Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1428 posts, RR: 9 Posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11273 times:
Jon Ostrower reports that Boeing is expected to announce 5 or 6 deliveries this year for the 787, starting around the 3rd week of september (could be on my birthday!).
Lots of stock in the article. In particular, the reworking of completed aircraft is taking longer than expected. There is also a comment about the present stop, stemming from incompletion of the rear fuselage section.
We may never know how much the "full-steam-ahead" beginning of this program will have cost Boeing, but I guess it is mindblowingly expensive.
Well, at least, EIS is coming, and even before that, the plane is among the wide-body bestsellers...
We will never know either how would sales have proceeded, back at the time, if Boeing had planned a more cautious approach to building the aircraft (slower ramp-up, no fake roll-out).
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11447 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10442 times:
It will also be interesting to hear what Boeing has to say about 787-9 EIS. Recent suggestions that it could slip to mid 2014 have been denied by Boeing, but Air New Zealand say Boeing can't tell them when they'll get their first one.
Quote: Boeing denied widespread published reports, based in part on comments by the CFO of a key airline customer, that the 787-9's late 2013 EIS has slipped.
Quote: Air New Zealand CFO Rob McDonald said last week at an Aviation Outlook conference in Sydney that delivery of the 787-9, for which ANZ is the launch customer, has been pushed into 2014. “It would be an understatement to say we are frustrated and disappointed [by the 787 delays],” he commented, describing the delays as “painful.”
“We are in discussions with Boeing around delivery dates and the financial implications of that,” McDonald added. He said Boeing couldn’t give the airline a definite delivery date.
Quoting robffm2 (Reply 1): Somewhere I believe I saw a prediction of only two deliveries this year.
Yes, I've read that as well, but it would be pretty shocking if it were true.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1944 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10336 times:
We will get Bs own words comes tomorrow but any deviation over 30% from what they have said earlier in the year is unacceptable and would further undermine a management which is already under observation I would venture.
As said many times one can not lay the initial faults at Albaughs feet but that he and Fancher continues to state things that is later shown as way of is extremely disturbing and unprofessional. Once you have such a difficult program to master you are VERY conservative with your predictions.
The annoying thing is that the Journalist keep on digging up experienced mechanics after each management prediction stating that they do not believe the managements predictions can be held given the amount of work at hand and that still traveled work is flowing in.
What kind of line management does B have that can't estimate rework within +-30%? How can Fancher base his facts on not corroborated information? It seems they lend themselves to wishful thinking over and over again.
Well, lets see what McNerney says, however he must get tired of not holding word as well (CEOs hate that!), and can one trust what he says?
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 507 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10233 times:
My impression is reading the article, that the parts shortages again happening on later planes after some better completed assemblies, are now mainly caused by engineering changes rather then the supplier after 3 years of time to plan production still cant deliver the complete assembly.
So the amount of engineering changes still seems to be very high.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4576 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10047 times:
Quoting robffm2 (Reply 1): Somewhere I believe I saw a prediction of only two deliveries this year
So if they deliver 6, that will be a 300% increase over expectations! Yes, that's spinning more than a merry-go-round! lol
Quoting scbriml (Reply 2): Quoting robffm2 (Reply 1):
Somewhere I believe I saw a prediction of only two deliveries this year.
Yes, I've read that as well, but it would be pretty shocking if it were true.
Why? If that shocks anyone at this stage of the program, I'd be shocked!
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10033 times:
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 4): So the amount of engineering changes still seems to be very high.
Yes, and I think we knew this because of all the problems during certification.
One hopes the 789, as a derivative, will have fewer of these issues, but it seems there are enough changes to that aircraft v. the 788 to delay final design sign-off, so who knows?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
packsonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9952 times:
The huge problems Airbus had with the A380 where production problems. So far Boeing has bin facing technical or engineering problems with the B787, and with no good news from the program, one start to wonder if they still face two more years of delays when they finally start the production.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9889 times:
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 7): The huge problems Airbus had with the A380 where production problems.
It appears the glacial production rate of both the A380 and 787 have not allowed downstream suppliers to "learn" how to build their products quicker and cheaper, which results in slower deliveries upstream to the primaries, which results in them being slow in delivering their assemblies to the FAL, which results in the FAL being able to only produce a limited number of planes.
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 507 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9709 times:
For the A380 Airbus went to a complete stop of delivery to arrange the rebuild, rewiring of the already built frames. Up to frame 25 as I remember.
Then from frame 26 they had the newly designed wiring harness/ electric concept in place and as we know then restarting te line was obviously more painful then before and with the long break they had no learnings had been for probably some 1 1/2 years.
Now with Boeing they tend to run in high number of frames early and as obviously more engineering changes happened in the course of testing results, the amount of planes to be retrofitted is about some 40 frames. This may take long and I wonder when the best time would be to just go ahead with production of new frames and pass them trough.
Wonder however, and I am afraid and given the history and the new technique, I wouldN't be surprised that there are still some engineering changes up to come which may be due to some in service issues, the more planes we well see in real revenue activity.
Given the hi grade of new technologies, I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of 10/ month will be achieved only from 2015 or so. In general, having the 2nd assembly line was probably one of the wisest decisions in the 787 program
regards and good luck for Boeing and the 787
regards
Flyglobal
PS: still want to fly in one rather sooner then later.
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1428 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8691 times:
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 7): The huge problems Airbus had with the A380 where production problems. So far Boeing has been facing technical or engineering problems with the B787, and with no good news from the program, one start to wonder if they still face two more years of delays when they finally start the production.
Are the 787 problems "only" in the technical and engineering problem ranges? Anyone around here with the technical backgound and the memory (and the time available!) to list the 787 problems? NOT on a bashing basis, of course; just a a reminder and an "amateur" point of view on the question...
Just for a starter, I remember:
- the wing-to-body joint (engineering problem, I suppose),
-the lack of fasteners (I would say production problem, logistic side),
-the poor installation of wing fasteners, as presented in the Airbus analysis (production problem?),
-the braking system problem (engineering?),
-the horizontal empennage assembly (production?),
-the electric panel fire (engineering?),
-the travelled work (production problem, logistic side),
-the rework after testing (production, would not have been much meaningful if the initial production had not been set full speed)...
Do I forget any? Do other members assess differently the kind of problems encountered? Feel free to correct my list.
Again, no bashing, please. In music, we have what we call "masterclasses", where we play our stuff and a master tells what s/he sees, feels, thinks, and so on. No complacency; il can be pretty tough, but the best masters do not bash the students.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2003 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8616 times:
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 9): In general, having the 2nd assembly line was probably one of the wisest decisions in the 787 program
Well, based on Stich comments below, the FAL does not seem to be the bottleneck. If the suppliers can not deliver at the required rate, what use for a second or third [surge] line?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): It appears the glacial production rate of both the A380 and 787 have not allowed downstream suppliers to "learn" how to build their products quicker and cheaper, which results in slower deliveries upstream to the primaries, which results in them being slow in delivering their assemblies to the FAL, which results in the FAL being able to only produce a limited number of planes.
I guess the FAL is still a bottleneck, since so many resources are required to correct issues on frames currently in FAL, and already out on the field. Either being travelled work, supplier quality problems, rework from enigeering changes etc.
It is very worrying that beyond the first six development airframes [ZA001-ZA006] only one (!!) out of 33 customer frames that left the FAL to date [LN7-LN39] has actually flown at this moment.
PW100
[Edited 2011-07-26 13:59:24]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7917 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 11): It is very worrying that beyond the first six development airframes [ZA001-ZA006] only one (!!) out of 33 customer frames that left the FAL to date [LN7-LN39] has actually flown at this moment.
In addition to ZA102, there is also that JL customer bird at SAT.
As for the rest, one is still having the SoB modification made and 31 are undergoing change incorporation / re-work. So it's possible all 32 of them were flight-worthy at least at one point and that they have not flown as of yet is not because they cannot, but because there is not yet a need to fly them. You generally only have a few flights prior to delivery (at least one with the Boeing crew and one with the airline crew) so I expect that the planes that do take to the air in the next few months will be the ones Boeing has ready for customer delivery.
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7871 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 10): only one (!!) out of 33 customer frames [LN77-LN39] has actually flown at this moment
Actually, two non-development birds have flown! - ZA102 (in ETOPS/F&R testing) AND ZA177 (LN23) which ferried down to San Antonio for change incorporation...
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): it's possible all 32 of them were flight-worthy
Don't most have concrete blocks rather than engines hanging from the wings?
Quoting robffm2 (Reply 1): The upcoming earning call should give more guidance.
It will be interesting to hear BA's comments, but I have little confidence that statements by Sr. Mgt. will ultimately conform to reality. Why they receive so much deference is beyond me.
Speaking of which, Boeing is denying reports that the 789's EIS will slide to the right.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7465 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
It appears the glacial production rate of both the A380 and 787 have not allowed downstream suppliers to "learn" how to build their products quicker and cheaper, which results in slower deliveries upstream to the primaries, which results in them being slow in delivering their assemblies to the FAL, which results in the FAL being able to only produce a limited number of planes.
Good summary. And it is exactly this situation which lost Airbus a lot of money with the A380, and sadly enough we are seeing the same thing happening here at Boeing on the B787.
it puts the cry for an all-new NB also in a different spotlight imho. If this would happen to the real cash cow, of which you need to be producing 40 a month very quickly, you are in deep, deep trouble. I can fully understand why both A & B went NEO/RE on their current NB-offerings.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 13): Quoting Aircellist (Reply 10):only one (!!) out of 33 customer frames [LN77-LN39] has actually flown at this moment
Actually, two non-development birds have flown! - ZA102 (in ETOPS/F&R testing) AND ZA177 (LN23) which ferried down to San Antonio for change incorporation...
That is not looking very promising. Still a lot of work to do before they can make some more customers happy with their first new planes. .
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7246 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 3): The annoying thing is that the Journalist keep on digging up experienced mechanics after each management prediction stating that they do not believe the managements predictions can be held given the amount of work at hand and that still traveled work is flowing in.
Boeing has ~160,000 employees, with something like ~80,000 in Puget Sound, and a rocky labour relations history. They could be popping 40 perfectly built 787's a month out of the factory and you'd find lots of experienced employees who'd say they don't believe managements predictions. I'm not saying the quotes are right or wrong, just that if you want to find quotes of a particular slant it's really really easy to do regardless of the actual situation.
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 9): Wonder however, and I am afraid and given the history and the new technique, I wouldN't be surprised that there are still some engineering changes up to come which may be due to some in service issues
Every airliner in the history of aviation has had engineering changes come up due to in service issues. The 737 and A320 continue to have this happen despite astonishing production and in-service performance decades after their introduction. Why on earth would the 787 be any different?
packsonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6730 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 10): Are the 787 problems "only" in the technical and engineering problem ranges? Anyone around here with the technical backgound and the memory (and the time available!) to list the 787 problems? NOT on a bashing basis, of course; just a a reminder and an "amateur" point of view on the question...
I think that it is fair to say that the problems or issues we have seen so far are delaying the certification, and that is why I call them technical.
If for some reason production ramp-up becomes problematic after certification is achieved, I would tend to call them production problems.
KFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
Well said Tom, welcome to my Respected Users list.
Although I agree that the Boeing management's credibility has been lost over repeated false predictions.
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8557 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5720 times:
I have a hard time of believing two will only be delivered this year. My prediction is four. I know ANA and JA will receive theirs. Who would be next? I just hope the first batch is not like the early A346's Cathay took where they were heavier than they were supposed to be. I am hoping when the 787 goes to airlines, it makes it worthwhile for the wait.
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1428 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5112 times:
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 17): Quoting Aircellist (Reply 10):
Are the 787 problems "only" in the technical and engineering problem ranges? Anyone around here with the technical backgound and the memory (and the time available!) to list the 787 problems? NOT on a bashing basis, of course; just a a reminder and an "amateur" point of view on the question...
I think that it is fair to say that the problems or issues we have seen so far are delaying the certification, and that is why I call them technical.
If for some reason production ramp-up becomes problematic after certification is achieved, I would tend to call them production problems.
brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2973 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4780 times:
Nobody commented on this?
Quote: Based on Boeing's disclosure that it expects its per aircraft cost to fall below the program's averaged cost as it hits its production rate of 10 per month at the end of 2014, the 787 production system must achieve a 24% learning curve, nearly 50% higher than 777.
If Boeing achieves a learning curve comparable to the 777 "we see 787 burning $4 billion in cash on average annually through 2015," he adds. .
That's 16 billion dollars through 2015, not even counting 2011. Nobody would dream of shutting this sumbitch down, would they?
Perhaps, the question of program termination should be seriously considered. Maybe they can license build some A330s. Or slap some new engines on the 767.
Has there ever been an industrial program in the history of the world that has destroyed more shareholder value than the 787? We spar a lot around here about how many A380s that Airbus has to sell to break even on that program. But what is Boeing up to now as a break-even point?? 1500? 2000?
Michael Dell famously commented on Apple in 1997, about what he would do with it. "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders". I'm surprised that nobody has said the same of Boeing.
At the very least, some heads need to roll.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9261 posts, RR: 96 Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): It appears the glacial production rate of both the A380 and 787 have not allowed downstream suppliers to "learn" how to build their products quicker and cheaper, which results in slower deliveries upstream to the primaries, which results in them being slow in delivering their assemblies to the FAL, which results in the FAL being able to only produce a limited number of planes.
To be honest, it seems clear to me that the A380 production process is bottlenecked right at the end of the line (cabin outfitting) and not up the supply chain. And in my view the root cause of that has its origins back in the integration problems experienced as a result of the wiring software mismatch in CATIA.
And I think it has left embedded complications in the final outfit wiring process that will take Airbus years to "learn" out of the system. I could be wrong.
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 7): The huge problems Airbus had with the A380 where production problems
Production problems can very often (usually in fact) be a symptom of a design problem further upstream...
Quoting brons2 (Reply 21): Quote:Based on Boeing's disclosure that it expects its per aircraft cost to fall below the program's averaged cost as it hits its production rate of 10 per month at the end of 2014, the 787 production system must achieve a 24% learning curve, nearly 50% higher than 777.
If Boeing achieves a learning curve comparable to the 777 "we see 787 burning $4 billion in cash on average annually through 2015," he adds.
That's scary.
It has been suggested that part of the reason for Boeing's prevarication over the 737 replacement/re-engine decision was the recognition that cash in the 2010's could possibly be a lot tighter than Boeing would like it to be.
One has to wonder if the absolutely stellar sales rate early on in the programme will come back to bite them because of this at some point..
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2074 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4437 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16): They could be popping 40 perfectly built 787's a month out of the factory and you'd find lots of experienced employees who'd say they don't believe managements predictions.
That's true. The problem is that we are not left guessing in the end. We can easily judge who has been right. If there would be 40 per month the management would have overdelivered and nobody would even ask disgruntled employees.
If there will be 6 management has been wrong and the disgruntled employee, who predicted it, maybe hasn't been disgruntled at all.
And we have to admit: the most realistic picture about the state of the 787 program never was painted by the management.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16): I'm not saying the quotes are right or wrong
Are they right? We will find out soon. Common sense tells us: yes!
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 507 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4305 times:
Quoting brons2 (Reply 21): That's 16 billion dollars through 2015, not even counting 2011. Nobody would dream of shutting this sumbitch down, would they?
Perhaps, the question of program termination should be seriously considered. Maybe they can license build some A330s. Or slap some new engines on the 767.
Has there ever been an industrial program in the history of the world that has destroyed more shareholder value than the 787? We spar a lot around here about how many A380s that Airbus has to sell to break even on that program. But what is Boeing up to now as a break-even point?? 1500? 2000?
Michael Dell famously commented on Apple in 1997, about what he would do with it. "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders". I'm surprised that nobody has said the same of Boeing.
At the very least, some heads need to roll.
No way shutting down just because of the ramp up problem. Point of no return is passed long ago and there at´re some 20 +years (at least) of production and some 2 refinements ahead of the program.
Blended wing or something which requires a radical new design for new engines to be adopted will follow the 787 core design.
regards
Flyglobal
25 ferpe: Tom, of course you are right and I know this, I have worked in a company with over 400k employees, you would find boatloads of people who could slam
26 EPA001: I totally missed the word annually when I read this text. That would mean the the B787 program will take a very long time to become profitable. Espec
27 Stitch: I do not believe "burns through $4 billion in cash year" means "will lose $4 billion a year". It sounds more like Boeing will spend $4 billion a year
28 UALWN: And now we can say confidently that Mr. Dell would have been terribly wrong had he done that. Probably the same is true for Boeing and the 787.
29 macc: Nice comparison. I guess the stakeholders who sticked with Apple are very pleased by now. and so will be Boeings. Its much more than only BCA, so the
30 ferpe: Few of us doubts that the 787 will be a great plane once the gremlins of the program are worked out, our debate is how the clean-up team is doing the
31 mdword1959: Doesn't sound like there'll be any earthshaking news announced on the 787 front today, at least none that would affect earnings guidance: http://boein
32 474218: Are you assuming that Boeing gets to keep that $100 million they receive for a 787? Read Reply 31. Of that $100 million Boeing get to keep only $9.3
33 nomadd22: Uh...yeah. I'm sure that Stich is totally unaware thet there are productions costs for the airplanes. The terms "revenue" and "net income" aren't exa
34 mdword1959: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ers-787-and-747-8-de.html#comments Mr. McNerney also stated during the Q2 earnings call that Boeing's projected
35 mffoda: Maybe Michael Dell should have taken his own advise...
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1428 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1094 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11447 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1944 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4576 posts, 
Yes, that's spinning more than a merry-go-round! lol
From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 328 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2003 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1211 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2074 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
