Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

While Airbus has run into some production snags with its A380 Superjumbo that have cost it customers, Boeing appears to be moving ahead on schedule with its smaller 787 Dreamliner. Boeing just recently announced that it has completed the "virtual rollout" of its new composite-bodied aircraft.

 

"Today's virtual rollout is the culmination of many months of effort by thousands of team members at Boeing and its 787 partners. Through the use of our new digital toolset, provided by Dassault Systemes, the team has proven the ability to manufacture 787 designs," said Mike Bair, VP and GM for the Dreamliner program.

 

Through the use of a powerful Dassault computer/software system, Boeing has been able to trim costs by 20% and cut a year from production on the Dreamliner. Engineers have also been able to see how parts will fit together in the virtual world before running into possible snags on a real production line.

 

"Our tools have enabled us to model the entire production process from our partners' factories to our own. We have found errors in simulation that would have been costly to find in production and have been able to design corrections quickly to keep the program on track," said Bair.

 

If you may recall, the Airbus A380 has been delayed by a year due to problems with the electrical harness which consists of 100,000 wires and 40,300 connectors. These problems were found during production rather than earlier in the design process of the aircraft.

 

Boeing is currently taking steps to reduce weight on the Dreamliner by switching from aluminum to titanium on some parts used in the aircraft. In order to meet the design targets for fuel efficiency and range, the switch to titanium is a necessity. Not surprisingly, the computer simulations have been instrumental in pointing out critical components that are ripe for the switch to titanium.

 

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is expected to make its first flight in August of 2007 with delivery starting in 2008. As of now, Boeing has orders for 458 planes from 37 customers.

 

"It's a challenge, no doubt about it. This is the team, all of us together -- our customers, our partners and each of us -- who will bring this airplane to life. It's an amazing journey from where we started just four years ago. But the best part is yet to come," said Bair.

 

 

 

This for the Airbus fanboys:

Edited September 22, 2007 by BigDUSA

[wacmedia 277]

Through the use of a powerful Dassault computer/software system

 

Hi,

 

I see the French have helped you out of the shit again. It remains to be seen if the 787 will be ready on time. As Cheshire Tom has already stated on another thread the 787 and the Airbus A380 are different types of aircraft serving different types of routes. The 787 is a run of the mill aircraft while the Airbus A380 is a revolutionary new plane which supersedes the 747. The American company will, sooner or later , have to build a plane in opposition to it as the 747 becomes obsolete with new rules on global warming etc taking effect. That is the challange they will have to face sooner or later.

[StefanH 3]

 

This for all of us, having flights from 13 to 23 hours.... to come to Pussyland ....

 

Whatever they called their "dreamliners"...or "buses" there was nothing new, all the innovations do not help the passenger much, regarding seat comfort....

 

The only hope, the A 380 is delayed.... absolutely no reason to jubilate about.... or do you care more for Boeing than for the comfort of your A$$

[BigDUSA 71]

Hi,

 

I see the French have helped you out of the shit again. It remains to be seen if the 787 will be ready on time. As Cheshire Tom has already stated on another thread the 787 and the Airbus A380 are different types of aircraft serving different types of routes. The 787 is a run of the mill aircraft while the Airbus A380 is a revolutionary new plane which supersedes the 747. The American company will, sooner or later , have to build a plane in opposition to it as the 747 becomes obsolete with new rules on global warming etc taking effect. That is the challange they will have to face sooner or later.

 

 

I agree that American companies tend to go with a vendor that can deliver state of the art performance on time and on budget. Companies tend to get a fair hearing with US based business as we tend to be more bottom line oriented. I also agree that Airbus 380 is a revolutionary aircraft that will be sold at a loss to many customers that got burned by the two year delay. Maybe Airbus should have used the Dassault CAD/CAM program and saved themselves a boat load of cash. O wait what do they care the EU taxpayer is footing the bill for all the delays.

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

In the future environmental issues are going to be a big consideration as well as the bottom line.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6166897.stm

 

£34m 'green' research at Airbus

 

 

A £34m investment aimed at developing greener aircraft has been confirmed for the Airbus factory in Flintshire.

The UK government will provide £17m towards the Integrated Wing programme at the plant in Broughton.

 

Trade and Industry secretary Alistair Darling, First Minister Rhodri Morgan and the chief executive of Airbus Louis Gallois are visiting the plant.

 

Mr Darling said the research project meant Britain was "leading the drive for greener aerospace technology".

 

The factory employs about 7,000 people making wings, including for the world's largest airliner, the A380.

 

As a result of the announcement, 50 jobs have been created at Filton, South Gloucestershire.

 

Mr Darling explained why the UK government was backing the project, calling British excellence in aerospace design, development and delivery "world renowned".

 

Today's given the whole site a really good feeling

 

John Marshall, Broughton engineer

 

He said: "This project looks to the future of aircraft design and brings together our best from the drawing board to the factory floor.

 

"By being smart and working as one - from wings to landing gear, fuel systems to electronics - we can lead.

 

"Innovation and creativity like this are crucial if we are to win in the global economy."

 

The research programme will be led by the Broughton plant but will involve other technology companies and four universities across the UK. A total of 17 organisations will take part.

 

 

The research programme will be led by the Broughton plant

 

The UK government said it was a "core element" of the UK's aerospace technology strategy and could lead to a "step change" in future civil aircraft wing design.

 

The research includes developing new technology which will improve design and contribute to more fuel efficient aircraft.

 

An Airbus spokeswoman said that funding was available for the industry to "look at ways of achieving this for 2020.

 

The industry would "look at the research programmes we've done so far and see if they can move them forward.

 

"The research is geared to making them more environmentally-sensitive and more effective."

 

'Very encouraging'

 

Gordon McConnell, head of engineering at Airbus UK, said the project would "provide a platform for future innovative aircraft designs and will help to ensure that Airbus and our partners in this programme will retain our competitive position".

 

Mr Morgan said it was a "joint effort" involving Wales, the south west and south east of England and Northern Ireland which would pave the way for the industry "to maintain its lead in wing technology".

 

It comes after recent knocks to workers' confidence over their future at the plant.

 

Airbus's parent company EADS plans to outsource half the work on its latest plane, the A350.

 

Airbus chief executive Louis Gallois refused to confirm on Monday that the wings for the A350 would definitely be made at Broughton.

 

Mr Gallois said he could not give a cast-iron promise regarding any one site, as all other sites would be looking for the same assurances.

 

But he did say that Broughton was the centre of excellence for wing production.

 

John Marshall, a graduate engineer, said of Monday's announcement: "It's definitely going to give people an increased feeling of security within the whole of the UK aerospace industry.

 

"Today's given the whole site a really good feeling."

 

Sally Derrick, who works in manufacturing operations, added: "It's obviously very encouraging because we need this manufacturing base to stay in Broughton."

[Emil 0]

 

This for all of us, having flights from 13 to 23 hours.... to come to Pussyland ....

 

Whatever they called their "dreamliners"...or "buses" there was nothing new, all the innovations do not help the passenger much, regarding seat comfort....

 

The only hope, the A 380 is delayed.... absolutely no reason to jubilate about.... or do you care more for Boeing than for the comfort of your A$$

 

 

Don't know about seat confort, but the 787 is hyped for providing dramatic savings in fuel use and operating costs. If true it will provide confort on my wallet.

 

Its not a big deal for those of you flying out of Europe as you already have many non stop flights to LOS, but from the states we only have Thai Air flying out of New York and LA. The 787 is a smaller aircraft than the 747 so it will be easier to fill with enough paxs to fly non stop to LOS, thus shaving about 4 hours off our comute time and providing more confort for my A$$.

[StefanH 3]

Its not a big deal for those of you flying out of Europe as you already have many non stop flights to LOS, but from the states we only have Thai Air flying out of New York and LA. The 787 is a smaller aircraft than the 747 so it will be easier to fill with enough paxs to fly non stop to LOS, thus shaving about 4 hours off our comute time and providing more confort for my A$$.

 

I see.... so you are probably hoping that there will be non stop flights , lets say from Muskoogee, Twin Falls or even Eaton Rapids to LOS as soon as the Dreamliner 787 is on schedule.... would save You big time, indeed ....

[Emil 0]

I see.... so you are probably hoping that there will be non stop flights , lets say from Muskoogee, Twin Falls or even Eaton Rapids to LOS as soon as the Dreamliner 787 is on schedule.... would save You big time, indeed ....

 

 

Let me dumb this down for you. I'm talking about non stops from your international airports like LA, San Francisco. Seattle and New York mainly. Those places you mention don't have immigration or customs so you couldn't fly into them and are so small that you couldn't fill a 737 let alone a 787 with enough paxs to fly to BKK.

[Samsonite 181]

One more time Wacky, the A380 is evolutionary it is NOT revolutionary in anyway, shape, or form, regardless of the hype you seem so eager to swallow, hook, line and sinker. Other than size there is nothing being done on the A380 that hasn't been done somewhere else before. Hell, if you put the fuselage side by side with a 747 it is not much bigger than the 747, but it has the full upper deck and, of course, to carry the weight, it has larger wings and a larger tail wing assembly.

 

The Boeing 787 IS a revolutionary plane. It cannot be described as anything else as it is the FIRST commercial aircraft to have a completely composite fuselage, made as one piece (each barrel) as opposed to the traditional aluminum frame and panel "skin" used on all previous commercial aircraft.

 

Oh, and BTW, did you know the A380 is not inherently stable? It is not unstable, but it is not stable. What that means is it cannot be flown without the computers doing some of the work. This has been done with military fighter aircraft, but it has never been done with a commercial aircraft carrying passengers. With Boeing aircraft, the pilot has the last word and can take control away from the computer. With the A380 the pilot cannot fly the plane without the computer. Given Airbus' record with their early fly-by-wire system, I'll wait a while before getting on a A380...if they are ever delivered.

 

The latest in a story involving their "Launch customer,"

 

“There comes a point where, if you can’t build it and deliver it, then [even though] the technical capability may be brilliant, it is just no good to anyone.”

 

Story here, http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document....90-723D94CDFF8F

Edited December 14, 2006 by Scalawag

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

The usual suspects, who know nothing about aviation, turn up on these threads. Where is Cheshire Tom and bob2005 who seem to know what they are talking about ? The only constant is change and the 747 and Airbus A380 will be in museums in years to come. I know some people think the 747 is a good plane but can we fly on it forever ? Airbus are pushing the boundaries of commercial aviation and they have had some problems with the fly-by-wire technology in the past, but we would still have no aircraft if risks weren't taken. It is disingenuous to compare the 767 and A380 as they are different types of aircraft and will fly different routes as Cheshire Tom has clearly stated in the past.

[short 215]

What Boeing is really saying is that the Dreamliner is still "on paper". The A380 is missing the boat also though. For the most part they won't be able to fill the plane with people. It will end up being a cargo plane.

[Samsonite 181]

The usual suspects, who know nothing about aviation, turn up on these threads. Where is Cheshire Tom and bob2005 who seem to know what they are talking about ? The only constant is change and the 747 and Airbus A380 will be in museums in years to come. I know some people think the 747 is a good plane but can we fly on it forever ? Airbus are pushing the boundaries of commercial aviation and they have had some problems with the fly-by-wire technology in the past, but we would still have no aircraft if risks weren't taken. It is disingenuous to compare the 767 and A380 as they are different types of aircraft and will fly different routes as Cheshire Tom has clearly stated in the past.

The only person in these aviation threads who has repeatedly displayed his stunning lack on knowledge on the subject is none other than yourself, Wacky.

BTW, no one is comparing the 767 as you stated or the 787 to the A380. What I said is the A380 is not a revolutionary aircraft, but the 787 is just that, revolutionary. Size, markets, routes, etc., has little to nothing to do with it.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Scalawag

[short 215]

I have to disagree with you a little Scalawag. The A380 is being marketed as a super hub aircraft. The problem is that people don't have the tolerance for super hubs. Therefore it will be destined to carry cargo. Which is will probably do very well.

[Emil 0]

When it comes to payload, does anyone know how the revolutionary A380 compares to the C-5 which first came off the production line over 30 years ago?

[wacmedia 277]

I have to disagree with you a little Scalawag. The A380 is being marketed as a super hub aircraft. The problem is that people don't have the tolerance for super hubs

 

Hi,

 

The A380 is really an improvement on the Jumbo. Are you saying the commercial Jumbo's are flying empty ?

 

BTW, no one is comparing the 767 as you stated or the 787 to the A380.

 

In future I am calling it the Nightmareliner. Airbus have a plane in development called the A350 which will supercede the A330 and be a competitor to the Nightmareliner. Where is the American companies competitor to the Airbus A380 ?

[spacebass 0]

Don't know about seat confort, but the 787 is hyped for providing dramatic savings in fuel use and operating costs. If true it will provide confort on my wallet.

 

Its not a big deal for those of you flying out of Europe as you already have many non stop flights to LOS, but from the states we only have Thai Air flying out of New York and LA. The 787 is a smaller aircraft than the 747 so it will be easier to fill with enough paxs to fly non stop to LOS, thus shaving about 4 hours off our comute time and providing more confort for my A$$.

 

 

In the rest of the world A$ = Australian $, do you mean US$ ? Just too insular!!

[wacmedia 277]

In the rest of the world A$ = Australian $, do you mean US$ ? Just too insular!!

 

Hi,

 

Well said spacebass.

[Emil 0]

In the rest of the world A$ = Australian $, do you mean US$ ? Just too insular!!

 

Is this a serious question, because if it is you need to cut back on the houch or get a vision check. I was quoting from another poster who used A$$, not A$ and it means ass. Neither A$ or US$.

[TheFiend 1,181]

To me this looks like the Yank posters are hyping up the Boeing and slagging off the European Airbus.

 

If Airbus didn't exist then Boeing would have a virtual monopoly on large aircraft - wouldn't they!

 

I have flown Boeing 737, 747, 767,777, Airbus 320, 330 and 340 Lockheed TriStar and Fokker 100, and I would say I prefer the Airbus products.

 

Pilots don't really fly planes nowadays, apart from take-off and landing most flying is done in autopilot, so the argument that computers are the thing that allows the A380 to fly due to it not being stable in flight isn't really relevant.

 

The A380 is revolutionary in the fact that it is the first big commercial airplane to have a proper full length double deck for passengers, and yes, it is evolved from earlier Airbus designs.

 

Perhaps it could be said that the 787 is just a development of the 777 using newer manufacturing techniques rather than being a revolutionary design.

[Emil 0]

To me this looks like the Yank posters are hyping up the Boeing and slagging off the European Airbus.

 

 

I hope your not including me as one of the Yanks slagging off Airbus. Just because I'm not excited about the A380 as it won't do anything for me in getting to LOS cheaper or quicker doesn't mean I have anything against Airbus. The 787 and the A350 is something that could reduce my comute time and I hope that they can fill them up with enough paxs to fly non stop from SFO and LAX, thus reducing about 4 hours off my time. Nothing would thrill me more if Airbus could develop an SST and get me to LOS is a few hours at a cost that is comparable with Boeing and Airbuses current aircraft.

[Guest speedbonnieboat]

Have to agree with The Fiend with his point about competition for Boeiing.

 

If Airbus had not come on as well as they have with mainstream commercial Airliners the planes would be more expensive for the Airline operators to buy and we would ALL be paying a lot more to get to LOS.

 

I have flown on most and have no real preference.

Edited September 6, 2008 by speedbonnieboat

[Gary 4,119]

Preferences as to which plane is more comfortable is simply bullshit. If you didn't know what you were on, Boeing or Air Bus you wouldn't know the difference. The difference is how they are fitted out. I have been on shit Boeings and Air Buses. Some airlines have bigger and better seats and some have a better entertainment setup.

[Samsonite 181]

I have to disagree with you a little Scalawag. The A380 is being marketed as a super hub aircraft. The problem is that people don't have the tolerance for super hubs. Therefore it will be destined to carry cargo. Which is will probably do very well.

I agree it is being marketed as a "super hub aircraft," but that was not the question I was addressing, which was, "Is it revolutionary?" No.

 

As to cargo, the reviews I've read said the design doesn't lend itself well to cargo applications. It would work well for light weight, but high volume, such as UPS or FedEx, who both ordered it, but just recently FedEx canceled their A380 order and bought Boeing 777-200 Freighters instead.

Emirates and ILFC have both converted their A380 Freighter orders to the passenger version and ILFC has deferred delivery of their A380s to at least 2013.

That leaves UPS as the only A380 Freighter customer.

 

Virgin Atlantic has also deferred delivery of their A380s until 2013 and has extended leases on several 747-400s to compensate. Their A380s originally were scheduled to arrive in 2009.

 

Looks like some airlines are taking a "wait and see" attitude and that is really all we can do. Wait and see if the A380 proves itself.

 

Preferences as to which plane is more comfortable is simply bullshit. If you didn't know what you were on, Boeing or Air Bus you wouldn't know the difference. The difference is how they are fitted out. I have been on shit Boeings and Air Buses. Some airlines have bigger and better seats and some have a better entertainment setup.

You are correct, the airlines determine how the interior is designed, i.e., what type of seats and how they are spaced, carpets, colors, inflight entertainment, etc., etc., etc. However, they are some of us who would still know the difference regardless of how the interior is outfitted.

 

To me this looks like the Yank posters are hyping up the Boeing and slagging off the European Airbus.

 

If Airbus didn't exist then Boeing would have a virtual monopoly on large aircraft - wouldn't they!..................

No. See below.

Have to agree with The Fiend with his point about competition for Boeiing.

If Airbus had not come on as well as they have with mainstream commercial Airliners the planes would be more expensive for the Airline operators to buy and we would ALL be paying a lot more to get to LOS..........

If Airbus had not come on as it did, as a government supported and controlled entity, that recent events have proven it to be, and who undercut the market to get a foothold (because it wasn't necessary to make a profit as France, Germany, Spain and the UK were paying the bills), there is a very good chance that Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas would still be building commercial airliners.

Edited December 16, 2006 by Scalawag

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

I agree with speedbonnieboat that the American company would be gouging the airlines in their "FREE MARKET" way if they had a monopoly.

 

And TheFiend is right the Nightmareliner is just using new manufacturing techniques. Nothing wrong with that,as I've said before the World is evolving in all kinds of ways. We can't stand still and still be flying 747's in 100 years time.

[don_dadda 0]

from what I understand the new AB is a great plane. I think their production is going to kick them in the ass. They have already pushed it back and they are probably going to do it again.

 

The problem when you produce anything the way AB, and alot of European companies do, using differenct countries to make differnent pieces of a whole you run into problems.

 

The germans only work 40hrs tueday-friday, the brits only work during non tea hours, the french dont work...etc etc...( I am making an example so dont get tizzy)

 

it brings up alot of problems on an already complicated project. Companies spend millions and even billions of dollars on their merchandise and they want it on time. They dont want to hear excuses about production pushing back the deliverary of their product for a year or more