Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does 787 Cost Less To Develop Than A350?  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12930 times:

I hear many reports that the 787 development cost is $2 billion or so less than the A350XWB development cost. I am a little mystified that the development cost of a revolutionary design such as the 787 is lower than the projected development cost of the more conventional A350XWB.

Can anyone explain why this should be so?

[Edited 2007-01-21 01:53:34]

74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12929 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):

Can anyone explain why this should be so?

Because Airbus screwed up their first design of the A350 and they're starting from scratch again.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12919 times:

A lot of the development of the 787 is based on prior R&D programs such as the Sonic Cruiser - the composite barrel production method for example was billed to the Sonic Cruiser development and as such is sunk cost already accounted for on Boeings bottom line.

User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12901 times:

French workers vs. American.  Wink

Just kidding (mostly). It's also because Boeing has worked hard to speed up their development time so less time equals less money.

It was never clear whether the Boeing number was for just Boeing or for all their suppliers.



The dude abides
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is also the not so inconsiderable detail that much of the development work for the B787 was done in 2000-2007 Dollars and much of the A350 is being paid for with 2007-20xx Euros.


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12765 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
A lot of the development of the 787 is based on prior R&D programs such as the Sonic Cruiser

I think that's dead right. One gets the impression that Boeing's R & D has always been pretty coordinated, and based on clear ideas about the directions in which the market is likely to move and aircraft design needs to develop. So that even if they do take a wrong turning like the Sonic Cruiser, the work isn't entirely wasted.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12482 times:

It could also be that some of the development costs have been incurred by some of the sub-contractors who are building major components.


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12329 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 8):
It could also be that some of the development costs have been incurred by some of the sub-contractors who are building major components.

Well, Delavan a/k/a Goodrich spent an awful lot of money getting its fuel distribution stuff placed on the big Trent...

and thereby hangs a tale.

The airplane turbine engine fuel nozzle business resembles Orwell's world of 1984. There are three manufacturers in a state of perpetual warfare, the market's pretty sells sewed up between them, and they control about eighty pre cent of the world market.

It's not as easy as it seems, getting your product certified as the oem product on somebody's engine, and there are a lot of dollars moving behind the scenes. Whether your product is the best or the least expensive is not at all important. It's your connection with the engine manufacturer and the ability to design and furnish the product that makes the sale.

Historically, Delavan, Parker Hannifin and Woodward FST which was the old FST and before that Ex-cell-0 Machine and Tool Company. Delavan had the JT3C and D and the military variants but they never landed another airliner engine for a long time. They did have the PT6 and the TPE331, and the PT6 is hugely popular. Parker Hannifin had an in with General Electric but they shared some GE and P&W Canada programs with Delavan. FST was strictly a 'make to print' shop, their major customer was Pratt & Whitney, and they didn't own the designs-Pratt did. Their big program was the JT8, but that's been unwinding for the last ten years or so. Back in 2001, FST was starting to get desperate for new business.

Although Delavan was doing well, they wanted to get placed on a big airliner engine, and they did it....they got the RB211 and now the big Trent.

So one day my boss hands me a spreadsheet, it's the budget for the marketing department, and he tells me to figure it out. I know doodly about finance but I'm willing, right?

So I see about 1.5 million in red ink associated with the RB211 program and I go to see the CFO and ask him about this, just to get informed and he tells me "Oh....that's the RB211 program. We lose $1,250 on each nozzle we make and sell to Rolls."

But the other side of it is, as they build installed base, they build a market for service and something else: it's called piece parts, and these are proprietary small parts necessary to overhaul the product that they don't sell to anyone.

When I was there in 2001 the USAF bought several million bucks worth of J57 parts and had us ship them off to FST who'd bid the work cheaper than Delavan would. That's an installed base, friends. The J57 has been a cash cow for Delavan for centuries and as long as there are KC135s flying they'll be buying parts.

There WAS a gentleman's agreement not to reverse engineer a competitor's product, although Delavan had reverse engineered a Parker Hannifin fuel nozzle for the GE CT7 through proof of concept then never took it any farther. If any of them pursued reverse engineering and broke the agreement it would have been FST.

There was also a process of vertical integration going on. Delavan and Chandler-Evans were part of Goodrich. Woodward wanted the fuel nozzle capability and bought FST from Textron, and P-H had some fuel control business with GE.

So who knows what Delavan ended up paying to get their stuff on the Trent...


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12259 times:

a few thoughts.

first off, any development at airbus will be more expensive than at boeing at the moment because the euro is way stronger than the dollar - airbus is shelling out more to get their work done over there.

secondly, this is like, the 4th attempt at designing the A350 airbus has gone through, they did spend money on the first 3 and that money is gone.

while boeing subcontracted a lot out, so did airbus. as for talk of 787 costing less due to soniccruiser, some of the composite technology was developed for sonic cruiser, but that was merely re-adapting existing technology boeing used on aircraft like the osprey and F-22.

development costs in general tend to run higher at airbus - but there are very different corporate cultures. airbus keeps a larger staff generally speaking.

If you'll look at the program cost differences between 772LR/773ER and A340-600/A340-500, you will find that for these comperable stretch programs, Airbus spent significantly more.

but those are just a few thoughts, i don't think it is any one thing.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12235 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
I hear many reports that the 787 development cost is $2 billion or so less than the A350XWB development cost.

Is that US$8 billion and US$10 billion you had in mind? IIRC Boeing recently upped the amount to be spended on the 787 with a few hundred million US$.

A second point I'd like to add is that it might be partially atributed to the 5 versions Airbus (A358, A359, A350-1000, A350R and A350F) is planning compared to the initial 3 version Boeing is planning (783, 788, 789)



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12208 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
Is that US$8 billion and US$10 billion you had in mind? IIRC Boeing recently upped the amount to be spended on the 787 with a few hundred million US$.

The line that came out said that the 787 was under what was budgeted, but over internal projections. Sounds sort of like the weight issue.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12169 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 12):
The line that came out said that the 787 was under what was budgeted, but over internal projections. Sounds sort of like the weight issue.


Thank you. So what was the US$8 billion, budgeted or internal projections? I suppose the US$8 billion was budgeted. In the case the extra expense they announced will not exceed the budgeted US$8 billion, why the announcement?



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 9):
So who knows what Delavan ended up paying to get their stuff on the Trent...

Interesting story.

However, I've seen the allowed budget for some new built injectors. I've designed a few for Pratt. They're so much simpler than the older injectors, produce a finer spray, have great "burn allowances", larger orifices (less chance of clogging), inner and out recirculation zones, etc.

Oh yea... that's one part of my job for many years.  Smile

As to the 787 being cheaper to develop than the A350... I could only speculate. However, the fact that Airbus is more political than Boeing must increase the costs. All else being equal, the less political organization can develop the same product for 1/3rd the cost of a "fully loaded" political organization. Now, I'm not saying Boeing is apolitical... they just don't have to negotiate who does what. E.g., for the 748 I know Boeing has grabbed a whole bunch of Wyle structural engineers. They do what is required to meet schedule. If the job is done in October and the next stage starts in January... the Wyle guys are sent home (minimizing costs). However, they're paid well enough to abosorb short times without pay.

Not to mention the time cost of money. Boeing will work teams 50+ hours a week to meet schedule.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12126 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 13):
Thank you. So what was the US$8 billion, budgeted or internal projections? I suppose the US$8 billion was budgeted. In the case the extra expense they announced will not exceed the budgeted US$8 billion, why the announcement?

As an NYSE-registered company, it must report stuff like this to shareholders. Also, probably rumor-quashing, and they're afraid of getting nailed by critics, a la EADS and the A380.

Anyhow, I believe the $8bil figure was "budgeted," but also rounded to the nearest billion, at least in the press.

I should receive my BCA annual report in the mail shortly. Hopefully, they will go over the cost increases there.

[Edited 2007-01-21 09:03:45]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12102 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
There is also the not so inconsiderable detail that much of the development work for the B787 was done in 2000-2007 Dollars and much of the A350 is being paid for with 2007-20xx Euros.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
first off, any development at airbus will be more expensive than at boeing at the moment because the euro is way stronger than the dollar - airbus is shelling out more to get their work done over there.

It's not way stronger. It's no more than 10% stronger than the long term average exchange rate. The dollar was a much, much stronger in relation to the Euro from 2000-2002 than the Euro is currently against the dollar.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
If you'll look at the program cost differences between 772LR/773ER and A340-600/A340-500, you will find that for these comperable stretch programs, Airbus spent significantly more.

But the 777LR wasn't a stretch program as the 773A already existed.

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
A second point I'd like to add is that it might be partially atributed to the 5 versions Airbus (A358, A359, A350-1000, A350R and A350F) is planning compared to the initial 3 version Boeing is planning (783, 788, 789)

I'd call it about 4 programs. The A350R/A350F development costs should be low like the 772LR/777F.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12057 times:

Using one Catia version is cheaper than using two?

Actually, Boeing has developed and used on previous planes a suite of design software to produce planes. Having a fully functional system like that saves so much effort.

Airbus to date still doesn't have a complete system for design, but several pieces being used side by side. This came untangled in a big way on the 380. So part (possibly up to 10%) is either investing in the program to develop those tools or doing work arounds to sync the design.

As long as you don't incur acceleration costs from say extensive overtime or overmanning, the time value of money saves a lot. If you can bring a $10B program to completion 1 year early, that saves about $ 800M.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12007 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Can anyone explain why this should be so?

Lets count the ways...

1 - 787 development in US$, A380 in Euros/Eurozone (currency/location costs).
2 - 787 development in 4.5 years, A350 development in 6+ years (cost of money)
3 - 787 development done on Boeing's terms (time to plan select suppliers, etc), A350 development done as a forced/rushed response.
4 - 787 design gotten mostly right the first time, A350 design gotten mostly wrong several times.
5 - Boeing secured/locked A LOT of the production capacity for critical materials (like Titanium) under long term contracts, A350 will go spot. This may show more as production costs, but also aftects development costs some.
6 - Greater use of subcontracting and risk sharing partners on 787 program than anticipated at A350 program.
7 - Major integrated research, design and development done at a single site for 787, vs several competing countries/design centers for A350.
8 - Decisons made by one professional board, one chairman/CEO etc for 787 and by several politically appointed boards, co-chairman, co-CEOs, etc for A350.
9 - Optmised division of labor for 787 vs politically motivated division of labor for A350.
10 - Really nasty, probing shareholders for Boeing demanding near perfect execution, vs government holdings and other restrictive ownership for EADS/Airbus. (Can you buy a share of Airbus stock? No. How many different classes of stock does Airbus have?)
11 - Third generation/family of long haul twin-engine airliner for Boeing (following the 767ERs, 777s), only second for Airbus (following the A330).
12 - Longer experience with large composite fuselages (B2, Sonic Cruiser, etc) for Boeing, then at Airbus (A400 ?).
13 - Better credit rating for Boeing than EADS (lower cost of borrowing).
14 - Positive cash flow on hand during development years (self finance) vs negative cashflow at Airbus (due to A380 fiasco) requiring more borrowing.
15 - More flexibility at Boeing to grow/shrink workforce as needed for design/certification bump.
16 - Less stress on resources at Boeing (777LWF mostly done, 747-8 modest redesign) than Airbus (A380 impact, A400, A330F).

Well you get the picture. While some of these items may or may not be significant, in the agregate they present a start contrast between the two programs.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11932 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):

4 - 787 design gotten mostly right the first time, A350 design gotten mostly wrong several times.

Not if you include the ill-fated Sonic Cruiser from whence the 787 came. Include the costs of that folly as you do for the previous 350 designs, think both will even out.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
10 - Really nasty, probing shareholders for Boeing demanding near perfect execution, vs government holdings and other restrictive ownership for EADS/Airbus. (Can you buy a share of Airbus stock? No. How many different classes of stock does Airbus have?)

Think you need to counter this point with the fact that both manufacturers have governments on hand to back them at every step of the way should they get into trouble.

Some of your other points are a tad emotive yet wholly consistent with a.net mindset (not worth my time repeating)


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11853 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 19):
Think you need to counter this point with the fact that both manufacturers have governments on hand to back them at every step of the way should they get into trouble.

Ha! You obviously haven't worked with governments much.

I doubt either company can rely on direct government assistance if they get in trouble. Airbus has a better chance -- it may get loans but as we have seen even that is big bureacratic and political trouble.

Boeing gets their support indirectly -- research contracts, etc. It's very unlikely they'd get any help -- every company in America would howl as would most citizens. It's illegal in the US unless congress acts and I doubt they'd act to help Boeing directly. Indirect assistance through more contracts isn't very efficient and they still have to do the work. It's not much help if you are in trouble.

Governments may help in long term. Short term they are on their own.



The dude abides
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11844 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14):
Boeing will work teams 50+ hours a week to meet schedule.

It is very rare for any engineer NOT to work overtime.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11582 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Lets count the ways...

Excellent compilation, Baron95.

I think closing the gap in IT infrastructure may be allocated to A350 R&D as well.

Different accounting schemes paly a role as well. Don't forget Phantom Works and other dedicated technology R&D divisions within Boeing who are contributing to the 787 program from their own budgets.

I certainly don't want to start another obnoxiously boring 'subsidies' mud-fight. But as a matter of fact, there has been quite a lot of NASA/DoD funded research on composite materials qualification, design evaluation and affordable manufacturing processes during the past 20 years or so, providing Boeing with a tremendous head-start. Nothing wrong with that. IMO that's exactly the role government-funded research has to fulfil. Unfortunately, Euroland could never orchestrate anything coming anywhere near in breadth and depth. Airbus will have to foot a large part of the bill now to catch up.

Shouldn't distract from the points Baron95 and others have raised, though.

[Edited 2007-01-21 12:42:30]

User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11529 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
10 - Really nasty, probing shareholders for Boeing demanding near perfect execution, vs government holdings and other restrictive ownership for EADS/Airbus. (Can you buy a share of Airbus stock? No. How many different classes of stock does Airbus have?)

Airbus being a 100% subsidiary of EADS, it is obvious you cannot buy any share of it. However you may buy EADS shares.
The financial/organisational comparison between Boeing and Airbus is not entirely correct.
Boeing as a whole should be compared to EADS while Airbus should be compared to Boeing Commercial Airplanes Division.
Otherwise, you made a pretty good review.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11481 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
If you'll look at the program cost differences between 772LR/773ER and A340-600/A340-500, you will find that for these comperable stretch programs, Airbus spent significantly more.

The two aren't comparable. Fundamentally...

The A340-500/600 got a vastly modified wing, a major stretch and completely different engines.

The 777LR program was just a MTOW increase thanks largerly to a more powerful version of the same engine.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11188 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 19):
...the ill-fated Sonic Cruiser from whence the 787 came. Include the costs of that folly...

Evaluating 'follies' in early design avoids getting bogged down with the same or even more serious follies during detailed design, which is much more expensive. Actually, that's another reason why Boeing R&D may be lower than Airbus R&D. "They always seem to do the right thing - after they tried everything else". Try everything, but try it while it's cheap.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11105 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
1 - 787 development in US$, A380 in Euros/Eurozone (currency/location costs).

Absolutly Correct!

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
2 - 787 development in 4.5 years, A350 development in 6+ years (cost of money)

The 787 will be developed in 4.5 yrs, but some of the development in aspects like the Carbon fuselage was spent on the sonic cruiser, saving some costs in from the dreamliner.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
3 - 787 development done on Boeing's terms (time to plan select suppliers, etc), A350 development done as a forced/rushed response.

Dont completly understand this. Airbus is not able to select what suppliers they want?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
4 - 787 design gotten mostly right the first time, A350 design gotten mostly wrong several times.

But that has nothing to do with the current A350 budget. Money spent on the original A350 is not accounted in the new $12B budget as far as I know, maybe someone can clarify.


25 EI321 : Possibly, not sure I understand your saying - 'A350 will go spot'?? Correct. Does the Boeing figure include the japanese subsidies? Another possible
26 FlyMeToTheMoon : The euro is worth $1.3, so there you go, 30% more right there. Kidding... It comes down to the ability to draw on previous experience - which is eithe
27 Rheinbote : Means buying limited-supply materials like Titanium on the spot market rather than through long-term negotiated contracts. Important because an incre
28 RichardPrice : Also, I dont *think* this has been covered yet (just got up), but the 787 development cost as quoted is for the 787-3, 787-8 and 787-9, while the A350
29 NAV20 : Spot on, IMO, Rheinbote. You said what I was trying to say earlier, but said it better and shorter. I personally doubt that the 787 had a 'developmen
30 Post contains links Rheinbote : That's what many tend to believe. In fact, the 787 owes many processes and tools used in composite design & manufacturing to the B-2, the V-22, the F
31 BHMBAGLOCK : This is one of the reasons they are expanding their presence in the US with the engineering center in Mobile that recently opened. Technically EADS b
32 Post contains images Astuteman : A biggie Another biggie I have my suspicions that this is indeed relevant Possibly the biggest. Resourse "desperation" can seriously dilute the skill
33 Post contains links AutoThrust : It maybe not be very relevant at that time for the A350 but sure for future planes. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-dry-for-titanium-substit
34 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm curious how much the A345/A346 has cost Airbus and have they received a positive ROI...
35 Scooter01 : From reading the previous 34 posts it seems that most of you feel like me; Boeing has the most experience in designing aircraft and a better functioni
36 Dougloid : There was a lot of development work going on with PAB nozzles at the time...they were having difficulty with high altitude restarts, though.
37 BoomBoom : How can it be considered folly when it led to the launch of the most successful airliner of all time, the 787. What is folly was Airbus launching an
38 BHMBAGLOCK : I'm not trying to say that material costs are not relevant to actual program costs. My point is that materials cost are a neglible portion of the dev
39 Post contains images Rheinbote : If you know this you certainly also know for how long they got along without such a contract
40 TeamAmerica : Two posters have cited the F-22 as a technology precursor for the 787. In what way exactly, given that the F-22 is a Lockheed product? As for the V-2
41 Morvious : Everything is getting more expensive by the minute. So one of the reasons can be simple, the A350 is just a few years behind the B787. I also think Bo
42 Post contains links RichardPrice : From the Boeing website: http://boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html From the Boeing website: http://boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/i
43 BHMBAGLOCK : I think I can answer this one as I did work for Boeing on the V-22 for a while. The V-22 is certainly not a stunning success in several ways but it d
44 SEPilot : I'll beat my favorite drum again; Airbus needs to divorce themselves from the politicians. I do not believe that it is fair to call the Sonic Cruiser
45 Post contains links N328KF : I wouldn't be surprised if the Sonic Cruiser R&D money was included in the Dreamliner figures. There's a big difference, though; Much of the Sonic Cr
46 TeamAmerica : No, I don't see it at all. I didn't say Boeing has nothing to do with these projects, but rather that the technologies involved do not relate to the
47 RichardPrice : From the F-22 - Wings and aft fuselage - both composite primary load bearing structures (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950621
48 Shenzhen : Airbus must come out with a number so that the EU Governments can give/loan them 33 or so percent of the cost. It would be foolish on their part to co
49 Keesje : Is there any link to the total investment made to develop the 787? I haven´t seen one in all those years. I know last year unexpectedly another $.5
50 Astuteman : It does make you wonder................... Regards
51 Blackbird1331 : Is the current Boeing logic and technological capability laying the foundation for a mega-transport/freighter/tanker? Maybe the BWB(Blended Wing Body)
52 BoomBoom : Old Harry couldn't keep his dick in his pants, so he resigned. A far different case from Christian Streiff, who was brought in to reform Airbus and t
53 Post contains images Rheinbote : If you had read, say, Aviation Week through the past ~20 years, or just Boeing's news releases you might have recalled, amongst others: - V-22 compos
54 RichardPrice : Actually Streiffs plans are undergoing substantial review at the moment with an eye to implementing them - job cuts, consolidation of suppliers, cons
55 TeamAmerica : When phrased like this I agree. Boeing and the US aerospace industry in general have gained valuable experience from these projects. The sticking poi
56 Pygmalion : Sonic Cruiser never had more than 50-100 engineers working it and no capital investment. If you want to call $20-25 million a year huge sunk costs...
57 Rheinbote : I read somewhere that 787 wing and barrel prototypes were built using the equipment left over from the B-2 program at the Seattle composites center?
58 BHMBAGLOCK : The only structural elements of the Osprey that are composite and weren't designed by Boeing are as follows: Wing and nacelles - Bell Empennage - Gru
59 Pygmalion : Only the same building, B2 tools has been gone for years. The composite laying/winding equipment was developed for the 787. New patents too. Now the a
60 BoomBoom : Which would you take?
61 RichardPrice : I totally agree, my posts were not meant to mitigate that point, just answer your queries regarding those particular projects. The V-22 program was i
62 TeamAmerica : All fine examples, Rheinbote, but missing my point I think. We can go back to the First World War and take examples of military development driving t
63 Rheinbote : Interesting. I asked myself whether there's a link between the A320 and either Tornado or Mirage 2000 for FBW technology, but so far I failed to iden
64 RichardPrice : If I was looking to make a major purchase for an airline today? Airbus for the A320 family, Airbus for the A330 short term uplift until the 787 becam
65 Post contains images Rheinbote : Fully agreed
66 RJ111 : About 3.5 billion USD and they might just scrape break even.
67 Post contains images Lightsaber : Sad, but true. ??? the current Pratt's have the highest relight altitudes ??? GE the lowest. Pratt has gone almost exclusively to in house designed a
68 BHMBAGLOCK : Bell was responsible for the wing from the start. IIRC, they did sub-contract a portion of their work to Boeing Wichita - I'm pretty sure it was the
69 Dougloid : The one I'm talking of was a PAB nozzle for the AE3007fanjet that's used in the Global Hawk UAV and a lot of civil applications. At the time (2001) i
70 BoomBoom : I'm not so sanguine that the current problems are being dealt with. The French unions have given a big "non" to the idea of moving A320 production to
71 BoomBoom : Maybe that's why they outsourced so much of it.
72 Lightsaber : Ahh... I have a coworker that worked on the AE3007... I'll have to ask him more details. (Yes, its a small insestuous community of propulsion enginee
73 EbbUK : These two posts highlight the wealth of knowledge and experience Boeing has over it's much younger rival. Yet more reason for airbus to continue to r
74 NorCal : Establish itself??? Are you kidding, Airbus has outsold Boeing for half a decade and holds a larger backlog. How much more "established" do they need
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does Sandford Get More Int. Flights Than Mco posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:22:13 by Fll2993
Why Does Air Travel Do So Much Than Rail? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 23:45:56 by Glom
Why Does DL Not Return To CAK? posted Tue Feb 28 2006 11:42:59 by Jetpixx
Why Does EasyJet Not Fly To Belgium? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 10:59:17 by RootsAir
Why Is 787 So Lucky To China? posted Wed Feb 2 2005 06:04:24 by Spike
I Thought CRJ/ERJ's Etc Cost Less To Operate? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 00:48:12 by Alexinwa
Why Does UPS Fly B757 To Singapore? posted Sun Jan 12 2003 11:32:17 by Alaskaairlines
Why Does AZ Still Fly To Ewr? posted Tue Jun 18 2002 04:53:10 by ContinentalEWR
Why Does ATC Refer Refer To "company" Traffic posted Thu Jan 31 2002 04:08:36 by Matt_milligan
Why Does UA Only Fly To LHR In The UK posted Wed Nov 7 2001 17:27:53 by Arsenal@LHR