Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Consequences To Boeing If It Has To Cancel The 787  
User currently offlineMikesbucky From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19652 times:

With the delays in the 787 and the opinions of some that it will never fly, I was wondering about the consequences to BCA and Boeing in general should they be forced to cancel the program as some have advocated. I know that many external factors could aggravate or mitigate those consequences, but for the purposes of this discussion assume those factors are inconsequential. Most would fall into one of two camps. Camp 1 being those who feel that the cancellation of the 787 would allow Boeing to reallocate resources throughout its other products and would allow them to bring a 737 replacement to market sooner and possibly a 777 replacement. This camp feels that while the cancellation would have a negative impact on Boeing, it could still recover and be a force in commercial aircraft manufacturing. Camp 2 believes that a cancellation would be catastrophic. The financial losses and complete disintegration of customer confidence could cripple the company to the point of insolvency. Please add to the discussion what you think the consequences would be and why. Please do not turn this into an A vs B thread or a bashing of either manufacturer. Also, please keep it civil. I find the personal attacks I see on many of these threads to be very disheartening.

For the record, I personally lean toward camp 2. The financial losses alone would drive many a company to its knees. While many feel that the large order backlog of the 737 and the still strong position of the 777 would see the company through, I'm not convinced. 777 sales, while still coming in, are starting to taper off (I know the current world economic crisis is a factor in slow sales, but sales were beginning to slow down even before that) and the 737 backlog will start to decrease as more airlines wait for the eventual successor. These issues could be overcome as long as Boeing could design and build the 737 replacement in a time frame acceptable to the world's airlines, but with the 787 issues I have severe doubts that many would even give them the chance. Many say that IDS could tide Boeing over until BCA got back on their feet, but they have their own issues with F-22 and C-17 lines at the end of their lives and the new tanker contact in limbo, they have no major procurement contract guarantees on the horizon. All of that adds up to a cloudy future for Boeing if they are forced to cancel the 787.

Let the discussion begin.

110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1614 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19605 times:

Well, as a first cut here, I would submit that Airbus' A380 and A350 experience is a good measure of what you would likely see. That is to say, IMHO, that this is a situation with 1) massive sunk costs and 2) completely scrapping it altogether would (I would think) at best even out--sure you would be cutting costs at one level, but you would have thrown away any commonalities for similar offerings (I'm thinking the A350 re-design, rather than scrapping the whole project and throwing it in the trash, where they could at least roll SOME of the engineering work into the A350 v.2 since at the end of the day, despite being very different from the original A350 is still the same mid-size widebody platform). I could be wrong here, just my thoughts.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19525 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mikesbucky (Thread starter):
With the delays in the 787 and the opinions of some that it will never fly, I was wondering about the consequences to BCA and Boeing in general should they be forced to cancel the program as some have advocated.

Well the billions they already sunk would be lost, along with liquidated damages paid out to customers and suppliers. Now many 787 customers are also customers of other Boeing models and many 787 suppliers also provide parts for other Boeing models, so Boeing could work deals with them.

If you believe the latest numbers, the total 787 spend is $11 billion so if Boeing just stopped it now, you'd probably be looking at $20 billion or less total costs once you factor in all the costs of shutting everything down and canceling all the contracts with customers and suppliers. You'll see significant investor lawsuits filed, but chances are they'd be settled out of court for a few more billion.

So maybe $25 billion, total? And Boeing could probably write a good bit of that off, so the actual "cash hit" would be lower. But even if it wasn't, $25 billion wouldn't kill the company, to be sure, considering half of that has already been spent with no return and Boeing is still doing strong financially so by spreading out the second half over a few more years would limit the impact.



At that point, they'd probably start to look at a new family to replace the 767 and 777 with an EIS towards 2020. If they stayed with the current 777 fuselage diameter in three sizes (55m / 65m / 75m) they could have a range spanning 245-365 seats replacing the 767-400ER, 777-200ER and 777-300ER. GE could apply all the GEnx technologies to the GE90 and Rolls could do the same by applying all the Trent XWB technologies to the Trent 800 to develop new 100,000lb thrust engines with a 130" fan for a better bypass ratio.


User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1117 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19339 times:

At first glance, I really don't see how Boeing could move to another program without putting out the 787. Who will order any new plane they might offer after cancelling the 787? It does not make any sense. They may have to start almost from scratch but cancelling the program is just not an option. They could not take any order for another new program anymore.

User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19311 times:

Boeing is past the point of no return with the 787, which is to say the costs of canceling it will *always* be more, in any potential scenario, than the costs of fixing it. Even if that "fix" means redesigning the entire airplane from scratch.

At the very least, Boeing would lose hundreds of orders, not just for the 787 but for other aircraft as airlines lose confidence in the company. Even if they *only* lost the 787 orders, that is still many billions of dollars. You can't just look at the current cash costs to the company, you have to look at future revenue as well.

Let's say they have spent $11 billion on the plane so far, and they would lose $25 billion total in actual cash. They'd probably lose another $100 billion in future revenue. Or, they could just fix the plane even if it costs them another $11 billion to redesign it from scratch. The correct course of action from a business perspective is obvious (and even if you *don't* factor in the future revenue).

In other words, it's sort of moot talking about whether they will cancel the 787, because whether or not it would kill them, they're not going to do it.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19220 times:

I have yet to see anybody in the "camp" that says "cancel it" make a remotely sensible case for that action. Fix it and get it right.

I have a family member who works at GEAE. He told me that Boeing's delays are not wasted time for the GEnx. They are still having difficulties meeting certification requirements at higher thrust levels and need the extra time.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineTimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19114 times:

Both Airbus and Boeing are facing the fact that the "bottom" of their markets are about to be eaten into by E-Jets, C-series, MRJ, ect. Both are not investing in their 737 and A320 replacements.

The A350 looks to be a 12 billion dollar program, and Airbus doesn't even have a final word on financing anywhere near that.

Meanwhile the market for the bread & butter planes is getting eroded. I can't see either Boeing or Airbus walking away from either project at this point. WB aircraft are the one area B&A are free from competition.

In order to offer a complete line of aircraft, the 787 is essential, BCA has to have something this size in the lineup. Rework the 767? I don't think so. That would fly as well as the Airbus rework of the A330 did 4 years ago.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18954 times:



Quoting Mikesbucky (Thread starter):
Camp 1 being those who feel that the cancellation of the 787 would allow Boeing to reallocate resources throughout its other products and would allow them to bring a 737 replacement to market sooner and possibly a 777 replacement.

I think that this is, functionally, Camp 2.

This would be Boeing saying "We screwed up the 787 so badly that we can't fix it. Now trust us, we'll get it right on the next airplane..."

Tom.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18733 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 3):
At first glance, I really don't see how Boeing could move to another program without putting out the 787. Who will order any new plane they might offer after cancelling the 787? It does not make any sense. They may have to start almost from scratch but cancelling the program is just not an option. They could not take any order for another new program anymore.

Saved me composing much the same sentiments. And as ContnEliteCMH says:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 5):
I have yet to see anybody in the "camp" that says "cancel it" make a remotely sensible case for that action. Fix it and get it right.

And preferably do it fairly quickly, but most of all correct is better than quick - an adage that needed to be added to the original program spec?????

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 5):
I have a family member who works at GEAE. He told me that Boeing's delays are not wasted time for the GEnx. They are still having difficulties meeting certification requirements at higher thrust levels and need the extra time.

Interesting. And surely Rolls are not fast asleep either. Looks as if the engines too were close to a bridge too far at the time of the launch. Makes you wonder how close the Trent 2000 will be when it is needed - more time, but even more demanding specs?


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18712 times:

They really can't cancel at this point but what I hope they do do is make sure if it goes into service, with passenger carrying airlines, it performs above original expectations.

User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2256 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 18446 times:

Boeing must not cancel the 787! It would be surreal. No flaw in the present 787 programme would come close to the capital mistake of canceling that plane.

Quoting Mikesbucky (Thread starter):
Camp 1 being those who feel that the cancellation of the 787 would allow Boeing to reallocate resources throughout its other products and would allow them to bring a 737 replacement to market sooner and possibly a 777 replacement.

If Boeing is not able to complete the 787 from present state why even think about that they could ever build another plane? I mean the 787 got that far and should not be completed? A company that would not be able to finish the 787 may be everything but not a planemaker. So don't think that Boeign after a 787 canceling could ever claim credibly to build another plane. People who see themselves in camp 1 don't see or think well (or at all).

Quoting Mikesbucky (Thread starter):
Camp 2 believes that a cancellation would be catastrophic.

Of course it would be catastrophic. There is probably no other negative business case (how can I loose the most money) around than "canceling the 787". This option very likely would cause the guaranteed highest loss on any programme ever. It has not one advantage.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 18412 times:

I think even if they had to redesign the whole thing, adding two or three more years to the project, they would still not cancel it.

The market segment is theirs for the taking and they have some breathing room as - for all the bluster - Airbus are not in danger of getting the A358 to market any sooner, and its not like customers can ditch the Dreamliner and get a load of A332s - there is a waiting list there.

If it takes a total scrapping of the first 12 airframes and a complete redesign of the wingbox - resulting in a drastically different 787 to the one we know today, it still would not be cancelled.

Hell, even if they went back to an aluminium alloy barrel design and a whole new wingbox, and sent the Trent back to Rolls for a year to get it back to specs, it would probably still be as good as the A332, and so it would be done. Once the airlines are done with the compo, they are likely to be paying a tiny fraction (net) of what the plane is worth when they do finally get delivered.

They wont cancel - it is more than a programme - its their very reputation at stake, and they need to get their pride back. Doesnt matter how much it costs or how long it takes - they will get it flying and when it does it will be a great airplane. But things must change. And they will.

I went to Seattle to see the first flight based on their assurances at the Paris Air Show, and whilst the trip was fun, i would not have done it had i known the 787 was not going to fly.

I think the lessons that need learning here are nothing to do with CFRP or stringers or delaminations.

The lies and blatant dishonesty that has come out of Boeing has cost me personally the miles to spend on seeing a plane fly which I never even caught sight of - because of their lies. Somebody needs to pay.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineOsteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 18342 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
The lies and blatant dishonesty that has come out of Boeing has cost me personally the miles to spend on seeing a plane fly which I never even caught sight of - because of their lies. Somebody needs to pay.

I can imagine how some airline managers currently feel about Boeing. I doubt Boeing has really been honest to them.


User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 18196 times:

But still I why would one think that they even think about canceling the project one split second?


There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3094 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16933 times:

Consequence: The end of any kind of credible commercial aircraft division.


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1608 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16704 times:

We don't have enough data available to actually choose camp 1 or camp 2.
All I see in other postings are emotions mostly.

If there was a fundamental bluder (like miscalculation of CFRM parameters) - decision 1 is possible.
On the other hand, why couldn't Boeing re-design 787, change barrels to panels - and still call it Boeing 787?

So - with some reservations - I tent to join camp 2.


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16653 times:

787 is not going to be canceled. End of Discussion.


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16606 times:



Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 16):
787 is not going to be canceled. End of Discussion.

Agreed. This is a irrelevant scenario.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16532 times:

Just get real.... they will NOT cancel this program. It is not a program like SonicCruiser.... If B787 is cancelled, they you must consider writing Boeing off, which is like saying there will be a coup and the US Constitution will ripped up....

That is my 2 cents.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16380 times:



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 4):
Boeing is past the point of no return with the 787, which is to say the costs of canceling it will *always* be more, in any potential scenario, than the costs of fixing it. Even if that "fix" means redesigning the entire airplane from scratch.

Agreed, as is the sentiment across the board, the 787 will not and can not be cancelled. The cost of getting it right is probably much higher that the cost of cancelling. Not only because of orders lost on the 787, but because of confidence lost in Boeing. I don't think it will be the end of Boeing (or BCA), but they will be a smaller player for a while. The market NEEDS at least two OEM's anyway. There's no way Airbus can cater to the demand for aircraft (even only in this segment) themselves.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
This would be Boeing saying "We screwed up the 787 so badly that we can't fix it. Now trust us, we'll get it right on the next airplane..."

Indeed, it will take a while to get the market confidence back. Look at how long it took Airbus to gain the confidence of the market (and, granted, a full portfolio from narrowbodies to VLA). They will be able to live off the 737 and 777 for a while, but again, ceding the market to Airbus is NOT an option.

I do wonder what would have happened if Airbus had stuck with the original a350. If on schedule, deliveries would have started next year. Would more airlines have cancelled the 787 and opted for the a350 instead?  scratchchin 
This is not happening now, because the a350 is a) bigger and b) not due for at least 4-5 years.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineIntermodal64 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15300 times:

Boeing will just do what their customers do when they fail to deliver -- change the logo, roll out new advertising, and all ill-will is forgotten.

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14900 times:

Quoting Mikesbucky (Thread starter):
Many say that IDS could tide Boeing over until BCA got back on their feet, but they have their own issues with F-22 and C-17 lines at the end of their lives and the new tanker contact in limbo, they have no major procurement contract guarantees on the horizon.

The answer to that is in the very statement you made. The days of defense contractors waiting a short period until the next program comes along if they loose one contract are over. MD relied on their defense business and starved their commercial division and look what happened to them. They merged with Boeing and are now messing them up.  

The chances of Boeing cancelling the 787 are about the same as the chances of Airbus killing the A380 when they were having issues.

[Edited 2009-07-31 08:38:17]

User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14822 times:



Quoting Intermodal64 (Reply 20):
Boeing will just do what their customers do when they fail to deliver -- change the logo, roll out new advertising, and all ill-will is forgotten.


LOL! "Welcome to the new Delta. Welcome change!"



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4289 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14568 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
If it takes a total scrapping of the first 12 airframes and a complete redesign of the wingbox - resulting in a drastically different 787 to the one we know today, it still would not be cancelled.

Hell, even if they went back to an aluminium alloy barrel design and a whole new wingbox, and sent the Trent back to Rolls for a year to get it back to specs, it would probably still be as good as the A332, and so it would be done. Once the airlines are done with the compo, they are likely to be paying a tiny fraction (net) of what the plane is worth when they do finally get delivered.

Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but what is the delay with the 787 program? Is Boeing giving any clues?
Surely after all of the thousands (millions?) of man hours and advanced computer model testing done on the plane so far, it must be close to being completed? What could they be seeing that is making them go back to the drawing board?

I will say this, it sure is a good looking aircraft. But I bet it doesn't look so good as a billion dollar paperweight...



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Richierich (Reply 23):
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but what is the delay with the 787 program?

The area where the wings join to the body is unable to transfer a load equivalent to 50% more than they would ever expect to see in service. However, this load must be shown to be shown to be able to be handled (at least once) in order to certify the plane for commercial operation.


25 Trigged : Although there are some here that love the thought that Boeing would fade away and Airbus take over as the sole large aircraft supplier, that will not
26 N62NA : Or like saying the U.S. government will own General Motors, oh, wait, they do. Well, get ready for a U.S. government owned Boeing.... just kidding...
27 EPA001 : I agree with this as well. Now let's hope I am not proven wrong in this matter.
28 BrouAviation : Can't we start a betting agency here at A.net, where members can gamble on matters like time to EIS, delays, sales figures, et cetera when a new model
29 JAL : There would be a serious loss of any credibility Boeing has left in the commercial avation industry. I suspect many airline would abandon Boeing for A
30 NCB : While many seem to agree that the 787 being cancelled is a surreal scenario, I think that the scenario may not be underestimated. Now imagine that the
31 Cosmofly : If the mathematical models of the original design is not accurate at the problematic areas, there can be many more areas that have potential problems.
32 Pylon101 : C'mon! This is nonsense. All these mind games are pretty boring even with 2 manufacturers in play. Who is interested in "taking over"? Sounds like a
33 PDXFlyer31 : We should hope that Boeing has to cancel the 787 and fail as a company. We should also hope that Airbus screws up the A350 and fails as a company too.
34 EPA001 : I will take my chances with the B787 any day of the week and twice on Sunday compared to sinking in the freezing ocean on board of the Titanic. The B
35 KarlB737 : How was this issue resolved in some of their other aircraft such as the 747 and 777?
36 Stitch : It never was an issue with those aircraft. The join was properly designed from the beginning and successfully met the certification criteria.
37 Prebennorholm : Any talk about cancelation of the 787 is irrelevant. Its development phase will not be much different compared to earlier planes from Boeing and other
38 AirNZ : Well, this is the first time I've heard of lawyers being one of those 'groups' allegedly responsible for the 787 delays! Can you thus explain to me h
39 Glom : I'm devastated by the sheer scale of this monumental cock up. I even had to change my username on another forum because I couldn't bear the shame of i
40 Prebennorholm : Yes, that's easy. The lawyers of Boeing and the lawyers of various sourcing partners negotiate sourcing contracts, in the case of the 787 both coveri
41 AirNZ : Interesting post but, respectively, quite a bit fanciful in my estimation. Firstly, lawyers are responsible for drawing up contracts between Boeing a
42 Mikesbucky : I distinctly remember when I started this thread asking that posters be civil and not bash either A or B. I should have known better. This is A.Net a
43 Braybuddy : I'm inclined to agree with the posters who believe the 787 will not be cancelled, as long as customers stay on board. But what if the aircraft is dela
44 BMI727 : That could have made me the only person to make money from JetAmerica. The lawyers just do what they are told. Boeing should know if their suppliers
45 Baroque : I can certainly see the lawyers making life difficult for bidders in their zeal to protect B's "interests", but are you really saying they ran this s
46 Trigged : Have you paid any attention to some of the posts here? It is on both sides of the fence, those who are 100% Boeing and 100% Airbus. I never said that
47 Pylon101 : This is a complete nonsense. There are no US haters on a.net. Opinions like quoted bellow are rather anti-American. Attempts to consider various opti
48 Astuteman : Pretty much agree with that. Whether you'd consider it "data" or not, I think some common-sense rough order cost approximations tell a clear story. T
49 Post contains images EPA001 : Your numbers are as always very convincing Astuteman.   No way they will cancel this program unless some even much more serious design flaws will be
50 NCB : Nice analysis Astuteman, except that I have a different vision on the numbers. $2.5B R&D to complete may be very optimistic. I say that at this stage,
51 Flyglobal : I cannot believe in a 787 cancellation. The following redesign sequence may be possible, all adding more time the more changes are needed. 1) Mini fix
52 Astuteman : Even if you are right, and this "worst case" materialises, I can't possibly imagine how "investing" the very same $15Bn-$20Bn, just to write off the
53 Mikesbucky : Pylon101, I would agree if AirNZ ever said one single thing positive about anything American. I'm not attacking AirNZ for criticizing Boeing or the 7
54 AirNZ : Hey! just hold on a minute! I well remember what you said, and I commend you for doing so (I'm in total agreement) but let's not get carried away wit
55 NCB : There are 3 problems here. 1. In case the redesign is significant, what you call the work in progress, or already produced sections, parts and compon
56 MMEPHX : One thing to remember is that Boeing is made up of several business units, commercial airplanes is just one of them. Depending how quickly they had t
57 Stitch : Boeing just secured a few billion in loans at rates under 6%, so they're evidently still considered a low credit risk.
58 MMEPHX : ...yep true, but the scenario being discussed is against the backdrop of canceling a major aircraft program....that could change the whole dynamics o
59 Astuteman : I suspect that most of the expensive "equipment" style parts wouldn't be affected. In the grand scheme of things, structure isn't expensive.. Not my
60 ContnlEliteCMH : I can think of nothing to substantiate this line of reasoning. Nobody disputes that Boeing made a mistake with the join to the wingbox, incluing Boei
61 NCB : That is true overall. The engines are the most expensive piece of equipment at $15-20 million a piece, but not that many sets have been produced thus
62 GDB : You might be humorous here, but there are people, quite a few of them and growing, who DO think along those lines. They are not all 'professional pro
63 EcuadorianMD11 : Haha, but hey; what´s that about another forum? Are you not committed to A.net alone? Infidelity on the net? What I understand more and more after r
64 NCB : When a significant design flaw is found, the entire model must be put under the loop to see if similar flaws have occured in other areas, not limitin
65 Stitch : Boeing has been performing physical tests on multiple components. Some of those components did not react as expected (main gear center spar, forward e
66 NCB : Indeed Stitch, don't know if you are commenting on my post, but to be clear, this is my position: As explained above about software and design proces
67 Trigged : This is what we were talking about in that other thread regarding the reliance on computer modeling to provide definitive results. Computer modeling
68 Stitch : They tested what they were required to test and what they were required to test is pretty exhaustive when it comes to a commercial airliner. It's why
69 Ikramerica : This cancellation discussion is ludicrous. What would Boeing gain by doing this? There is a market for this type of aircraft, a market of thousands of
70 Trigged : Well, what is causing the discrepancies in behavior? If they have validated the models with material behavior and performed all of the required tests
71 OzGlobal : i) AirNZ's point is not A vs B, nor anti-American. He is anti the idea of lawyers and salesmen running aircraft manufacturers. The fact that you make
72 AirCatalonia : 787 will fly or Boeing will go down with it. I am sure Boeing will make that plane fly, even if it takes 10 years.
73 Stitch : The simple answer is that these are the first physical tests performed to validate the behavior for these components. This is the first time a wingbo
74 Prebennorholm : We can only guess here. My guess is that Boeing built ZA997 and 998 at the earliest possible time. Guessing again. My guess would be manufacturing pr
75 NCB : The Japanese have produced the sections to Boeing design specifications. It's the design specs that were wrong from the beginning...too weak a structu
76 ContnlEliteCMH : And as I said ealier, I can think of nothing to substantiate this reasoning. Please let me be more specific: what you suggest, as a blanket approach,
77 Sancho99504 : I think if Boeing could go back in timethey would change a few things: 1. Delay 787 rollout for pictures until the real fasteners were in place and th
78 Trigged : Bingo. That was exactly what I was getting at. Start with a bolt. Test the bolt. Put the bolt in a panel, test the bolt and panel. Put several panels
79 GDB : While I often disagree with AirNZ, I've never detected any of that much abused term, anti Americanism, with him. Mikebucky, as someone who has been he
80 EPA001 : I am active here on A-net since 2006, but am a frequent reader since I guess 2003 or so. I can only confirm what GDB has stated in his post. And many
81 Astuteman : Have to agree My question exactly. All they gain is a loss of 10's of Billions, and 10 years of market position I wouldn't bet on it.... Rgds
82 Keesje : I think they lost their market position in the 250-300 seat segment a while ago. The 787 was developped to regain a position.
83 Astuteman : OK. Ten more years of market position........ As you say, the 787 is crucial to regaining that position. Rgds
84 AirNZ : I would like to thank you indeed for that GDB. Whilst we may agree, or disagree, on various aviation subjects......the whole basis for debate and con
85 Mikesbucky : AIrNZ, I am a big enough person to apologize. I did go over the top on my statement and should never have made it. Without looking at every post you
86 Mikesbucky : OzGlobal, I was not making it A vs B, just restating the hopes I had for not making it that way, but I did go way too far with my attack on AirNZ and
87 MIKESBUCKY : GDB, you are correct to call me out on this. I was not on A.Net when the A380 was going through its issues so I can't comment on how the threads were
88 Mikesbucky : While I appreciate the vigorous discussion that has taken place so far, it really doesn't address the posted topic. I know that it is extremely unlike
89 Ikramerica : Well, I always get yelled at for suggesting that the A350-1000 won't perform to spec because the specs are more pie in the sky than Boeing's 787-9 sp
90 Keesje : - Since when doesn't capasity play a role in airline network planning anymore? - Why would CASM on A350-1000 be better then on A388? Scale and real w
91 EBJ1248650 : Who's to say they could be trusted to get the second plane right. There's too much invested in the 787: time, money, Boeing's reputation, the reputat
92 Theredbaron : Back in 2004 there was a A-neter called UDO, he was a defender of the A380 project, and he was attacked, lambasted and mocked, finally he threw the to
93 Stitch : The Pontiac Aztek, as hideous as it was, didn't force GM into bankruptcy. It was all the other cars like the Pontiac Aztek built over a period of dec
94 Astuteman : The points I would offer in counter are:- a) Will the A350XWB perform as advertised? (FWIW I think it will, or at least be close enough) b) As has be
95 EPA001 : I think you are completely right with your analysis of the two planes. The -900 and (very bold thought) the -1000 versions of the A380 could be broug
96 Astuteman : I'd go so far as to say that the A380-800 is to the A380 "family" as the A350-800 is to the A350 "family" Rgds
97 LTBEWR : A number of factors are a lot different for Boeing to develop a new civilian pax/cargo aircraft for in recent years than 30-40 years ago. Decline in m
98 Aither : If the 787 program is cancelled, it would not kill Boeing right away but it would precipitate the end of the Airbus/Boeing duopoly IMHO. This duopoly
99 Keesje : I would not be surprised if we see an A350XWB with 50% composites (iso 53% as a result of an additional internal review at Airbus.. ) As to Boeing bei
100 Part147 : I think it's highly doubtful the 787 will be cancelled - too much money, infrastructure and national pride has been sunk into the program already to h
101 EcuadorianMD11 : I am actually surprised not to see a Japanese company getting in to the 100+ seats market. Technically, the Japanese are hard to beat!! Ecuadorian MD
102 Thegeek : I think it can cripple it. If the 787 doesn't enter service, I can't see Boeing being able to launch a paper plane next time. It would have to have a
103 Stitch : Every commercial airliner were launched only after securing orders. Neither Boeing nor Airbus can invest the monies necessary to develop a plane and
104 Gigneil : The loss invested in the development of the plane pales in comparison to the loss of revenue. Boeing would not recover. NS
105 UALWN : And yet there is a "theorem" in software engineering that says something like "The number of bugs that remain undetected in your piece of software is
106 NCB : This is a common philosophy in any kind of design engineering. I don't really like the behavior of some would-be engineers, professors on airliners.n
107 EXAAUADL : 1. Who has advocated that? 2. It would be the end of Boeing in the commercial aircraft industry as Boeing would lose all credibility and would be unl
108 Trigged : Although I am not quite sure who exactly this is directed to, but as an instructor at a university and as a person that has spoken about this subject
109 NCB : I have read your reply in the Flightblogger-started thread about the damage extending further inside and we seem to share the same views about testin
110 Burkhard : Cancellation of the project will never happen. Boeing has, I read, parts already built worth 8 billion. If they cancel the project, they have to write
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...
Could Qantas Cancel The 787? posted Thu Nov 27 2008 10:54:06 by Plairbus
Boeing First Qtr 2007 Report & The 787 posted Tue May 1 2007 02:11:39 by Ruscoe
If Delta Does NOT Order The 787-3... posted Fri Aug 4 2006 18:06:44 by 1337Delta764
If It Was'nt For The A320 Where Would Airbus Be posted Tue Jun 27 2006 14:32:01 by Malb777
Boeing Pedicts Another Phenomenal Year For The 787 posted Wed Mar 29 2006 08:21:35 by OyKIE
Could The 787-3 Be Boeing's Answer To The A333? posted Thu May 21 2009 11:00:55 by Stitch
How Boeing Delivers The 787 To Its Customers? posted Mon Apr 23 2007 21:17:36 by EA772LR
What To Do If You Board The Wrong Flight? posted Wed Apr 8 2009 11:45:01 by Pyrex
Will RR Ever Offer The Trent XWB To Boeing? posted Sat Feb 21 2009 16:02:40 by NCB
Is It Not Time For The Media To Report Properly? posted Fri Sep 19 2008 13:08:28 by Cumulus