Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tame Media Reporting Damaged The 787 Dreamliner?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15367 times:

The damage that spin and uncritical reporting did to the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing, and the airlines

The damage done by the Dreamliner fantasy spinners that suppressed the contrary voices among this once great company’s engineers and designers reaches into Airbus, which fell for the rhetoric and committed to a largely plastic competitor, the A350, and into carriers like Qantas, which still has 50 of the 787s on order and has been left looking reckless in its unquestioning acceptance of the Boeing pitch .

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...reamliner-boeing-and-the-airlines/

Ben Sandilands takes aim at the mainstream media for not asking questions and ignoring / dismissing 787 alarm signals. I think in general media want to write what their customers like to read, to make them come back / buy more and satisfy advertisers.

Writing things / asking question nobody wants to hear often doesn't work out positively for a reporter. Looking back at the Dreamliner program sofar I think some hype can not be denied, including the sorry results of a hype: wishfull thinking & seriously misinformed people and parties.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/09/boe...ts-equity-cx_ll_0709markets22.html

Richard Aboulafia has been one of the only newsmakers daring to take a critical look at his own reporting recently  thumbsup  ;

As we digested the news, I paused to reflect on just what a tremendous drug-like rush the 787 program once was, and just what a ghastly let down it has become. A few years ago I said it was the aviation equivalent of the i-Pod – a revolutionary product that would be a category killer and would change the way we perceive of aircraft production. The sales figures were extraordinary. http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=295



I think its good there's forums and blogs like www.airliners.net to challenge the established media and independently ask unpopular questions and discuss "unconfirmed rumours"

In the end serious analysts / stake holders had to switch to new media for real progress information.

I think a lot of lessons learned for everybody; Airbus, Boeing, the airlines, the media and us aviation enthousiasts..

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15275 times:

What you are saying is implying that when the 787 is finally delivered it will fail to deliver on its promises. There is no question that the program has not gone anywhere nearly as well as was hoped, and has run into unexpected (as well as expected) snags. But I have not read anything (other than the fact that they are still struggling with weight issues, which is hardly uncommon for any new airliner) that implies anything fundamentally wrong with the design and concept of the 787. Even the problem of the wing attachment is really a very minor problem from an engineering perspective; it is serious because of the difficulty of fixing it. If it had been discovered before so many planes had had their wings attached it would have been just a minor glitch. I will not join the bandwagon of saying that the 787 has been over-hyped until evidence (provided by actual airline operational history) proves it. The potential of lighter weight, lower maintenance costs, and essentially unlimited airframe life are the goals of CFRP construction; none of them have been shown to be wrong. There is also the benefit of smoother surface finish; which is a relatively small item but not insignificant. Remember that the A380 did not meet its weight goals, and was delayed by two years, but has exceeded expectations once actually in service. It is way too soon to say that the 787 won't do the same.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15241 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
What you are saying is implying that when the 787 is finally delivered it will fail to deliver on its promises.

 Confused No. Only the damage sofar and the role the media played in that.


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14738 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
What you are saying is implying that when the 787 is finally delivered it will fail to deliver on its promises.

Seems he's saying more than that through posting this. At least we know who Captain X is.


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14595 times:

I didn't know people on this site respect the MSM to analyze much or for that matter with much substance. The reason I read certain posters is because I can learn more from them than from the general media. Shame on me for wasting the $25.00 to post.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14399 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Ben Sandilands takes aim at the mainstream media for not asking questions and ignoring / dismissing 787 alarm signals.

When has the mainstream media ever demonstrated even the most basic understanding of aerospace matters?

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I paused to reflect on just what a tremendous drug-like rush the 787 program once was, and just what a ghastly let down it has become.

Much like the A380, but now almost nobody remembers the problems it encountered. When the 787s are up and flying nobody, except Airbus fanboys and hopefully Boeing and their subcontractors, will remember the problems the 787 encountered.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3589 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14321 times:

The problem is that many in the media get too close to their official sources. Its hard to be objective when you get access to privileged information, invited to the launches, on the invitation list for the corporate hospitality etc. This is not unique to B, or even A, but covers the whole business spectrum.
The independent investigative journalist, might be able to hold their head up high at their impartiality and feel good about themselves, but they earn the same as their more pr friendly colleagues, and are sitting at home on the sofa watching the big match, whilst the others are being wined and dined at the big match. Thats if they still have a job, as the others can fill the papers with their rehashed press releases and contents of private briefings.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13471 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
No. Only the damage sofar and the role the media played in that.

The "damage" done to the 787 right now is academic. Since the general public will not be buying 787's the only damage that the media could do would be if they convinced the public not to fly on it for some reason (which they did, to some extent, to the DC-10, but not without some justification.) Since the backlog for 787 orders will take Boeing several years to fill, what anyone thinks of the 787 right now is about as important as my opinion of the Sultan of Brunei. Unless customers start canceling in droves (which is highly unlikely) the 787 will ultimately stand or fall on its performance, just like the A380. If it performs well, it will be successful, and will attract more orders. If it doesn't, nothing said now will have any effect whatsoever. Right now, no airline is going to order it in any case, seeing as how they won't get them for several years and nobody knows what the economy is going to do. And since Boeing has several years backlog of orders anyway, more orders at this point won't really do them any good. If the plane is a failure, Boeing is in big, big trouble, and press coverage will have had nothing to do with it whatsoever.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 13174 times:

Do we want to have a reasonable discussion on the ups and downs of the 787 dreamliner?
It's an impossible scenario simply because all common sense has been lost. It's been lost among the media, it's lost among the public, and certainly is of dubious quality among bloggers on the internet:

"I read it on the internet, therefore it has to be true." We have lost so much reason in this age of computers and instant news." The 787 indeed has seen the blunt end of this age. A victim of technology from both ends of the stick.

The hype around the glorious 787 is not empty, let's not forget that for one moment. It's revolutionary in so many ways; its composite structure being the biggest step in commercial aviation aircraft quite possibly since the Wright Brother's first flight.

What would you like Boeing to do? Rush the project? Build an airplane which doesn't hold up to the other great products it has produced like the 747 and 737? Boeing isn't to blame here. Our world of instant gratification and "I want it now" mentality become the source of the 787's problems, not the aircraft itself. Let Boeing do their job. Let them make it right....it's worth the wait. You know what, Boeing doesn't really care whether you have to wait a bit longer anyways. Once the aircraft has flown, proven itself as the product it advertised, the customers will ultimately be happy.

I'm glad to see there is at least one American company out there who has the self centeredness to stand by its product amid a constant clambering from others who have nothing to do but use their political might to create a gray cloud over a well respected aeronautical giant.

Respect this manufacturer, never forget its contributions but most important don't forget that the next time you walk onboard an airplane, there is a good chance it's a Boeing: An airplane that was never rushed for the sake of time, money, or because outside sources said it had to be so.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12968 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
its composite structure being the biggest step in commercial aviation aircraft quite possibly since the Wright Brother's first flight.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.

Suffice it to say that before the Wright brothers, there were no (practical) powered aircraft in existence.

Before the 787, how many airplanes - small or large - existed which were made mostly or entirely of composites? Countless.

What contribution did the Wright brothers make to transportation? They practically singlehandedly invented aviation. I.e., before them man could NOT fly, after them man COULD fly. Quite a difference, I would say!

What contribution does the 787 make to transportation? Right now, we are discussing whether the initial 787s can even beat the decades-old "non-composite" A330 (!) on typical routes! Therefore, what is the contribution: zero. Right - nothing. It cannot fly significantly faster, higher, farther or much more efficiently than existing planes.

It is hyperbole like this, which has dominated the discussion on this board for years, and which miraculously does not seem to be dead even in the face on Boeing's continued failure, which generated much of the Dreamliner schadenfreue in this forum.



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12923 times:

So the media is to blame for the shortcomings and poor decisions of the industry insiders? Ridiculous. Is the media responsible for all the technical problems? Is the media to blame for Airbus deciding to follow? Does Airbus make their commercial decisions based on reading the newspaper?

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12679 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Before the 787, how many airplanes - small or large - existed which were made mostly or entirely of composites? Countless.

So the Comet and 707 were not revolutionary because we had jets before them. And the Concorde certainly wasn't revolutionary because we had supersonic aircraft before it.  Yeah sure

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Therefore, what is the contribution: zero. Right - nothing. It cannot fly significantly faster, higher, farther or much more efficiently than existing planes.

It will. Maybe not the first ones, but they will. After all, why are all of these airlines paying good money for planes that cannot fly significantly faster, higher, farther or much more efficiently than existing planes? The 787 is the first in a new wave of aircraft.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
It's revolutionary in so many ways; its composite structure being the biggest step in commercial aviation aircraft quite possibly since the Wright Brother's first flight.

Probably not THAT revlutionary, but it is a big step for sure.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
It is hyperbole like this, which has dominated the discussion on this board for years,

Hyperbole like posters saying that the 787 does not in any way surpass current airliners or improve air travel?  Yeah sure



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12417 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
So the Comet and 707 were not revolutionary because we had jets before them. And the Concorde certainly wasn't revolutionary because we had supersonic aircraft before it.

 redflag 

The post I replied to specifically did NOT refer to the Concorde or the 707, but to the Wright brothers' first flight.

Still - against better knowledge - I'll bite:

The 707 and Comet introduced jet travel into large-scale commercial aviation. This allowed passengers to travel much farther and much faster than on previous planes. The Concorde introduced supersonic flight, allowing travel at more than twice the speed.

So, yes, even compared to those planes, the 787 cannot compare.

What are the improvements introduced by the 787? You tell me!

Does it fly twice as high as an A330? Twice as fast? Twice as far? Does it use half the fuel?

Or are you trying to tell me that a fuel burn reduction on the order of magnitude of maybe around 5% compared with a - hypothetical or real - re-engined A330 is an improvement on the same level as the contributions made by the Wright brothers, the 707/Comet, or the Concorde (or even, say, the 747, for that matter)?

The technology may be impressive (or not so much given the apparent problems), but what are the REVOLUTIONARY benefits for the passengers and the airliners? Please, explain this to me.



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12388 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Hyperbole like posters saying that the 787 does not in any way surpass current airliners or improve air travel?

 redflag 

I never said that. Once again, you are making stuff up.

I said that I do not think the 787 is on the same level as the Wright brothers' first flight. Which is NOT the same as saying "it does not in any way surpass current airliners".



Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offline808TWA From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 701 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12250 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
What contribution did the Wright brothers make to transportation? They practically singlehandedly invented aviation. I.e., before them man could NOT fly, after them man COULD fly. Quite a difference, I would say!

Not to be picky, but man had actually flown prior to the Wright brothers....but yes, the Wright brothers were the pioneers of "powered" flight.....Just! (there were quite a few others attempting the same feat within the same time frame).



Love is in the air, so practice safe flying
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12189 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 12):
The post I replied to specifically did NOT refer to the Concorde or the 707, but to the Wright brothers' first flight.

I did not say that the 787 was more revolutionary than the 707 or Concorde. What I am pointing out is your flawed logic about the 787 not representing a leap in technology because other planes have been made out of composites. This is not the case. Just as the 707 was still revolutionary despite not being the first jet aircraft and the Concorde was still revolutionary despite not being the first supersonic aircraft, the 787 will be revolutionary despite not being the first composite aircraft.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 12):
What are the improvements introduced by the 787? You tell me!

Google and Wikipedia can do that. You also might ask all of the airlines that ordered it.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 13):
I never said that. Once again, you are making stuff up.



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 9):
Therefore, what is the contribution: zero. Right - nothing. It cannot fly significantly faster, higher, farther or much more efficiently than existing planes.

Let me also point out that Boeing originally was offering airlines more speed, but they didn't want it but instead asked for efficiency. This is how the Sonic Cruiser became the 787.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12098 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
When has the mainstream media ever demonstrated even the most basic understanding of aerospace matters?

It is not the mainstream media's role to have an understanding of aerospace matters. Indeed, many of the alleged 'experts' on here don't, so why expect the media to?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
Much like the A380, but now almost nobody remembers the problems it encountered.

That's an interesting 'observation'.......considering it is frequently quoted on here to 'counteract' and spin the 787 debacle. Can you explain that if you claim "almost nobody remembers the problems....."?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
does not in any way surpass current airliners or improve air travel?

But yet you're forgetting that what you're also 'argueing' is only hypothetical at this point. Therefore, those posters comments/opinions are as equally valid as yours.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11967 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 16):
That's an interesting 'observation'.......considering it is frequently quoted on here to 'counteract' and spin the 787 debacle. Can you explain that if you claim "almost nobody remembers the problems....."?

Nobody in the public, and the airlines that ordered it seem quite happy with the 380. The only people who point it out are those who are either making excuses for Boeing, or, rightly in my mind, those pointing out that the 787's problems do not doom it to being an aerospace footnote.

I fully expect the Airbus fans to say the same if the A350 runs into any problems. And if the A350 is delayed, it will not ruin it. Just like it didn't ruin the A380 or 787.

Quoting AirNz (Reply 16):
But yet you're forgetting that what you're also 'argueing' is only hypothetical at this point. Therefore, those posters comments/opinions are as equally valid as yours.

True, but I highly doubt that Boeing's people were just making things up. And if they were, they did a heck of a job making the airlines believe it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAmicus From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11558 times:

I have the pleasure of knowing Ben Sandilands and have the highest admiration for him. And I am surprised (now why should I be?) that folks on this thread are busy relating their own tendentious opinions without bothering to fully read what Ben wrote. He clearly stated that Mitsubishi, the designer and builder of the 787 composite wing, has dropped composites for the wing on their own upcoming MRJ aircraft, now if that is not a vote of non-confidence by a major 787 supplier, when I don't know what is. However, not a single remark has been made about this matter in this thread. Why?
Beyond that, many composite engineers, of which I am one, have strong and ongoing concerns regarding major FST issues for composite based aircraft in survivable crashes involving ruptured fuselages with fuel fed fires. Ruptured fuselages are the norm rather than the exception in survivable crashes, it should be noted.
However, note that neither Boeing nor FAA has tested for such a scenario such as the AF Toronto A340 crash involving both ruptured fuselage and fuel fed fire as part of the certification process. I would further note that in the AF survivable crash, no fatalities were incurred with over 300 passengers and crew safely escaping, so we have a baseline standard to test for on 787. Why isn't this test performed?

[Edited 2009-09-10 14:13:00]

User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11353 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Richard Aboulafia has been one of the only newsmakers daring to take a critical look at his own reporting recently

An impressive article. I never thought he would be able to take such a retrospect look at his own belief and statements.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
Even the problem of the wing attachment is really a very minor problem from an engineering perspective; it is serious because of the difficulty of fixing it. If it had been discovered before so many planes had had their wings attached it would have been just a minor glitch.

A minor problem or not? In my opinion, the biggest issue with the wing attachment is the apparent fact that it failed waaaaay earlier than the engineers had predicted. And if they failed to predict this failure, how many more could pop up during flight testing?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
Much like the A380, but now almost nobody remembers the problems it encountered.

Maybe most people don't think about it today, but if the world of aviation will see tremendous growth or even another boom again the next few years, as we all hope for, the airlines that are still waiting for their delayed airplanes will remember it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
When the 787s are up and flying nobody, except Airbus fanboys and hopefully Boeing and their subcontractors, will remember the problems the 787 encountered.

The airlines that had originally ordered the 787 for delivery in 2017-2018, but will now see delivery pushed back into perhaps the beginning of the 2020s, will still remember the problem when they get their airplane in 12 years from now.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
The "damage" done to the 787 right now is academic. Since the general public will not be buying 787's the only damage that the media could do would be if they convinced the public not to fly on it for some reason

In one of the analyzes I read about the 787 in a blog or a commentary (can't really remember where), the author speculated that a part of the blame for the 787 delays could be assigned to the huge sales success the airplane had. His reasoning was something along the line that the suppliers could rest on the laurels and the financial income guarantee of the huge sales, and that's why they failed to deliver on their promises. I don't remember the details, but reading the article, in my opinion the author had a point.

Now, if the media hype around the 787 contributed to its sales success, it may actually have something to do with the 787 problems.

I'm not saying that this is the case, just trying to find a possible explanation why Keesje may have a point.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Let me also point out that Boeing originally was offering airlines more speed, but they didn't want it but instead asked for efficiency. This is how the Sonic Cruiser became the 787.

In my opinion, I think they would have welcomed the speed, but I don't think they were ready to pay the price. A Sonic Cruiser would be a great airplane, but expensive, and most passengers would not be willing to pay the premium fares to slash half an hour off of a trans-Atlantic flight.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineShankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1543 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11110 times:

Great posts Manfredj & Planlnsomniac.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 12):
but what are the REVOLUTIONARY benefits for the passengers

Its about BIG windows with clever blinds. The 787 will revolutonise the way passangers look out of airliner windows



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30993 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But what, exactly, is "the mainstream media"?

I mean did every news service in the world conspire (even if unintentionally) to spin the 787's issues to make them look as favorable as possible?

You'd think that if any two periodicals would write "fluff" pieces on the 787, it would be the Seattle Times and the late Seattle Post-Intelligence, but both of their aerospace reporters are generally admired both on this forum and within the industry for the accuracy and neutrality of their reporting.

And then we have Der Spiegel, who are often criticized by Airbus Aficionados for publishing "anti-Airbus tripe" at every corner. Perhaps they're the "brave ones" for posting an unpopular view about a major European company?

I just don't see that everyone within the media willfully and with forethought decided to give Boeing only positive coverage on the 787.

Especially because there are plenty of threads in this forum's archives that would show they didn't.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30993 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RedChili (Reply 19):
In my opinion, the biggest issue with the wing attachment is the apparent fact that it failed waaaaay earlier than the engineers had predicted. And if they failed to predict this failure, how many more could pop up during flight testing?

But that is why they have two test frames which they beat the heck out of before they take the plane up - to ensure no "surprises" appear during flight testing.


User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10915 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I think in general media want to write what their customers like to read, to make them come back / buy more and satisfy advertisers.

If you think of it, this applies to a lot of events during this decade in the US.


User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10732 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
But I have not read anything (other than the fact that they are still struggling with weight issues, which is hardly uncommon for any new airliner) that implies anything fundamentally wrong with the design and concept of the 787.

You must be kidding.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
Even the problem of the wing attachment is really a very minor problem from an engineering perspective;

How can you say that? You are swallowing everything Boeing tells you. No really. If you don't understand at this point that this program could not go any worse. You are a truly hopeless case. Explain to me how this program could have gone worse?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
The potential of lighter weight, lower maintenance costs, and essentially unlimited airframe life are the goals of CFRP construction; none of them have been shown to be wrong.

None of them have been shown to be right. After all that's happened, just assuming that no problems will show up other than what has appeared to date is too optimistic. You have to assume that other things can disappoint. Not that everything will go well. If anything, the problems Boeing faces today is a sign that they've rushed into this thing and that other problems ahead are more likely than not.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
Remember that the A380 did not meet its weight goals, and was delayed by two years, but has exceeded expectations once actually in service. It is way too soon to say that the 787 won't do the same.

This is unfair Airbus bashing. Truly, not acknowledging that Boeing's troubles with the 787 are much dire that what Airbus went through is just plain Airbus bashing.

The A380 has been messed up (a lot of people have been fired, many more than at Boeing for the 787). But the 787 is a disaster. So late in the program, having such doubts about the structural integrity of the plane that you cannot even fly the prototype is a disaster. Given the "Potemkine rollout", it is obvious that if Boeing could have made a "Potemkine first flight", they would have. Period.


25 Gigneil : I held back from this judgement in the past, but you're absolutely right. Even when it is "up and flying" it will be almost 4 years late. miss its pe
26 Stitch : Well Boeing does have 30 years to get the plane right, so... The 767, POS that "common knowledge" says it was against the A330 still kept selling and
27 Post contains links Keesje : Just did a google on Dreamliner, the names of the newspapers and "2005", "2006" "2007" I will not post a string of links but they too were caught in
28 Stitch : Hmm... Maybe if the PI had just stopped printing what the public wanted to hear, they could have kept selling papers and not have folded...
29 Post contains links Keesje : I'm sure Boeing and the PI had very few conflicts, at least it seems so. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/178843.asp Happy to see he has
30 Knid : Hindsight is a wonderful thing, so many things are easy to see, but to apply the knowledge that we have today, and conclude that the media was 'tame'
31 Keesje : No hindsight, my quote in reply 27 is from '06.
32 Pink77W : A380900 How could the program get worse? Very simple. 900 orders could be cancelled. You see my friend my opinion and yours don't amount to a hill of
33 J.mo : Wow, a visionary. There should be some sort of prize for you.
34 Knid : Yes, I gathered as much, you see I didn't quote that bit because I don't care what you did or didn't say a few years ago. What I tired to say, perhap
35 Tockeyhockey : i can't believe this thread exists. it assumes that boeing, and then airbus, made business decisions based on MSM reporting instead of engineering and
36 Pink77W : I can't believe this thread exists. AMEN
37 A380900 : Yes. And that's not it. I've listened to a Boeing conference call for investors in late 07. It was clear at that point that the 7/8/07 rollout was st
38 A380900 : So I'm sure you guys have "suggested deletion". This really bugs me. What do you care? I really don't understand this mindset. I've been here forever
39 Pnwtraveler : I am in advertising and marketing so I kind of know a little bit about the massive communication changes taking place. I have been very clear about my
40 Allegro : Boeing bashers are out in force ... have fun!
41 Brons2 : Bigger windows? Lower cabin altitude at cruise? Those two things would create additional enjoyment on my flight. That being said I am scared of the 7
42 ChrisNH : I think the 787 will need to exceed its promises in order to neutralize a mountain of negativity. Just meeting them won't do it.
43 Sparkingwave : Media reporting didn't really damage the 787. Despite its (small) problems, the design is still okay. Boeing is late getting it to the market, but you
44 Pink77W : A380900 My point is this. The 787 has lots of orders. And it ain't over till the fat lady sings. Many many planes have had early problems to end up gr
45 Jasond : In the end it is the passengers that decide. Some will be loyal to arlines, others not so intent on just getting the best deal at that moment in time.
46 Dynamicsguy : I wonder how he'll handle going from being a journalist to outputting pages and pages of glossy propaganda each month. You're right, it is quite diff
47 Pylon101 : I don't believe that we here at a.net can be seriously Airbus or Boeing bashers. C'mon, we are aviation enthusiasts - no more, no less. We all underst
48 CARST : For some people that is the same thing anyway... Related to the topic i can say, who cares what someone in this forum said in 2006? This whole websit
49 TheCol : Finally! Someone who isn't full of hot air. It's seems that Captain Obvious hasn't made it to this thread yet, so I'll lay it all out for you: The on
50 Parapente : It really is exrordinary how clever people can be with 100% hindsight.Oh and suddenly being a guru of web 2.0 - give me a break -a little knowledge is
51 R2rho : Well, media reporting did help create all the hype around the 787, which may have contributed to Boeing feel overconfident about itself. And just look
52 SEPilot : And none of them have been shown to be wrong; for that we need to wait until the plane enters service and proves itself, which is what I have been sa
53 Rheinwaldner : True, but the point is that the behaviour started to deviate from the expection 30% below the required level. That is a whole different category of f
54 Manfredj : I'm not too keen on the thought of the all composite structure the 787 offers, but credit must be given where it's due. This is the single biggest im
55 Baroque : You do rather beg the obvious question, just how many of these airlines have actually paid for how many 787s? Well I can tell you why I have not post
56 SEPilot : But I think you are magnifying the significance of the failure. It is not as if the main spar or wing skin ruptured way early; what happened was that
57 Post contains links and images Keesje : This thread is about the role the media played in the Boeing 787 project. Not about the 787 itself, its problems or even Boeing. I think the direct in
58 AirFrnt : Shock. American media got taken up in something very technically cool, and hard to do right, ignoring the risk of the business decision. Shock. Europe
59 Rheinwaldner : Sorry, I worded bad if I ever magnify a failure. That was not my intention. However the impact in combination with the late state at which this weakn
60 BMI727 : I know there are problems with Boeing, yet I don't believe in the superiority of Airbus, and I recognize the issues the A380 had without being a Boei
61 Stitch : The 787 is hardly the first, to say nothing about the only, large commercial venture to receive a string of "positive press" in the media. The A380 pr
62 SEPilot : This is completely accurate. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a situation where you could have had a smaller miscalculation have a greater eff
63 RIX : - being about the role of media in 787 project and related Boeing problems, it hardly may not be also about just 787 project and related Boeing probl
64 Parapente : As an "on thread" remark I am interested to know any body's view regarding Directors Fiduciary responsability.It seems to me that price sensitive info
65 RIX : - indeed, if composites are THAT wrong idea, A350 will suffer just the same. It be won't much easier for A to prove, "hey, we got it right, and it CA
66 Dynamicsguy : It seems as though globally the wing behaved as expected in the limit load test. If it hadn't then they would have found the problem then rather than
67 PVG : Off topic, but, is there any possibility that Boeing could slip in a secret test flight before the real test flight just to make sure? I've just been
68 BMI727 : It is highly unlikely. See, the only way they could do it is to move the plane somewhere less public and surely someone would notice if it left by a
69 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : See here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...chnology/2003131651_787wing17.html Quote from this link: Therefore: As the quote from seattletimes s
70 Post contains images RedChili : They would have to find some disguise for the airplane, as the Dreamliner livery is very well known around Everett. May I suggest Air Israel (from my
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...
On Tour With The 787: Dreamliner Is On Schedule posted Fri Jun 16 2006 14:59:40 by NYC777
Air Tran And The 787 Dreamliner posted Tue Apr 18 2006 07:17:20 by Vulindlela744
NYT: Boeing Bets The House On Its 787 Dreamliner posted Mon May 8 2006 00:55:54 by Leelaw
Is This Special Delivery The Fix For The 787? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 18:46:54 by Tommyy
The 787 The Most Heavily Subsidised Aircraft? posted Fri Aug 14 2009 13:00:22 by Olle
Consequences To Boeing If It Has To Cancel The 787 posted Thu Jul 30 2009 15:58:31 by Mikesbucky
DC3's Go On And On. Will The 787 Do The Same? posted Mon Jul 27 2009 11:00:31 by Art
Boeing's Management Of The 787 Program posted Sun Jul 12 2009 14:16:07 by TomB
Looking Like The 787 Won't Fly In June posted Sat Jun 13 2009 11:05:52 by Clickhappy
Could The 787-3 Be Boeing's Answer To The A333? posted Thu May 21 2009 11:00:55 by Stitch