Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Provide Update On 787 Program: April 9th  
User currently offlineAhtohob346 From Spain, joined Jul 2005, 35 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 24449 times:

BOEING NEWS RELEASE:

Boeing Executives to Provide Update About 787 Dreamliner Program

CHICAGO, April 07, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] will webcast a 787 Dreamliner briefing on Wednesday, April 9, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Carson and Vice President/General Manager, 787 Program, Pat Shanahan will discuss progress to date on the new commercial airplane.

The webcast will be available. Individuals should check that site prior to the event to ensure their computers are configured for the audio stream.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q2/080407d_nr.html

[Edited 2008-04-07 12:36:23]

210 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndhen From Norway, joined Dec 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24415 times:

Critical times for Boeing.. I hope the two days I have to wait will go by fast, I cant wait.. I really don't know what to expect here..

Let time fly then, and keep up the lively discussions.. Smile

andhen



a332/3, 773-ER
User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24374 times:

The most important thing is what happens to the flight test schedule and the EIS

If first flight is delayed 6 months then EIS could be delayed 9-12 months, perhaps more.

And then there is the production ramp-up...!

If there is another delay -as expected - it must be the last. Therefore I would expect the new schedule to be realistic and 100% achievable. Therefore it should be conservative.

The Airlines will demand to know their delivery dates. In the negotiations for compensation and revised contracts you can bet the Airlines will tighten up the deliver compensation for further delays.

A 2 year delay could end up costing $2-3B.


User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24141 times:

Maybe not all bad news, seeing they are doing the briefing in the middle of the weak in the morning/early noon.
They must not be too worried about the effects on their stock-value.



[edit post]
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27106 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24071 times:

Looking forward to the update. Hope all goes well.

User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23875 times:

First the hype, next the sales boom, then the delay. Now what? The spin?

The amazing trials and tribulations of the Dreamliner. I am hooked!  Smile


User currently offlineFlysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23786 times:

My guess is that the Board of Directors of Boeing are about to light the fuse on the bomb under the chair of Mr. Carson. James Wallace has written in the Seattle PI that his sources are telling him that there will be another 6 month delay.  Yeah sure

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23424 times:

If it's delayed another 6 months, they might as well abandon the project and start a new plane from scratch. By the time the plane has EIS it will be obsolete. Airbus has had the opportunity to learn from Boeing's mistakes (have no illusions: they have moles in each-others' gardens) and the A350 will incorporate the lessons from the 787.

Another delay could be truly devastating for Boeing. And by "devastating" I mean in terms of our grandkids not recognizing the name "Boeing."


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4354 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23402 times:



Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 2):
If there is another delay -as expected - it must be the last.

Let's hope they take a lesson from Airbus and when they announce this 3rd delay, it will be long enough that it will be the last delay.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 3):
They must not be too worried about the effects on their stock-value.

Or, it could be their stock value already reflects another delay. After all, it's not going to be a surprise given that it's been talked about for a few weeks now.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23352 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
If it's delayed another 6 months, they might as well abandon the project and start a new plane from scratch. By the time the plane has EIS it will be obsolete.

With all due respect, that sounds very exaggerated. The 787 could be delayed by multiple additional 6 months and still have its EIS a long time before the A350XWB, its closest upcoming competitor. And in either case, the technology of the 787 is groundbreaking and well ahead of anything ever achieved in commercial aviation.

Unless we have any indication that there are technological obstacles in the 787 development which Boeing is fully unable to overcome, there is no doubt in my opinion that Boeing will complete the 787 sooner or later, and that it will be a very successful plane. And up to this point, we do not have any indication to this effect at all.



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23144 times:

I fear that no good news will come out of the update. The well reported problems are not trivial and Boeing has proven that they don't have a handle on then. When you start announcing 6 month delays on top of 6 month delays it means just one thing - that they don't have the project/risks under proper control.

They are missing power-on, first flight milestones left and right - if they can't accurately predict that even after two revised schedules, then there is no reason to have any confidence in any new dates Boeing provides.

I'm very disapointed in how Boeing is managing this project. One wonders if their whole scheule is based on (or very close to) best case scenarios. Really. I expected better from Boeing and the Dreamliner.

How can they get all over themselves over their beautiful barrels an forget about making sure the fastners supply was secure? How could they not perform proper stress test on the wing box at the mannufacturing site? I know it is easy to criticize, but come on. Not a single plane is even reay for power on when the first birds should be EIS with ANA!!!

I think that is unprecedented. Even the A380 did not have problems with pwer-on, first flight, certification. The problems came later with cabin wiring/rework. As a percentage of total progam time, the 787 delays to first flight and certification are alreay several orders of magnitude compared to the A380. This is a major management and execution failure.

Executives need to produce results or be fired. I never thought I'd write that, but in this case we are getting very close to it. The Boeing board should step in. This has the potential to erase a lot of share holder value.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineCaptainX From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 22217 times:

This will go down in history as yet another example of what happens when one chooses revolutionary schemes over evolutionary ones. The lust for glory overrides any reasonable respect for risk. They planned for the best, rather than planned for the worst.

They don't even respect what has traditionally worked well at Boeing - they simply threw it out thinking "change" would magically be superior. Now the price, on many fronts, will be paid.

The 787 may also go down in history as the biggest launch failure of all time. With all of the uncertified technology and uncertified factory techniques bundled into one aircraft program, it may take many years to receive an FAA cert, if ever. That's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.


User currently offlineSmokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 2112 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22126 times:

Wow, with all the negativity around I have to say I hope they have some good news.

787 delayed? sure, is it death and about to bury boeing... not a hope.



John Hancock
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10106 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Unless we have any indication that there are technological obstacles in the 787 development which Boeing is fully unable to overcome, there is no doubt in my opinion that Boeing will complete the 787 sooner or later, and that it will be a very successful plane.

 checkmark 
A delay of 18 months in the 787 programme will ultimately prove to be a "hiccup".

Same delay with an aircraft that substantially misses its promises would be irrecoverable, IMO. Although I'm not expecting it to miss its targets (God forbid)

Regards


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21921 times:



Quoting CaptainX (Reply 11):
The 787 may also go down in history as the biggest launch failure of all time. With all of the uncertified technology and uncertified factory techniques bundled into one aircraft program, it may take many years to receive an FAA cert, if ever. That's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

Industrial - maaaybe.
Commercial - puhleeze... The 900 orders are not going anywhere.

One thing for sure: Boeing will need to select their partners more carefully next time.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21809 times:



Quoting CaptainX (Reply 11):
The 787 may also go down in history as the biggest launch failure of all time.

I find quite the contrary will happen and the 787 will go down in history the fastest selling widebody. Maybe they have to delay further but even then the 787 will be extremly successfull.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6951 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21812 times:

Before everyone gets into a tizzy about Boeing falling on its face, bear in mind a bit of history. The 367-80 was even more revolutionary in its time than the 787 is today; but its entry into service was anything but smooth. Boeing ended up redesigning it a number of times before finally getting it right, and initially it appeared that the DC-8 was going to eclipse it, even though the 707 would be available first. But Boeing stuck with it and saw it through, and ended up with a game changing aircraft and the lead (for the first time in its history) in the airliner business. The people involved of course are long gone, but I do believe in institutional traditions and memory, and I do not believe that they have totally abandoned Boeing. Yes, the 787 is having its share of troubles, and yes, it does appear that Boeing management has made some bad decisions and underestimated problems. But the story is not finished yet, and I do not for a minute believe that they will not persevere and make things right. The only question is how long it will take.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21518 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
If it's delayed another 6 months, they might as well abandon the project and start a new plane from scratch. By the time the plane has EIS it will be obsolete.

With all due respect, that sounds very exaggerated. The 787 could be delayed by multiple additional 6 months and still have its EIS a long time before the A350XWB, its closest upcoming competitor. And in either case, the technology of the 787 is groundbreaking and well ahead of anything ever achieved in commercial aviation.

Unless we have any indication that there are technological obstacles in the 787 development which Boeing is fully unable to overcome, there is no doubt in my opinion that Boeing will complete the 787 sooner or later, and that it will be a very successful plane. And up to this point, we do not have any indication to this effect at all.

I've got all my fingers crossed the bird will overcome this and go on to be the most successful commercial airliner of all time, as it has every chance of being. Like CaptX says below - this much new technology is a hell of a leap of faith, and if/when it comes off the 787 will be an awesome piece of kit. Some people were saying the A380 would be scrapped with the delays, and while I'd say the 787 is a little closer to this awful fate than the A380 ever was, its still extremely unlikely. Boeing are the biggest and most experienced aircraft manufacturer in the world - they'll sort it out. It will cost them, dearly, but they'll sort it I hope.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 11):
This will go down in history as yet another example of what happens when one chooses revolutionary schemes over evolutionary ones. The lust for glory overrides any reasonable respect for risk. They planned for the best, rather than planned for the worst.

They don't even respect what has traditionally worked well at Boeing - they simply threw it out thinking "change" would magically be superior. Now the price, on many fronts, will be paid.

The 787 may also go down in history as the biggest launch failure of all time. With all of the uncertified technology and uncertified factory techniques bundled into one aircraft program, it may take many years to receive an FAA cert, if ever. That's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

I hope you are wrong. They wouldnt scrap the whole project surely?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
Same delay with an aircraft that substantially misses its promises would be irrecoverable, IMO. Although I'm not expecting it to miss its targets (God forbid)

Agreed - late is one thing but its (eventually) forgivable if the delivered product is on spec - the 789 was quite overweight last time I heard - have they sorted this out?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
Before everyone gets into a tizzy about Boeing falling on its face, bear in mind a bit of history.

Please note, not a single European has piped up gloating about this - we've been through it with the A380 and we know what you are going through. Before some on here start playing the victim, I want it noted that not a single Airbus supporter has been gloating about this. Thanks.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
The people involved of course are long gone, but I do believe in institutional traditions and memory, and I do not believe that they have totally abandoned Boeing.

Let me tell you - from someone who felt every dig and sarcastic comment from the Cheerleaders on here about every "major blow to Airbus" over the A380 - the delays are nowhere near as long as they may seem right now. Now that our glorious big bird is EIS and is doing Europe proud - those long years seem like ten minutes. Suck it up lads, you'll get there.




As CaptainX says above - these traditions and methods etc have been to some extent pushed aside in the name of progress - perhaps its time for some Back To Basics.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
The only question is how long it will take.

Another six months will hurt, but like I said - it will feel like nothing once we see her in service.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 10):
Executives need to produce results or be fired. I never thought I'd write that, but in this case we are getting very close to it. The Boeing board should step in. This has the potential to erase a lot of share holder value.

Heads will roll - have no doubt about that. Somebody is going to get fired.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6951 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21432 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17):
Please note, not a single European has piped up gloating about this - we've been through it with the A380 and we know what you are going through. Before some on here start playing the victim, I want it noted that not a single Airbus supporter has been gloating about this. Thanks.

I was not a member during most of the A380 problems, but as an ardent Boeing fanboy let me say that I appreciate this. I never thought that the A380 would fail; my objection to it was that I felt it was the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. It is still too early to tell if I am right or not, but so far I think that any objective observer would have to acknowledge that its sales have been disappointing. While I am ardently pro-Boeing, the last thing I want to see is for Airbus to fail, as a monopoly in airliners will benefit nobody. I used to feel aggrieved by the launch aid issue, but have since decided that the political costs associated with it more than equalizes the playing field, and I now regard the WTO issue as a good place to keep the lawyers occupied so they aren't out screwing something else up.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21300 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
I now regard the WTO issue as a good place to keep the lawyers occupied so they aren't out screwing something else up.

Hahahaha wonderful quote.  Smile

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
I felt it was the wrong aircraft at the wrong time.

I've always felt she was either five years too early or five years too late. Anyway - back to 787.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10106 posts, RR: 97
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21277 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
and I now regard the WTO issue as a good place to keep the lawyers occupied so they aren't out screwing something else up.

Perfect summary, if I may say so, my friend. Meanwhile, back at the office, the airframe builders can get on with their day jobs...  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineWolflair From Mexico, joined Sep 2007, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 20903 times:



Quoting CaptainX (Reply 11):
The 787 may also go down in history as the biggest launch failure of all time.

 checkmark  I have to agree with you. It MAY be the way you picture it: a possibility of being the biggest LAUNCH failure (not talking about commercial/industrial success... that may come later)

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 15):
I find quite the contrary will happen and the 787 will go down in history the fastest selling widebody.

It has been so far one of the fastest selling widebodies. The question that remains unanswered is regarding its deliveries. Remember: selling a plane is one thing... but you won't see a penny of profit until you deliver it.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 14):
Commercial - puhleeze... The 900 orders are not going anywhere.

Some may go somewhere... or some of the revenue may go bust in penalty payments if the 787 fails to deliver its performance guarantees. I don't have a doubt that airliners which build a business case and a model based on some performance guarantees will demand some sort of compensation or even cancel some orders if those guarantees are not met.



JMM -A319,A320,A321,A333,A343,AT45,AT72,B462,B722,B737s from -200 to -800,B744,B752,B762,B763,BE35,DC91,F70,Ju52,MD80,S3
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20696 times:

My best wishes to all people in the 787 program that tomorrow we get
a) a true report of the current state
b) a fair, realistic time scale
c) this really gets done
d) and is not so hurtful that you have to suffer for management faults.


User currently offlineYWG747 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20599 times:

I am hoping there wont be anymore delays.... but that is probably being naive. Before you know it there will hundreds upon thousands of these wonderful birds flying the skies!

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20503 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
Although I'm not expecting it to miss its targets (God forbid)



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17):
Agreed - late is one thing but its (eventually) forgivable if the delivered product is on spec - the 789 was quite overweight last time I heard - have they sorted this out?

Yes, I was going to ask what was the latest word (from God presumably) about the weight issue.

It will soon be time for a progress report on that "other" slimming exercise. IIRC both problems are around the 6t mark - curious coincidence? A bit like the honours/budget shaving exercise from Yes Minister as in "I think I have found a saving." "How much?" "Er 5%." Will anyone shaving 6t off the beast get a gong?


25 Art : From what I have read (from Boeing - not sure) the 748-I is
26 Mrocktor : "Management faults" such as this are frequently nothing but the aggregate result of thousands of people telling little lies about how quickly they ca
27 Baroque : I think I had the numbers wrong. 2-3% for the 787, and 5.5t for the 380. Six seemed a memorable number, but we know about memory!! But I got the 5% b
28 Ken777 : A great sign of maturity and I appreciate it. You need to remember that at least in the US) we are in the "we want it NOW" era and us Yanks are not o
29 Revelation : As entertaining as I find it to watch an executive walk the plank, I suspect this all mostly depends on how Mr. McNearny feels about Mr. Carson, and
30 Cloudy : Boy is that ever true. The solution in the consumer tech world is often to release something that is on time, but crappy. Sometimes the result is som
31 Beaucaire : Considering an max empty weight of 186 tons for the 748-I ,that would mean about 1.6 tons or 1600 Kg -not so bad compared to what we've seen from Air
32 Mrocktor : You are very right indeed. This is going to cost Boeing a lot more than the couple billion in extra development costs and customer compensation. What
33 SEPilot : There's no point jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. And hiring an outside "whiz kid" has its own set of pitfalls. It's very easy to shout "
34 Post contains links and images Bringiton : This is a bloomberg article about the breifing . I dont know how up to date the factory picture is but this seems as the most recent picture from the
35 Barbarian : I hate to sound negative, but i really do think this is just the tip of the iceberg for the 787. Three major delays before they have even had power on
36 EPA001 : Out of the Bloomberg article: "More problems are likely to pop up once the company starts test flights, George Shapiro, an analyst with Citigroup in N
37 SEPilot : That is the difference. The A380 was basically familiar territory; any changes from the previous new aircraft was incremental. What tripped Airbus up
38 Post contains links Brendows : That picture is from the beginning of December, before LN2 arrived at Everett. A bigger version can be seen here: boeingmedia.com
39 Flighty : The hilarious thing is that Boeing forgot / was blind to an entire category of the development cycle: refinement and revisions. In retrospect, design
40 CHRISBA777ER : Only time will tell I guess. I think a lot depends on the media - if Wall Street starts baying for blood then Carson seems to me the be the guy they
41 RedFlyer : I think their plan (in theory) was that all mistakes and refinements would occur at the supplier's end. That was the beauty (in theory) of distributi
42 Baron95 : Not exactly. If the investors and the board feel that enough damage ins being done to the stock and that the way to restore investor/shareholder conf
43 Mrocktor : Perfect! And it gets even worse: at some level, everyone is competing with everyone else to not be the program bottleneck. No one wants to be the "ca
44 Astuteman : The trouble with that is that the buck ALWAYS stops with the Prime Contactor. Expecting the mistakes to happen at the suppliers end is not good proje
45 RedFlyer : Absolutely correct. The model Boeing established for themselves did not in any way absolve them of responsibility. I might have to disagree a little
46 Glideslope : June 5th. I used to think that McNerney should have fired Carson by now. I'm not so sure any longer. Tomorrow will tell the tale. There is so much we
47 Glideslope : Agreed. So where is the ultimate responsibility to have the right people in place? Should we go back to the days of Phil, and Harry/ Or should JIm go
48 Moo : Since they have to change the -800 wingbox *and* apply strengtheners to early build frames, I'm guessing its an issue with the basic -800 design - an
49 Flysherwood : I agree wholeheartedly that firing him won't solve any of the problems. I think he has done a great job of selling commercial aircraft. But you know
50 Flysherwood : Boeing has plenty of cash to get through fixing the problems. They will eventually fix it.
51 Barbarian : I honestly dont know how much of it could be blamed on a management 'decision' as such... problem was that nobody realised there was a problem until
52 OldAeroGuy : Could be both.
53 SEPilot : Any engineer could have told them they were asking for trouble, big time. If one group is making changes on the computer and another group has to man
54 Osiris30 : I've quoted those two parts for a reason; the root cause of both aircrafts' delays are the same; management missing something. Everyone seems to be f
55 Glideslope : Sales people can never make the tough calls. I agree with this point completely. Airbus deserves the credit mentioned. Mr. Carson seems like he is tr
56 Stitch : Free cash (cash after expenses and R&D) was over $7 billion this year, so I expect it's pretty good.
57 Astuteman : It will be engraved on my heart till the day I die. The most ludicrous way of spending $6Bn that I can possibly imagine. Unforgiveable. At least (in
58 Rheinwaldner : You mean using different versions of Catia? IIRC a converter-software was planned but because that project stalled both databases ended isolated -> T
59 Osiris30 : Ok, everyone but Astuteman forgets Having said that, (and it should be no secret that I am often referred to as a 'Boeing supporter' around these par
60 Osiris30 : The converter was an internal Airbus project (AFAIK). It didn't work right, which caused no end of issues. Once the software was known to be off-trac
61 Post contains links FlyingAY : Leeham reports also that Airbus is increasing A330 product line capacity earlier than anticipated, thus raising a possibility of selling some interim
62 NCB : Paying compensations to airlines who need to extend their B767/A330 lease contracts at higher than normal rates and paying compensation to suppliers
63 Wouwout : Which is exactly why delays (probably: more delays after this delay) are inevitable.
64 Moo : I'm surprised Leeham is taken in by the Boeing propaganda - The plane is not assembled in three days - a plane rolls off the production line every th
65 Astuteman : Funnily enough, I'm beginning to side with OldAeroGuy on this one. In the first 3 months of 2008, Airbus only managed to deliver 19 A330/A340 - 6.3 p
66 Zeke : I think that photo is a little old (my guess would be Jan/Feb), the fuselage in the foreground now has very noticeable rings around it forward and af
67 Stitch : Assuming 737, 747, 767 and 777 deliveries in 2008 are similar to what they were in 2009, that should be another $7 billion in free cash coming in thi
68 Post contains links N1786b : Press Release Source: Boeing Boeing Revises 787 First Flight and Delivery Plans; Adds Schedule Margin to Reduce Risk of Further Delays Wednesday April
69 RedChili : Both of them are delays of 14-16 months compared to the original schedule, so Boeing apparently believes that they can do the flight testing accordin
70 Post contains images Slz396 : What a nice way of announcing additional delay, don't you think? Spinning at its best!    The 787-3 is deferred indefinitely (no date) so it sounds
71 Revelation : Seems everything slips out two quarters, more or less the expected outcome. So, we're almost three months away from these things happeneing. That's pr
72 Slz396 : Indeed, this is the most remarkable of the entire press release. Boeing is still planning on a very agressive test program. In fact, EIS in Q3 2009 i
73 CaptainX : They are still in very deep denial. Same old same old. This plan too will fall apart, just a matter of time as the centipede shakes off another shoe.
74 Stitch : I don't find it surprising because Boeing continues to expect the plane to work as advertised once it finally does get into the air, so they see no r
75 Post contains links Zeke : Seems this further delay is having a significant effect on the 787 suppliers/partners http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008...-suppliers-to-sputter/?mo
76 Post contains links Clickhappy : Good, looks like they have given themselves a little padding this time. Maybe time to under promise and over deliver. You already knew the first flig
77 Slz396 : Mind you, I am not even counting on any problems being discovered during flight testing which might cause further delays, I am just counting in the f
78 FriendlySkies : You forget that after LN1, all of the aircraft will be arriving almost fully stuffed with systems & interiors, etc, which will greatly reduce assembl
79 Art : You make it sound as if flight testing is just to confirm that the performance is more or less as anticipated. And if a small problem is found on tes
80 Flyglobal : You can quote me later, but I still predict that they need a 15 months flight test schedule at the end. That is what my project experience and my para
81 Post contains links A380900 : Is there any substance to the boeing announcement? See below: Boeing Revises 787 First Flight and Delivery Plans; Adds 2008-04-09 08:30 (New York) Sch
82 KSMOGeNe : I think we'll see more details in the 11am EST webcast. 6 month delay, as expected by investors. Stock price has surged 4% on this news, which is puzz
83 Moo : Sell on the rumour, buy on the news
84 Gigneil : That's just not possible in the real world. NS
85 Stitch : In this day and age, that's pretty much what should happen. The A380 sailed through her test and certification program and nobody should have been su
86 Zeke : The time it took Airbus to do the flight testing on the A380 is over double what Boeing is scheduled for the 787. They are trying to flight the 787 i
87 Asiaflyer : I think the fact that Boeing expects no change in earnings for 2008 was positive for the stock price. A small profit warning was in the pipe, but did
88 Flyglobal : Stich, as much as I like to read your comments and I mostly agree with you, but in this one I do not. If this would be the 777F program, yes it would
89 Moo : I don't understand this, Boeing was originally expecting to deliver quite a large number of aircraft in 2008 but has repeatedly said that there is no
90 Baroque : Looks as if you are turning optimist Slz as you have them on adagio rather than marche funebre! Can you and CaptX either explain briefly the input fo
91 Rbgso : Much as I like the 787 and respect Boeing, I think they would have trouble organizing a fire drill these days. These six month at a time delays are li
92 GBan : This is indeed strange. If the expect 0 earnings now and there is no change they must have expected 0 earnings from the 787 in 2008 all the time. Or
93 NA : I can see the 748F already flying before the Dreamliner.
94 Gigneil : It should fly before the Dreamliner on this schedule, and will almost certainly be delivered before it. NS
95 Asiaflyer : They probably didn't expect the first planes to generate much profit as the production cost for the first frames is much higher than for the bulk. Bo
96 Art : Listening to the webcast, the 6 month extra delay is explained thus: - 2 months delay to power on - extra 2 months allowed between power on and first
97 CaptainX : They had just one "minor" problem in flight tests on the Dreamlifter and it added over 5 months to the certification program. .... so 2 months should
98 PW100 : I can think of two reasons: more earnings due to more aircraft delivered. This does not seem to be the case as I believe that output of other Boeing
99 Post contains images Art : Actually it wasn't me who decided to allow 2 extra months for flight testing. It was some people over in Seattle.   But now that you mention it, whe
100 Planemaker : I would be interested to hear what explanation Boeing execs give as to why the 787-9 is also further delayed - 2 years now in total, when the 787-3 h
101 Flyglobal : Ok, let me be honest. I do not have a mathematical model that I put into a computer and out comes a project schedule. I was 'teasing' a bit to captai
102 Astuteman : So no 787-9's before 2012? Sorta kills the 787-10 in 2013 stone dead, I guess. In reality, it means that the gap between the A350XWB, and 787 version
103 PHKLM : Captain X, welcome to my RR for predicting this exactly (EIS 2009, FF late 2008) as early as August 2007.
104 Planemaker : But why the 2 year total delay, now, when the 787-3 has been bumped from in front of it?
105 Lmpinto : But 15 months from June 30 (power on) is around 3Q09 (predicted EIS), isn't it ? László
106 N14AZ : Cannot read all posts on all 787-threads (have to work in between). Can someone summarize the wingbox-issue? And how did Boeing sell it today? Accordi
107 Scipio : One implication of this is that we will not see any 787-10 before the second half of the next decade. 18 months and counting. Airbus is getting quite
108 Astuteman : Edit - that's not strictly correct, is it? The 787-9 will compete DIRECTLY with the A350-800, which it will pre-date by 2 1/2 years. However, it also
109 CaptainX : Art - sorry. I was "speaking" to Boeing about the schedule "margin" they added. Not dis'n you at all. Again, sorry. They probably will get one powere
110 Bmacleod : AC 787-9 deliveries were to start in 2010. With the new delay will this be pushed back to 2012-13? It is possible we could see cancellations in favor
111 MBJ2000 : Why do I have the bad feeling, the A350 engineers all just put down their "pens", opened a bottle of champagne, booked a table at a nice bar tonight,
112 Pylon101 : Please clarify where the press conference is being discussed (will be dicussed)??? I have read the update. But the press conference is still probably
113 Clickhappy : You sound like 75% of the union workers on the factory floor. The funny thing is, you (or is it they) said the same thing about the 777, and the 737N
114 Moo : There is no press conference, it was a press release and a conference call which ended over an hour ago.
115 Andhen : PHKLM.. I added CaptainX to my RU-list some days ago, he has generally been right in his predictions about the 787 timetable. I think his predictions
116 PHKLM : It's admirable to keep coming here when being laughed at or annoyed with Boeing fanboys in denial that kept saying "source?" no matter what Captain X
117 Clickhappy : Please, CaptainTen follows the "throw enough shit on the wall and some is bound to stick" school of prediciton. It reminds me of Michael Boyd, for yea
118 Flighty : In software, it is. But hey, all I was saying is Boeing isn't doing too badly. It's hard to say they should hire better engineers. Instead, their eng
119 PHKLM : Sorry Clickhappy. I totally understand what you mean; if I predict either Obama or Clinton is going to win the elections I might prove myself right,
120 Kanban : extended flight test time seems to reflect slower initial assembly plans... I believe the original plan had 5 a/p all built within 60 days or less. I
121 HawkerCamm : Firstly I think Boeing now have a sound plan to FF. They have time to do the required static testing to clear LN1 for FF. If the structural work is c
122 Par13del : It could be that they are padding the schedule by moving the EIS for the -3 and -9, it could also be that they are preparing for the "mother of all ra
123 Stitch : Well the 777 was being certified for ETOPS at EIS, so I imagine they had to do more hours to prove that. ETOPS is now "passe" for twins, so the 787 s
124 Kappel : IIRC the baseline version is the a359, with the a358 being a shrink and the a3510 a stretch. Or could be they are just preparing to cut the 783 allto
125 Stitch : Well the "advantage" of the 787-3 is that it is just a slightly lighter 787-8 with different wingtip extensions. So once Boeing completes the 787-8,
126 Ken777 : That assumes no delays for the 350. SInce both A & B seem to need a bit of extra time I wouldn't be surprised if the 350 will encounter its share of
127 Gigneil : But as you know, your software often relates with hardware, and its less possible. For example, staying in parallel with your tack, if a company tape
128 AirNZ : Well now, isn't it interesting though that he just happens to have been exactly correct with predictions he made back in 2007 and when he was hounded
129 NYC777 : Here's a summary of the 787 program conference call: • First flight moved to 4th Quarter 2008 • First Delivery moved to 3rd Quarter 2009 • First
130 R2rho : See? Accumulating a two year delay like the A380 is quite easy. Suddenly, seeing Boeing match Airbus in this aspect doesn't look like a such a crazy f
131 Clickhappy : Clearly many people "contributing" to this thread haven't been following along since last summer. I have told you about every delay, 2 months before i
132 Astuteman : A359 is certainly the first to fly. But what I mean is that the engineering that it will fly with includes wings big enough for an A350-1000, engines
133 ER757 : Listening to the call, I could really hear in Carson's voice how painful it was for him to make this announcement. It is in times like this that the
134 Gigneil : Its funny. Glenn Tilton and Dick Steenland pull massive multinational corporations out of bankruptcy and save a hundred thousand jobs, they are thiev
135 ER757 : I think you mistook my meaning. I meant that standing up in fromt of the shareholders and media and having to eat a hell of a lot of crow can't be ea
136 DocLightning : I predict at least one more 6-month dalay.
137 EbbUK : I acknowledge Boeing for taking on the impossible, it takes guts to go for the unkown and make it all possible. Like many breakthrough projects what s
138 Stitch : It was the most successful widebody commercial airliner.
139 XT6Wagon : Sorry, this has been corrected many times. Boeing has stated a GOAL of 3 days separating parts in the door and plane out the door. I, like many peopl
140 RedChili : So, can you explain how they will do this with four positions in the final assembly line? Will each airplane spend only 18 hours at each position? An
141 AirNZ : But you seem to be 'correcting' something which is still only a GOAL. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Boeing also theoretically has a goal of
142 XT6Wagon : Because one of their plans is that the plane doesn't NEED all 4 positions. It spends IIRC 24 hrs in the assembly jig, then then next two days in one
143 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Thanks for the nice summary. Man, do you ever run out of bullets? Here is an update on the evolution of the 787 milestones. This is the fourth slip i
144 Ken777 : Thanks for listing the call points. The above three says it all for me - it's going to be the risk partners and suppliers that determine the ramp up
145 ScrubbsYWG : i gather it seems boeing just plain underestimated the time it would take to get this first plane up and running. It seems like there is some piece in
146 Rheinwaldner : Thanks for your transcription! That sounds uncomfortable. It suggests that imporvments happen gradually what is just painful. A situation where the f
147 Post contains links and images Baroque : I can also see MSN20 EIS before the Dreamliner flies - at least very close. I doubt if this is how it will work. Say you are in the Euro zone, you or
148 Moo : I'm going to need a definitive citation for that because I simply do not believe its possible, even with a pre-stuffed design such as the 787, to do
149 Mariner : Standing by, at all times, with stout rope at the ready. mariner
150 Revelation : It makes one wonder if no one was willing to make such an argument to Mr. McNearny. And all the predictions of Y1 and/or Y3 delivering a knock out pu
151 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : In another thread, Moo explained that when Airbus says 8 per month, they're talking about a 10 month production schedule or 80 airplanes per year. Ov
152 Post contains images Baroque : And with you having the stout rope, we can assume that an anchor is also at the ready. Interesting bit of psychology seems to be going on here. As OA
153 Stitch : It certainly seems unlikely, but I wonder if the sub-assemblies arrive truly assembled and all Boeing needs to do is hook-up the lines, hoses and har
154 Moo : Do final body join with riveting, do wing assembly and hang the engines, prime the hydraulics and inspect it all? This isn't lego. From what I can se
155 Viscount724 : A big difference with the 707 was that it met it's original delivery date promises. In fact it was delivered a few months early. If memory correct wh
156 Planemaker : Topic for another thread but... it didn't take guts since Boeing had no choice. If they didn't "go for the unknown"... as you put it, they would have
157 HB88 : I admire such conviction! I'll be happy to disagree with your view, so I guess we'll just have to see. In the meantime, it's cheering us all up in th
158 SEPilot : Certainly they were feeling forced, as they had seen Airbus overtake them and felt the intense need to do something dramatic, but it still took guts.
159 RJ111 : Ohh dear, isn't Boeing in a pickle. The A380 and now 787 debacle have highlighted where compeition has its negatives. The two have overpromised to get
160 Osiris30 : HB88: As always my beef with the 380 was never the hard working folks at Airbus I appreciate your ability to accept (and yet disagree) with my views.
161 SEPilot : Yes, it did; however the cost of doing so far, far outstripped what Boeing had originally planned on. Then, with the subsequent redesigns (especially
162 Post contains links and images Planemaker : Only 3 days in final assembly... eventually.... Eventually, Boeing hopes to deliver a finished Dreamliner after only three days in final assembly. It
163 Moo : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html Ok, definitive citations accepted I still don't see it happening - the aircraft is far t
164 SEPilot : I have to disagree. MD was in pretty much the same situation in the 1980's; they needed to make a new plane to compete with Boeing, but chose instead
165 Zeke : It was 18 months, for some reason some people seem to add an additional 6 months of "Schedule Margin" to that an call it two years. If it was 2 years
166 XT6Wagon : My guess is that the plane at the end of the 3 day period wouldn't be "complete" but still "green" with possibly some minor work to be done outside o
167 Planemaker : Ahhhh... but 3 days assembly does not mean that it is ready for flight - far from it! There are still many, many major tasks before it would be deliv
168 SEPilot : But that is the choice that MD made. Why, if it takes no guts, didn't they do something different? As I understand it, Condit was in favor of doing p
169 Planemaker : MD had no other choice... they couldn't afford to produce an all new, clean-sheet commercial aircraft. MD's commercial side had been in decline for a
170 Stitch : 10 per month is the current (eventual) ramp goal, so this sound reasonable.
171 Post contains links CaptainX : Some wingbox color (March 20 podcast): http://airinsight.podomatic.com/play...008-03-20T11_24_23-07_00.mp3&flv=0
172 Post contains links Singapore_Air : VIDEO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRichard Quest of CNN playing with model B787s on 10 April 2008: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/business/2008/04/10/quest.boei
173 EbbUK : where is NAV20? What is your contribution?
174 SEPilot : Again, I see it differently. In the early 80's, which is when MD made the decision not to build a new airliner, Airbus was still a one-trick pony jus
175 Bringiton : I think that podcast is not relevant here because a lot of the ? that some of the guys had in their will now be better understood after the call , mo
176 Planemaker : Your recollection of the early 80's is not correct. There were no reasons why MD should make a decision to build a "new" NB in the early 80's?? They
177 Burkhard : MD was too late on the MD90 and MD-95, when the competition just had the better engines for too long.
178 SEPilot : Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I believe that if, when they made the MD-80 series, they had instead built a completely new NB using the best en
179 Nomadd22 : Quoting Moo (Reply 154): From what I can see, my time line is more likely considering Boeing is only looking at 10 a month - one coming off the line e
180 CHRISBA777ER : " target=_blank>http://airinsight.podomatic.com/play...flv=0 A new wingbox? Ouch. How can they change the wingbox on the planes they'd assembled?
181 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Depends on which airline you're talking about. For Singapore, it was 18 months. If you're Emirates, it was 24 months (2 years). Emirates EIS was plan
182 Post contains links Swallow : The revised 787 schedule implies [if there is no further slippage] that in 2009 there will be: 1. 25 787s delivered and... 2. 25 380s delivered A few
183 HawkerCamm : Close to what Scott Hamilton posted but slower in the earlier years.
184 Pihero : At least, I am not the only one to wonder about this farce: If I am not mistaken, a wing box is not just any part of an aircraft, it is THE most stru
185 SEPilot : From what I have read, the weight reduction program went too far and they need to add some of it back in. It is not a whole new wing box, just a modi
186 Osiris30 : This is no different than what happened with the 380 wing.. and a few simple reinforcements were all it needed. The wingbox is hardly the show stoppe
187 Astuteman : FWIW I would have agreed with you completely, especially with the analogy regarding the A380 wings. However, Boeing explicitly cite the wingbox as ad
188 Osiris30 : 2 out of 18 months is not a huge deal. The biggest difference between the wing box and the wing is just that it's delaying wiring and plumping in the
189 Pihero : Sorry, Guys I haven't been clear enough : The wing box, as far as I know is at the junction of the wing and fuselage and as such it has to absorb a wh
190 Osiris30 : We consider it such because it has pretty much been explained that they trimmed a little too much and it just needs bracing.
191 Astuteman : For the sake of consistency, I have to say that I think that the complexity/impact of structures is grossly overplayed on A-net. In the grand scheme
192 Planemaker : Unfortunately you really do not remember the development timeframe of what you are posting about. The CFM-56 was not even available for the MD80 when
193 Rheinbote : Three days is the ultimate target for FACTORY flow, that's the time the aircraft spends in the final assembly line. The interim target is 6 days @ LN
194 Pihero : There is no smilie for a *respectful bow*
195 SEPilot : OK, I will concede that point. I thought it was available about that time, but obviously if it wasn't MD couldn't have used it. That makes the timing
196 Rheinbote : Delayed revenue is certainly not 'cost'... JPMorgan writes that they think Boeing needs until 2017 to catch up with the original delivery schedule. T
197 Astuteman : If it helps, I think the impact of CFRP barrels, marvel though they are, is muchly overplayed as well. Systems will ALWAYS beat structure in complexi
198 Osiris30 : The marvel of the 787 isn't the material, but the production methodology if they can get it right. And the latter seems to be where they've been havi
199 Planemaker : We haven't built a purely AL aircraft for several decades now. The eventual replacement of CFRP as the primary material will not be in my lifetime.
200 Zeke : Might be sooner than you think, look at the new hybrid materials, they are stronger and lighter than composites, and are easier to work.
201 Planemaker : They are just variations on an existing theme... think of advanced glare. Fibre reinforced composite material will remian the underlying... primary m
202 Osiris30 : Good point.. should have been more clear.. we won't build predominantly AL aircraft anymore. As for CFRP, I don't know.. how old are you? I would exp
203 MD-90 : 1000+ sales on an old wing wasn't too unfortunate, methinks.
204 Astuteman : Bad analogy, really. Most sea-going vessels today are made out of steels which are only slightly cleverer than the steels used 100 years ago... The h
205 Planemaker : Yes... especially on the 787 where some of the weight savings of the CFRP barrels were to a significant degree offset by the increased weight of the
206 Asiaflyer : If this is a correct assumption, how will that affect future 787 sales? There are still a handful of airlines who has not placed any WB orders yet, b
207 Osiris30 : I was thinking more over the lifetime of water going craft than just your lifetime Concur, but with the caveat it seems to have caused their supplier
208 Stitch : Well the latest 787 orders (announced prior to this latest delay) had delivery dates in 2016, so if they lose only a year over the current sales, tha
209 Zeke : Hybrids are generally "fiber reinforced composite materials", but not necessarily CFRP, they are easier to work than CFRP.
210 Rheinbote : Well, Boeing claimed in front of customers that CFRP would save about 13,000lbs of weight. The added weight for the "large" windows probably doesn't
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 Execs To Provide 787 Update posted Wed Aug 29 2007 18:41:49 by Zvezda
Boeing Close To Defining 787-10 posted Tue Nov 13 2007 10:52:59 by T773ER
Boeing Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 04:26:05 by Coelacanth
AA Bids To Provide 787 Maintenance posted Tue Sep 26 2006 16:59:52 by SEAdomer787
Boeing Not Concerned About 787 Problems posted Thu Jul 20 2006 15:21:49 by EI321
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Boeing's Bair: Talks With QR Continue About 787 posted Mon May 29 2006 08:15:20 by Leelaw
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE