance issues. The Indian government is keen on expanding and improving aviation, but the Indian Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) sector is still undeveloped, beset with problems and is crying for attention.
In a recent report, “Niti Aayog”, an Indian Government agency, listed the reasons for the MROs’ perilous condition. The increased presence of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) in the Indian MRO sector has adversely affected the latter’s prospects. The foreign OEMs insist on adherence to their Intellectual Property (IP) rights and charge exorbitant consultancy fees. There has also been a sharp increase in the price of OEM-supplied materials.
The OEMs purchase critical spares from the spare parts market and force Indian MROs to buy new parts directly from OEMs. Boeing sometimes limits access to used or repaired parts to maintain control over pricing.
Besides a reluctance to share information, OEMs provide contractual conditionalities in exchange for discounts on the price of their aircraft engines and components. They insist that repairs be done in designated MRO workshops that are abroad. Indian MROs lose business as a result, Niti Aayog said.
Another infrastructural bottleneck faced by the Indian MRO sector is the lack of training infrastructure in India. At least 20-30 Indian institutes do not have an aircraft for training, Niti Aayog said!
The MRO sector is capital- intensive, but access to credit has either been very limited or has been accompanied by exorbitant collateral demands.
Airline operators often require Indian MROs to adhere to US FAA or European Union Safety Agency (EASA) standards. But European authorities or countries following EASA often do not recognise Indian Directorate General Civil Aviation (DGCA) certifications. In the past few decades, harmonisation had been done between DGCA and EASA requirements, but despite having FAA and DGCA approval, European Lessors’ aircrafts are maintained in Europe, rather than in India.
High taxation
The Indian Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on MRO services was brought down from 18 percent to 5 percent, but GST on spares still ranges from 15 percent to 28 percent. The Indian MRO sector has to import finished components, but ambiguities in the customs laws on classification of raw materials, such as paints, aircraft parts, components, often lead to augmented duties or taxes. Components such as paint, microwaves, LCD screens, etc., that are specifically built for aircraft installation, are not interpreted as such by the customs department, and therefore, considerable duties are charged, Niti Aayog said.
The Airport Authority of India (AAI) continues to levy airport royalty on the Gross Turn Over (GTO) under several categories such as ground handling, revenue sharing, demurrage, and so on, which ranges from 11 percent to 20 percent. Such charges negatively impact the MRO sector’s competitiveness.
Following the crash of a 787 in Ahmedabad, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation in India conducted a quick inquiry, Indian Express said. It did not find any manufacturing flaws but revealed maintenance issues. Therefore, there is a crying need for the Indian MRO sector to be modernised to keep up with the demands of international aviation.
