Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[Sammy 30]

US and non-US content on the 787:

 

Roughly 75 percent US

Roughly 25 percent non-US

 

Source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html

Lots of reporting on the rollout today on CNN with Richard Quest and other CNN crew. Interesting that they interviewed all of the Japanese component manufacturers and CNN quoted that over 1/3 of the plane's content is made outside the U.S.A. Quite a change from the 25% Scalawag quotes.

[Samsonite 177]

Just seen the video of unveiling. Seems a nice plane but very small.

Small? Did you notice all the people walking around underneath it?

 

There will be 3, mostly likely, 4 versions.

 

The one unveiled yesterday is the 787-8 model and seats up to 250. Range, 8,200 nautical miles.

 

The -9 will follow and it will be 20 feet longer and carry up to 290 passengers.

Range, 8,500 nautical miles.

 

Next will be the -3 that will be a shorter range model, but still transcontinental at around 3,000 nautical miles, and carry 330 passengers. This is the one the larger American owned airlines want for the coast to coast U.S. domestic market.

 

The international airlines want a -10 model that will carry up to 350 passengers with even longer range. Boeing has said they will build it, but haven't formally made the announcement.

 

Lots of reporting on the rollout today on CNN with Richard Quest and other CNN crew. Interesting that they interviewed all of the Japanese component manufacturers and CNN quoted that over 1/3 of the plane's content is made outside the U.S.A. Quite a change from the 25% Scalawag quotes.

I wouldn't believe anything from CNN, the communist news network, but 33% vs 25%? "Quite a change...."??

Edited July 9, 2007 by Scalawag

[MrMango 661]

Just seen the video of unveiling. Seems a nice plane but very small.

Small???

[crobe 12]

BigD,

 

When I am back in pattaya next week, we should have a beer or two.

 

The fun you have been having watching the European managment (EADS-Airbus) trying to make a competitor to the jumbo has been quite a goodd read, but wait until you hear the stories of the disaster they are making about Galileo (the European equivalent of GPS)

 

The A380 is a marvel of management excellence compared to the cr** we have every day trying to get this project to work.

 

I swear I will start shooting the French and the Italians before I get out of this project.

 

Crobe

[Samsonite 177]

Aerospace Notebook: Boeing may build 16 787s a month

 

By JAMES WALLACE

P-I REPORTER

 

THE BOEING CO. is reportedly talking with its suppliers about the feasibility of eventually boosting production rates of its 787 to as many as 16 jets a month.

 

That would be more than double the highest production rate for any previous Boeing or Airbus widebody jet.

 

There have been frequent reports that Boeing is aiming to set 787 rates at 10 to 13 planes a month, but the company apparently is looking at possibly going well beyond that rate.

 

Douglas Caster, chief executive of Ultra Electronics, a British company that makes parts for the 787, told Reuters that Boeing is "talking to the supply chain about raising 787 output from 14 to 16 aircraft a month."

 

Boeing has made no secret that it will boost production of its 787 after the first 112 Dreamliners have been built for customers in 2008 and 2009. Boeing will not increase production sooner because it does not want to overtax its supply chain. That's what happened in the late 1990s. Boeing tried to ramp up production too quickly, and assembly lines in Renton and in Everett broke down when suppliers could not keep up and jetliner parts did not arrive on time.

 

The 787 is being readied for its maiden flight at the end of September. Deliveries to airlines are supposed to begin in late May.

 

With nearly 700 orders so far, the 787 is the fastest-selling jet ever developed by Boeing or Airbus. But that has presented a difficult challenge for Boeing -- 787 production positions are essentially sold out through 2013. Boeing must boost production to get more planes to that growing customer base.

 

Although Boeing does not publicly discuss production rates for any of its jets, it has not quibbled with published reports that it could boost production to as many as 13 787s a month sometime after 2009.

 

An executive with Thales, the French company that is supplying parts for the 787, including the in-flight entertainment system, said a week ago that Boeing was looking at 787 production rates of 11 to 13 planes a month.

 

At a media briefing last month before the public unveiling in Everett of the first 787, Mike Bair, vice president of the 787, talked about the ongoing study of 787 production rates. He said Boeing is working closely with its partners.

 

"What we are trying to avoid is making a premature decision on rates that would cause a lot of people to build a lot of facilities they might not need," Bair said.

 

Unlike in previous jetliner programs, Boeing picked key partners to produce most of the 787. Large, partner-manufactured 787 sections are then flown to the Everett plant, where Boeing workers complete final assembly. That new way of building jets will enable Boeing to complete final assembly of a 787 is as few as six days by the 100th plane, according to Bair. The goal is to get that down to only three days in final assembly. That compares with about 14 days in final assembly for the 777."

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/325864_air01.html

[wacmedia 277]

Hi.

 

Friend, keep reading the Seattle press if it makes you feel better.

[Samsonite 177]

Korean Air wraps their building in the image of a Boeing 787.

 

"Korean Air’s headquarters will remain “wrapped” in the 787 Dreamliner through the end of the month..... Photo and video courtesy: Korean Air."

 

"Korean Air is a launch customer of the Boeing 787, with 10 Dreamliners on order. Photo courtesy: Korean Air."

 

Story here: http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

Edited August 24, 2007 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Has Denny got it wrong again?

 

From the first post in the thread ........................

 

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.

 

 

This for the Airbus fanboys:

[BigDUSA 71]

Has Denny got it wrong again?

 

From the first post in the thread ........................

 

Ya their almost up to 700 orders.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Ya their almost up to 700 orders.

 

That is very true ............. unfortunately, for the time being, the big bird is stuck on the ground. So, BigD, when's the first one going to fly?

 

Don't worry ................. it's of zero interest to the UK boardies since most of them will be travelling to LOS on A380s within the next couple of years (Thai, Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Qantas all have LHR and BKK pencilled in for it).

 

Talking of predictions .................. I was just having a read through the thread ............. next is Scallie's bet (prediction?) that the A380 won't get delivered/enter commercial service this year.

Edited August 26, 2007 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

That is very true ............. unfortunately, for the time being, the big bird is stuck on the ground. So, BigD, when's the first one going to fly?

 

Don't worry ................. it's of zero interest to the UK boardies since most of them will be travelling to LOS on A380s within the next couple of years (Thai, Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Qantas all have LHR and BKK pencilled in for it).

 

Talking of predictions .................. I was just having a read through the thread ............. next is Scallie's bet (prediction?) that the A380 won't get delivered/enter commercial service this year.

 

How many years late is Airbus in making deliveries and how much in compensation is Airbus/EU taxpayer laying on all the airlines you mention. I think they're in the multi million/billion Euro range.

 

Even if Boeing has some slippages in the fly date it's still not anywhere near the Airbus debacle.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

How many years late is Airbus in making deliveries and how much in compensation is Airbus/EU taxpayer laying on all the airlines you mention. I think they're in the multi million/billion Euro range.

 

Even if Boeing has some slippages in the fly date it's still not anywhere near the Airbus debacle.

 

Err, you didn't answer the question. Just want to know when the subject of your thread is going to fly. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information around at the moment other than Boeing is doing an update at the end of the first week of September.

 

Personally, I hope that Boeing doesn't have any delays (slippages as they are now referred to by Boeing

 

That said, I'm quite sure if there are any delays to the 787 programme you won't find the Euro boardies coming out with the same jingoistic, xenophobic nonsense that your good self and others have come out with in relation to Airbus.

 

There's a good book out now ........ "Boeing v Airbus". You should have a read of it sometime.

[BigDUSA 71]

That said, I'm quite sure if there are any delays to the 787 programme you won't find the Euro boardies coming out with the same jingoistic, xenophobic nonsense that your good self and others have come out with in relation to Airbus.

 

LMAO

[CheshireTom 1,377]

LMAO

 

That didn't answer anything either.

[BigDUSA 71]

That didn't answer anything either.

 

When you get into your silly mode, I just LMAO at you.

Edited August 27, 2007 by BigDUSA

[nidnoyham 30]

I have lived next to Heathrow all my life. I have seen 'em come and seen 'em go. Stratacruisers, 707-727- 737-747-757-767-777. D.C. 7-8-9-10. Vickers Vangaurd- Viscount - VC 10. Bristol Britania. Lockhead Super Connie', Tristar.........

 

They are just another 'plane, never to be as beautiful or as fast as the Concorde- get over it !

 

Blimey, you will be arguing about mobile phones next.

Edited August 27, 2007 by nidnoyham

[TheFiend 1,179]

They are just another 'plane, never to be as beautiful or as fast as the Concorde- get over it !

 

Now that was a beautiful plane

 

But if course the yanks will disagree saying it was a complete failure, funded by the good old European taxpayers.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Now that was a beautiful plane

 

But if course the yanks will disagree saying it was a complete failure, funded by the good old European taxpayers.

 

Don't forget their opposition to "noise pollution" .......... after Pan-Am, TWA, United and American Airlines had cancelled their orders post the seventies oil crisis.

[nidnoyham 30]

Ask yourself, will either of these aircraft get me to LOS quicker- cheaper- more comfortably ? If they can tick all three boxes, I might get a bit more exited about them.

[MrMango 661]

Now that was a beautiful plane

 

But if course the yanks will disagree saying it was a complete failure, funded by the good old European taxpayers.

It was a beautiful plane to ride in and look at. Be objective here, they spend billions of dollars designing it and sold maybe 10-15 of them.

 

How could it be anything BUT a failure????

[BigDUSA 71]

Now that was a beautiful plane

 

But if course the yanks will disagree saying it was a complete failure, funded by the good old European taxpayers.

 

I disagree it wasn't a complete failure. They did manage to get the plane off the ground and flew it for years. It just wasn't economically viable. Other then BA and Air France no other european airline bought any? Why? They couldn't make any money on it. BTW I agree the good ole taxpayer funded it and it was well worth the time and money.

 

Few years ago I was in Israel up near the Golan Heights and a IDF fighter jet went supersonic heading north. The sonic boom was loud at ground level.

[nidnoyham 30]

Yep, the money spent on Concorde, makes the Moon Mission seem an absolute bargain.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The Concorde image probably recouped more in overseas tourist revenue than it cost to build so the taxpayer was probably better off at the end of the day. A bit like the images of Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Statue of Liberty do for the Aussie/US economies.

 

One things for sure, you won't have many countries fighting over who gets a 747 for their museums.

 

I disagree it wasn't a complete failure. They did manage to get the plane off the ground and flew it for years. It just wasn't economically viable. Other then BA and Air France no other european airline bought any? Why? They couldn't make any money on it. BTW I agree the good ole taxpayer funded it and it was well worth the time and money.

 

Few years ago I was in Israel up near the Golan Heights and a IDF fighter jet went supersonic heading north. The sonic boom was loud at ground level.

 

I think we've been over this before but Concorde was an absolute cash-cow for British Airways.

 

 

Yep, the money spent on Concorde, makes the Moon Mission seem an absolute bargain.

 

Yep, especially when you consider that Concorde was built entirely from recycled washing and sewing machines except for the outer skin which was made from reconstituted anderson shelters.

[TheFiend 1,179]

And Concorde enabled business people to catch quick flights across the Atlantic.

[TheFiend 1,179]

It was a beautiful plane to ride in and look at. Be objective here, they spend billions of dollars designing it and sold maybe 10-15 of them.

 

There were 4 prototypes and 16 production Concordes built of which 14 flew commercially. And of the 20 built 18 survive, and interestingly 3 of the survivors are in the USA.