Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[MrMango 667]

When does Singapore Air intend on starting their first revenue flights?

 

A couple of weeks time ....... the 25th I think.

The real question should be - When are they going to get the next few ships? Lets hope that it will not be 2 more years..

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The real question should be - When are they going to get the next few ships? Lets hope that it will not be 2 more years..

 

The aircraft have long been complete. They will be delivered to SQ according to the airline's schedule. Remember mango ...... Google is your friend.

 

Remember to set your video recorder for Monday ........

Edited October 13, 2007 by CheshireTom

[eltib 54]

The aircraft have long been complete. They will be delivered to SQ according to the airline's schedule. Remember mango ...... Google is your friend.

 

Remember to set your video recorder for Monday ........

 

If he knows how to use one.

[Samsonite 181]

17/10/07

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

 

A400M delivery delayed by six months

 

By Barbara Cockburn

 

Airbus' military A400M airlifter is to delay deliveries by at least six months with a "risk of a further slippage of up to a half year", according to an EADS statement.

 

Deliveries were originally scheduled to start in October 2009. The delays will affect A400M deliveries to both European and other customer nations.

 

The statement said: "A400M deliveries are now expected to start six months later than initially planned with a risk of a further slippage of up to a half year."

 

EADS cited causes including "slow progress in engine development, which stands on the critical path to achieving first flight, schedule overruns in the systems development, and a flight test programme that differs significantly from that of commercial Airbus aircraft."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...six-months.html

[Samsonite 181]

Airbus A330/A340 mystery cracking forces emergency airworthiness directive extension

 

By Ian Goold

 

Airbus's inability to explain cracking in an undercarriage support beam of an A330 that could lead to a gear collapse has resulted an emergency airworthiness directive (EAD) requiring repetitive inspections on all A330/A340s indefinitely.

 

The crack was discovered last year in the main landing gear rib 6 forged support beam during routine lubrication of an A330 operated by an unidentified carrier for long-range flights. Rib 6 is a main structural member that carries all landing-gear loads and such a crack could lead to undercarriage collapse, says John Grother, vice-president customer services A330/A340.

 

Based on experience with a rib-cracking problem on the A320 family Airbus had initially tacked the A330 discovery with a fleet-inspection programme, while the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an EAD in December to mandate compliance with relevant service bulletins on all A330/A340s at least five years old (except those previously fitted, or originally manufactured, with high-interference bushes). This called for inspections of certain aircraft at prescribed flight-cycle and age thresholds.

 

However, subsequent metallurgical examination and analysis of the damaged rib revealed a different crack propagation to that on the A320. After several months' consideration, the manufacturer remains mystified because it has found no solid evidence of why the cracking occurred.

 

A new EAD supersedes the December alert that mandates compliance with new Airbus service bulletins and also introduces flight-hour thresholds. It has extended inspections to cover all aircraft indefinitely and makes clear that even complete replacement of rib 6 does not remove the necessity for continuing repetitive inspections.

 

If the event remains a one-off, Grother thinks checks will continue for at least two years, during which period most aircraft are expected to require inspection up to 12 times at typical flight-cycle rates.

 

The new flight-hour threshold has been introduced not because normal operational loads would contribute to crack propagation, but to recognise different aircraft operations. It also reduces as permitted maximum landing weight increases.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-directive.html

[eltib 54]

Airbus A330/A340 mystery cracking forces emergency airworthiness directive extension

 

By Ian Goold

 

Airbus's inability to explain cracking in an undercarriage support beam of an A330 that could lead to a gear collapse has resulted an emergency airworthiness directive (EAD) requiring repetitive inspections on all A330/A340s indefinitely.

 

The crack was discovered last year in the main landing gear rib 6 forged support beam during routine lubrication of an A330 operated by an unidentified carrier for long-range flights. Rib 6 is a main structural member that carries all landing-gear loads and such a crack could lead to undercarriage collapse, says John Grother, vice-president customer services A330/A340.

 

Based on experience with a rib-cracking problem on the A320 family Airbus had initially tacked the A330 discovery with a fleet-inspection programme, while the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an EAD in December to mandate compliance with relevant service bulletins on all A330/A340s at least five years old (except those previously fitted, or originally manufactured, with high-interference bushes). This called for inspections of certain aircraft at prescribed flight-cycle and age thresholds.

 

However, subsequent metallurgical examination and analysis of the damaged rib revealed a different crack propagation to that on the A320. After several months' consideration, the manufacturer remains mystified because it has found no solid evidence of why the cracking occurred.

 

A new EAD supersedes the December alert that mandates compliance with new Airbus service bulletins and also introduces flight-hour thresholds. It has extended inspections to cover all aircraft indefinitely and makes clear that even complete replacement of rib 6 does not remove the necessity for continuing repetitive inspections.

 

If the event remains a one-off, Grother thinks checks will continue for at least two years, during which period most aircraft are expected to require inspection up to 12 times at typical flight-cycle rates.

 

The new flight-hour threshold has been introduced not because normal operational loads would contribute to crack propagation, but to recognise different aircraft operations. It also reduces as permitted maximum landing weight increases.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-directive.html

 

So what does this have to do with the Boeing & Airbus running behind schedule? To me it's a good thing they found this potential mishap before it did cause a loss of life.

Edited October 18, 2007 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

So what does this have to do with the Boeing & Airbus running behind schedule? To me it's a good thing they found this potential mishap before it did cause a loss of life.

Typical. You and a few others take every opportunity to take a crack (pun intended) at Boeing, but say anything about one of the largest and worst ran social welfare programs (Airbus) in business history and you start make excuses.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Scalawag

[eltib 54]

Typical. You and a few others take every opportunity to take a crack (pun intended) at Boeing, but say anything about one of the largest and worst ran social welfare programs (Airbus) in business history and you start make excuses.

 

 

You posted one of the A400 being behind schedule. The other one is about a problem with the 330 340 landing gear. The former is appropriate for the topic, while the latter belongs somewhere else. Seems like your trying to kick Airbus by finding anything negative on the net.

Edited October 18, 2007 by eltib

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Scally,

 

Hub posted about the delay with the A400 some time ago together with the perceived financial implications of that delay. Airbus has confirmed the delay. It's not something that's entirely unexpected hence EADS shares actually went up on the news. The engine provider (Europrop) will take most of the financial hit.

 

What it does demonstrate though is that both Boeing (Dreamlifter, 787, and 767 tanker) and Airbus (A380 and A400) struggle to launch a new aircraft ....... the reasons are irrelevant.

 

What's all the nonsense about "social welfare problems"? Sounds like you have issues that you are just going to have to deal with.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Scalywally seems to devote his life to slagging off Airbus at any opportunity he can find and must spend most of his life searching the net looking for articles that give Airbus bad press.

 

I seem to remember Boeing having to carry out mods to all 737s after two rudder related accidents.

Edited October 18, 2007 by TheFiend

[BigDUSA 71]

[quote name='CheshireTom' date='Oct 17 2007, 11:48 PM' post='508937

What's all the nonsense about "social welfare problems"? Sounds like you have issues that you are just going to have to deal with.

 

Once again the gift that keeps on giving: EU taxpayer Airbus launch aid

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Once again the gift that keeps on giving: EU taxpayer Airbus launch aid

 

Yaaaaawn. Óriginality is obviously not your strong point.

[wacmedia 277]

Scalywally seems to devote his life to slagging off Airbus at any opportunity he can find and must spend most of his life searching the net looking for articles that give Airbus bad press.

 

I seem to remember Boeing having to carry out mods to all 737s after two rudder related accidents.

 

Hi,

 

He's the type of guy who stores his tomatoes in the fridge.

[eltib 54]

Scally,

What's all the nonsense about "social welfare problems"? Sounds like you have issues that you are just going to have to deal with.

 

Sounds like he needs to take a vacation.

 

 

Crusing down the Chao Phraya? Or is it the mighty Mississippi?

Edited October 18, 2007 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

Children. Children.

Amazing just how sophomoric some of you are.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Scalawag

[Samsonite 181]

What it does demonstrate though is that both Boeing (Dreamlifter, 787, and 767 tanker) and Airbus (A380 and A400) struggle to launch a new aircraft ....... the reasons are irrelevant.

That's pretty rich coming from you, the person who has taken every opportunity to harp on an on about the KC-767 program.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Children. Children.

Amazing just how sophomoric some of you are.

 

Unlike you of course.....

 

All hail Scalywally...... the kid who always a harps on about "Boeings better than Airbus"

[Samsonite 181]

Unlike you of course.....

 

All hail Scalywally...... the kid who always a harps on about "Boeings better than Airbus"

Wrong. I never said they made a "better" product, but they are stand-alone

independent business, not a government founded and supported social welfare program like Airbus.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

That's pretty rich coming from you, the person who has taken every opportunity to harp on an on about the KC-767 program.

 

Well, since BigD changed the name of the thread to what it is now the 767 tanker delay is 100% on-topic, isn't it?

 

Anyway, since I know you are so fond of cut and paste, here'sa little ditty for you ........ not from one of those Euro social rags either ....... the emphasis is mine

 

Boeing bends the plane truth

 

Whether it's self-delusion or something worse, Wall Street seems more determined than ever to stretch the truth. Two examples: Boeing's predictions for its new airliner and big banks' self-serving bailout schemes.

 

In the stock market, the difference between hype, self-delusion and outright lying is always paper thin. At times like these, however, it is pretty much nonexistent, as the number of executives and government officials who have attempted to fool the public and shareholders to mask terrible decisions made for the most craven purposes appears to be growing faster than the national debt.

 

A bull market in bull? Yeah, that's about it. Let's take a quick look at three of the worst offenders: Boeing, the big banks and the U.S. Treasury.

 

Just plane wrong

 

For Exhibit A in the industry that rules the skies, we have the announcement by Boeing (BA, news, msgs) honcho Jim McNerney last week that the world's largest commercial jet manufacturer faced a delay of at least six months in the delivery of its first 787 Dreamliner to customers.

 

Doing his best to look nonchalant but not really succeeding, considering the millions of dollars worth of late fees he'll likely have to rebate to customers, McNerney told reporters, "We remain confident in the design of the 787, and in the fundamental innovation and technologies that underpin it."

 

Hmm, that so? For the past two years, McNerney has steadfastly told stakeholders that the plane was on time and dismissed every suggestion of the potential for delays with total scorn.

 

When I wrote a column last year concluding that the plane would almost certainly not hit its deadlines, "Boeing shares could fall from the sky," the company's PR attack machine told me I was way off base. All I had observed was that Boeing in the past had rarely built a new aircraft on time when the planes were constructed in the Greater Seattle area. But somehow it had convinced investors that this time -- when much of the plane is being built overseas from hard-to-handle materials, organized with a glitchy new software system and lashed together with hard-to-get fasteners -- Boeing would not only keep production on schedule but actually build planes at a record clip.

 

Well, if you believed Boeing then, you'll really love it now -- the company contends that the schedule miss won't have any effect on its earnings forecast for the next year. This may be partially true because of all the shenanigans that defense contractors can play with program accounting: moving revenue from one pocket to another and reordering payment milestones, for example. But the fact is, we probably have not seen the end of schedule delays or earnings shortfalls.

 

Boeing's new calendar provides just eight months between the plane's first flight and its delivery, which is 20% shorter than usual. This super-aggressive schedule assumes that the new plane will pass its federal flight certification with flying colors and require no modifications. The problem: If regulators demand changes after they've seen the new bird fly, all 40 planes that then will be near completion also will have to be changed.

 

Is a clear-cut path to certification likely for the most complicated piece of machinery ever built for mass manufacturing? Don't think so.

 

Boeing has said it plans to deliver 109 Dreamliners through the end of 2009. If it gets even 100 out the door by then, it will be a miracle. All told, figure Boeing earnings will come in well below the 2009 consensus, now around $7.55. My guess is that it'll be around $7. If you put a 14X multiple on that, you get a target price of $98 for the next year, which is about the current price. That's not as attractive a picture as I envisioned when I lost my head for a few days and bought into their con in a column back in May.

 

 

 

 

And Scally, this was written almost 18 months ago ............ a pretty accurate prediction of what was likely to be the outcome of Boeings promises of we deliver on time, to spec and within the budget

 

Boeing shares could fall from the sky

 

Optimistic investors are treating orders like revenues. Given the complexities of producing the new Dreamliner, Boeing may be in for a hard landing.

 

Investors admired the ambition, complexity, profitability and market dominance of industry leaders Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Intel (INTC, news, msgs) all the way up to the point when their earnings forecasts were proven wildly over-optimistic and blew up.

 

Could the same now happen at Boeing (BA, news, msgs)?

 

The parallels are eerie, if not at all perfect. Boeing -- the third-best gainer in the Dow Jones industrials ($INDU) over the past year -- is priced for perfection, much as the techs and banks were in 2000. And perfection, as we know all too well by now, is rarely attained.

 

Investors in the European consortium behind Airbus found that out all too well last month when executives had to backtrack from laughable assurances that production of their new super-sized A380 commercial aircraft was on track. The bad news sent the consortium's shares down 25% in a week.

 

Boeing investors celebrated the Europeans' bad news, figuring it meant new business from frustrated Airbus customers. But really, they should have taken it as a warning, for it is very hard to believe that the U.S. aircraft maker will manage to escape a similar fate with the construction of its own new plane, the 787 "Dreamliner."

 

Sky-high optimism

 

Boeing rarely built a new aircraft on time when the planes were built start to finish in the greater Seattle area. But somehow it has managed to persuade investors that this time -- when much of the plane is being built overseas from hard-to-get materials and organized with a glitchy new software system -- Boeing can not only keep production on schedule but actually build planes at a record clip.

 

A couple of analysts have been sounding the alarm, but have not made much of a dent yet with Boeing bulls. One bearish analyst, David E. Strauss at Swiss-based brokerage UBS, has told clients that the Dreamliner is even more likely to blow deadline than the Airbus A380. "Risk to the 787 production schedule will continue to increase from here as the program heads toward first flight in late summer 2007," he wrote.

[BigDUSA 71]

Yaaaaawn. Óriginality is obviously not your strong point.

 

 

The truth about ongoing EU launch aid is something you can't get around.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Wrong. I never said they made a "better" product, but they are stand-alone

independent business, not a government founded and supported social welfare program like Airbus.

 

Now you are starting to sound as boring as BigD!!!!

 

perhaps the pair of you could go for a river cruise in this

 

 

Just the perfect size for the two of you.

 

And I know - not very original........ but it's funny

Edited October 18, 2007 by TheFiend

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The truth about ongoing EU launch aid is something you can't get around.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that ongoing launch aid only exists in your fantasies, do you think the EU taxpayer is in the least bit concerned what some Walter Mitty in Philidelphia thinks? The answer, of course, is that they, quite rightly, couldn't care less.

 

Lets get back on topic ....... how's the home made ship coming along?

 

Now you are starting to sound as boring as BigD!!!!

 

perhaps the pair of you could go for a river cruise in this

 

 

Just the perfect size for the two of you.

 

And I know - not very original........ but it's funny

 

Is that BigD's home made ship that he's going to pilot to Laem Chabang to start his new life ........

[eltib 54]

Wrong. I never said they made a "better" product, but they are stand-alone

independent business, not a government founded and supported social welfare program like Airbus.

 

You seem to forget one thing though. I worked almost 23 years in Boeing's defense sector. I've seen so much waste there, that some of the software they threw into the waste bins is on this machine right now. Not to mention much other waste. The defense contracts subsidized the commercial sector. Or didn't you read that previous email on how we attracted more of the overhead since the commercial sector dropped between 2001-2004?

 

And just to remind you on your "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" statement.

 

Now you are starting to sound as boring as BigD!!!!

 

perhaps the pair of you could go for a river cruise in this

 

 

Just the perfect size for the two of you.

 

And I know - not very original........ but it's funny

 

Maybe they will take Tom Bergman with them.

Edited October 18, 2007 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

Guest columnist

EU launch aid to Airbus clearly violates WTO rules

 

By Ted Austell

 

Special to The Times

 

"Everyone does it, so let's be gentlemen and settle our dispute out of court." That's the gist of the arguments Airbus makes regarding the European Union-U.S. dispute over aerospace subsidies. Trouble is, everyone does not do it, if by "it" we mean the use of government "launch aid" to subsidize a private company in a manner that's inconsistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization.

 

European governments provide billions of dollars to Airbus each time it develops a new airplane. Every dollar of government launch aid that Airbus receives is a dollar less it needs to borrow from commercial lenders, or take from profits earned on sales of existing products — a fact that enabled Airbus to lower its prices and grab significant market share away from Boeing.

 

What's more, European government launch aid carries repayment terms other borrowers can only dream of. There is no repayment schedule of the kind imposed by commercial lenders. Repayment is pegged to airplane deliveries, which means Airbus has free use of the launch-aid money for considerable periods of time. Airbus begins repayment only when certain Airbus-defined delivery thresholds are met, and if those thresholds are never achieved, there is no obligation to repay the balance of the loan.

 

Government launch aid gives Airbus a significant competitive advantage, and it clearly is illegal under WTO rules.

 

Now, let's look at the U.S. practices the EU and Airbus allege to be "indirect" government subsidies to Boeing: government contracts, research grants and tax support.

 

Government contracts, including research contracts, are not illegal under WTO subsidy rules as long as the government is getting products or services in return for the money it spends. That has been the case with every contract Boeing has had with the U.S. government. In return for the payments received, Boeing has provided fighter jets, rockets, satellites, maintenance, training and other products and services to its government customers.

 

In no case has Boeing asked for, or received, government money to develop its commercial-airplane products. Boeing has fully funded with its own money all of the research and development costs associated with those products. As for tax support, the decision a few years ago by the state of Washington to lower the taxes it levies on aerospace companies to bring them more in line with the taxes levied on other industries is not an illegal subsidy by any WTO definition.

 

A handful of Airbus lobbyists, consultants and academics have raised another issue that is not a part of the EU case against the United States but which I will address here — and that is the issue of alleged Japanese subsidies to Boeing for the 787. Boeing's relationships with its Japanese suppliers are fully commercial in nature. Boeing has not received, and will not receive, any money from the government of Japan.

 

What's curious about the EU and Airbus arguments regarding these so-called "indirect" subsidies to Boeing is that all of the supports they talk about are supports Airbus itself receives. Airbus and its parent company EADS are large government contractors — and not just in Europe, but in the United States as well. Airbus and EADS also are big recipients of government R&D grants, for which European governments receive nothing in return.

 

Airbus and EADS take advantage of tax incentives in places like Alabama, Florida and anyplace else they are offered; and they use many of the same suppliers as Boeing in Japan, in Europe, in the United States and elsewhere. Maybe that is why the EU chose not to include the allegations against Japan in its case against the United States. Perhaps that also is why European officials have been reluctant to talk about new rules to govern such things as government R&D practices (unless, of course, they apply solely to the United States and not to Europe).

 

It is such unsubstantiated allegations and misleading statements about "indirect" government support that have made it so difficult to resolve the subsidy issue outside of the litigation both sides have brought to the WTO. The U.S. government and Boeing remain prepared to negotiate a settlement of this dispute. However, Airbus and its government supporters have shown great reluctance to give up the launch aid that has made Airbus so successful, despite the fact that the practice is clearly illegal.

 

One final point in closing: European launch aid sets a very bad example for other nations like China and Russia that have ambitions to be major players in the commercial-aerospace sector. Those countries are watching closely to see how this dispute plays out. It is in the long-term interests of both the United States and Europe to recognize the importance of, and fully comply with, WTO rules.

Ted Austell is vice president of international trade for Boeing. He is based in Washington, D.C.

 

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...8_boeing18.html

 

*********

BTW, Cheshire, who were you quoting. Do you have a link to the source to go with your cut and paste?

[eltib 54]

Guest columnist

EU launch aid to Airbus clearly violates WTO rules

 

By Ted Austell

 

Special to The Times

 

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...8_boeing18.html

 

Who cares?