Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Buys Out Vought On 787 Center Fuselage  
User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20290 times:

Hey All,

Just wanted to post this news item that just broke on the wires. Boeing is acquiring Vought's 50% share of Global Aeronautica in Charleston. This is a major development in the 787 program. The center fuselage integration will now be a joint venture between Alenia and Boeing, rather than Alenia and Vought. This was a question I raised back in December on my blog:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...will-boeing-buy-out-vought-on.html

So, it's interesting to see the progression of where the program is now. This appears to be the center piece of the recovery plan and retaking management of the supply chain. By putting Boeing in Charleston, they gain the oversight for Vought next door as well.

Fair Use Excerpt:
SEATTLE, March 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) announced today it has agreed to acquire Vought Aircraft Industries' interest in Global Aeronautica, LLC, a South Carolina fuselage sub-assembly
facility for Boeing's newest airplane, the 787 Dreamliner. After the transaction is complete, Global Aeronautica will become a 50-50 joint venture between The Boeing Company and Alenia North America, a subsidiary of Italy's Alenia Aeronautica -- a Finmeccanica company. Vought will continue to produce the aft fuselage for the 787 at its facility adjacent to Global Aeronautica in North Charleston.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...story/03-28-2008/0004781846&EDATE=

Onward,

IAD787

[Edited 2008-03-28 06:00:31]


Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30627 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Makes sense. Vought was always the weakest link and even though they have improved, they're still the poorest-performing major subcontractor.

User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20233 times:

Lets hope this helps sort the 787 delay out, Boeing is going to end up giving big discounts
to customers like Airbus did with the A380 at this rate....



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineNycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20238 times:

I was just about to post something..

sounds like Boeing is cleaning things up, lets hope this is the start of getting this program back on track.. I want to see this baby flying!

cheers


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3919 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20097 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Makes sense. Vought was always the weakest link and even though they have improved, they're still the poorest-performing major subcontractor.

Surely Vought were a risk sharing partner, rather than a sub contractor?

I assume Boeing saw that things were going seriously wrong at this location and felt that such drastic intervention was necessary. I assume Boeing people are on the way to critical positions as we speak?

Im surprised at this move in one sense, I was convinced that Boeing would persevere with the risk-sharing model as much as possible. I suppose this was just a step too far, and ultimately Boeing lost control. At least Boeing had a convenient blame partner and now can come to the table as a night in shining armor!

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20099 times:

Good move in my view, although it is a consequence of the mess the 787 program is in right now.

I think the timing is interesting: Boeing are about to admit to another round of delays, so they want to present the world with a plausible new solution too, which is a good idea of course. Given the solution, I have a feeling the delays about to be announced are going to be quite serious indeed...

Anyway, the lesson from all this must be that copying Airbus' working methods are easier said than done and working with partners isn't nearly as easy and painless as it may look when everything goes well. Outsourcing: yes, loosing control: no. It is a very delicate exercise so it seems.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30627 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
Surely Vought were a risk sharing partner, rather than a sub contractor?

You say toh-mah-toh I say toh-may-toh.  Smile


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19937 times:



Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 3):
sounds like Boeing is cleaning things up, lets hope this is the start of getting this program back on track.. I want to see this baby flying!

I don't think it'll have much short term effect. Certainly it won't impact first flight. If anything, it shows Boeing has had to spend a lot of bandwidth in the background sorting this situation out. It also shows that Vought could not make the transition from second tier supplier to first tier supplier.

It should have benfitial effect on the mid and long term, though.

I wonder if Boeing will sell it off again once everything is sorted out?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19886 times:



Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
I assume Boeing saw that things were going seriously wrong at this location and felt that such drastic intervention was necessary. I assume Boeing people are on the way to critical positions as we speak?

I'd presume so. And so there has to be knock-on effect since these people were presumably already assigned to other tasks.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
Im surprised at this move in one sense, I was convinced that Boeing would persevere with the risk-sharing model as much as possible. I suppose this was just a step too far, and ultimately Boeing lost control.

I too thought Boeing would stick to the model, but clearly they felt something had to be done.

This is also why I asked if Boeing will sell off the operation once they get it up and running they way they want it to be running.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
At least Boeing had a convenient blame partner and now can come to the table as a night in shining armor!

I think you meant "knight"!  Smile



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19691 times:

In construction, many of the large projects are done by Joint Ventures. Properly structured, a JV has different agreements, labor contracts, and similar advantages. I think Boeing will stay in the JV with Alenia. I believe that Alenia is new to stuffing fuselages themselves but are probably handling the structures part of the work. By JV'ing with Alenia, Boeing in 1 stroke improves the situation for Alenia and Boeing. Now the picture will be much clearer as to what Vought's shortfalls are. If they are still unsat, look to Alenia, Spirit, or GA to purchase the Vought 787 facility within 6 months.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1871 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19599 times:

This is good news.
I cannot wait for all the issues to be sorted out and for the programme to finally start rolling smoothly. Like someone before me said, I want to see this baby fly.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19585 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5):
I think the timing is interesting: Boeing are about to admit to another round of delays, so they want to present the world with a plausible new solution too, which is a good idea of course.

I think this is indicative of a further delay being announced. I can see Boeing saying something along these lines: These guys held us up so we bought them to take control back. Unfortunately they have held things up to such an extent that first deliveries will not now take place until * (where * = choose a date that cannot be wrong).


User currently offlineJimboski93 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19543 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5):
I think the timing is interesting: Boeing are about to admit to another round of delays, so they want to present the world with a plausible new solution too, which is a good idea of course. Given the solution, I have a feeling the delays about to be announced are going to be quite serious indeed...

Nail on the head...

BA needs to specifically address what the problems are, and specifically address the steps they are taking to solve them.

Now they can push a lot of blame on Vought / Global Aero and avoid signaling that the program has problems throughout.

When are they gonna have this update call? Anyone want to make bets? Tonight? Next Friday? I assume it'll be a Friday call after the close of the markets. They'd probably like to put this news out, let people digest over the weekend, and have investors get in on Monday morning and read all the analysts' notes saying "Boeing stock already undervalued - new schedule provides clear skies ahead".


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18926 times:



Quoting Jimboski93 (Reply 12):
I assume it'll be a Friday call after the close of the markets

Well, this news broke on a Friday so there is certainly a pattern here.

Signs of major surgery taking place. Take charge of your weak link so that you can reassure investors that the ship is onf course.

We expect to hear on the 787 update call that,'...the design is sound, new technologies OK in the lab, ...travelled work continues to decline, we are working with our suppliers, parts inventory is improving, center wing box is fixed, orders continue to roll in...,estimated dates for power on and first flight are... '

I wonder how fuel burn on the GEnx and T1000 is coming along. Last we heard, both were 1-2% over target. That coupled with weight creep is bound to encroach on performance guarantees.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 18755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
Surely Vought were a risk sharing partner, rather than a sub contractor?

You say toh-mah-toh I say toh-may-toh.

There's a MASSIVE difference.... (of course, you could have been having a bit of fun - apologies if i missed it)

Rgds


User currently offline6YJCX From Jamaica, joined Dec 2007, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 18752 times:

I believe that there are two relationships -Vought and Global Aeronautica in Charleston and this suggests that only the GA 50% share has been bought. What about the Vought fully owned operation in Charleston, is this not where a lot of the problems arose with barrel construction and how does this fix that problem?

User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5736 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17885 times:



Quoting 6YJCX (Reply 15):
I believe that there are two relationships -Vought and Global Aeronautica in Charleston and this suggests that only the GA 50% share has been bought. What about the Vought fully owned operation in Charleston, is this not where a lot of the problems arose with barrel construction and how does this fix that problem?

It'll probably allow Vought to focus it's resources exclusively on sections 47/48 (the rear fuselage) and not have to worry about also integrating the main fuselage sections. That is now up to Boeing and Alenia.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30627 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
There's a MASSIVE difference.... (of course, you could have been having a bit of fun - apologies if i missed it)

I honestly use them interchangeably in this context out of convenience, if nothing else. I understand that they're fronting money and sharing the revenues, which is different from a "traditional" sub-contractor who is usually paid on a fixed-price contract, but I really wasn't trying to diminish or disparage Vought, Alenia, Spirit or the Heavies.


User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17461 times:

I believe that this is great new for Boeing. There has been a problem and Boeing has spent months trying to get it fixed under the original structure. Since that apparently didn't work out they've put their money where they needed to and can provide "influence" to clear the problem up.

The first thing I think will happen will be the transfer of some Boeing executives to positions that can provide that influence, with some Vought execs moving out - one way or another.

I can also see Boeing, in the short to medium term, looking at alternatives - especially in the "stuffing" area. Spirit has shown that they can produce and they, along with similar companies who are delivering, may well try to add to their work share.

Hopefully Boeing's purchase will lead to a standard that was called for when the risk partner program was set up and production can ramp to the projected levels in the near future.


User currently offlineJimboski93 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17141 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
I can also see Boeing, in the short to medium term, looking at alternatives - especially in the "stuffing" area. Spirit has shown that they can produce and they, along with similar companies who are delivering, may well try to add to their work share.

I'm a big fan of Spirit myself, but I think one of the main obstacles to increasing share is the ongoing wrestling match between the Tier 1s and Boeing.

Spirit and others have put massive amounts of capital into these programs and don't get paid until certification. Some of the Tier 1s have come to a near halt to their 787 work because Boeing isn't ready to accept more components, and why should they put more $ into the program when certification is so far off.

Boeing has been saying that they will compensate their suppliers, but that talk seems to be just that - talk. Boeing has customers and suppliers asking for penalty payments. Plus, the Tier 1s want $ for the out of scope resdesign work they've done.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16896 times:

I can see this being used as a reason for further delays in "ramping" up production, but no way this can be used to delay Power On or first flight.

Funny thing though, Boeing may be going to the table telling the world that it is taking this action to ensure integrity of its supply chain, wonder how the unions will react as in I told you so? Fact is that Boeing let the ball slip in its inspections of some of its risk sharing partners months ago, the chickens as they say have come home to roost and the funds saved by lower or not doing enough inspections are going to pale in comparison to the penalties paid to irate customers.

Is the another case of penny wise pound foolish, especially in light of all the issues Airbus had with their latest offering, one would think that the mentality of "won't happen here" would have driven all concerned to higher levels to ensure that there was no quid pro quo.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16776 times:



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5):
Anyway, the lesson from all this must be that copying Airbus' working methods are easier said than done and working with partners isn't nearly as easy and painless as it may look when everything goes well.

Boeing is not and was not copying Airbus's methods. Boeing has taken their process of building planes with multiple partners and outsourcing to a much larger degree than even Airbus was. Part of the 'newness' of the 787 isn't just the airplane itself, but the process of building and executing the plane with all of Boeing's multiple partners. But you are right in that Boeing has learned a lot and will continue to learn. A natural growing pain if you will.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5):
It is a very delicate exercise so it seems.

 checkmark 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's hope that this will help to get the program back on track asap. The customers are waiting, the suppliers need to get paid, and the production ramp up will still be a lot of work. Now Boeing has to come up with a revised planning and try to stick to that.
The B787 is such a beautiful and promising plane, it should be flying (test flights and after that the commercial flights of course) as soon as possible. Then we can enjoy this beauty in all its glory, as a passenger or just as a spotter just loving to see beautiful planes operating around the world.


User currently offlineRJ777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1790 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15853 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Vought was always the weakest link and even though they have improved, they're still the poorest-performing major subcontractor.

Vought, you ARE the weakest link. Goodbye!


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2587 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15429 times:

So Boeing subcontracts to Vought to save costs, bring in a risk-sharing partner bla bla and all that stuff that CEO's love to say nowadays... only to end up buying Vought's stake and bringing it back "in-house" (at least from a financial point of view).

Airbus should take note of this. The way they're handling their plant sales, they're going down the same path as Boeing. And will make the same mistakes. But it seems that A&B never learn from each other...


25 PlaneInsomniac : Great news for Boeing. It seems they have started taking radical measures to bring the 787 back on track (e.g., the recently announced changes in qual
26 OldAeroGuy : Not unique to the 787. It has been delivered for the past 5 years on both Airbus and Boeing products.
27 AirNZ : The question on my mind here is what are the 'long-term' consequences, and are we still supposed to 'accept' that Boeing has not outrightly lied durin
28 CURLYHEADBOY : They're not new to stuffing fuselages at all, but the 787 fuselage is quite a new stuff for everybody, ain't it? Will take a while for all the contra
29 Osiris30 : Not really. I liken it dealing with employees. None are ever perfect, just that some are more imperfect than others. You (if you're a good manager) t
30 Sphealey : And there you have it. The "risk-sharing", which I guess means the subcontractor borrows the necessary capital dollars from its own bank and accepts
31 Post contains images ER757 : Let's hope they don't try to sell it as such (power-on delay) at the next update You can pretty much count on that being the unions' reaction. There
32 AirNZ : Sorry, I think I have to respectfully disagree, although I do understand what you're saying. However, I note that you've only taken areas of my post
33 Ken777 : While the purchase may have been an option that has been on the table for a while it probably was only that - one of the options. Having planned to re
34 Osiris30 : I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. It's likely that the project plan has work units 2weeks to 1month in length on it. ITts enti
35 AirFrnt : Sadly the 787 has suffered from Mullaly's departure - and I am not sure Ford is the better for it.
36 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Buying out Vought's half of Global Aeronautica may be one way of compensating a supplier. For Vought, this may have been just the sort of cash infusi
37 PDXCessna206 : I believe the new design is more aerodynamic. The shark fin was just an abstract. There is more to this aircraft than it being "softened"
38 Post contains images Astuteman : Not sure I buy that in its entirety, but perhaps if you add "in the timescales you require", I'd be more comfortable. When you change both the proces
39 Tdscanuck : That's not the kind of risk that "risk-sharing," in the context of the 787 supply chain, refers to. Risk-sharing on the 787 means that the partners p
40 Post contains images Rheinbote : Vought needed cash. No use in turning to their owner Carlyle, who is embroiled in the subprime crisis. The only asset they had to trade in was their
41 CaptainX : Who would have thought. My parameteric forecasting model is now inching towards 2011.
42 Post contains images Osiris30 : It was meant (my bad for not spelling it out) to be implied. "Can't in the time that's needed", is for all intents and purposes on a project like thi
43 Post contains images Astuteman : I'd like to argue with you on that point..... But I can't .. Regards
44 Tdscanuck : Care to share that model with the rest of us? Tom.
45 SEPilot : Things can be very different when you are having parts made by a subcontractor than when you are making them in-house. The company at which I spent mo
46 Slz396 : That's what I think will be announced indeed: admitting to having massive problems with LN1 and a very well considered decision to skip the plane all
47 Par13del : If thye need another year and a half from where they are now to EIS Boeing's stock and thus its value will be in the toilet. So fa the major delay wo
48 Post contains images Astuteman : Don't buy that, and for what it's worth, Boeing themselves say there are other more critical programme drivers. I believe them. As a "for example", h
49 Post contains images Slz396 : Hence them taking drastic measures like insourcing previously outsourced risk shares. It is going to cost them a lot of time and money, but it may (a
50 AirNZ : I must admit that I'm not entirely disagreeing with many of your points in principle, and I think it's more we are looking at it from different persp
51 Stitch : Sure they have. LN001 has had to be built from the frame-up like a 737 when it was never meant to be built that way. As they have built it from the f
52 VHHYI : So, LN1 is being pulled apart (again), what is happening with the two static test&fatigue frames? Every two months or so (I recall) we've heard one of
53 AirNZ : I have to respectfully disagree Stitch, although I am understanding what you're trying to put forward. As pointed out previously, first it was 'only'
54 Stitch : It did arrive at PAE with absolutely nothing intact, and Boeing knew it was going to arrive that way and told them to ship it anyway. Boeing's plan w
55 Tdscanuck : What is the basis for the claim that nothing has happened in the past 9 months? What exactly do you think the thousands of people crawling all over L
56 Flyglobal : I share the opinion of many others that something more substantial is rather likely to be the reason for the delays than that what is announced in th
57 Post contains images Astuteman : That was all my comment was meant to portray, Tom. Don't need to wait for Stitch to answer that. Of course they do. I might be a production engineer
58 Flyglobal : Astuteman, I think yiou are pretty close to it with your asessment. I still believe that there are some bigger issues which have not been surfaced ye
59 Post contains images Rheinbote : Not at all. It seems that at first the problem was pure unavailability of parts, e.g. frames, shear ties, floor beams, clips etc. This stemmed from s
60 ER757 : Far from off-base - spot on IMO. What I think many here (myself included) are annoyed about is that Boeing is keenly aware of just what you are sayin
61 SEPilot : Since you have had a very similar experience (although I know few of the details of the problems on the Astute) I suspect that you are right on. It c
62 Tdscanuck : Or option three...this project is of sufficient scope that the delays really do take this long to fix. This is not a car, or a washing machine, or a
63 Slz396 : The basis of this very simply conclusion is the observation that the second delay was announced about 3 months after the first one which was for 'jus
64 Post contains images Rheinbote : So you don't have a DMU of the complete airplane? And there are no Boeing manufacturing engineers in suppliers' LCPTs? I'd guess Boeing should be awa
65 R2rho : Your opinion is perfectly valid, even if you make cars. Airbus has been looking at the Toyota model with great interest, for example. In manufacturin
66 PITIngres : You make precisely the same mistake that you later accuse Boeing of making -- the notion that the unstuffed LN1 could be dealt in a reasonably short
67 EC777 : In July 2007 we were led to believe that first flight would happen a month or two later, i.e. August/September 2007. It now looks like it won't fly un
68 Post contains images Flyglobal : a) was not meant to do what Boeing was supposed to do at his production line. A was meant to ship the parts back to supplier to complete it to the le
69 PVG : Don't understand why it took them so long to do this. They should have just dumped these guys the minute that it was clear that they weren't performin
70 Astuteman : That presumes the "non-performance" was purely on the part of the partner company. I suspect its not that simple. Regards
71 PVG : Noted! I think that Boeing misses Alan M. and some of the other former execs. more than they are willing to admit. Just seems that there aren't many
72 AirNZ : Yes indeed Stitch, but that is actually not what I said. I stated: In other words, and as you have confirmed, Boeing knew exactly the state of incomp
73 JoeCanuck : As much as I would love to know every detail of the project, Boeing is under no obligation to satisfy my curiosity. They have to worry about customers
74 Zvezda : It would be interesting to know whether or not the original outsourcing contracts between Boeing and the risk-sharing partners gave Boeing buy out opt
75 AirNZ : Whoa now, before I get completely confused. Nope, I'm not a production engineer but are you seriously telling me that Boeing have no complete plans f
76 Sxf24 : There are plenty of bolts, fasteners and other off-the-shelf systems that Boeing did not design and does not hold plans for. Of course Boeing has com
77 AirNZ : Yes indeed, I both accept and understand the context here....but surely they still have plans (or at the very least have detailed knowledge) of every
78 Tdscanuck : Announcing delays of equal magnitude doesn't mean equal progress, it means you're progressing slower than you thought you would. Just think of it lik
79 ER757 : Oh, and you don't think there will be negative press if/when the next round of delays is announced? I must have missed something in your logic.......
80 Tdscanuck : They have as much knowledge of the parts as they need to do final assembly and to produce maintenance documentation. That usually means you do not go
81 JoeCanuck : Except for a bit of a PR black eye, negative press means nothing to Boeing...or Airbus. PR is, literally, for the public, not the airline customer. D
82 Post contains images Astuteman : Completely with you on this one, Tom. Boeing's PDM will only go down to a certain level (which will be fairly low, but..) Bought-in components, like
83 Rheinwaldner : That's the question! What did they do? Just replace fasteners and do the other things they said? Either they are not good at replacing fasteners (and
84 PITIngres : Like Astuteman said in #82, it's not a question of "just" replacing fasteners and doing wiring and such. If it's a replacement, you have to: find the
85 Rheinwaldner : You illustrate very well the complexity of the process. I am aware of this. It does IMHO not explain the length of the time it has taken so far. Reme
86 PITIngres : Multiply, don't add. What's happening on LN1 is probably 100X or 150X slower than a straight build from start to finish. The process that the operati
87 Stitch : Well said, sir.
88 Post contains images Astuteman : Love the analogy. A treasure hunt you wouldn't want to be in....... So very true. Regards
89 Slz396 : I'd say the repeated delay announcements are indicative of the lack of progress indeed. Regardless what planet you call home, the progress booked und
90 Stitch : If you are putting forward Indicative of a lack of overall progress in getting LN001 into the air, yes. But if you are putting forward indicative of
91 PITIngres : No, it is much more likely that they are indicative of Boeing not really knowing when LN001 will be done. (And yet having to say something, because t
92 Tdscanuck : You're *massively* underestimating the work statement involved with "finish traveling work." Well, it does, but if you choose not to accept that it's
93 AirNZ : Cheers for that, and it certainly answers a lot of my questions on the particular process! Just out of curiosity, it it the a/c manufacturer's respon
94 Tdscanuck : The OEM is responsible for providing maintenance documentation for all of the structure, and all of the systems down to the LRU (Line Replaceable Uni
95 Rheinwaldner : I am willing to agree with you both and I certainly hope you are right (that no other "big unpublished flaws" block the process)! But is my assertion
96 Slz396 : It seems like we are having greatly different definitions of progress really; your definition of making progress is limited to: 'doing (some of the)
97 PITIngres : It still appears to me that you are putting more emphasis on the planning and estimation process, rather than what is actually happening. A realistic
98 Slz396 : I am putting the emphasis there where it should really be: not at finding out new things, at learning new things, or being able to do things correctl
99 Rheinwaldner : No, progress is any movement in the right direction. No progress is only if you are standing still or do the wrong things (that make the situation wo
100 Post contains images Slz396 : If you want to call that progress, then you could be making great progress by trying to catch up a fighter jet with a Cessna by firewalling your prop
101 Post contains images Sabenapilot : Like the temporarily fasteners which were put in, only to be replaced by new ones later on? Or the 5 inch hole in the fuselage which was fixed... to
102 Rheinwaldner : I wanted to be nice when I assumed that the bulk of action does not worse the situation. And I still think it is objective too. BTW when I think abou
103 Stitch : Especially since, to my knowledge, we have not heard of anything untoward going on with LN002-LN006. Supposedly LN002 arrived in a much more complete
104 Rheinbote : I hear there's more progress towards first flight on LN2 than on LN1...
105 Joecanuck : This 'progress' discussion must be one of the silliest semantical arguements of all time. Why not just look up the definition? From Dictionary.com pro
106 Stitch : I would not be surprised, especially if the major hold-up with LN001 is all the "tinkering" they've done with it trying to build it has flummoxed up
107 Tdscanuck : In hindsight, probably. But it's an academic discussion, at best, because it's no a realistic option now. What would have been even better was delayi
108 Rheinwaldner : That is fine but it brings us back to my question in Post 83: Either travelling work did block the project until now or not. If not what else? The re
109 Slz396 : LN2 is going OK? When was LN2 originally scheduled to fly? Given the tight test schedule of the 787, it can't have been more than a few weeks after L
110 Post contains images Rheinbote : AFAIK LN9997 was supposed to enter structural testing in mid-August 2007 and LN9998 in early February 2008. I'd love to learn more about LN9999   It
111 Tdscanuck : Traveling work seems to be, by far, the biggest part of it. You don't seem to believe that traveling work can take as much time as it does, despite a
112 Pygmalion : No, I agree with Tom here. The first flight target moved but not faster than the line #1 schedule. They are not chasing a faster moving target. The m
113 Revelation : Me too. It's interesting that Boeing has pointed out that one big reason for the delay is the production line just can't handle the task of stuffing
114 Rheinbote : Whatever, the next program update is scheduled for April 8th, the next earnings conference for April 23rd.
115 Lorgem1 : What would have been even better, was to implement a QA/QC process (on a macro scale) on the subcontractors. I think Boeing allowed the QC to fall th
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...
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
Boeing Use Of Rfid On 787 Program posted Fri Nov 4 2005 20:25:21 by MrComet
Leeham: Airbus Sides With Boeing On 787 posted Thu Sep 20 2007 20:27:40 by Ikramerica
Boeing Faces Hurdles, Opportunities On The 787 posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:57:07 by NYC777
DL/AA In Preliminary Talks With Boeing On 787 posted Sun Jun 17 2007 18:58:37 by Ual747-600
Boeing: No Delays On 787 posted Wed May 16 2007 07:07:44 by Clickhappy
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
FI: Boeing Focuses On 787 Weight Not Rate posted Tue Aug 15 2006 13:56:44 by Leelaw
Boeing Briefs Journalists On 787 Refinements posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:54:28 by BoomBoom
Boeing Unveils Plans To Reduce Drag/Weight On 787 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 14:59:26 by Leelaw