IAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 504 posts, RR: 44 Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19195 times:
Just got off the phone with Boeing. The company say that 787 will not fly by the close of this year. No new timeline was available and they are conducting a full assessment of the program currently. In addition, there's no timeline for the completion of the assessment.
I believe this is actually the fifth slip in first flight, and will be the fourth slip in EIS. The September 2007 slip in the first flight date compressed the entire flight test schedule with no change in EIS.
This is a summary of the delays, as of last April (prior to power-on).
I will update this chart after Boeing completes their assessment and provides a revised schedule.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32272 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18652 times:
I no longer care and going forward I will now ignore anything relating to the 787. I know she will fly and I know she will be phenomenally successful, so in the end, being successful is the best revenge.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11049 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18611 times:
The 787 is technologically and production-wise the most ambitious civil airliner since the days of Adam and Eve, oops, I meant the 747 and Concorde. It doesn´t surprise that there is trouble all over. What I do not understand is the foolish, even childish confidence Boeing had until about 1 year ago. Almost all major hightech programs all over the world are delayed. Name one that is on time. There is always a big problem not anticipated when you are designing a thing made of a million screws and a thousand computers.
To regain confidence now Boeing now should not make the mistake to withdraw staff from the 748 to help the 787. Then there will be again a program under delay, damaging Boeings image even further.
Btw, heard the news from Airbus regarding the 400M military freighter? Same story, neverending delays. And that one is not that much new ground like the 787.
Sebjacques92 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2007, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18455 times:
Its a shame about the 787 but i think we all knew that with Boeings turbulent past few months it was almost certain. I just hope Boeing don't end up with the poor reputation that Airbus recieved with the A380. Yet on the plus side the A380 turned out great so i can only hope the 787 will be also.
There will always be trouble with the new technology that is used for the first time and unfortunatly for Boieng it hasn't turned out quite as planned, but as we have seen with Airbus things will get better..........i hope
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18399 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 11): What I do not understand is the foolish, even childish confidence Boeing had until about 1 year ago.
I'll take a stab at this one.
1. We - Boeing - want to build this new a/c, also want to save money doing it, so lets out-source as much as we can to professional bodies who are already doing the work, this will reduce our overhead and increase our profit margins, will also insulate us from union activities and set the trend for the next union agreement scheduled in 2008. We do not intened to offer this product at any savings to the purchaser, this is for profit and efficiency only.
2. Board agrees and away we go.
3. Problems are found during our cursory inspections, we did not believe that we had to schedule detail inspections as we do at our own plants with our own workers, the out-sourced vendors is supposed to take care of these things.
4. Now trying to figure out how to correct / put pressure / force vendor to do the work to our requirements even though we do not actually control their work force, etc. etc. ect.
5. Pride now rears its ugly head, delays are now begining to add up, but if we can roll out on time, PR will delay and soothe some of the bad feelings, whether the a/c is fit to roll out or even fly is immaterial.
I did the first 5, feel free to re-arrange and add on.
It should not make any difference how difficult, complex or detailed this project is, this was screwed up by management pure and simply, the computers did not fail, new equations and or laws of physics did not have to be developed, problem is that as a people in society we are raised to look at those in charge as being larger than life, better than the rest of us and smarter to boot, so it becomes real difficult to look at those in charge and say that they busted this project wide open, after all, we need to have confidence in their ability to deliver a successul finished product. Simple as it may sound, as much innovation and new methods of production were introduced during our history before the computers, CAD designs existed, we have to try and figure out what it is that we lost to the computers, because we are now accepting mediocraity as a result, - may be a bit harsh.
I'll add a potential explanation: lack of experience.
Boeing just builds too few all-new aircraft, and when they finally got around to launching a new aircraft project, 14 years after their previous one, they introduced too many innovations at once and underestimated the challenge that was ahead.
Boeing had only had 2 all-new projects in the 30 years before the launch of the 787, namely the 757/767 in 1978 and the 777 in 1990.
By contrast, Airbus has launched 4 all-new projects in just 23 years: the A320 in 1983, the A330/340 in 1987, the A380 in 2000, and the A350XWB in 2006.
Boeing obviously needs more practice
The schedules for the 787 and A350 are now little more than 3 years apart, btw.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 5302 posts, RR: 40
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17885 times:
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 10): Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Can it be a coincidence that all of these facts are published on a day dominated by bigger news?
Could be but it smells like a classic p.r. example of hiding bad news behind a big event.
Well, everybody involved in the industry will pick this up, as will Wall Street. If it is not today, it will be tomorrow! So maybe it is PR, but maybe it's not. In the end it does not make any difference!
It is just very disappointing to see another delay for this so promising plane. It will cost Boeing way more then anticipated, but I am sure in the end they will get it right! And it will be a fantastic plane for the many years of service to come!
On the other hand, just as the A380 turned out to be exceptionally good, I presume the A350-XWB will also be a phenominal plane!
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11049 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17628 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 13): Quoting NA (Reply 11):
What I do not understand is the foolish, even childish confidence Boeing had until about 1 year ago.
I'll take a stab at this one.
Thank you. I also think its management failure far ahead of everything else. The typical overconfidence of greedy overpaid shareholders slaves, the type of character which also caused our current financial crisis.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17502 times:
Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 19): bet it wont fly until 2Q 2009 and even that's optimistic at this point. MGMT needs to get this strike over with.
The strike's over, didn't you read? But they sure didn't need this to put a further dent in their already dented credibility. Let's face it; they shouldn't have done the technology leap along with the avant garde outsourced supply chain in the same program. That was too much simultaneous challenge to manage properly and now Boeing is paying the price for its own management's myopia. No doubt this gave IAM lots of leverage in the settlement. Once again, corporate arrogance has put Boeing in a corner; hopefully, the painful lessons of this unsavory experience will be lasting ones.
SparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17136 times:
Quoting AvObserver (Reply 23): Once again, corporate arrogance has put Boeing in a corner; hopefully, the painful lessons of this unsavory experience will be lasting ones.
Corporate arrogance is usually bad, but it's what also brought Boeing to be so ambitious in the first place. By dealing with all these problems now, Boeing will be getting valuable experience in weighing the true benefits of outsourcing on future projects.
After the A380 delays, we all know now that airlines will still hold on to their orders and will wait for new technology. And Airbus and Boeing don't need to worry about upset a.nutters either.
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17243 times:
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 2): nobody on this forum ever believed anyhow that the 787 would take off this year..
That's not true. Up until the strike, I still believed it would fly this year, and I'm definitely not the only one. Given the fastener issue they've just disclosed, it looks like it wouldn't have flown this year even without the strike, but I don't think anyone here saw the (second) fastener issue coming...if they did, they kept remarkably quiet about it.
Quoting Davescj (Reply 5): Boeing is going to be taking serious hits in credibility and finances as promised aircraft don't get delivered.
I'm not sure it can get much worse. After slide #3, who was still taking them seriously?
Quoting Par13del (Reply 13): We do not intened to offer this product at any savings to the purchaser, this is for profit and efficiency only.
Except they did offer a savings to the purchaser...a big one. Compared to what it can do, the 787 is *far* cheaper than a 767.
: Ok all you know it all poindexter eggheads! How many delays did the 747 have? Did it take over 3 years before her maiden flight? What about the 757-76
: Way to win over the rank-and-file...blame them! The Sonic Cruiser would be in service by now.
: Well as many posts already pointed out, it was not unexpected. It still makes me wonder, what's happening to the industry? Airbus made fools of themse
: Bingo. So pinning the 787 delay on the IAM is just another in Boeing's extended length record of documented, proven corporate lies about the 787 prog
: from your article "This latest delay is the fifth slip for the first flight of Dreamliner One since September 2007, and suggests the event could occu
: From Flightblogger: Using these numbers, 3 percent means that we're talking about around 11,000 fasteners per airplane. And there are six of them in E
: See reply 6. Fifth for first flight Fourth for EIS
: The fastener issue could have been caught six weeks ago had the IAM not gone out on strike. IOW, if the strike had not happened the problem would hav
: How do you figure? 747 was huge but the only major technology shift was the engines (which were a mess, but didn't have much to do with the airplane)
: This further delay is not surprising, but it is still pathetic on the part of boeing.
: Well, to be fair, if you are going to point to two Boeing programs PRIOR to the 787, then you should point to just three Airbus programs PRIOR to the
: Interesting observation. While some are quick to blame the bleeding-edge technology involved in these latest generation of airplanes for the delays (
: Great summary, Stitch. Who else helped them programme manage 3 new programmes? The fastener issue should have been caught over a year ago.... Rgds
: Not a very far-fetched scenario. You have to remember that before Dreamliner 1 can fly, Dreamliner 2 must undergo certain tests. And before you can d
: Maybe Boeing would be best off abandoning #001 and working on #003, which hasn't had so many mistakes made on it. But if they continue to delay while
: Or one could say it the way it reallllllly is not live behind rose colored glasses Boeing did the 757, 767 and 777 while Airbus did the 320, 340/330
: No way. That airframe is loaded with complex flight test instrumentation that is required in order to open the flight envelope for the other test air
: But nobody should point their fingers exclusively on Boeing for performing sometimes wrong time-scale assessments ! If I watch the EADS drama with the
: I consider your posts among the most valuable ones but here I have a question: Revenge for what? Did somebody harm Boeing? I see it more that after t
: http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL2621614420080626 if you read this piece of news from July 2008,it's an indication that EADS are not be
: I wonder what Bill Allen would think of all this. Maybe they should move back to Seattle and have the engineers having more say and the PR types a lot
: At EIS it will still be the most advanced airplane in service. The problem is the lead time against the A350, (which, while it uses a more traditiona
: It seems to me that Airbus opted to avoid a head on clash against the 787 range when designing the A350XWB, apart from the 800 version. I don't know
: That's because the A330, which is actually more economical on shorter flights than the 787, had its first flight a little while ago. A high-thrust ve
: But what about timescale? I don't think such an engine would be available for quite a few years (6/7+ years if Boeing asked PW nicely?). In the meant
: I can see now that I misread the statement from Flightblogger. 80 percent of 1.8 million fasteners would be around 360,000 fasteners, but since the 7
: I'm have a hard time reading that 80%. The aircraft seems full of fasteners. I cannot imagine or have ever seen an aircraft with 5 times as much fast
: If I recall right some one in here said that the 787 will be flying one month after the strike is over.... It seems that he was an optimist.
: It is hard to get to the truth when there are absolutely no credible sources left inside anymore. Whatever Boeing (or Airbus) say is just noise, it i
: Anyone want to sketch a realistic timetable of doing NDO inspection of 3.000.000 fasteners and replacing 60.000 on already mostly completed airframes
: Revenge for all the slings and arrows being tossed against her and Boeing. Sure, it may not be nothing like some of what we've seen, but they are non
: Exactly and the 787 will be a good aircraft just like the A380 is.
: We had it with the A380 now the 787 faces the same. Delays, in my opinion, are normal when one develops brand new stuff. Problem, though, is that ever
: It doesn't seem to be technology but rather managemen that is the real issue here. The whole thing seems to me rather strange. And more so by the day
: What an interesting thread this is. I've certainly learnt a few things as well ie; rivets are now called fasteners. I still find it hard to believe th
: That's the 3 billion dollar question I guess. What happened to quality control during production. Maybe progressive insights; the production requirem
: If I had to make a money bet, it would be 2000 787s and 1250-1500 A350s over the life of each program. IMO, Boeing tried to do three things at once,
: I think if e.g. Airbus decides to build the A320 successor together with Embraer and Chinese suppliers, Building the 737RS in house is not even an op
: Only very slightly more traditional, and then only in a very narrow product area. I suspect those who wish to paint the A350XWB as "lower-tech" (not
: That certainly cleared that up. How about a Bex and a good lie down? I would not like to think you are arguing for a pattern of storing up perceived
: Which is why I have stopped directly commenting on the 787, in general. It was a no-win scenario defending the A380, but in the end I had the satisfa
: When the market you are targeting, the international long haul market, is 3 times larger than 15 years ago, it makes it much easier to be the fastest
: Anyone betting on the B748 flying before the B788?
: I don't see where it matters. Folks may have quibbled when you had to add the A330 and A340 families together to break 1000 sales, but now the A330 h
: Wait a minute. The 787 will be not as advanced in some fields as the A380 and vice versa. For example the flight controls on the 787 are 2generations
: I fear this is because too many people no longer view it as an aberration, as it was during the "A380 days", but how the forum should normally operat
: That's an interesting discussion in and of itself, but B and A have different philosophies on flight controls.
: Good point. Yes the philosphies are diffrent but still the A380 uses power by wire and EHA's which is a industry's first.
: No, but the 747 could have benefited from another 6 months or more before going into service to permit P&W to work some of the problems out of the ea
: I don't think that's possible...the work to switch all the equipment over seems like it would outweigh any benefit. The 767 isn't even "unacceptably
: What worries me Tdsc is that I already have had to find out more about fasteners than I ever thought I would need to know, and if they keep this up,
: Please don't count that option out. Remember, the FAA needs a paper trail to certify the airplane, and if configuration control hasn't been present f
: Which is pretty much true for just about evey aspect of the 787 and A350. As I said before, people fixating on perceived "technology gaps" are going
: With the economic downturn, does anyone have any idea if there will be orders cancelled with the unpredictable future??
: How can the first event ("the success story") be revenge for what happened later? I agree with your praises about the 787. I think most of all poster
: A bit of wild spin there really considering they have absolutely no option but to deal with these problems now.......they can't get the thing in the
: The 787 has only EHA's in the spoilers and horizontal stabilizer and not a single electrical backup hydrostatic actuator.(EHBA)[Edited 2008-11-06 02:
: I would completely agree with you indeed on that. However, I feel many of the 'misconceptions' (only for want of a better word) here on a.net surroun
: Dumb question time....Could the fasterner problem be more of an specifications issue, where the engineers or manufacturers made the specs so tight tha
: Qantas is getting a little worried;. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,28124,24612398-36418,00.html
: It does matter when you anticipate 2000 sales : adding the demand of each targeted submarket does that represent a need for 2000 aircraft ? What % of
: The 787 would have to be a loooong way off it's project performance (a lot farther than even the most gloomy predictions made so far) to drop below a
: Nope, my original claim is that flight control architecture on the A380 is more advanced then on the 787 which is true else the 787 would also featur
: I I had to guess, figure ~900 787-8s, ~700 787-9s and ~400 787-10s (assuming it's built and aimed at the A-market currently served by 767-400ERs, 777
: I think the number of independent hydraulic circuits will tell you something about the degree of reliance on EHAs. The A380 has two hydraulic circuit
: Well with the 2E/2H flight controls the A380 can be flown without hydraulics.
: Absolutely Tom, and I'm not disputing for a minute your premise that the 787 should be a lot cheaper to operate than a 767. However, what I am repeat
: I would imagine because modern modeling (physical and computational) is so accurate that the results it generates track very close to actual test dat
: Perhaps you weren't around when the 380s wing failed a few percent early. It doesn't take much for the kooks to start claiming a plane shouldn't fly
: They're the same widget, basically, except for duty cycle. What makes the backup more advanced than the primary? As for the architecture, it's basica
: Again, I'm not disputing those parameters, and never have. However, no matter how close one appears to be it is not fact, and even more especially th
: Airbus has free access to the NASA information, so what's your point?