Here it says the first deliveries of the 787 are postboned from the end of 2008 to early 2009. This was announced by CEO Scott Carson. Also the first flight has been postboned to the second quarter of 2008.
Cheers
Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12377 times:
Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter): Here it says the first deliveries of the 787 are postboned from the end of 2008 to early 2009. This was announced by CEO Scott Carson. Also the first flight has been postboned to the second quarter of 2008.
Yes, discussed weeks ago. But so far it is more like 2 months, not 3. So far...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5886 posts, RR: 68 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12360 times:
Here it says the first deliveries of the 787 are postboned from the end of 2008 to early 2009. This was announced by CEO Scott Carson. Also the first flight has been postboned to the second quarter of 2008.
Cheers
Peter
I thought we knew it would be June anyway and thats pretty much second quarter - very surprised if she got EIS before Jan 09 with a Jun 08 first flight. Not sure this is news.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
CaptainX From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11196 times:
Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter): Here it says the first deliveries of the 787 are postboned from the end of 2008 to early 2009.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23613 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11039 times:
Quoting CaptainX (Reply 4): So what date is the last day of early 2009?
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10950 times:
This is a bummer , but somewhat expected.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10899 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3): where does "2 months, not 3" fit in?
With the word ANOTHER, which is clearly in the thread topic. Read, then criticize.
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 6): This is a bummer , but somewhat expected.
It's a bummer that someone just got the news? Or somewhat expected that someone would start a thread 2 weeks after the official thread on the topic?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10833 times:
I seem to recall at one stage of the revised time lines that power on was to be at the end of Jan 2008, did that happen, or has a new revised date been given ?
I would expect first flight be 2-6 months after power from my recollections of WingedMigrators' chart...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23613 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10833 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): I seem to recall at one stage of the revised time lines that power on was to be at the end of Jan 2008, did that happen, or has a new revised date been given ?
If it had happened I am sure we would have heard about it.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10668 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): If it had happened I am sure we would have heard about it.
No, it did not. That was the point of the announcement a few weeks back. With the cockpit still lacking critical elements such as, well, a cockpit as of a few weeks back, power on is a bit off. But the mockup static cockpit has been running for a while, so they do know it works.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1944 posts, RR: 57 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10505 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): I seem to recall at one stage of the revised time lines that power on was to be at the end of Jan 2008, did that happen, or has a new revised date been given ?
No, the latest date for power-on was given as the end of 1Q08, i.e. late March. That seems consistent with the latest reported state of Dreamliner One, as chronicled by FlightBlogger.
Here's my latest summary of the evolution of the 787 milestones. As before, the durations are baselined against historical dates from the 777 program, with A380 numbers provided for informative context. Estimated dates are shown in blue, when no official date has been provided.
Note that going forward (i.e. after power-on) the schedule is still very ambitious compared to what Boeing did with the 777. First flight to EIS is still quite a dash, without much room for error, despite the three delays so far. Also note that my summary does not address what happens after EIS, regarding the production ramp up.
Just a question, would it be possible to add a line "roll-out to EIS"? (with the number of days). Gives a good comparison of the entire certification and delivery process for all aircraft involved.
NorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1622 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10229 times:
What is power on? is that the date they're going to attempt to start the engines?
I could have elite status if I wanted it, but flying the same airline all the time is boring.
A10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8018 times:
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, RR: 76 Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7882 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
will people call me names [again] and send nasty email if I tell you the 787 won't fly until August, or maybe even September?
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1497 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7786 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20): will people call me names [again] and send nasty email if I tell you the 787 won't fly until August, or maybe even September?
I won't.
This would mean a full one year delay of the programme. As long as it allows Boeing engineers to make it right, I'm fine with it.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7715 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20): will people call me names [again] and send nasty email if I tell you the 787 won't fly until August, or maybe even September?
I think nobody has the right to do that, because nobody (OK, maybe some do, but can't talk about it) on a.net knows exactly what is causing these delays and exactly how big the problems (with for example the suppliers) are. I wonder if even Boeing knows. If they did know exactly, they wouldn't be announcing 3 month delays, but would have announced a one year delay (for example!!) right from the start, like Airbus with the a380.
Ncfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 581 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7647 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20): will people call me names [again] and send nasty email if I tell you the 787 won't fly until August, or maybe even September?
I certainly hope some members have learnt their lesson from the last CH slugfest, and I hope it has not changed your opinion of the site as people like me can learn alot from the likes of yourself. I won't call you names, however I sincerly hope you are proved wrong.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7575 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21): As long as it allows Boeing engineers to make it right, I'm fine with it.
Exactly! Look at how happy SQ is with the a380 right now. Airbus used the time to fine-tune the aircraft and make it as good as possible. If Boeing uses the extra time to do the same, more power to them! One year is no issue in a 20+ year program!
Aerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1515 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7390 times:
Haven't all these delays added up to about a year by now? Sounds pretty much to me like the other company across the pond
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23613 posts, RR: 79 Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7297 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20): will people call me names [again] and send nasty email if I tell you the 787 won't fly until August, or maybe even September?
Since you have never been a jerk about the opinions you offer, there is no reason for anyone to respond to them like a jerk.
[Edited 2008-02-05 07:46:32]
25 CaptainX: No one seems to be talking about how far behind the other 5 test aircraft are. Bair once said at least 4 A/C needed to be in the air on Day 1 of the
26 Art: August is less than 5 weeks later than the end of June. Missing the end of Q2 by a small margin is neither a major disaster nor unlikely. I say that
27 Stitch: Last reports from Boeing official and insider sources have said ship-sets for LN002 through LN006 continue to undergo assembly at the suppliers and w
28 Moo: There is a fairly significant difference between the two situations - Airbus announced their delays *post* first flight, with the EIS date being the
29 Zeke: Steven Udvar-Hazy was quoted in Australian Aviation pg 6 current issue saying the 787-9 is presently 6300 kg overweight, hopefully they can use their
30 Rheinbote: Did anyone else conclude from this Seattle Times article http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2004159740_boeing02.html "...the Dreamliner
31 Rheinbote: Whatever prevents LN001's primary structurefrom being completed in the mid and forward fuselage sections (fasteners?), shouldn't we assume that LN002
32 Stitch: No, because Boeing has said they have been allocating fasteners to the suppliers first to allow them to complete their ship-sets.
33 NWA742: Does anyone know if the mockup is open to the public to see? I figure it is because of Royal's shot, but I don't know if he had special permission. I
34 CaptainX: It was Jan 12, 2007 when the first major LN1 parts were delivered to Boeing, so odds are good LN2 should improve on that
35 Rheinbote: Wouldn't it make sense to get LN001 and the ground test articles finished first to get certification testing going?
36 Stitch: It is visible from the observation deck on the Boeing Factory Tour.
37 Kappel: Agreed, the situations are indeed different in that respect. Again, agreed. Structural work can be optimised in the mean time, assuming they have eng
38 AirNZ: Just a curious question. How is it possible for the 787 (and the A380 in it's turn) to be so substantially overweight? I mean that by if such advanced
39 Stitch: Boeing likely feels it is more prudent to assist the suppliers in getting up to speed on their own ship-sets, especially since LN001 required signifi
40 Rheinbote: Great - do you have a source for that?
41 Stitch: Shanahan and Carson noted it in last month's 787 update call.
42 Tdscanuck: He wasn't sacked. He's chief engineer of one of the subgroups now...Interiors ?...he reports to the new Chief Project Engineer. Up close, no. There a
43 NCB: ...which means the B789 is heavier than its direct competitior, the A330-200 CFRP heavier than AL-LI?? On the Boeing website: "How much lighter is 78
44 Astuteman: Not really. The 787-9 is actually physically some 10% bigger than the A330-200 (roughly), and about 6% heavier MTOW. But its OEW is not greater than
45 NCB: It is a lie, I can tell you. The typical OEW on the A332 is 119k kg. That was supposed to be 115k kg on the B789, but it's now at 122k kg because of
46 Stitch: Just a few facts... A 787-9 has 17% more cabin floorspace then an A330-200 (257m2 vs. 213m2). The 787-8, at 223.3m2, is the real A330-200 comparison.
47 NCB: It's 21% (257-213)/213=~0.21 But it's 21% of empty space because pax capacity figures are the same. So shouldn't it be more adequate to compare airpl
48 Stitch: It is important to note that Boeing and Airbus have different seating ratio percentages, so you cannot really compare them head-to-head. When calcula
49 WingedMigrator: If you already knew the answer, why did you need to ask? It sounds like you missed the whole point of Astuteman's answer, which is that heavier aircr
50 Zeke: Facts would indicate you can point to published numbers for the floor areas you are using, I see your calculations as being nothing more than "educat
51 Astuteman: Have a real problem with this one, NCB. I'm not an aerodynamicist, but became very interested in it, in order to understand just why Airbus put such
52 NCB: It's not. When (profile drag = lift induced drag) you are at minimum drag speed which is the best endurance speed for a jet. At a higher speed, profi
53 CHRISBA777ER: Very sad that some people are so militant and obsessed as to be this way. Theres no reason to be a jerk full stop. I dont care what was said, there i
54 Astuteman: As its not my field of expertise, I'm reliant on others for the input. And when the experts' views differ..... A little knowledge is a dangerous thin
55 Stitch: You know I get them from Widebodyphotog and I know you feel his data is biased against Airbus, so I suppose it is possible he is intentionally undere
56 Tdscanuck: They're actually very very close. At max payload, a 777-300ER goes 5500 nm and a 747-400 goes 5200 nm. At max fuel, a 777-300ER goes 7700 nm and a 74
58 RedChili: Carson insists that it's "realistic" to expect first flight in June. http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=11658 They've used the delays to
59 Rheinbote: Incorrect. I listened to the event on Jan 16th and revisited two independent transcripts. They said LN001 is down to a few hundred fasteners missing.
60 Stitch: It was a bit hard to follow along while typing the transcript, but they're close enough.
61 Rheinbote: From Spirit's Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2007 Financial Results http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....rticle_print&ID=1105459&highlight= quotes: "S
62 Stitch: Boeing is sitting on ten-figures worth of cash, minimum, so supplier liquidity won't become an issue that affects the program.
63 Rheinbote: Spirit From Spirit's Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2007 Financial Results presentation: http://library.corporate-ir.net/libr...2007%20Earnings%20Presen
64 Tdscanuck: What's they mystery about it? It's a test article. Tom.
65 Rheinbote: Yeah, but it seems neither Boeing nor Spirit like talking about it. It looked quite equipped, with air data sensors and everything. Why didn't Spirit
66 Tdscanuck: Has anybody asked them? I haven't seen any interest in any forum where Boeing or Spirit are likely to provide an answer. Tom.
67 Stitch: Maybe they were immaterial to Q4 or all of 2007's earnings? If Boeing paid them to produce them in 2006...
69 Rheinbote: I am getting a little weary of Boeing's spin doctoring. "Fasteners are no longer the pacing items" doesn't mean that the problem is solved, it rather
70 Heavierthanair: G´day Well said, fully agree. Whenever there are new news Boeing seems to assume the last news have already been forgotten, which is likely true for
71 Tdscanuck: The problem, right now, is getting the plane on schedule. So things that impact the schedule are, by definition, problems and things that don't are,
72 RedChili: I don't necessarily buy Rheinbote's claim that this is Boeing spin, but what this statement apparently means, is that fasteners used to be the big pr
73 Baroque: Which is why I for one am unduly interested in the otherwise rather mundane issue of power on. Were it near, you would think it would be "in all the
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 563 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! 
, 20630 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5886 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1497 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 581 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
