Pilot21 From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1372 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37835 times:
Key points:
1) Side-of-body area needs to be reinforced
2) Work will take several weeks - no new date set for first flight
Boeing Stock Exchange Statement
EVERETT, Wash., June 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today
announced that first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will be postponed due to
a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the
aircraft.
The need was identified during the recent regularly scheduled tests on the
full-scale static test airplane. Preliminary analysis indicated that
flight test could proceed this month as planned. However, after further
testing and consideration of possible modified flight test plans, the
decision was made late last week that first flight should instead be
postponed until productive flight testing could occur.
First flight and first delivery will be rescheduled following the final
determination of the required modification and testing plan. It will be
several weeks before the new schedule is available. The 787 team will
continue with other aspects of testing on Airplane #1, including final
gauntlet testing and low-speed taxiing. Work will also continue on the
other five flight test aircraft and the subsequent aircraft in the
production system.
Scott Carson, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes said a team
of experts has already identified several potential solutions.
"Consideration was given to a temporary solution that would allow us to
fly as scheduled, but we ultimately concluded that the right thing was to
develop, design, test and incorporate a permanent modification to the
localized area requiring reinforcement. Structural modifications like
these are not uncommon in the development of new airplanes, and this is
not an issue related to our choice of materials or the assembly and
installation work of our team," Carson said.
Boeing's financial guidance will be updated to reflect any impact of these
changes when the company issues its second quarter 2009 earnings report in
July.
WestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2075 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37819 times:
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2119 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37663 times:
I feel like some just stuck a pin in my enthusiasm...I can't wait for this any longer...
EbbUK From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1262 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37446 times:
This announcenment certainly reinforces what has been posted here on a.net. The first 787 will never fly!
I can't take Boeing seriously anymore. What a balls up! Shame shame shame.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37400 times:
So it sounds like there is a structural flaw that needs to be addressed (ala the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer and the main gear bulkhead).
I'm going to guess sending the plane up without that fix would affect the certification program so they're going to make the fix first.
I sure hope the 787 doesn't turn into Boeing's L-1011 or MD-11.
Alan M. must be laughing his arse off in Dearborn. :shakehead:
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37304 times:
I suspect that the market will punish them severely for this. Much pain ahead in the near term for the stockholders.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Tropical From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37243 times:
I think it will fly alright, though this latest delay is highly disappointing.
If the new schedule will be announced in 'a few weeks', I think it's safe to assume there will be a few more weeks before the plane actually flies. So a best case scenario of 2 months? Realistically probably more like 3.
I guess this will have a knock-on effect on the EIS date as well. Not good for Boeing. More cancellations or bigger compensation seem likely.
The only silver lining is that it's obviously much better to find out about this problem before the plane has flown than it would have been otherwise...
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37245 times:
They have already stated that there is zero slippage time in the certification programme.So how much more time will they loose I wonder? What they appear to be talking about is the fundamental integrety of the design. Indeed the carbon "tube" is the fundamental "breakthrough". The fuselage is by their own admision way over weight.Clearly its about to get heavier....
Rsg85 From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37240 times:
So with more reinforcement the aircraft is getting heavier?
Im guessing reiforcing isnt going to be something they can just slap together and will take months of designing and fitting
The already unhappy costomers must be pulling thier hair out by now
Starrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1017 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37069 times:
Yikes.
Clickhappy turns out to be right again. just not sufficently pessimistic enough.
There just are not words.
Confidently proclaiming dates and "we'll fly by the end of the month" and then dropping "oh we have to make a couple of structural changes" just trashes whatever little credibility these program managers had.
The Boeing stock is going to get pummelled.
And since there was no margin left in the testing program, the deliveries are going to get pushed out too.
Rbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 534 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36802 times:
Quoting Starrion (Reply 10): Confidently proclaiming dates and "we'll fly by the end of the month" and then dropping "oh we have to make a couple of structural changes" just trashes whatever little credibility these program managers had.
Agreed, this is the part that is hardest to understand. Last week, Carson said the plane would fly June 28. Did this new problem come out of the blue? Did they just discover it in the last few days? I hope so, because if he made that annoucement knowing it was false, then he has some serious explaining to do.
Slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36793 times:
A great shame, we're all waiting to celebrate the first flight.
Quoting Pilot21 (Thread starter): Structural modifications like
these are not uncommon in the development of new airplanes, and this is
not an issue related to our choice of materials or the assembly and
installation work of our team
If it's not the materials or the assembly to blame - is it a design issue?
CV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36726 times:
Boeing must be pleased about the recession it must be taking some heat off them. Just image a booming economy and Oil at $120+ then the airlines would be after their blood.
JPRM1 From France, joined Aug 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36727 times:
In "La Tribune" to day, they announce discussion between Airbus and VS for a big order for 50 A350, even if they do not cancel (for the moment?) their order for the 18 B787.
With this kind of news, BA must clearly face new cancellations.
Once again, the news last week in Le Bourget were optimistic and suddenly, just days after, bad news...
After all, it will only be the fifth delay just announced when the bad situation is unforeseen.
WestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2075 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36726 times:
I believe that it is better in the long run to address what appears to be a major technical issues like this before the first flight.
Of course we do not know details what happened, but just last Monday, in Paris, Scott Carson was reassuring the press that the first flight would be this quarter and Pat Shanahan did not do anything to alter that on Tuesday.
But it would be quite surprising if the Engineering team had not already assessed that whatever the reinforcement issue was - it was a potential showstopper. I do find it hard to believe that the complexity and seriousness of this issue was not known or understood until "late last week".
Regretfully it appears that this very late postponement is a possible indication of a continuing major communications disconnect between the Engineering and Marketing/Management teams at Boeing?
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36727 times:
Well if they get her up by the end of Q3 2009, they can still complete the certification program by the end of Q2 2010 and have an EIS of then. So roughly a two year EIS delay for NH's first birds.
Of course, this is going to make the initial planes even heavier with all this additional reinforcement and will affect at least some of the initial tranche of production birds since those barrels have already been produced.
Maybe Al Baker wasn't talking out his arse when he said Boeing is a company now run by bean-counters instead of engineers.
Pianos101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36390 times:
Quoting Rbgso (Reply 13): Did this new problem come out of the blue? Did they just discover it in the last few days?
I'm as disappointed as everyone, but I think some clarification is needed. Boeing is running tests on multiple airplanes at once, even though L/N 1 has kind of been "stealing the show." I'm guessing this issue was first discovered a week or two ago on static test, but it took those people some time to understand what was causing the bad data. Once that was figured out, I'm sure that a "temp" or "quick" solution was thought of to save first flight. Things happen quickly inside Boeing when there's a sense of urgency, but there are still multiple hurdles that all issues have to clear.
Once it was determined that a temp solution would not work (probably over the weekend) the decision was made to postpone first flight. It takes time for this decision to flow down to all of those involved, and then to get the public releases ready.
So to answer your question, this problem probably did occur "out of the blue" (i.e., it wasn't found in analysis but during testing) but it was probably first discovered a few weeks ago.
DBCC From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 36400 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): Well if they get her up by the end of Q3 2009, they can still complete the certification program by the end of Q2 2010 and have an EIS of then. So roughly a two year EIS delay for NH's first birds.
If Boeing is finding such major issues so late....wait till they fly the thing. They will find even more issues. Q1 2011 is starting to become a reality for EIS, if they are lucky.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3175 posts, RR: 29 Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 36325 times:
Explains the recent (i.e. this week) surge in A330 orders now doesn't it.
Quoting Rbgso (Reply 13):
Agreed, this is the part that is hardest to understand. Last week, Carson said the plane would fly June 28. Did this new problem come out of the blue? Did they just discover it in the last few days? I hope so, because if he made that annoucement knowing it was false, then he has some serious explaining to do.
Quote: "Consideration was given to a temporary solution that would allow us to fly as scheduled," said Scott Carson, head of Boeing's commercial-plane business, "but we ultimately concluded that the right thing" was to have a permanent fix.
Sounds like they were going to do a patch job on it, and then decided that doing said patch job would cock up the certification process, and not wanting to have to mess up the production cert, they decided to make the 'right fix' now, rather than later.
Quoting Rsg85 (Reply 9): So with more reinforcement the aircraft is getting heavier?
Im guessing reiforcing isnt going to be something they can just slap together and will take months of designing and fitting
Well it sounds like it's not a totally new issue, so the engineering on the patch/redesign is likely already underway. The weight added could be trivial or significant. Without knowing what is being patched and why, I can't even guess at it in terms of lbs. It could be a 5 lb modification for all we know (I would imagine it's not a *major* amount of weight if it was something they were considering patching on the fly).
All that said;
A) Smooth Boeing, real smooth.
B) Silver-lining of sorts; they may still be able to do a bunch of the ground certification process while the engineering works, so it may not be a full (however long the fix takes) hit on certification.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Dougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 367 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 36315 times:
Sad to hear but this was bound to happen when they started reducing weight, the consequences using the new materials was obviously were not thought of, they still don't have sufficient experience with composites for fuselages to be taking risks. If this is what happened, then they deserve what comes, luckily for Boeing some airlines don't want the aircraft in the near future, but financially and reputation wise this is a disaster. Maybe that why Virgin ordered A330's yesterday and not 777's, he did warn Boeing to get their house in order, Qatar well, I think there is now a strong possibility of a cancellation here.
25 Keesje: Probably not. I think he's an airplane nut like most of us disliking any aircraft delay / issue. It hope its not the section joins / fits / fasteners
26 Stitch: Well look at the bright side. If Airbus aces the A350XWB, we won't have anymore "who's #1?" debates at the end of every year as Airbus will be the un
27 MCIGuy: I'm beginning to think the 787 is a piece of junk.
28 Boeingdotcom: I had been expecting. Well, customers ought to expect a high quality plane right? It can't be maintainces maintainces and maintainces after 3 months o
29 Haggis79: I guess a few apologies to Clickhappy are in order by some members of this board.... that said - it's outright impossible they only discovered this af
31 MCIGuy: Absolutley! This could warrant a call from the SEC! I've had it with the whole thing, this has gotten ridiculous and at this point, I'd be afraid to
32 Osiris30: I want to put to rest right now. If the team was considering a temporary fix and it was a viable option, then there was no requirement for Boeing to
33 Slz396: Sudden need to make structural modifications to a plane set to fly in less than 5 days?! WTF?! This is totally unseen in today's modern age! What's th
34 Osiris30: And the hyperbole of the year around goes to MCIGuy for the above quote. Come on. It's one thing to be disappointed, but using your logic you should
36 Haggis79: well, but I remember Clickhappy announcing this thing from his source inside Boeing before the start of the Paris Air Show. So at least some people t
37 Golfradio: They should change the name from "Dream"liner to something else. I think the name jinxed it. Even the 787 T-shirt I bought in Everett in 2007 is getti
38 Stitch: Not necessarily. Carson and Shanahan must have known about it since we here on a.net did, however Boeing has said the issue is not at a "safety of fl
39 NoWorries: Just out of curiosity -- how common / uncommon is it that data from the static test frame results in rework / redesign after the start of flight testi
40 MCIGuy: Maybe, but this isn't an emotional response, just too much bad news from this program, especially considering all the new technologies. OK, I won't s
41 MSYtristar: I hate to say it but I was sort of expecting this. Further delays would not surprise me, either. Hopefully Boeing will learn from the mistakes made in
42 Osiris30: Well considering the issue isn't severe enough to have risked safety had they flown, I can't see it being very major. Yes it's a new program with a t
43 MCIGuy: quote=MSYtristar,reply=41]Hopefully Boeing will learn from the mistakes made in regard to the 787 program so that the 797 will not suffer the same emb
44 Enginebird: Same here, I lost my enthusiasm for the 787 and do not even dare to wear that great-looking dark blue dreamliner t-shirt around other aviation enthus
45 Kiwiandrew: I wonder whether QR already had a hint of this before they went publicly nuts at Boeing a few days ago , if not , I can't wiat to see what their react
46 Haggis79: Osiris30, if it is as minor as you want to make it sound, why does it take them several weeks just to announce a new schedule? Right now the delay for
47 BlueSky1976: I'm disappointed as everybody here. Please keep in mind that it is better to delay the first flight and make sure the final product is safe for the pa
48 Aviopic: That is pretty much the standard these days yes, not only at Boeing but pretty much everywhere.
49 Osiris30: Again, this is not even a remote possibility. No more than the A400M will be the death of Airbus. Come on. The 787 isn't *nearly* as much of a financ
50 Haggis79: fortunately the extent of managers not listening to their technical departments varies between companies - there are certainly companies where the si
51 MCIGuy: Well, delays cause the number of frames to break even to go higher, while it greatly increases the chances of cancellations, at time when many might
52 RedChili: Okay, I'm really trying to be optimistic here, so bare with me. One sentence in the Flightglobal article caught my eye: "Work will also continue on th
53 Stitch: The market failure of the 787 won't kill Boeing Commercial, it will just make them a permanent #2 behind Airbus.
54 JBirdAV8r: Something reeks here...something I really don't like. NO ONE reported this (with the notable exception of Clickhappy which must be best friends and th
55 Flyglobal: Can't avoid the feeling that the next 1st fight will move somehow towards close to end of 3rd quarter Oct, 31, 2009 I guess. Regarding the announcemen
56 MCIGuy: Well, right now it's only .90 off the daily high, so apparently the news hasn't sunk in yet.
57 Tabaxter: EVERETT, Wash., June 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today announced that first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will be postponed due to a
59 Osiris30: Haggis, I take extreme offense to what you are implying. I'm not *trying* to make it sound anything. I'm stating the impact could be relatively minor
60 Jetfuel: I am disgusted with some of the coments above. People seem to expect a revolutionary new plane to just fly and be perfect before it has even left the
61 Osiris30: Bluntly; poppycock. If what you say is true Airbus should be dead 10x over by now after the 380 fiasco. I'm not going to waste more time replying to
62 Rbgso: Not like the good old days when you could rivet in a few doublers and carry on......
63 EA772LR: I suspect at least some employees over at Boeing knew about this last week. It's disappointing to have so many let downs in one program. I hope Airbu
64 Haggis79: I don't dispute that, and I absolutely expect tests to be exactly that - test to discover possible problems. Thing is only, the management team at Bo
65 MCIGuy: Alright, don't reply if you don't want to but I will. I generate most of my income by trading, and you don't even want to know what others are saying
66 Cosmofly: #2 can fly first so #1 may not be the gating factor. I am beginning to believe that #1 will never fly.
67 Racko: Does anybody remember Duke Nukem Forever?
68 MCIGuy: Hail to the King, baby.... Reference to not being able to get a product to market? [Edited 2009-06-23 07:50:38]
69 Stitch: I'm afraid that at both Boeing and Airbus, Engineering has become a cost center to be cut instead of a center of excellence to be supported. Both com
71 Zeke: I also picked up on that in reply 97 of Looking Like The 787 Won't Fly In June (by Clickhappy Jun 13 2009 in Civil Aviation) The were saying until re
72 MoMan: I'm glad that Boeing is taking the time to design and implement the fix correctly instead of trying to appease short-term thinkers. I'm willing to bet
73 Racko: I think we don't have to discuss about safety: Boeing would never knowingly send an aircraft with a safety-relevant problem in the air. They should re
74 757GB: Well, I don't know if you meant for that to be funny, but it did make me laugh. Thanks for that! I needed it...
75 Stitch: So I've been listening to the news conference and, in a nut shell: The problem is across 18 locations on the Section 11 / Section 12 join (wingbox are
76 PyroGX41487: Damn unfortunate. I was really looking forward to watching this thing take off this weekend. Still you guys, all this "I'm not flying on a 787 because
77 Sebjacques92: This is not good news for delivery customers...we havent even got to flight certification and we are still facing major new problems. I guess it is to
78 MoMan: Realistically, is this a 3-4 week fix? From the description it doesn't sound to require major rework.
79 Stitch: The Fabrication Division is ready to go once Engineering makes the call. So I expect they could have the patches ready within hours and then however
80 TaromA380: Scott Carson himself should respectfully ask Clickhappy about the date of the first 787 flight.
81 Btblue: This is a real shame. I mentioned in a previous thread a conversation I had while on holiday a few weeks back with an aerospace exec who said it would
82 Lokey123: I wouldn't be so sure about that. We got a call from Boeing this morning to inform us of the delay. What we were told, off the record, is that it wil
84 JayinKitsap: I've done FEM analysis on many a structure. Often at the intersection of a shell with stiffener ribs and connections there are stress risers. So in th
85 BMI727: As stirred up as all of you get about this being "the end of Boeing" or whatever, exactly what would you have said had Boeing flown a plane with a fla
86 Haggis79: that's not very reassuring, since you are one of the most reliable posters on this site but it confirms the problems of the big aircraft manufacturer
88 MCIGuy: I didn't draw the chart, don't shoot the messenger. I have to say though, not getting hurt as bad as I'd have thought, yet.
89 Haggis79: At this stage, I'm more inclined to believe Clickhappy than Scott Carson or Pat Shanahan... so this sounds to me like "we didn't know before the end
90 Lightsaber: People here need to take a second and think who the source is before jumping to claim the information is wrong. Put me in the later camp. I'm so look
91 Clickhappy: It is upsetting that so many "news" sites only care about page views - and not providing accurate reporting. Making it worse is now these same sites w
92 Lumberton: A good summary of the conference call here. Aviation Week is saying the delay in first flight will be "several weeks" here.[Edited 2009-06-23 08:50:39
93 MasseyBrown: You predicted this delay - and got a ton of abuse for it. If you want to start a blog, I'll sign up. If Boeing doesn't shut down the Chicago headquar
94 EbbUK: Absolutely agree It seems to be a Boeing forte' I bet one guy in particular will be particularly miffed. The 787 cheerleader Jon Ostrower. How he did
95 Boeing747_600: They need to do it right. TImetables serve useful internal purposes. I dont see why Boeing even had to announce a test date before they were damn sur
96 Phollingsworth: This announcement could easily cost Boeing a few billion dollars in cash. Coming only 1.5 weeks after the CEO publicly assured everyone that the airc
97 BMI727: Because their PR and marketing people wanted it?
98 Jonathan-l: Airliners has nothing to flaunt about. Other threads were going about whether first flight would be on this Saturday or Sunday. With all due respect,
99 MCIGuy: Because I think they generally thought they had. That could raise other issues.
100 ArabAirX: I think that farming out the wing work overseas has come back to haunt Boeing. They had *almost* got to grips with this airplane and now its "undone"
101 Clickhappy: I am also hoping that the end result of this delay is that news, even bad news, travels fquicker up the line. Management needs more boots on the facto
102 Multimark: The troubling question is: what will they find when they actually begin testing?
103 Brons2: The issues commented on in that thread were not the ones that caused the latest delay.
104 MCIGuy: VERY well said! There has likely not been any dishonesty in their PRs but the apparent disconnect could give that impression.
105 Slz396: John is a fine chap and a great aviation enthousiast for sure, but he has probably unknowingly been used by Boeing to help in their constant PR show
106 Osiris30: I'm curious as to why you think this. I do think it shows that you don't actually understand the certification process very well. In a nutshell; as l
107 BlueFlyer: Investors, customers, managers all have one thing in common. They hate and fear the unknown. What was ANA's first reaction upon hearing of the delay
108 B777fan: I was concerned when I read your original post on this subject. So I'm more than willing to say nice call and I might read a blog by you... ...but di
109 Aviationbuff: Its very sad news, I am disappointed as anyone else. Boeing took decision to delay 787 first flight 'last Friday' http://www.flightglobal.com/articles
110 KPDX: End of story. Dissapointing yes, but I'd rather have a happy test flight crew than a dead one.
111 Phollingsworth: The problem is that Boeing has so completely messed up the 787 program from a management and logistics point of view that even seemingly small proble
112 YWG747: It gets done when it gets done. As long as it gets done properly. No sense moaning and groaning about it.
113 Astuteman: I lost count of how many people have complained that the roll-out was done without the aircraft being in the appropriate condition. Delaying 1st flig
114 DBCC: Did Boeing forget to run this through the computer simulation tests. If they can't get this problem to show up on the simulations, what else have the
115 Haggis79: I think you don't understand... the beef many people here have is not the delay itself, but rather the blatant misinformation last week that the 787
116 A380900: I'm sure it was just to create the buzz at Le Bourget that the 787 was about to fly. I can't see any other explanation and it is in line with the pat
117 NYC777: Here are couple of great summaries of the days events with regards to the structural issue announced by Boeing: http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009
118 Clickhappy: No, I never said that. There was a thread, I believe started by a guy at the Paris Air Show, who said he was told the first 787 built would never fly
119 Sectflyer: How do the delays of the 787 compare to the design and introduction of other first generation families? Did the 747 or the A380 have similar problem i
120 Hloutweg: And here we are once again seing Boeing stumble again. No wonder Mr. Al Baker was sooo mad last week as he strongly advised BA to tackle quickly the 7
121 MoMan: Let's not forget we are in this situation because of the strike last fall which put a major delay on everything.
122 Haggis79: The "end of 2nd quarter" timeline has been set after the strike was over. Besides, what does the strike of last fall have to do with Carson obviously
123 A380900: Please do!!!! Yep. It was me. The guy was from the test flying crew of the A380. It sure sounded serious enough to me to warrant a post.[Edited 2009-
124 CFBFrame: We all know the industry has been cleared of quite a bit of the seasoned engineering resources because of accounting demands, and now we're seeing the
125 Brons2: It is not possible to have a project with no due dates. Otherwise work would slip too much. Human behavior needs boundaries. Whether you're talking a
126 Phollingsworth: I am quite familiar with the certification process. Boeing has to propose their certification and conformity plan to the FAA, and specifically to the
127 NCB: What I don't understand is why Boeing put so much pressure on themselves? They literally dreamed their schedule towards first flight, while anyone wit
128 B737200: Not happy to be hearing like many others, and now to share my humble of opinion. Do you guys think that maybe it isn't really Boeing's technical abili
129 Phollingsworth: I would not doubt it. Boeing is damn lucky that there is such a high barrier to entry in the commercial aircraft market. Period, at this point whatev
130 Kangar: Hope the folks at Boeing keep their heads up, at times like this, it's easy to let morale slip. It's sad to see such an amazing company getting put th
131 ArabAirX: Precisely because the Heavies have never attempted wings of this scale. I remain convinced if it was Boeing making it, we may not have seen this. jus
132 TISTPAA727: Immature response... Bordering on ridiculous. Right....you will never fly on a 787 and it will be a complete failure I think you have bigger domestic
133 Ikramerica: It's interesting that this problem isn't one they claim impacts flight worthiness, but that they want to fix it anyway before first flight. I suppose
134 Pnwtraveler: Well put. The purpose of a test program is to look for unpredicted things, or confirm assumptions done with computer modelling or small scale testing
135 JAL: What's wrong with Boeing? Can't they do anything right! It delays after delays after delays!
136 MCIGuy: OK, I've cooled a bit... I won't say I'll never fly on a 787 but I would like it to be in service for a bit before I get on one. PS> This is exactly
137 757GB: I read about the delay earlier today and got angry... Went to work, then on my break decided to come back to read, with a cooler head. Now I'm angry a
138 Cosmofly: If true, why not just fly the plane and try to find out more issues before another delay is announced? It will also help to produce more comprehensiv
139 Stitch: Of course Boeing performed computer modeling of this part and that modeling said "it's okay". But since the models are not yet perfect, the world's a
140 MCIGuy: Apparently they knew about this in April and are still identifying a fix. Now, they said "we thought about flying anyway", without the fix, to explain
141 Trigged: Are some of you serious? Some of the responses at this point border on 8 year old playground banter! This is an entirely new design, and entirely new
142 LY4XELD: Here's what the Boeing press release says...I think you're misinterpreting it. "The need was identified during the recent regularly scheduled tests o
143 MSPNWA: I'm sorry, but I can only think of one word in relation to my favorite airplane manufacturer: pathetic. I really don't care about this plane anymore.
144 A380900: Have you been paying attention to everything that's happened? Besides, they are not building the first atom bomb: they are building an aircraft. If t
145 Fxramper: Another view of the delay from MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31504462/ns/business-aviation/
146 Trigged: Yes, I actually have from an engineering standpoint. Actually, an atom bomb is MUCH easier than a wide-body aircraft so please use a different analog
147 JBirdAV8r: Don't you think that's a little melodramatic?
148 AirbusA370: I think the real issue here is the condition of ZY997. They can design fixes and patches for the structural weaknesses pretty fast but they need to ve
149 AirRyan: Boeing sure is looking like second-rate, rank amateurs as of late. Bill Boeing is off vomiting in Heaven somewhere.
150 MCIGuy: I don't know, most westerners liken aircraft to women, "she" this and "she" that. When a woman lets me down and repeatedly disappoints me I eventuall
151 Trigged: There we go! Rationality trumps Drama! Not that it means much, but that put you on my RU list. Everything will work out in the end. Will it cost a li
152 Eghansen: Is it? Here is a quote from a Businessweek article: "The new holdup, announced on June 23, which Boeing says it decided on last week but apparently k
153 Flood: I can't really see Boeing pitching that to its customers.
154 PlanesNTrains: Happy Birthday EbbUK. I'm still not clear on the reasons behind what Clickhappy said. If indeed his sources were saying early July, that would not se
155 Osiris30: Because my understanding is that the subs had a hand in the design of certain components! Hence, depending on the sub it may be relevant. And you are
156 Clickhappy: I won't answer that, because it is a sensitive topic. I will let my track record speak for its self.
157 Par13del: I have taken the time to read all the post and have selected the two above to make my points. Based on the way this program has gone, if a temporary
158 RedChili: This is pure speculation, but I would venture a guess that one of the possible quick fixes that Boeing was working on would mean that the plane would
159 Boeing747_600: Perhaps. It goes to show how sometimes the worst of all bad reasons trumps sound logic.
160 797charter: I consider myself as a true "aviator" - and looking so much forward to both
161 Flighty: This isn't too unexpected. I remember seeing an argument here of whether Boeing's *design* work was really finished.. it must have been over a year ag
162 Fvtu134: When I read the headline on Flightglobal, I could just imagine the number of emotional/immature (choose whatever you want) that were going to be poste
163 Kmz: Phollingsworth, could it be possible to use ZA001 to certify systems and avionics and so on and ZA002 (or another aircraft) for the remaining items?
164 Flighty: LOL. Which year did they say that? And if they said it today, would you actually invest yourself in that information?
165 YWG737LVR: Gosh, I think I'm having deja vu reading this forum. Reminds me of the kind of crap I was reading on this site 3-4 years ago about the Whalejet. "It w
166 EA772LR: 100% agree. I hope the 787 evolves like the 77W has. Sign me up. I enjoy your insight on here. What's with the tone. He was probably too young to cov
167 Nwray: Given the delays here, and the delays experience by Airbus with the A380, is this simply a learning curve on manufacturing parts of the airplane in di
168 Scipio: All in all, it will have taken nearly a decade for the A380 to move from launch (end-2000) to fully mature serial production (sometime in 2010?). Unfo
169 CFBFrame: They knew the issue in April, thought they could do a work around to keep the program moving forward. Assumed the corrective action could be implement
170 PlanesNTrains: I understand sensitivity, and I am in no way attacking your credibility. I don't expect you to divulge information that would jeopardize anyones care
171 787: Interesting that a photographer has correctly predicted/guessed that the 787 will not fly in June based on what he heard from insiders at Everett. Yet
172 Isitsafenow: Check your fortune 500 list. Most are being run by former CFO's. safe
173 Flighty: My view is that Boeing and Airbus had over-aggressive executive "management" refusing to acknowledge that actually, the engineers were a bit out-of-p
174 CFBFrame: Flighty- At this point, Boeing and Airbus are much stronger and smarter than they were 10 years ago. They can hit these projects harder now. Hopefully
175 Airfinair: Click - I'd be a daily reader/ contributer if you did.
176 BrouAviation: Indeed, Airbus was very smooth running their A380 program, and their A400M is just a perfect example of holding tight to predefined schedules! Next t
177 Glideslope: I think at first he probably felt some satisfaction in the initial Mike Bair fiasco. Easily one of the worst program management senarios in history,
178 Stitch: They may offer him up as a scapegoat and then promote Shanahan to head of BCA. At least under Pat's leadership the 787 is capable of flying, even if
179 EbbUK: This scenario sounds worse than CIA antics in 70's Africa. Sheesh Thanks it was some time back though I for sure am not bashing Jon, he gave us some
180 Aviators99: Which aviation fora were those, the town crier?
181 Hawkercamm: http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2009/06/787-delay-roundup.html Reading between the lines of this report I would take a guess and suggest that the problem s
182 DZ09: Why is there a rush to get this plane in the air? It will be ready when it is ready! I would rather they spend whatever time is required to get a safe
183 PlanesNTrains: IMO the innuendo belies the words. But we'll just agree to disagree there. Time is money. It's been sold on delivery dates. Delays cost them dearly.
184 Breiz: $$$$ maybe? and tarnished reputation? and angry customers whose fleet renewal plans are ruined? Not a good business model, is it? And think that some
185 DZ09: A good product sells itself. Rushing things is only going to lead to mistakes and more problems. They should just come clean about when this thing is
186 474218: Did you read this somewhere or did you just make it up? I would suggest reading about the DC-3.
187 Trex8: so how does a 2 month strike account for a 2-3 year delay????? "An ultrasonic inspection detected “small areas, as small as 1 to 2 inches, where we
188 Revelation: Next month, really? I'd imagine there are plenty of idle spare parts around. That's what doesn't ring true to me. Boeing says the plane could fly as
189 Tdscanuck: Because otherwise management can't blame all their problems on IAM. Tom.
190 ER757: I think Boeing has to offer up someone as a sacrifice at this point, and Carson is the logical choice as he is one of the more public faces of this p
191 Lightsaber: I agree with you Revelation. Something is not adding up. There is far more to flight testing than these joints to certify. This would not effect most
192 Keesje: I hope you are not right. The info is very sparse. If the location is were Jon says and they talk about metals replacing composites, they probably cr
193 Acheron: Maybe but one key difference is that Airbus has been outsourcing manufactaring for a while now while Boeing is kind of new at this. Of course, then w
194 Revelation: And it did. They said it was all complete, but didn't say how successfully it was completed. Just like Airbus saying the A400M engine ground tests "m
195 AirNZ: Let me see if I've got this right, and please correct me if not. You're saying that Shanahan and Carson did not make knowingly false statements becau
196 MSPNWA: Nope. I've had it with Boeing in relation to this aircraft. Not only have they proven themselves to have serious problems in their aircraft developme
197 BMI727: As bad as all of this is, what would we have said if it came to light that Boeing flew a 787 that had a known weakness? They are best off taking thei
198 Sphealey: Darned expensive way to build a prototype. Instead of setting out to build one in the first place. sPh
199 Cosmofly: Should FAA or anybody else still certify the 787 in Boeing's expedited schedule now? If Chairman and CEO have no clues, can the certification authorit
200 Flood: It's my understanding the static wing test was only done to limit load (or 120-130% in this case) with ultimate load to follow at a later date. If the
201 Pellegrine: Of course delays happen. But what really sends me up the wall here is that Boeing knew they had a problem in the wing/wingbox join for months now. Ins
202 Revelation: As above, apparently the issue was known of in April, and since then they've been trying to develop workarounds, but now it seems they are unsatisfie
203 Revelation: That's not what happened. It seems they developed flight-worthy workarounds, but these workarounds were not acceptable for certification purposes (if
204 MSPNWA: In that case they will always be disgusted that they missed out on about two years of advantages right when they needed it most. I tell you what, the
205 BMI727: Since we are talking 700+ orders I'd say that there is an excellent chance that it will be a home run.
206 PPVRA: So, meanwhile, what other kinds of testing can be done/redone/extended/finished, aside from finishing the gauntlets? Boeing has "weeks" to play around
207 LASOctoberB6: Really, dude? Sure, it's delayed a bit, but I'd really much prefer Boeing make sure what they are touting is the best it can be. And, I'd certainly r
208 Eghansen: I don't disagree that Boeing should the the airplane right before they fly it and it begins service. But I wish I knew what exactly has been going on
209 PlanesNTrains: While I don't necessarily agree or disagree on your specific point, there is no way to continue discussing it without sounding like I have a problem
210 MSPNWA: I'm talking in a performance sense. It's already on its way to be a financial success.
211 Osiris30: Yes, because the media has a long and storied history of getting aviation stories correct!! Come on. We've been over this 50,000 different ways in ne
212 Trex8: is it really the new technology per se which is the problem or the use of outside contractors for a substantial amount of the design and production.
213 Tdscanuck: The first thing you typically do in flight testing is clear the plane for flutter. I'm not a vibration guy but I have a hard time seeing how a big re
214 USAirALB: I love how in the CO magazine, in the fleet section, they keep pushing back the delivery date. It was originally planed for CO in 2008. I mean, come o
215 Flyboy2001: I have heard the introduction of the 787 and it's CFRP construction referred to as being as big a leap as the jump from cloth skinned airframes to alu
216 MillwallSean: Personally I can live with delays. What annoys me with this is that Boeing constantly lies. Everything is perfect until we get another delay. That pis
217 Trex8: its Boeing who had unreasonable timelines ( as events have shown and many naysayers had also postulated would happen). they were going to do this all
218 Flyboy2001: Perhaps I should have included Boeing in that bit about "expectations". And you're right, of course, as we can all plainly see from the delays, past
219 Ikramerica: This is very likely why the flight was put off. You set a baseline and you test for various aerodynamic problems and characteristics early on, then f
220 KochamLOT: I figured. why is the 787 so problematic?
221 Elite: Perhaps planes are getting more advanced? The A380 had a whole host of issues and massive delays too.
222 RayChuang: I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing will trying to get ZA002 into the air first.
223 Flyboy2001: IMHO, I think that, after decades of building airliners in pretty much the same way, an evolutionary process, here we have Airbus setting out to buil
224 Flyboy2001: And yes, I know that it's easy to say that with the hindsight available as of today.
225 CuriousFlyer: It sucks. Just my 2c. I hope this plane will be safe
226 ArabAirX: Doesnt experience count for anything any more? Guess not - rather, I'd like to see you justify against my statement with fact if you have any, which
227 RedChili: Here's one crucial sentence that I believe most posters have missed. It's taken from the Fleetbuzz summary of the conference call: Scott Fancher: "Lik
228 BMI727: Well in this business "likely" isn't good enough. Definitely a good call by Boeing to take the delay and subsequent bad publicity.
229 N31029: I beg your pardon! LOL. OUCH! Just having some fun here, Stitch, as my beloved ultra-modern and ultra-advanced Lockheed L-1011 TriStar was a brillian
230 Olympic472: More anxious than disappointed here. Boeing has to get everything right before sending her off. I take all news or announcements with a gain of salt a
231 Osiris30: Yes you are, and it's a grasp of casual English language usage (not meant disrespectfully, I just think you are taking the statement FAR too literall
232 ArabAirX: Judging from the conference call, the area of concern is the upper wing/wingbox area where the structures meet - not heard anything to suggest the wi
233 Asiaflyer: I feel sorry for the Boeing sales people who has to go back to the customer again and try to explain how much further their planes will be delayed. I
234 Zeke: Being so close to the CG I doubt you would get any change. It would not really change the longitudinal stiffness of the fuselage, or the stiffness of
235 Astuteman: True. And what's interesting about that is that the problem manifested itself internally to Airbus. Which is unforgiveable....... It does, and people
236 Scipio: One has to start wondering how solid this order book is, though. The B787 suffered quite a significant number of cancelations in a short time, Virgin
237 Allegro: I always thought that Vought and Alenia were not the best choices for partnering ... Just annoying that it will not fly. Was going to have a little f
238 ArabAirX: Sorry, Im not bullying anyone. I stand by my view that Boeing would have dealt with it better if they had the wing work. If someone has evidence, emp
239 RedChili: I didn't hear the conference call itself, I just read a brief summary a few places. So I have no idea what they said originally, just how the blogger
240 ArabAirX: My train of thought is the lack of a revised timetable is worrying. Prior delay announcements had a revised schedule. There wasnt one this time aroun
241 Ikramerica: Yes, the word likely means "nothing" would have happened. But why not say "nothing" instead? Because then the same people whining about the word likel
242 MSYPI7185: Well disappointing it is, but this is not by any means the end of Boeing. I am tired of trying to follow this FF date. Let me know whet it is taxiing
243 PlanesNTrains: A few things from ATWonline http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=17018 : Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Scott Carson said the man
244 EA772LR: Oh, well pardon me. Boeing has achieved almost 900 orders to date. I'm not sure what your point was in distinguishing that Boeing has not garnered 90
245 Pellegrine: As I said before, maybe the time has come to crush and burn the first 6 and focus on 7+. If anything, euthanizing these aircraft will save Boeing mas
246 Cerecl: I think it is justifiable to take anything Boeing says about 787 with a large pinch of salt. Engaging in "ifs" and "what ifs" like SF did is meaningl
247 Osiris30: Well it was a very casual off the cuff remark. It was not a definitive statement. The fact of the matter is as near as I can tell, it's not an issue
248 Burkhard: This isn't the end of Boeing. It may mean some more orders for the A330 and some less for the B787 for however needs aircraft within the next years. I
249 Slz396: Which makes me wonder: how much of the 787 will have to be taken apart again to reach and fix this latest design error in the center wing box / wing
250 YULWinterSkies: Well, the backlog for the B787 is getting longer and longer, and now the ball is back in the Airbus camp, until the 787 is out of factory at a regula
251 Autothrust: Very disappointing, Boeing should finally be honest and tell the truth about the roots of this problems and not deny it and later declare a other dela
252 BMI727: Remember that some 787 customers may get 777s in compensation for the delays. This delay could change things somewhat.
253 Keesje: I think Boeing would have given a leg for local limited damage at 147%. Jon (a young smart aviation nut) worked himself up a few yrs ago, when it bec
254 FlyingAY: How serious is the issue if it affects flight envelope that badly? On the other hand, we can be happy that despite all the bean-counting the airplane
255 Asiaflyer: By definition, Sales can be recognized first when goods or services has been delivered. In addition, payment should have been made or is highly likel
256 Faro: Fair use extract from the wsj article mentioned above by Osiris30: "But late last week, Mr. Carson said, engineers concluded the problem was more seri
257 Andhen: I allways thought the 787 was a ghostplane, but I never thought that Boeing would go so far as to have the first flight just days ahead, before they w
258 Faro: Absolutely. The major problem is that this casts a doubt over the integrity of the structural analysis software used to model the stresses on such la
259 AirNZ: My point was quite simply that the constant emphasis on this board is that Boeing has 'sold' a massive 900 787's (and spun in various guises to suit
260 Slz396: Exactly... it has been striking to me for some time now to see his blog going into all sort of details not many people can have access to and be able
261 BoeingVista: Leeham is reporting that the delay will be a minimum of 2-3 months, from that a prudent estimate would be 4-6 months in my book. CAPTAIN X I think we
262 AirplaneCrazy: Is the structural material for the wing to wingbox join aliminun or titanium in the current design? In any event, what does adding new aluminum or ti
263 Kappel: ANA urges Boeing to clarify 787 schedule: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...larify-787-programme-schedule.html I can imagine ANA is quite pissed
264 BoeingVista: Update, 2:50 PM PDT: * The delay will be a minimum of 2-3 months. * The weak points are where the wing box attaches to the fuselage. * Delamination oc
265 MadameConcorde: In regard of what's happening with the delays with the B-787-8, has Airbus played smart not to have the A350XWB not entirely composite materials? I am
266 RedChili: Oh my! This is not good at all... And this isn't exactly good news either.
267 EbbUK: Yes the one that comes to mind is John Leahy here are some of his comments: Leahy once called the 787's use of composites for the fuselage "rushed an
268 Racko: Indeed it isn't. Just looked it up, not even 2 years ago, at the roll-out ceremony, the EIS was scheduled for May 2008.
269 Slz396: The word is finally out: the center wing box suffers from DELAMINATION, or: as Boeing euphimisticly called it. That's not a minor thing to admit a fe
271 PVG: Really a shame that they let such a competent and qualified guy just walk out the door in favor of another over-hyped GE manager. I think Jim Mc need
272 EbbUK: Yikes Jon was used and now, with hindsight, it would seem abused. It's all a learning experience I guess. He will come out stronger I am sure.
273 BoeingVista: And another thing, this is going to push the 787-9 EIS periously close to that of the A350-900XWB. The last word from Boeing was "Early 2013" this del
274 NCB: That's exactly the issue I was pointing out to in the past. We don't know how CFRP is going to behave on the long term though so many people took it
275 MadameConcorde: This is putting us off First to Fly group until further into 2013 for the inaugural commercial flight. So much can happen between now and then expeci
276 DBCC: It is only an order, and with Boeing being so late, get-out clauses are easy to enact. Airbus can dish out A330's at cheap prices and turn those 700+
277 Navigator: To me this sound very strange. What has happened to Boeing in it´s planemaking? Airbus catches up now with their A350. When will you be able to trust
278 Astuteman: Although as a cautionary note, about 3 years ago, people were predicting the 787 would enter service before the A380.. Rgds
279 BMI727: But by doing so you would risk being at a competitive disadvantage to you competitors who did. It isn't as simple as airlines just getting pissed and
280 Racko: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...reamliner-the-wing-began-to-break/ Does anybody know if this is credible? Did the problem really occur at just
281 PW100: Well, at least a Potemkin First Flight was avoided . . . It is pretty scary from a planning and time-line point of view that such a problem popped up
282 NA: This now slowly moves into the amteurish. Sure its difficult to introduce new technologies, sure anyone who did not expect a delay was a dreamer. But
283 Jonathan-l: These blogs are a real thorn. There is no source, no indication of where the info comes from. On the one hand, you have completely partisan blogs whi
284 RedChili: I have no idea who this Ben Sandilands is, but he isn't mincing words when it comes to this failure:
285 UALWN: Yeah, just as you have: look at the economic crises, the two wars you're still fighting, the ongoing disgrace of Guantanamo, the shameful lack of a u
286 Curiousflyer: The 787 seems to have a significant safety issue. The resistance of the CFRP does not seem to be mastered, at each step the cohesion of the hull seems
287 Phollingsworth: My comments about the 787 certification and conformity are really much less related to this specific instance, which looks to be a design issue, and
288 EA772LR: Fair enough. It was not my intention in any capacity to try to paint a rosier picture of the 787's success by claiming sales rather than orders. It w
289 Flymad: Could somone please explain to us "non-aviation" guys exactly what the problem is and what part of the aircraft it affects? NB-I am still reading thr
290 PITingres: Gross simplification: some of the wing attachment points allow more flexing / movement than is allowable, which in turn caused damage to the composit
291 DocLightning: Welp, I said 1Q2010. And I'm *STILL* not wrong.
292 ArabAirX: I wonder how that uninformed blogger reconciles his "facts" (without substance) in relation to final gauntlet tests and low/high taxi tests remaining
293 Baroque: Yes, where has he gone? Maybe we need a short refresher from him as we might be getting beyond some of his original predictions. As we can see extrap
294 RedFlyer: Best post in this entire thread. That's assuming Airbus doesn't run into its own problems with the A350. This issue of delamination of the CFRP is a
295 Abba: Certainly, they must have been talking about the -900 model.... Wonder if the 787 will enter service before the 350...
296 DocLightning: So Boeing has stated that they haven't even chosen the fix yet, let alone designed it. "Several weeks." We know that Boeing has a tendency to be optim
297 Cosmofly: We still do not know how it behaves when lightning hits.
298 UALWN: When you are under as much public scrutiny as Boeing is with the 787 project, it is standard practice to announce a problem and in the same sentence a
299 WILCO737: Thread is getting longer and longer, so here is part 2: Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 2 (by WILCO737 Jun 24 2009 in Civil Aviation) wilco737
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1372 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2075 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jul 2003, 4439 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1262 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 257 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 65 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 198 posts, 
From France, joined Aug 2007, 78 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3175 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 367 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
