787 Faces New Setback

[Saj_A]

Story at ATW here (http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=14579).

Seems that Airplane Numer 1 (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/11/04/787setback/) is proving to be most troublesome!

[Andrew P]

Story at ATW Airplane Numer 1[/URL] is proving to be most troublesome!

typical, I remember my 1st wife as the most troublesome of the wives I've had!!!

Banjo

[Bernie P]

typical, I remember my 1st wife as the most troublesome of the wives I've had!!!

Banjo

Still is for me!!!

[Saj_A]

typical, I remember my 1st wife as the most troublesome of the wives I've had!!!

Banjo

I do hope that your subsequent wife /(wives) ahve proven less problematic! ;)

On a serious note, this whole episode on the 787-8 proves Boeing will have really no choice but to go back to its older model of producing/manufacturing/assembling itself.

If you ask me, the biggest mistake was adding Vought into the 787 chain. :rolleyes:

[Ryan Hothersall]

I am starting to think the 767 should called the Lemonliner instead of Dreamliner.

At one time Boeing were making jokes etc at Airbus with the delays with the A380, that backfired on Boeing as the A380 is in service and their 787 hasn't even flown yet.

[Saj_A]

At one time Boeing were making jokes etc at Airbus with the delays with the A380...

I think you're mistaken there - Boeing "fans" may have, but certainly not the company and I'd be grateful if you could show an example of the company mocking Airbus.

A quick glance at Boeing's site tells you quite a different view:

If anything, its in stark contrast to your claim...

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2005/01/the_a380_rolls_out.html

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/10/big_delivery.html

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2005/06/hot_day_in_paris.html

Airbus tried stirring things up a bit today. Their CEO Noel Forgeard held a news conference here and proceeded to criticize, it seemed, all things Boeing. Everything from our strategy and our 787 Dreamliner, to the way Boeing does public relations. At the same time, he tried offering us advice about our business practices!

[Saj_A]

Just to add, Boeing have given me an update which I have added to my article in the first post outlining briefly the issues on the fasteners.

[Mike W]

I am starting to think the 767 should called the Lemonliner instead of Dreamliner.

At one time Boeing were making jokes etc at Airbus with the delays with the A380, that backfired on Boeing as the A380 is in service and their 787 hasn't even flown yet.


Not to defend either manufacturer but to be fair, the 380 has been on the go a lot longer than the 787 . With 903 on order (before it has even flown)and the radical change to construction methods, in time I believe the 787 will be a far more influential aircraft to the industry than merely being big.

[Shameel Kumar]

If you ask me, the biggest mistake was adding Vought into the 787 chain. :rolleyes:


Another problem was letting Alan Mullaly go. :(

From the few books I've read the number documentaries of watched, he was a great part of pushing Boeing forward when it came to the 777 program, and he would have been a great asset to retain in this time of disarray with the 787.

Fascinating though.. the A380 delayed, the 787 delayed, and now a sizeable delay in the A350 as well. Thank goodness engineers produce aircraft, not the marketing guys (this coming from a guy who studied Marketing at uni :p ).

[Andrew M]

Sad news :(

[Saj_A]

Another problem was letting Alan Mullaly go. :(


To a degree, I share that view, however, having met Scott Carson numerous times, he is certainly Mulallys equal. He was credited with the huge order surge in 2005 that continued through to 2007.

[Johannes C]

That is normal in a pioneering technology project. Boeing 787 is revolutionary in its design, and could have incompatibilities here and there due to numerous sciences and technologies used to develop them.

In the past, where sciences are not as well developed as now and technology could not assist us further, we never know those "small but important details," and proceed to the next step easily only to realise that disasters awaits. Sure, this guys knows their priority best on either to delay or push on into trouble.

On the notion at Airbus & Boeing. Well, what did Boeing do? They used the Airbus method, no? Sending Dreamlifters everywhere to bring the parts together to be assembled in final assembly line.

[Saj_A]

On the notion at Airbus & Boeing. Well, what did Boeing do? They used the Airbus method, no? Sending Dreamlifters everywhere to bring the parts together to be assembled in final assembly line.

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.

On the 787, the subassemblies are arriving from different companies not owned by Boeing (aside from the 50% stake in Global Aeronautica, the joint venture with Alenia).

[Ash W]

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.
...

Not true at all. Indeed even Boeing is a supplier to Airbus.

[Saj_A]

I never said they were not.

EADS is also a supplier on the 787 too.

The major subassemblies do come from EADS/Airbus plants. Various other components arrive from other suppliers (like landing gear doors, cargo doors etc), but nowhere near the same magnitude as how the 787 is built.

There's a huge world of difference.

Example: 787 - wings by MHI, centre section by Alenia, rear fuselage from Vought etc.

On current Airbus jets, those similar parts are built by Airbus not outside vendors. :)

[Ash W]

I never said they were not.
...


Really, then what does the quote below mean? It says the supply chain, to me that says everything not just major sub-assemblies. Even then though some major sub-asemblies come from suppliers not owned by EADS.

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.


EADS is also a supplier on the 787 too.

The major subassemblies do come from EADS/Airbus plants. Various other components arrive from other suppliers (like landing gear doors, cargo doors etc), but nowhere near the same magnitude as how the 787 is built.

There's a huge world of difference.

The difference is subtle not huge. The suppliers you mention in regards to Airbus aircraft may well be owned by EADS now but that is only something new, ie the last few years. Before that and indeed from day 1 Airbus have built aircraft with major assemblies supplied from different suppliers who were spread around Europe (and the globe) and suppliers who had national interests at heart. In many ways Boeing with their supplier problems could well learn a thing or 3 about supply chains from Airbus/EADS.



Example: 787 - wings by MHI, centre section by Alenia, rear fuselage from Vought etc.

On current Airbus jets, those similar parts are built by Airbus not outside vendors. :)

Again only a recent thing.

[Ash W]

Delete

[Saj_A]

^

Bad phraseology - that refers to the plants from which the major subassemblies come from. Apologies for not making that point clearer in the post earlier. :)

Before that and indeed from day 1 Airbus have built aircraft with major assemblies supplied from different suppliers who were spread around Europe (and the globe) and suppliers who had national interests at heart.

Under the old Airbus Industrie consortium, the partners of CASA, Aerospatiale, Daimler(Chrysler) Aerospace and BAE all pooled resources together which then went on to form EADS.

Thats a 30+ year evolution. On the 787 distribution/supply chain for major subassemblies, that is quite different since all the players involved are separate entities not looking to converge as EADS did.

Either way, Boeing's "vision" of drawing paralells from the auto-industry to jet making has not worked out as it had hoped.

I think its a given that on the next new model they produce, it'll be a majority "in-house" effort.