I fully agree with you. Its very difficult to get excited about an aircraft that has been endlessly delayed. There really are no more excuses to be made for all of this anymore. The Dreamliner has truely become the "Nightmare liner" and I take no pleasure in saying that.
toltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3249 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 31995 times:
At this point, 3 years of delays has the possibility of harming Boeing for years to come. The next new model from Boeing is going to have the stank from the 787 on it. If a competitor has a similar aircraft that meets their needs, why order Boeing? Would you be willing to risk a similar delay on your 737 replacement, for example? What kind of price premium can other makers hope for? (Or you have a better price from Boeing? That's nice, remember how late the 787 was to market Mr. O'Leary? Can you afford that?) Or what kind of discounts will Boeing have to give to fill the order book on the next new model? What a nightmare....
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5071 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 31745 times:
Quoting dl767captain (Reply 3): I've kind of given up on the 787. I figured I'll start caring again when It's actually in service. It's too bad, it should have been in service for about 2 years now and with many airlines.
Ya, not much enthusiasm here either. Not only is it disappointing from an enthusiasts point of view, it just get's the A-B thing going. I hope that future aiircraft such as the 350 and the NEO's are on-time relatively so that we can avoid the relentless back and forth.
Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 4): There really are no more excuses to be made for all of this anymore
Oh, I think some of it is understandable, but it certainly doesn't make it any less frustrating.
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3896 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 31693 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7): The problems with getting the 380 into service didn't seem to hurt sales for the 350. Once the 787 finally gets into service, most of the problems will probably be forgiven, if not forgotten.
The scale of the 787 troubles are much less in comparison with the A380 issues. Design issues, production issues, flight-test issues, the 787 has had the lot. Airbus had a clear cause for the A380 problem, CATA software incompatibility. The 787 has had several independent issues, this is much more problematic for Boeing's image. The project appears to the outsider to be completely out of control. The 787 was always an ambitious project (even before all the delays) and is eagerly awaited, opening new markets, etc. This makes it more problematic for the PR people at Boeing.
Airbus had some advantage of having the A380 flying, even during the delays. Frames were still being constructed, Boeing has yet to put a 787 together in the right sequence. Worrying for customers, the aircraft was publicly "rolled out" in July '07. Meanwhile the A380 entry to service went well, the reports suggest that Airbus delivered a relatively mature frame to customers, which exceeded guarantees, this probably put some concerns to rest.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6136 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31519 times:
From the message from Boeing we can indirectly read that it was not just a short caused by FOD in the P100. There was a serious malfunction which needs to be taken care of by substantial redesign of the electrical system.
Still it may be a tiny - now evaporated - aluminum washer which trickered the fault cascade.
But we shall all be glad that it happened now. Especially Boeing should be glad. If it had happened in, say, 2014, then it could have grounded some 500 planes for several months, and caused havoc and enormous losses in the airline industry.
Three weeks has passed since the incident, and still not the slightest hint about when flight test can be resumed. That means that there is a major redesign task ahead.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Boeing already has over 2000 hours in the flight test program, without much in the way of problems until this one. Until Boeing opens up with their new timetable, we're left in the dark as to the length of delay but if they keep it to weeks, instead of months, they could save some face.
While this latest mess has been going on, they are still producing planes, so the program hasn't completely ground to a halt.
That's not to say that Boeing doesn't deserve the spanking they are getting, because they do.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5071 posts, RR: 29 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31445 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11): But we shall all be glad that it happened now. Especially Boeing should be glad. If it had happened in, say, 2014, then it could have grounded some 500 planes for several months, and caused havoc and enormous losses in the airline industry.
Just curious, but if a 777 had has this type of event recently, would they have grounded the entire worldwide fleet pending a decision about what caused it and what to do to fix it?
I ask because it is pretty rare for an entire type numbering in the 100's to be grounded indefinitely, so I am wondering if such a hypothetical is actually a likely outcome?
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 30 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31332 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11): Three weeks has passed since the incident, and still not the slightest hint about when flight test can be resumed. That means that there is a major redesign task ahead.
It could also mean that they are being extra careful to ensure that whatever fix they put in place, really works. I imagine they are taking extra care to make sure that this delay is the last. I certainly hope they do.
I would be surprised if they are not working very hard to test their solutions for any more unknown unknowns.
delimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1480 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31261 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11): From the message from Boeing we can indirectly read that it was not just a short caused by FOD in the P100. There was a serious malfunction which needs to be taken care of by substantial redesign of the electrical system.
The FOD-related short actually could have caused the delay. Boeing might not have been happy with how the various backups kicked in. They may have had something occur other than they expected, and feel they need to redesign the affected systems.
If there's software as well as hardware involved, it'll be much harder to give an accurate estimate of how long the fix will take.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 13): I ask because it is pretty rare for an entire type numbering in the 100's to be grounded indefinitely, so I am wondering if such a hypothetical is actually a likely outcome?
I wonder if the 787 still being in its certification phase may have played into that.
Various in-service airliners over the years have had design problems crop up, but I can remember very few type-wide groundings.
This is disappointing. I am ready to start seeing these planes in real life (and fly on them) rather than pictures on the internet.
wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2034 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31171 times:
I agree with the general sentiment that all interest in this plane on my part is essentially gone. But I'm sure that'll change when I board it for the first time in the same way people got "re-excited" for the 380 once it entered service.
On a separate note though, the great irony in all of this in my opinion is that the one group, management, that proposed this plane in the way they did, and in order to "protect" the company from another group, the machinists and engineers that work at Boeing and can grind the company to a halt whenever their contact comes up...well all that is about to be turned on its head I think. It's management that is probably running scared from the Board now while the engineers and machinists feel more emboldened than ever. Next contract comes up and they can strike till the cows come home, all the while hoisting placards that read simply "Whatcha gonna do Jim, outsource us?!" The other placard will read "Good luck with that Chief!" How quickly the tables can turn.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11807 posts, RR: 48 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31169 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12): we're left in the dark as to the length of delay but if they keep it to weeks, instead of months, they could save some face.
We are, but it would seem any hopes of keeping this delay to "weeks" rather than "months" look forlorn.
At this stage in the program, one could reasonably assume that every day of delay now would translate to a day's delay in EIS. Boeing has already had three weeks since the fire and they're saying they still need "several more weeks" to work out the fix. Presumably, the fix then has to be applied to all the flight-test planes. I'm struggling to see how this can be anything less than a 3-month delay to EIS, plenty of others (who claim to have insider knowledge) say it will be six months.
I'm guessing we won't find out until next year, possibly when Boeing announces their 2010 sales and delivery numbers.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8039 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31120 times:
What Boeing has to worry about is making a safe airplane. At this point, delays to the 787 are almost ho-hum. Another delay won't kill the company- a new airplane falling from the sky due to design issues will.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28633 posts, RR: 84 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31079 times:
Quoting dl767captain (Reply 3): I've kind of given up on the 787. I figured I'll start caring again when It's actually in service.
At this point I'm ready to just pass by any thread with "787" in the title until the plane has actually entered service. I'm getting close to hating the thing, which I admit seems pretty irrational since it's an inanimate object, but discussing it sure has been stressful and unpleasant a good bit of the time.
I suppose once it finally does fly and I have a chance to sit in it, I'll come to love it like I do the A380-800, but "ignorance" is starting to sound like "bliss" with this program.
EnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 821 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31054 times:
Quoting dl767captain (Reply 3): I've kind of given up on the 787. I figured I'll start caring again when It's actually in service. It's too bad, it should have been in service for about 2 years now and with many airlines.
It is hard to get excited when the aircraft has grown old prior to delivery. We know what the aircraft looks like, there are a lot of flying 787 pictures on the website ... it is no longer a brand new aircraft model. I remember when they pushed the first 787 out of the hanger... but I forget what year it was. I remember when AC bought a mixed order of 777s and 787s, the 777s have been delivered for years now.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6136 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 30873 times:
Quoting delimit (Reply 15): They may have had something occur other than they expected...
"May have..." With all test planes grounded for three weeks counting, you can be pretty sure that something *unexpected* happened.
ZA002 was doing inert fuel tank management tests when this incident happened. Half a dozen planes were doing all sorts of tests, electrically related and non electrically related. They are all grounded.
Quoting delimit (Reply 15): ...and feel they need to redesign the affected systems.
No, they don't "feel they need". They are absolutely sure that they know that something has to be done.
Anyway it is not unlikely that test flights may resume before they have a permanent fix installed on the test planes. When they have a better knowledge about exactly what happened, then they may resume non electrically related testings, probably with some restrictions, only in VMC conditions, absolutely no chance of icing, with APU constantly running, or other such things.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
ukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 342 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 30715 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 18): What Boeing has to worry about is making a safe airplane. At this point, delays to the 787 are almost ho-hum. Another delay won't kill the company- a new airplane falling from the sky due to design issues will.
I'm not sure the airlines feel so complacent.
25 EnviroTO: I'm not so sure either. Many of the 787s were bought to replace 767s that are getting old. Airlines can't be putting old aircraft out to pasture with
26 Aesma: Nobody said it so I will : at least they're not announcing another EIS date they'll miss !
27 okie: Sounds like a severe case of "787 Delayed EIS Fatigue" The best cure would be "heavy drinking" Okie
28 DocLightning: It will probably change ordering patterns for a while, too. What will probably happen is that they will offer the aircraft and get lots of interest,
29 trex8: But Airbus is not that much better off with the A380s history and we still don't know how the A350 will pan out. I think most people will say it will
30 Aloha717200: Well, there goes the China Eastern order...
31 mariner: People always rush to cite the A380 delays in these threads and claim that "the A350 will be late". How does that forgive the 787 delays or make them
32 g38: I'll bet the people at Airbus are loving every bit of this.
33 flyorski: The sales people might be. The engineers and others who actually build the aircraft, not so much.
34 Stitch: It doesn't, of course. But it tends to cast doubt on the claims that "nobody will ever trust Boeing again" or "nobody will buy a Boeing plane when a
35 mariner: Do those claims really need doubt cast on them? I would have thought the sales this year of the 737 alone would be ample evidence that airlines do st
36 ukoverlander: Let's be honest - Boeing should be pretty well practiced at building a 737 by now shouldn't they? I'm not sure that's the best comaprison.
37 CFBFrame: I hate to ask this but, I remember some time ago that there was a concern about the electrical system on the 787. As I remember it, the issue was so b
38 cschleic: Of course, with the world economy the way it is, a lot of airlines probably were just as happy to have the delay until traffic picks up. But there's a
39 mariner: Maybe, but I'll stick with it. Obviously, airlines still trust Boeing with both the 737 and the 777. They may be wary of the 748i but they were wary
40 Web: From what I'm hearing on this board, no one is interested in innovation. Airbus builds the largest airliner in history, but is quite late in delivery
41 tharanga: No. People like innovation. They also think it can be coupled with competent project management. Simply noting that something is new is not enough to
42 ikramerica: Innovators who don't execute are left in the dustbin of history. Look at Apple. They aren't necessarily innovators. They invent some things, but they
43 Revelation: Given that A350 has already had two slips before the first pieces are bolted together, maybe we should all consider taking up trainspotting? It doesn
44 Aloha717200: One has to wonder if things would have been different had Alan Mulally stayed with the company...
45 jreuschl: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE2 The fire aircraft did make it back to BFI today.
46 davs5032: -So it's looking like (at least) 4 years between roll-out and EIS. Definitely not an accomplishment you want to be known for... The Airbus engineers
47 BlueFlyer: It's too soon to assume automatically that an electrical redesign is required. It has already been reported that several backup systems have failed wh
48 SlcDeltaRUmd11: What a disaster this is turning out to be for Boeing. I think we wont really see the effects until Boeing tries to launch its next new model in the f
49 tu154m: I agree with the posts above. I have lost intrest in the 787. To me, it just seems like a composite 767 with large wings, and alot of technology that
50 BOStonsox: I am very disappointed that this is happening. BOS is supposed to be filled with these planes, giving us service to Asia and maybe even South Africa.
51 YULWinterSkies: Considering that after the 787, they are the next ones due to offer a brand-new designed widebody, they are most likely to be extremely worried inste
52 DocLightning: Perhaps, but I most certainly hope they're learning a lot from it. I mean... this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
53 astuteman: Almost certainly true. That said, the experience sets might be different enough to be relevant. Boeing, I believe, sub-contracted a load of engineeri
54 zeke: I think it comes back to risk..... Boeing took on three big leaps in the way the build aircraft with the 787: * they compressed their design/developm
55 scbriml: Yes, of course. Those pesky American-format dates!
56 morvious: The customers will of course be disappointed by another delay but after a good money deal from B they will get over it. What the customers don't like
57 Swallow: This plane reminds me of the movie "Runaway Bride" Just when you think EIS is imminent, she leaves her customers and fans at the altar
58 MCIGuy: Disappointment? Sure. Loss of interest? Absolutely. However, I must say, now that more info is in, it sounds much simpler than before. The fact that Z
59 PC9: After reading about the latest A380 break-even projections, it makes me wonder what the break even projections are on the 787. As far as I understand,
60 frigatebird: You see this happening already. AF/KL should have ordered either the 787 or A350 a long time ago, but they don't, as long as neither manufacturer is
61 rj777: And I bet when the 787 finally DOES get certified and is ready for EIS, CNN, FOX, and everyone else will be there with the cameras and whatnot and be
62 Chiad: Yes it is. The B787 delays now is twice as long as the A380 was. Hmmm .. I remember that I read about some Boeing engineers renaming it B7Late7 alrea
63 TSS: I'd have said four big leaps and included the source of this latest delay- Introducing a radically new electrical system and layout. Troubles like th
64 parapente: "Boeing Confirms 787 EIS Will Be Delayed " Yes I know.But as always with their press releases.......When to? That is the only relevant piece of inform
65 AirNZ: I agree with you that I don't feel it casts any doubt at all, but would respectfully point out that in your A380/A350 comparison one is talking about
66 packsonflight: I see a new problem for Boeing: It is keeping the 787 orders they have already got, because there is a compleate breakdown of trust between Boeing and
67 bj87: At this point it is definitely becoming a problem that will last them longer than the 787 EIS issue. The delays on the A380 were bad but at least the
68 Daysleeper: I'm more than likely going to get flamed for this, but what the hell Its bugging me... But am I the only one who see's the problems with the 787 as a
69 Web: Perfect! Surely involving the government will streamline and speed up the process. Isn't that what the government is for? Really, though, Boeing has
70 packsonflight: . I have a hard time distingwishing between Boeing and the 787 program. If you are a CEO of a airline which has ordered the 787 and you get an email
71 ckfred: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Boeing bit off more than they could chew. First, they wanted to build a totally different airplane, one ma
72 md80fanatic: Boeing bit off far more than they could ever expect to chew. There are too many "firsts" in this plane to introduce all at the same time. Integration
73 parapente: I do really hope that Boeing sort this out and soon. I for one hate the way the have been so economical with the truth over the last 3 years.But perha
74 Stitch: AM was instrumental in the decisions that have cursed the 787 program. If he had been elected CEO, he likely would already have been forced by the Bo
75 sofianec: Actually Airbus a quite a bit better with the A380 history. As per the A350 we don't know threrefore no point using it as an excuse for the 787 poo-p
76 odwyerpw: Words like "Substantial" bother me. It's the kind of adjective that is thrown about that is totally unquantifiable..... It's qualifiable and leads peo
77 abba: I think this difference is to be seen on the background of Boeing's sotuation at the time they offered the 787. We were a few who had the impression
78 b707forever: I wonder if Boeing, or for that matter Airbus (re A380) will ever do such a run up of marketing and promotion around an aircraft before it completes t
79 Stitch: In 2003-2004, Airbus owned the 250-300 seat widebody twin market with the A330, but Boeing owned the 300-350 seat market with the 777. The A380 de-fa
80 ebbuk: What exactly are you asserting? I am not entirely sure
81 PlanesNTrains: He's asserting that there might be union involvement in some of the incidents involving the 787. I think it's misguided, but stranger things have hap
82 Stitch: SPEAA and the IAM already have the upper hand in the next round of negotiations, as they're picking up after all the failures of the contractors and s
83 alwaysontherun: For me personally, the ANA livery is now directly related to 787 headlines--> which is normally bad news. I guess they´re getting less and less p
84 davs5032: I don't think that's going to be an issue, even if they have some cancellations. Their firm order total is probably right around equal to or just und
85 Garpd: What has happened to Boeing?! Where is the Boeing that launched the incredible 777? How can a manufacturer that has had so much success and made so ma
86 kmz: hmmm---are you sure? i bet you'll stay tuned my opinion is that the interesting part is not the EIS delay but the production ramp-up after EIS. this
87 AirNZ: I would honestly say that it is quite an outlandish accusation to make, and particularly as I doubt you have the slightest bit of 'evidence' to even
88 Stitch: They were all "forcibly retired" (as in given retirement offers too good to pass up) in the late 1990s and early 2000s in an effort to cut labor and
89 davs5032: By outsourcing too much of that manufacturing away. When you have limited control over so many aspects of a project, mis-communication occurs, thus t
90 JoeCanuck: The stab problems were caused by idiots with torque wrenches. The beatings will continue until morale improves...
91 par13del: My read of reports on the incident was that something caused arcing / fire, the way the backup electrical systems functioned seemed to be the major p
92 ikramerica: I'd say you are re-writing history, but it's still happening, so is it history? Airbus still hasn't come close to ramping up production to plan, and
93 2175301: Concerning the extended delays: While it can all be summed up by saying that Boeing is ultimately responsible; it is also quite clear that it is not j
94 ER757: Welcome to a.net I doubt that even Boeing's accountants have an accurate number as it's a moving target - moving further to the right with each passi
95 JoeCanuck: It has been mentioned before but it bears mentioning again; the most famous thing about the 787 is the carbon fibre fuselage. Ironically, they have a
96 EPA001: i> That was clearly a mistake because they have let go way too much engineering craftsmanship. The result is a so far very disappointing B787 devel
97 BoeEngr: Let's hope so. I can't speak for the machinists, and of course not for all of the enigneers, but I can assure you the bulk of the engineers want to s
98 PlanesNTrains: Good point. On the other hand, perhaps it's CaptainX making sure that his latest predictions are accurate? -Dave
99 JerseyFlyer: Probably, but delay to the -1000 will be said to be "re-optimisation of design to meet changing customer reqiuirements" - see EK's recent comments ab
100 packsonflight: What I mean is so far Boeing statements on the 787 program have bin highly inaccurate or misleading at best. I am not accusing them of outright lies,
101 14ccKemiskt: I'm not sure how serious this guy is but he has obviously written a whole book on Jim McNerney's job at boeing. He guesstimates that the chances of 78
102 AirNZ: I'd say you're conveniently 'mixing up' two different things....the op was referring to the problem which caused the A380 delay of EIS; that of the w
103 Stitch: They go hand in hand, but lack of oversight was also part of the initial decision in that the subs and contractors were given much of that overwight
104 davs5032: The 787 program is not directly competing with the A380...The A350 is a direct competitor to and meant to protect Airbus' stake in the same 250-350 s
105 flyorski: I don't read what BoeEngr said to mean that they compete. Instead it looks like he is saying that just because one is late, does not make the other f
106 BoeEngr: I get what you're saying, but I don't think that matters. My point is, your competitor being late, whether in a competing plane or a non-completing p
107 JoeCanuck: 100%. That others screw up is no excuse for anyone else to screw up.
108 abba: True - but if Boeing at the time didn't do anything to somehow force Airbus' hands, it would only have been a matter of time before Airbus could have
109 braybuddy: One unfortunate side-effect, from the manufacturers' point at least, to come out of the A380, 787 (and probably A350) delays is that Airbus and Boeing
110 rj777: So many people were saying that the 787 would never fly.........and it finally did......and some are even doubting that it'll make it to EIS..... well
111 AirNZ: Yes, very valid and I completely agree with you. However, both my point and belief is that the original schedule could have been altered more in line
112 Stitch: No argument from me on that point, either.
113 cerecl: So many? I count no more than a few on this forum who doubted 787 would ever fly, and none who asserted 787 would never fly. Maybe you want to show u
114 EPA001: And he was proven to be correct with an EIS in 2011, wasn't he?
115 braybuddy: I would . . . if I'd said that. Don't know what you were doing with the "quote selected text" feature cerecl, but you're putting words in my mouth he
116 N14AZ: I am sure no one does. It's a little bit off-topic but for me this will be one of the intersting aspects to follow after EIS and in the following yea
117 cerecl: Apologies. Obviously the quoted text was from rj777's post 110. I did nothing unusual with the "quote" feature, but how two parts from the same post
118 LJ: In addition, the margin on the initial frames will be lower to the compensation Boeing has to pay towards its customers. However, I think the biggest
119 art: If 787 was a strategic, long term decision it did not need to be done in a rush. Setting a more realistic schedule to EIS - say 1 to 2 years longer -
120 AirNZ: Funningly enough, I don't believe a 1-2 years longer timeframe would really have cost them any (significant) numbers of orders at all. Rather, they c
121 tdscanuck: And proven incorrect with his other predictions of EIS in "2009", "2010", and "never." Still, one out of four ain't bad. Same thing that happens when
122 aircellist: I just re-read "The road to the 707", by William H. Cook (TYC 1991, a homemade publishing). The man was a Boeing engineer since 1938, he worked on th
123 Stitch: It's clear one or two more years would have done nothing to help the 787 program reach it's EIS. As to why they pushed for such a quick EIS and incre
124 art: Couple of things about your comment, for starters... The rollout airframe (or was it several frames?) would probably have been assembled with real fa
125 JoeCanuck: There were lots of reasons that the 787 is three years late, but these aren't two of the major ones. The availability of fasteners themselves and lat
126 Stitch: Well it would have given Alcoa the time they told Boeing they needed to make the proper fasteners, but Vought and Alenia clearly would not have done
127 packsonflight: According to some "netters" the fastener issue was well known in the industry at the time, and should not have come to a surprise to Boeing. Alcoa ne
128 JoeCanuck: All I was saying is that the rollout and getting unstuffed barrels were not major causes of delays. At this point, why the fasteners were late just d
129 cerecl: Captain X may turn out to be a blind hater with zero insight, but that he/she changed his prediction of EIS is not a good argument to discredit him/h
130 art: Re: Boeing's approach to 787 development and sales I think it was entirely foreseeable by Boeing that there would be some unexpected glitches in produ
131 tdscanuck: That's not universally true...during one of they delays (I think the one before the current one) they actually expanded the flight test time to provi
132 rheinwaldner: How much percent of damaged thrust reversers (by ramp rash) are replaced by completely new parts?
133 Revelation: And I imagine the 787 program has made it even less likely that we'll see another clean sheet design any time soon. Pretty sad thought for a Monday m
134 art: May I just add: 3) wait until the board of directors agree to a sensible schedule Re: option 2), I can't imagine that the Boeing directors would have
135 AirNZ: Not bad at all if one considers it was one more than all of you who attempt to discredit him at every turn were correct in! I still find it incredulo
136 JoeCanuck: I'm not sure what you point is. Even if the notorious X was right about everything, so what? Does that make anybody feel better about themselves? Did
137 blrsea: has this article been posted before? Boeing puts 3-week hold on 787 assembly So Boeing has already put in place a hold. At the minimum, that is one mo
138 Stitch: There are reports that Boeing Charleston is behind again and Boeing Everett is holding off putting the next 787 frame into the FAL for a couple of we
139 PlanesNTrains: No, he was proven to be lucky with an EIS in 2011, wasn't he. Well, feel free to be his cheerleader if you want. It doesn't change one thing. He may
140 dynamicsguy: I don't think that's clear. Much of what's gone wrong with the 787, I believe, can be traced back to the indecent haste of the initial schedule. Havi
141 ikramerica: Let me understand: 1. A broken clock is right twice a day (well, an old fashioned clock). 2. Because a broken clock isn't ALWAYS wrong, it is not act
142 nycdave: I'm going to stick with putting the majority of the blame on excutive enthusiasm for spreading so much of the manufacturing around to often under-capa
143 tdscanuck: Very very small...less than 1%. Just to put some figures around that, in a prior job for about a year I handled all the non-SRM thrust reverser repai