Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Problems Minor Compared With 747 Launch?  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11363 times:

In a sister thread, the management of the 787 program is critically discussed: Boeing's Management Of The 787 Program (by TomB Jul 12 2009 in Civil Aviation).

My question is whether all these management issues are in fact less significant than the problems faced by the 747 program in 1970/71. After all the 787 has a historic order backlog of stalwart clients and (God forbid) were it ultimately to be cancelled does not have the potential to bankrupt Boeing like the 747 back then. We all know what became of the 747 and the debt the travel industry owes to it in terms of cheap air travel. Ultimately, and in the greater scheme of things, am sure that the 787 will have a similar success.

On a sidenote, are there any parallels in the management difficulties faced by Boeing in the two programs?

Faro


The chalice not my son
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11345 times:

Good observation. To all we know Boeings existance does not depend on the 787 as it did on the 747 back then.

User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11330 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
We all know what became of the 747 and the debt the travel industry owes to it in terms of cheap air travel.

Whoo...how passionate can one get about an aircraft...

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
My question is whether all these management issues are in fact less significant than the problems faced by the 747 program in 1970/71.

Hard to compare, I would guess. The program management of that time was so different from todays, I find it difficult to draw parallels.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10707 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11270 times:

Certainly it was do or die for Boeing when they started the 747 program. But the development process of this most important civil aircraft in aviation history was less problem ridden than the 787 program is and created much less bad press and much less anger from its clients.

User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11241 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 2):
Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
We all know what became of the 747 and the debt the travel industry owes to it in terms of cheap air travel.

Whoo...how passionate can one get about an aircraft...

Just to de-fuse any A vs B criticism, that debt is also owed to MD, Lockheed and Airbus; the 747 simply symbolised that era given that it was the first and the biggest. Arguably, one can even make the proposition that it was the development of the first big fans which was the real breakthrough as the enabling technology. Anyway, you get my point...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10707 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11204 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 4):
the 747 simply symbolised that era given that it was the first and the biggest.

And the most successful, which makes it more significant than any other airliner built since then. Since the 747, we´ve only seen evolution, and nothing of the huge leap the Jumbo Jet meant.


User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11175 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
ultimately to be cancelled does not have the potential to bankrupt Boeing like the 747 back then. We all know what became of the 747 and the debt the travel industry owes to it in terms of cheap air travel. Ultimately, and in the greater scheme of things, am sure that the 787 will have a similar success.

The first difference started with the why of the program. Pan Am came to Boeing asking for a Double-Decker airplane (!), but Boeing found out that a widebody was better, easier, more economical, more comfy, more spacious, blahblahbla. In short words: The Boeing 747 wouldn't exist as it does know, without Pan Am pushing Boeing to create it.

Next to that, at the time Boeing was developing a SST, a kind of concord-airplane. Everybody then believed supersonic travel would be the future. That project eventually failed, after Boeing seeing no future to make profit with it, and the government no longer willing to invest. At that time, millions of dollars had been spent on the project. Would the 747 also fail, that would be a devastating blow for Boeing, as their cash was running out. Their 707 was getting outdated, competitors MD and Lockheed were designing widebodies too, and only the 737 wasn't enough for a company the size of Boeing to float on.

Boeing was trying to overrule their competitors by creating the large nose, which would make easy freight loading possible. This is a significant advantage of the 747, still being there today.
Only later, Pan Am suggested to make a First Class cabin on the upperdeck.

The 747 suffered delays due to various problems, especially considering the engines done by P&W. Bad communication, and P&W not very willing to accept they delivered a bad product at first, made it worse. Testing programs were delayed, due to the unreliable engines. Also flutter was found, caused by the attachment system of the engines to the wings. (Boeings fault, not P&W)

Another problem was the main gear. The 747 wasn't able to taxi, but they had suspected that and quickly came with a fix making the main gear able to steer.

This is the 747-project in a nutshell. Please correct if I have forgotten something.

--

I certainly see similarities in the situation of Boeing nowadays, and their situation back then.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11112 times:



Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 6):
This is the 747-project in a nutshell. Please correct if I have forgotten something.

I also recall a very hard landing-cum-crash during flight testing as well as protracted labour disputes which led to significant strike action right when Boeing could least afford it. Probably the main technical issue though was the JT9D.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11100 times:



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1):
Whoo...how passionate can one get about an aircraft...

His statement is very true. Commercial aviation owes the 747 program a huge debt by allowing what we take for granted today. 40 years have passed and you would not be flying as frequently or as cheaply today if it were not for the B747.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11010 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 7):

..which led to significant strike action right when Boeing could least afford it.

Another striking commonality..



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10959 times:

In my opinion, the size of both projects and the risk to Boeing are comparable, both are/were major projects reshaping and impacting major area's of the company, including technological advances - even if in the 787 case we say not native to Boeing -. The stark difference between the two is management, there is no comparison whatsoever between those in charge now and then, the crux of the entire process.
In the case of the 747, the major delay due to external suppliers were the engines, Boeing continued producing a/c and lining them up waiting for engines, really don't think we are going to see that on the 787 program.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10707 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10926 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 7):
I also recall a very hard landing-cum-crash

Not quite true in detail though a serious incident happened during flight testing. N732PA "Clipper Storm King", part of the test fleet, damaged first one main gear when hitting a dirt bank on landing and as a result engine no.3 and 4 scraped along the runway. The incident is attributed to the pilots not being used to a cockpit located so high up. There were some other minor mishaps.

The only really serious problem during the 747 test phase was the PW engines and the necessary redesign of the pylons.

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 8):
Commercial aviation owes the 747 program a huge debt by allowing what we take for granted today.

Definitely. The 747 made regular flying available for the masses. For aviation the 747 is as important and significant as the Ford Model-T (for the USA alone) and Volkswagen Beetle (for much of the "rest" of the world) were for individual ground transportation.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10808 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
In my opinion, the size of both projects and the risk to Boeing are comparable

Except that Boeing can probably take a 787 cancellation hit to its financial statements and go on breathing. It would make an ugly dent in its balance sheet yes, but not a deadly gash like the 747 would have done.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10547 times:

Problems? 747?

No, the 747 Problems were minor compared to the problems of the 787 launch!

Another thing would be if you'd have asked about the "damage". If the 747 would have had troubles like the 787:
Then yes, the damage caused by the 787 is minor compared to the damage that the 747 would have caused (if screwed as badly).


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10463 times:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
Problems? 747?

No, the 747 Problems were minor compared to the problems of the 787 launch!

I meant this thread to cover 747/787 management issues/problems in general. Commercially, the 787 is a stellar success where the early (till 1972) 747 was struggling to secure a future. Technically, the 787 may have more technical/production problems but from a bird's eye view of things, including the commercial and financial consequences, the 747 was a huge gamble that generated its fair share of life-threatening problems until it finally met with success.

Faro

[Edited 2009-07-17 08:04:32]


The chalice not my son
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10302 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 14):
Commercially, the 787 is a stellar success where the early (till 1972) 747 was struggling to secure a future.

True. It's succes mainly caused by it's freighter capabilities and the problems around the DC-10. Next to that, the 747 became a sort of 'cult', an airplane with status. Every airline wanted to fly the 747, also flown by the 'great Pan Am'.
The combi-model also gave the sales number a boost. Boeing first did not want to develop a combi-model. But airlines like KL were very interested, and after all the combi was a golden move.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
Problems? 747?

Yes, look at my first post. May be looking minor in comparison with the 787 troubles. But with so much at stake, grounding over 100 747s which are completely ready for delivery, except their engines, is not an easy thing to do, nor to explain to your customers anxious to get their hands on their new flagships!

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 13):

No, the 747 Problems were minor compared to the problems of the 787 launch!

Another thing would be if you'd have asked about the "damage". If the 747 would have had troubles like the 787:
Then yes, the damage caused by the 787 is minor compared to the damage that the 747 would have caused (if screwed as badly).

True!



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10258 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 3):
Certainly it was do or die for Boeing when they started the 747 program

Yah, ah no. The 747 program was the *3rd* ranking commercial aircraft program Boeing had going at the time. It was started at the request of a customer as much as a favor to him as anything. The SST was the headline program, the 737 was the "hope" project, not certain to do well at all, and the 747 was the "whatever" program.

When the 747 deliveries started things had changed giving people the impression Boeing bet the company on it. What changed? The SST was cancled and Boeing spent way to long trying to keep it going on thier dime. The 737 was still in the hope stage, not exactly racking up huge orders. So it left the 747 to bring in the big numbers to start filling the hole the SST made.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9670 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 12):
Except that Boeing can probably take a 787 cancellation hit to its financial statements and go on breathing. It would make an ugly dent in its balance sheet yes, but not a deadly gash like the 747 would have done.

Also remember that unlike the 1960's where there were multiple OEM's making large commercial a/c, today there is only one, so if Boeing cancels the 787 the bulk of those orders will go to Airbus, and once there, the chances of them coming back are slim and none, unless Boeing invents a low cost supersonic a/c which will draw customers. Failure on the 787 program would in my opinion be a slow death for Boeing, Chpt.11 within a couple years at least.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9534 times:



Quoting Brilondon (Reply 8):
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1):
Whoo...how passionate can one get about an aircraft...

His statement is very true. Commercial aviation owes the 747 program a huge debt by allowing what we take for granted today.

Agreed. It's basically what the SUV did to the automobile industry. The 747 is an important milestone in air travel.

Quoting Faro (Reply 12):
Except that Boeing can probably take a 787 cancellation hit to its financial statements and go on breathing

But aren't we getting a little dramatic here? Yes, the future of Boeing doesn't necessarily lie with the success of the 787. But to conclude that the whole project will be canned is far fetched. Even if major modifications need to be done, the aircraft as a whole is completed and a majority of the costs have already been written off.

I think the question is: Will the leap foreward the 787 provides in technology be considered as groundbreaking as the original 747 was? Do we have another milestone in our sites?



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 877 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9429 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 18):
It's basically what the SUV did to the automobile industry.

Huh?

I think you got it wrong: the B-747 was a useful innovation.


User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9245 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 19):


I think you got it wrong: the B-747 was a useful innovation.

I guess this has to do with the country you guys come from. Big grin The SUV has a very different status here in Europe than it has in the states. The larges European revolution on cars is more in the MPV-segment.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 18):

I think the question is: Will the leap foreward the 787 provides in technology be considered as groundbreaking as the original 747 was? Do we have another milestone in our sites?

Not in being a total new kind of aircraft. It although had the potential to make Boeing the undiscussed number one aircraft manufacturer again though..



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9179 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 19):
Huh?

I think you got it wrong: the B-747 was a useful innovation.

Seeing the SUV counts for nearly 60% of automobile sales in America, I think it's quite useful here too. Americans like to travel in relative safety and comfort, however fuel in-efficient they may be.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
Seeing the SUV counts for nearly 60% of automobile sales in America, I think it's quite useful here too. Americans like to travel in relative safety and comfort, however fuel in-efficient they may be.

I think that was his point......

That is uniquely "Americanocentric" view - the SUV is more like a niche prodcut in countries like the UK..
That said, the analogy to many of the A-net posts on aviation markets is quite interesting..  Smile

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 20):
It although had the potential to make Boeing the undiscussed number one aircraft manufacturer again though..

(Presume that's "undisputed"..)
In which case I doubt the 787 on its own has the ability to push Boeing to "undisputed" no.1.

Rgds


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8693 times:



Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 6):
The 747 suffered delays due to various problems

What delays are you referring to? The first few 747s were delivered by Pan Am by the end of 1969, the date originally promised when Pan Am became the first 747 customer. The early JT9D engines required some further development by P&W and caused quite a few delays for the first year or so, but I can't recall any other significantly early problems.

It's also interesting that within 2 years of the first 747 delivery, around 160 747s were delivered and in service. How many A380s will have been delivered by October, 2 years after SQ put the first one into service? I believe the total will be approximately 20.


User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8277 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
Seeing the SUV counts for nearly 60% of automobile sales in America

The "legendary" quality and style of American non-SUV cars may have just a tiny little bit to do with that. Is it a coincidence that a company like Ford now brags in their latest TV commercial that they started selling their European models (e.g., the Fiesta) in the US?

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
Americans like to travel in relative safety and comfort

I am willing to grant you comfort, but safety is more or less a myth. In the vast majority of accident situations, one is as safe in a modern "small car" as in an SUV. What's more, most SUVs handle worse in extreme driving situations, and many models tend to roll over easily due to their higher center of gravity. IIRC, they performed a collision between a tiny (but very sophisticated) Smart car and a very heavy Mercedes S type sedan in Germany some years back, and the result was that the S type looked more or less totally wrecked, while the crash test dummy in the Smart showed that the driver would have walked away with no injuries.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
however fuel in-efficient they may be.

Well, this is reason why the whole SUV = 747 comparison does not work. The 747 enabled much cheaper mass travel, and long-distance travel as never seen before. What did the SUV achieve, except for some more "comfort" (which is very subjective; I don't like riding in SUVs at all, for example) on the individual level? They practically ruined the US car industry, and the environment along with it. Can you go further or more cheaply anywhere in an SUV compared to the other car types? I don't think so. The 747 literally was a game changer in aviation, and it helped to secure Boeing's and the US aviation industries role in the world. What did the SUVs achieve? Most US car manufacturers are on the brink of bankruptcy, or have already gone under, and they have been hit much harder than others due their now almost unsellable models. How is this the same as the 747?



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
25 Khobar : Where did you get this notion from? I'm curious.
26 BrouAviation : Ah, that was the word I was looking for. Not anymore, no. However, when it would have entered service on the original schedule, I seriously believe i
27 Post contains links Manfredj : When the SUV made its debut, it was a game changer for American car manufacturers as well. SUV's didn't bring car manufacturers to their knees, union
28 Viscount724 : Sorry, I thought you were talking about delivery delays and other delays during development (similar to the 787 delays), not flight delays which were
29 KC135TopBoom : Well, almost correct. PA did ask Boeing to begin the project that eventually became the B-747. But it really started in 1961 when the USAF was lookin
30 StressedOut : I couldn' t agree more; those evil inanimate objects are absolutely to blame. You're so right about SUV's ruining the environment as well. I believe
31 Rampart : I believe you are simply wrong on that. But this isn't the thread. Why would that matter? Some of the facts are immune from what theories you support
32 Astuteman : There will be a number of factors influencing this, of course, but I have to say the one thing that always seems to be missed in these comparisions i
33 XT6Wagon : Nope, hybrids use alot of technologies that are energy intensive to produce their hardware. Aluminum, batteries, etc all add up to a cost to produce
34 Faro : What is even more amazing is that reliability is not only maintained with increasing levels of complexity but even enhanced. A tribute to all the eng
35 BrouAviation : If they did, the plane wouldn't sell so good, and it wouldn't even fly. Seriously though, I think not only the complexity of the airliners increased,
36 Post contains links BestWestern : Correct, and because of the slowdown (recession), Airbus are also slowing production plans. "We were going from a rate of two a month to three by yea
37 Post contains links Astuteman : As I said, in the A380's case, there are a number of other factors... I'll tell you one other thing for free that's far too readily dismissed..... Si
38 Post contains links BrouAviation : Do you understand dutch? If yes, order one copy of this magazine: http://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/ I'm also writing for the magazine of the Dutch AOP
39 Post contains links and images EPA001 : If I recall correctly Astutemen is in the business of developing and building submarines for the Her Majesty's Royal Navy. Which is also a fascinatin
40 BrouAviation : Ah, I see. Very, very interesting. And I read they have suffered a 4-year delay too, so he knows were he is talking about when it comes to delays of
41 Astuteman : "Nuclear" Submarines my friend... Although this year's work has been focussed more on the civil nuclear side.... Funny thing is, when my employers or
42 Astuteman : True. It's somewhat hard to see Boeing resorting to slavery to accelerate the 787 programme though... Rgds
43 Post contains images EPA001 : I remember an old story from 1989. At that time the highly successful Boeing 747-400 program reached the point of the first delivery to the customers
44 Mestrugo : Er, the bulk of the construction of the pyramids was taken by paid workers. They were even well paid and looked after, and there's even records of a
45 BrouAviation : In Dutch we have a saying: there is nothing new under this sun. Don't know if it's an English saying as well, but sure it's true.
46 DocLightning : I disagree. I think the 747 was a far larger technological leap than the 787. It was basically an immense scale-up of the 707. The entire concept of
47 DocLightning : I disagree. The 747 was a major advance in a way that the 787 was not. The 747 had a much lower CASM than its predecessor, the 707/DC-8 due to its si
48 Khobar : Really? So it's more complex to build a large nuclear submarine than a small one? In what way, exactly?
49 Gorgos : Imagine handling nominally the same tollerances on an object that is 10 times the size and weight, this requires complete different equipment and accu
50 BrouAviation : I - GUESS - the complexity of size is due to more complex infrastructure due to the larger parts. To get in extremes: It's easier to create a 1/100 A
51 Khobar : If they are the same tolerances then they would be the same accuracy. Handling the larger pieces may require different machinery, but that doesn't me
52 BrouAviation : You have 4 iso 2 engines, therefore 4 generators, 4 hydraulic systems, 4 systems providing bleed air, thus more complicated systems. For example: The
53 Khobar : But does the 747 have all that *purely* because of its size? For example, a Lockheed Jetstar also has 4 engines. If size *alone* were the determining
54 FrmrCAPCADET : I remember Randy I (the boeing blog) saying in the midst of some early 380 problems that building very large aircraft was very difficult (he was not b
55 Khobar : Building large aircraft is easy. Building large aircraft that are also efficient, affordable, on budget, on time, and with a cherry on top - that's h
56 Astuteman : Correct. That's one very relevant point. Yes. Although it would be fair to say that the small ones bring their own unique problems. But just have a l
57 Jambrain : In jet engines a small 300hp jet engine has 600 part positions a large 80,000 lbf engine has 20,000 part positions. It's largely a question of cost e
58 Scipio : I think it is perfectly fine for society to demand that people do not needlessly damage the environment or compromize the safety of others. My gripe
59 Tarheelwings : Of course they'd be sitting in an unsold airplane parking lot but why sweat the details
60 Khobar : Hold on a minute - did they say the engines were "supercharged"??? I'm not sure the accuracy of the information can be relied upon. The A380 and 747
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...
Cities In The US With 747 Service To Europe. posted Fri Sep 14 2007 05:57:03 by Mudboy
Boeing Denies 787 Problems: Talks Of Replacing 777 posted Tue Jun 19 2007 08:01:32 by OyKIE
Minor Annoyance With JetBlue.com posted Sat Jan 20 2007 01:34:52 by Yellowstone
Who Are The Regulars With 747-300s In Service? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 15:33:17 by Ecuatoriana707
Boeing Not Concerned About 787 Problems posted Thu Jul 20 2006 15:21:49 by EI321
Royal Air Maroc Today With 747 At FRA posted Sun Jul 16 2006 23:59:25 by TS
A.P.: Boeing Acknowledges 787 Problems posted Sun Jul 16 2006 21:52:21 by CWFan
787 Problems - More Clarification posted Fri Jun 9 2006 14:54:41 by NYC777
Not To Start Trouble....so Be Nice! 787 Problems? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 07:30:28 by Tugger
Firefighting With 747 Tanker, Yes 747 posted Sun May 7 2006 03:23:52 by Starstream707