Samsonite

The best thing you could do is get rid of that ridiculous piece of bloatware called 'Windows' and go to either Ubuntu Linux or OpenSuse Linux.

DATE:07/09/08 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence Unspecified electrical issue keeps Emirates A380 out of service By David Kaminski-Morrow Middle Eastern carrier Emirates has yet to clarify the nature of an electrical matter which is keeping its first Airbus A380 from returning to service while it undergoes engineering work. The Dubai-based airline is not expecting to return the aircraft to flight operations until at least 12 September. Engineers are working on an "electrical issue", says a spokesperson for the carrier, which was "noticed at the end of a training mission when the aircraft was parked in front of the hangars". The aircraft remains parked in Dubai. The A380, delivered to Emirates at the end of July, has been used for training purposes in between twice-weekly flights on the Dubai-New York JFK route. Emirates admitted last week that it had suspended A380 services, initially stating simply that planned engineering work had overrun. The airline says its next scheduled commercial flight with the 489-seat aircraft is 12 September. In the interim period it is using Boeing 777-300ER twin-jets twice-daily on the JFK route. The carrier states that it is working to minimise any inconvenience to passengers. Emirates is acquiring 58 A380s in total but delivery of its second, due this month, has been delayed - although there is no indication that this is linked to the engineering work on the first aircraft. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...of-service.html

Ha! Yep. They are trying to do something like that: "Similarly, while the company is willing to boost pension contributions, it's also trying to limit death benefits for survivors, giving spouses of deceased Boeing workers a flat $4,000 payment instead of guaranteed monthly payments for life. Such problems, says Wise, are "in the fine print" of the proposed contract." Now I understand why 87% of the membership voted to strike and are mad because they didn't go on strike this last Wednesday at midnight. Can't say that I blame then. Corporate greed out of control. That attitude is something I've never understood. They all, management and employees, work for the same company and there is nothing to be gain by management, except a fatter bottom line, so why are they always so eager to screw over their employees. I've been on both sides of the desk and while some may think the unions are out of control, I can tell you they have a long, long way to go before they could even compare to the abuses perpetuated by management.

Eighty-seven percent of the Union membership voted to strike, but their leadership agreed to postpone the strike for 48 hours during which time they will sit down with Boeing and try and reach an agreement.

You have picked the busiest time of the year to fly to and from the U.S., therefore you will pay the highest prices of the year. Since you are returning after the 1st of the year, the overall price of the ticket might be a little cheaper than if you were returning by, or shortly after, 1 January. Also, December 20th to January 10th, is the absolute peak of High Season in LOS so you can also expect to pay more for hotels, etc., etc., etc.

As it was an existing aircraft it didn't cost Boeing much to stretch the fuselage and at those prices they must have made a tidy profit.

My State? Two different aircraft. The original 767 is a smaller plane than the A330. You have get up to the 767-400ER before the 767 even approaches the same size as an A330 and the 767-400ER was only built because Continental airlines and Delta airlines wanted the aircraft.

Well, no. The Boeing 767-200 met the requirements as the Air Force outlined in their first RFP (request for proposal). An RFP the Air Force changed in midstream without informing Boeing. The Air Force has now rewritten their the request to cover up the errors they made during the process. If the Air Force continues to insist on an aircraft with capabilities that will rarely, if ever, be used, and if Boeing is to participate in the bidding process, then the Air Force gives Boeing no choice but to offer a larger aircraft be it the 767-400 or the 777-200LR. By "capabilities that will rarely be used," I mean, size. You can only off load xxxx amount of fuel in xxxx amount of time and the Boeing 767 exceeded the requirements as outlined in the first proposal. By law most of the cargo and passenger transport, of the type that can be done by refuelers, has to be done by commercial airlines, so there is little chance a plane the size of a A330 or B767-400 or 777-200LR could be, or would be, fully utilized. Plus there is the cost of new infrastructure, hangers, parking ramps, etc. to accommodate the larger aircraft. Hell, the fuel savings alone of the B767 vs the A330 would pay for the entire contract. Something is not quite right with this bidding process and as I said before, I think it is time to call for a criminal investigation of the relationship between the Air Force selection committee and Airbus/EADS/Northrop.

August 12, 2008 Boeing may offer bigger tanker Boeing told me Tuesday that it could offer a bigger tanker to the Air Force than its 767-200, given that the Pentagon is saying it will give extra credit to the tanker that can offload more fuel. In that case, Boeing's options would appear to be either the 767-400 or 777-200LR -- assuming it does not rebid the 767-200. Or, as I wrote Monday, Boeing may decide not to bid at all. Or it may first protest the final RFP that is expected to be issued soon by the Pentagon. Here is my story, which will be posted shortly. By James Wallace P-I aerospace reporter After meeting for the first time Tuesday with Defense Department officials to go over a draft proposal that spells out the new requirements the Pentagon wants in an Air Force tanker, The Boeing Co. suggested it could decide to offer the military a bigger plane than its 767-200. Boeing also said it wants "continuing dialogue" with the Defense Department as it seeks more information about how the tanker requirements have been changed. Boeing is concerned because the Pentagon said last week it will give extra credit to the tanker than can offload more fuel, a development that would favor the bigger Airbus plane offered by Northrop Grumman for the $35 billion contract to supply the Air Force with 179 tankers. After an initial meeting with Defense Department officials at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, Boeing said it is "exploring configuration options." The company did not elaborate, but the implication is that it is at least studying the possibility of offering the Air Force a plane bigger than its 767-200 tanker. Its only options would appear to be either a tanker based on the 777, or one based on the 767-400, which is a much bigger version of the 767-200. The 767-400 is about the same size as the Airbus A330-200 offered by Northrop, and which has already won the tanker competition once – until Boeing protested earlier this year and its protest was upheld by the Government Accountability Office. The Pentagon subsequently agreed to a partial do-over of the controversial tanker competition. "It is clear that the USAF is placing value on more offload, so we will be exploring configuration options for this new RFP amendment,'' Dan Beck, chief spokesman for Boeing's military programs, told the Seattle P-I. Beck's comments came after the P-I requested any information from Boeing about a tanker based on its 767-400. In 2006, Boeing provided a detailed media briefing about a 777 tanker, but the company has never publicly detailed a possible 767-400 tanker. Boeing decided to offer the 767-200 to the Air Force because Boeing believed that plane best met the service's requirements, and that the Air Force did not want a bigger plane. Instead, the Air Force picked the much bigger A330-200 offered by Northrop and its partner, EADS, the parent of Airbus. The Air Force said bigger was better. Boeing complained in its protest that it was misled by the Air Force. The GAO agreed. In upholding Boeing's protest, the GAO found that the request for proposals issued by the Air Force made it clear that extra credit would not be given for additional fuel offload capability. As it prepares the RFP to comply with the GAO findings, the Pentagon has made it clear that this time extra credit will indeed be given for exceeding the minimum requirements for fuel offload capability. Boeing had once considered offering the Air Force a tanker based on its popular 777, but decided the smaller 767-200 was better suited as a replacement for the aging KC-135s operated by the Air Force. In briefing papers prepared in 2006, Boeing touted the "strategic capability" of a 777 tanker vs. the "operational flexibility" of the 767-200 tanker. In addition to carrying much more fuel than the KC-767, a 777 tanker could carry up to 37 cargo pallets, compared with 19 for the 767. The 777 tanker also could be converted into a transport for up to 320 passengers. The 767-200 tanker can carry up to 200 passengers. The 777 tanker would be based on Boeing's long-range 777-200LR, which entered airline service in 2006. It is the world's longest-range passenger plane. Boeing used the 777-200LR design as the basis for its 777 freighter, which is now in flight testing. The 777 tanker would be 209 feet long with a wingspan of 212 feet, 7 inches. That's the same size as the 777-200LR commercial jet. It would be able to carry far more fuel, cargo and passengers than the Airbus A330-200 tanker. The A330-200 tanker is 192 feet long with a wingspan of nearly 198 feet. The 767-200 tanker is 159 feet long with a wingspan of 156 feet. The 767-400 is 201 feet, 4 inches long with a wingspan of 170 feet, 4 inches. The fuel offload capability of the 777, according to Boeing, would be more than 220,000 pounds after flying 500 nautical miles. That's nearly 100,000 pounds more fuel than the 767-200 can offload at that range. The 777 tanker would be able to deliver 200 percent more fuel after flying 1,000 nautical miles than the current KC-135s, according to Boeing. But there are serious issues for Boeing should it offer the 777 as a tanker. Its 777 production line in Everett is flush with commercial orders. Where could it find production slots to build 179 tankers for the Air Force? On the other hand, the 767 commercial program is winding down because that plane is being replaced by the 787. Also, Boeing faces a time problem in developing either the 777 or the 767-400 as tankers. But it has already developed the 767-200 as a tanker for Italy and Japan, even though those planes are late. Northrop has repeatedly made the case in ads touting its plane over Boeing's 767-200 that the A330-200 tanker is already flying – and that the advanced 767-200 tanker for the Air Force is still a "paper" plane. The version of the 767-200 for the Air Force would be different than the eight tankers built for Italy and Japan. Boeing said in 2006 that it would take about three years to modify the 777 into a tanker. After its meeting Tuesday with the Defense Department, Boeing issued a brief statement that it wanted additional talks. "The Boeing tanker team met with DoD officials to discuss our comments on the draft RFP and gain further clarity in how the requirements and evaluation criteria have changed since the initial competition. We hope that it was just the beginning of a continuing dialogue as we move toward a final RFP that prescribes the right aircraft and gives appropriate weight to all of the capabilities that will be required for the evolving mission over the next several decades.'' It was not immediately clear if there will be additional talks. "We feel the lines of communication remain open,'' said Beck, Boeing's tanker spokesman. The Defense Department also met separately with Northrop, which described the meeting as "productive" and indicated it expects the final RFP to be issued soon. The Pentagon has said it wants to issue the final tanker proposal by the middle of August, which would be Friday. "Today's meeting was a productive review of the draft amendment and the process that will be undertaken going forward,'' Paul Meyer, Northrop's tanker vice president, said in a statement. "We had a frank and open dialogue and are confident that the final amendment will clearly outline the requirements that are expected to be met and the evaluation criteria that will be used to select the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the American taxpayer.'' He went on to say that the Defense Department met the concerns raised by the GAO, and "addresses those concerns by clarifying, but not altering the tanker requirements and specifications.'' Posted by James Wallace at 6:32 p.m. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/

DATE:08/08/08 SOURCE:Flight International Emirates philosophical about prospects of further A380 delivery delays By Max Kingsley-Jones Emirates is being philosophical about the prospect of further A380 delays after the former programme manager who brought the ultra-large aircraft to market cast doubts on Airbus's ability to achieve the revised production target set for next year. Jurgen Thomas, the original "A3XX" programme manager, still keeps close ties to the aircraft. He told German newspaper Sueddeutsche that he thought it was unlikely output could be ramped up to two a month next year. Thomas, who retired from the A380 leadership in 2001, is reported to have reached his grim verdict about next year's production because he believes Airbus is struggling to achieve the target of 12 deliveries this year. Emirates, which put the first of 58 A380s it has on order into service on 1 August, has had the revised delivery plan for its next 11 aircraft confirmed with Airbus up to March 2010, says president Tim Clark. However, he concedes that further delays to these and subsequent aircraft are a possibility: "Transition to the 'Wave 2' aircraft has proved a lot harder than Airbus thought. If there's a further slip then we'll have to live with it." Airbus executive vice-president programmes Tom Williams told Flight International during the Emirates A380 delivery ceremony in Hamburg on 28 July that production was on track for the remaining seven of the 12 A380 deliveries planned for 2008 under the revised plan (see table), and that it still intended to ship 21 aircraft in 2009. However, Williams would not disclose A380 production plans in 2010 and beyond. According to Thomas, the continuing production bugbear is the integration of the Hamburg-built Section 13 forward fuselage assembly, which has proved to be much more complex than expected. As reported last week, empty Section 13s are now being joined to nose sections in St Nazaire and then shipped back to Hamburg for equipping under an interim production plan that is due to last until mid-2009. Thomas also said that the standardised manufacturing plan for the so-called "Wave 2" aircraft, from MSN026 with redesigned wiring based on the new French software plateau, has not worked as smoothly as planned. Clark says that with Airbus already knowing "85% of what they have to do on the Wave 2 aircraft" he is hopeful that the airframer is getting to grips with the complexities of A380 production. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...0-delivery.html

"Wednesday July 9, 2008 ANA confirmed to ATWOnline that it has not yet decided to order the A380 as widely reported late last week and in fact has not even issued an RFP. A spokesperson told this website that the airline set up a New Aircraft Selection Committee last week to examine both the A380 and the 747-8. "No RFPs have gone out yet," the spokesperson said, adding that ANA will decide among the 747-8, the A380 or continuing to build its long-haul fleet around the 777-300ER. by Geoffrey Thomas" http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?i...te=7%2F9%2F2008

Pure fiction. ANA just announced the formation of a committee to evaluate whether or not they should buy any very large aircraft. As it is they have been replacing their 747-400s with Boeing 777-300ERs.

"Alenia North America Statement on ZA004 In full: A contractor performing work on behalf of Alenia Composite (an Alenia Aeronautica Company) at the Global Aeronautica facility in South Carolina failed to follow proper procedure. The contractor was an experienced aviation mechanic not local to Charleston S.C. The individual was immediately terminated. This error resulted in a production issue that has since been repaired. Global Aeronautica was able to continue to perform some scheduled work in parallel. As a result of the necessary repair time, the delivery of the fuselage section to Everett has been delayed by The Boeing Company. Global Aeronautica is currently awaiting a revised delivery date from The Boeing Company." http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/ Eltib, I didn't know you were living in South Carolina?

The GAO has a excellent reputation, so given what they pointed out as errors in the Air Force procedures perhaps there should be a criminal investigation into the relationship between the Air Force selection committee and Airbus/EADS?

"Boeing Achieves 787 Power On EVERETT, Wash., June 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has completed the Power On sequence for the first 787 Dreamliner, marking the completion of the next major milestone on the path to first flight later this year. Power On is a complex series of tasks and tests that bring electrical power onto the airplane and begin to exercise the use of the electrical systems. The 787 is a more-electric airplane with the pneumatic, or bleed air, system being totally replaced by electronics. "The team has made great progress in bringing the bold innovation of the 787 to reality," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "There is plenty of work to be done between now and first flight, but with every step forward we grow more and more confident." The Power On sequence began in early June with a series of pretest continuity checks to verify that the wiring installed in the airplane had been connected properly. Upon completion of those checks, the Boeing team plugged in an external power cart and slowly began to bring full power into each segment of the system, beginning with the flight deck displays. From that point forward, the pilot's controls were used to direct the addition of new systems to the power grid." http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/ Purely subjective. The interiors are picked by the airline and in some cases designed by the airline. The airline picks the type of seats, the arrangement of the seats (distance apart front to back and side to side) and to a limited effect, the type and position of the kitchens and toilets. In theory, two different aircraft could have the same interior and most people wouldn't know the difference, including you.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/ "Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing Tanker Protest This is a breaking story and will be updated as details become available. GAO Statement "We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision." UPDATE: The GAO sustained Boeing's tanker protest on seven different criteria. Explained in English. 1. The USAF used a different ruler than the one Boeing thought they were using. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible. 2. The USAF said "no points for extra credit" then awarded extra credit points to Northrop. The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives." 3. Northrop Grumman didn't adequately show that they could refuel all the Air Force's fixed wing aircraft. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force's determination that Northrop Grumman's proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation. 4. The USAF told Boeing they met a key requirement, but later decided they hadn't fully met it and didn't tell them while still talking to Northrop about it. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency's assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective. 5. The USAF interpreted Northrop's refusal to meet a specific maintenance requirement as an "administrative oversight" when it may not have been. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an "administrative oversight," and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement. 6. The USAF made errors in determining how much the tankers would cost over their life and later admitted that the correct formula had given the advantage to Boeing. The Air Force's evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors' most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors' specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported. 7. The USAF used their own metrics to estimate Boeing's cost and also couldn't prove that their estimates would produce reliable results. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm's most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing's failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force's use of a simulation model to determine Boeing's probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing's non-recurring engineering costs. " http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

Gentlemen, I will have the last laugh. It is just a matter of time.

One more time, wacky: There is nothing, absolutely nothing, revolutionary about the A380 other than its size. Nothing. Big it is. Ugly, unfortunately, it is, but revolutionary it is not. And, by the way, each new generation of the B747 it is updated to the latest technology available at the time, including construction materials, avionics, etc. Wings are redesigned, cockpits changed, etc., etc. From the outside it is a classic design, but from the inside out the latest technology is used. Boeing also updates their aircraft throughout its production cycle. One thing is for sure. The B747 is one hell of a lot better looking than the A380. The A380 has to be a French design. Who else could build something so ugly and find it attractive.

Then you should compare the sales of the 777-300ER to the sales of the A380, since, as I said, the 777-300ER, not the A380, is replacing the 747 at most airlines. *** Boeing will continue to rely on 'disciplined approach' to 777 production rates Thursday June 12, 2008 Boeing is coming under, and resisting, intense pressure from airlines to increase production of the 777-300ER, with the first availability for new orders now quoted as 2014. With more and more carriers parking 747s, pressure is mounting for delivery of 777s, which burn 20% less fuel per passenger. In November, VP-Sales-Middle East and Africa Martin Bentrott told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that production was sold out through 2012 with only a few slots available. In just six months, all of the remaining 2012 and all 2013 slots have been snapped up. Boeing has announced sales of 36 777s this year with a significant number of firm commitments yet to be signed. Responding to ATWOnline, the company said it is "experiencing unprecedented demand for its commercial airliners and is constantly reviewing the complex process of matching demand with the physical and economic constraints of the production system." Currently it is producing 777s at a rate of 6.6 per month based on 33 deliveries through May 30. While pleased with that demand, the manufacturer added, "In the past, Boeing, its employees, suppliers and its customers suffered the effects of a breakdown of the production process resulting from efforts to increase production too rapidly. Boeing is determined to produce efficiently through the market cycles going forward. This will allow us to maintain relatively stable employment levels, maintain high levels of quality and keep the residual values of airplanes high to protect our customers' investment in our products." It continued, "This effort may result in us not being able to meet all customers' requirements in the timeframe they prefer. Ultimately, though, Boeing believes that a disciplined approach to managing production rates is in the best interests of all parties involved." The company did not respond to a question about the effect of the 787 delay--up to 24 months in some cases--on demand for 777s as replacements for shortfalls in capacity. Airlines also are waiting for Boeing's response to the A350-1000, which targets the lower end of the 777-300ER market. It stated that it has been waiting for Airbus to define the exact performance of the A350-1000. Last week Airbus briefed customers in Madrid and advised that the maximum takeoff weight of the -1000 is to climb by 2 tons, which may affect some range performance targets. by Geoffrey Thomas http://atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=12988 Power on started Wednesday, 11 June. You will be wrong on this one, and, as I said, the game isn't over on the A380. They have a long way to go to start their Power 8 program, if they ever get it off the ground. Plus, Boeing out sold Airbus for many, many years, before the year 2000 and have out sold them twice since.

The game isn't over CheshirePom. As of the end of May 2008, 25 customers have ordered 352 Boeing 777-300ERs (which first went into service in 2004, but was announced in 2000). Of that 352, 25 have been sold to yet unidentified customers and 51 to leasing companies. The A380 has sold how many in approximately the same period of time? Airbust will never sell enough of the A380s to breakeven. The market just isn't there.

To date there are 5 Boeing 787 in various stages of final assembly. One of the test airframes has already been moved from the assembly line to the testing rig. Parts and sub-assemblies for the next 25 B787s are being built around the world. I just saw a picture of fuselage barrels for planes 13, 14, and 15, line up at the sub-contractor's factory. At this point somewhere between 90 and 100 747-8s have been ordered while the remaining 747-400Fs are being completed. A new 747-400ERF was just delivered a couple of weeks ago. 27 of the ordered 747-8s are for the passenger version. The sad part for you A380, the flying Citron, fans is the A380 will not replace the B747. Since the B777-300ER went into commercial service the airlines that need the capacity and the range having been replacing their 747s with the 777-300ER. It is actually longer than the 747-400 but shorter than the 747-8), has a MTOW 100,000 pounds less than 747-400, carries about the same amount of passengers, carries over 1,000 cubic feet more cargo, has a slightly longer ranges and uses two engines vs four so it saves fuel. Boeing can't build the the 777-300ER fast enougn.

Nope. Wait and watch. There is a very good chance Boeing will be able to catch up and keep the delayed deliveries at a minimum. And for the guy who use to work for Boeing and is carrying that huge chip on his shoulder, the delays have been from the suppliers. Just the other day the company that is building the power supply for the 787 admitted it, but said they are now on track. There is nothing wrong with the technology, it was getting the suppliers up to speed. ******************** 787 supplier Hamilton Sundstrand says power-on 'darn close' Thursday June 5, 2008 Boeing is on track for 787 power-on later this month and the supply chain and technical issues that have caused the program's extensive delays largely are resolved, according to Hamilton Sundstrand, the aircraft's largest systems supplier."Clearly the airplane is making tremendous progress," HS President David Hess told reporters this week at the company's Rockford, Ill., facility, where 787 systems are being built and tested. "It's coming together and we're confident and Boeing's confident that [power-on] will happen this month. The airplane looks pretty darn close to me. . .We've got 100% of the systems they need for power-on to Boeing." HS is providing the electrical, auxiliary power, air-thermal management, hydraulic, fire protection and engine systems for the aircraft. Its 787 work is valued at $15 billion over 20 years. The leap in technology on the 787 posed initial problems as the manufacturer and HS attempted to define system parameters. "It's a revolutionary and very innovative aircraft," Hess explained. "There quite honestly were technical challenges that both we and Boeing didn't fully appreciate. The requirements definition phase took longer than we expected. . .When you go to a composite structure the requirements change and how you develop systems is different." But technical problems were not the major cause of program delays, he said. "We probably had a little bit steeper learning curve on the supply chain side than the technical side," he commented. "We [now] have a lot more rigorous and robust supply chain processes than we had two years ago. . .When you think about where the 787 program has had problems, it hasn't been at the technical level. It's really been supply chain management issues." Those issues stem from Boeing's new global model for building aircraft that empowers suppliers such as HS, which sends 90% of its 787 components to structural suppliers rather than directly to Everett. Boeing has cited poor performance from its suppliers in explaining 787 program delays but recently has insisted that most of the problems have been fixed (ATWOnline, May 20). "I don't want to get into a shooting match with [boeing] on who was late, why it was late," Hess said. "We're all late." by Aaron Karp http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=12932

Found in a bar somewhere: