Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[CheshireTom 1,377]

No nonsense on my part. Five CEO gone in two years. Going going and soon to be gone are 10,000 employees. Factories to be sold or closed. Simply brilliant.

 

You'll have no problems identifying the 5 CEOs that you claim have gone then, will you?

 

As for factories being sold .... that allows the governments to subsidise the firms that buy the factories to undertake "research"" ......... Filton in UK will receive lots of government money for composite wing research which means that Boeing can't bleat about Airbus receiving subsidies. As you said, simply brilliant.

Edited July 31, 2008 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

You'll have no problems identifying the 5 CEOs that you claim have gone then, will you?

 

As for factories being sold .... that allows the governments to subsidise the firms that buy the factories to undertake "research"" ......... Filton in UK will receive lots of government money for composite wing research which means that Boeing can't bleat about Airbus receiving subsidies. As you said, simply brilliant.

 

No I'd have no problem identifying the 5 CEO's that are gone but I'm not going to do it. If you want to know the names either do the research yourself or email the AP reporter. I'm willing to accept her research as fact.

 

If you think giving lots of taxpayer money to a private company is "simply brilliant". OK by me as it doesn't come out of my wallet.

[BigDUSA 71]

Airbus, Boeing Production Slowed by Parts Shortage, WSJ Says

 

Aug. 8 -- Airbus SAS and Boeing Co, the world's two biggest aircraft manufacturers, are facing a slowing down of production because of a shortage of seats, toilets and galley fittings, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing officials from both companies.

 

The delays are down to small suppliers which have stretched themselves in their commitment to provide items such as customized cooking galleys with components such as rice cookers and expresso coffee-makers, the WSJ said.

[wacmedia 277]

Airbus, Boeing Production Slowed by Parts Shortage, WSJ Says

 

Aug. 8 -- Airbus SAS and Boeing Co, the world's two biggest aircraft manufacturers, are facing a slowing down of production because of a shortage of seats, toilets and galley fittings, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing officials from both companies.

 

Hi,

 

With the recession in aviation I dont think the delays are critical in either case.

[Samsonite 181]

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

[TheFiend 1,181]

Quantas is due to take delivery of it's first A380 on 19th September and is due to take delivery of the next 2 before the end of the year.

 

Emirates is also taking delivery of another 2 before the end of the year.

[BigDUSA 71]

NEW YORK — Boeing has announced the first cancellation of an order for its delayed 787 Dreamliner, signaling that airlines may be getting impatient for deliveries of the new, fuel efficient plane.

The U.S. aircraft maker, which updated its online order book Thursday, also lags rival Airbus in the race for orders this year, as the flow of plane sales appears to have leveled off after three boom years.

 

In a joint statement Thursday, Boeing and Azerbaijan Airlines said they had finalized an order for two single-aisle 737s and two twin-aisle, extended range 767s, worth about $450 million at list prices.

 

One of the 767s replaces one of the three 787s that Azerbaijan had ordered in February last year. The cancellation of one of the 787 orders is the first for Boeing's new plane, which has been delayed three times by problems with unfinished work from suppliers and shortages of some key parts.

 

The plane is now set for its first test flight in the fourth quarter and first delivery in the third quarter of 2009, about 15 months behind the original schedule.

 

Some airlines will now have to wait more than two years longer than originally expected for 787 deliveries, but Azerbaijan is the first to cancel an order.

 

"We look forward to operating the 787 and benefiting from its advanced performance features," said Jahangir Askerov, president of Azerbaijan Airlines, in a statement. "However, the 767-300ER is the economical and logical choice to fulfill our interim capacity targets."

 

Boeing's 787 was designed to supersede the 767, which was one of Boeing's best-sellers throughout the 1990s. The older plane has seen a resurgence of interest from airlines, especially in its freight version, as both Boeing and Airbus take longer than expected to introduce their new ranges of midsized planes.

 

The 767 has also been in the spotlight recently as it is the basic airframe Boeing will use in its bid to win a $35 billion aerial refueling contract from the U.S. Air Force. That competition is to be rerun after government auditors found errors in the award of the contract earlier this year to Northrop Grumman Corp and Airbus' parent EADS .

 

Including the latest Azerbaijan deal, Boeing said it has 551 net firm orders for commercial aircraft so far this year. Earlier Thursday, rival Airbus said it had 711 net orders as of the end of July.

 

Boeing won the sales race last year with an industry record 1,413 orders for 2007, capping three years of boom sales. Industry analysts expect orders to drop off slightly this year, as airlines scale back operations in the face of high fuel prices.

 

For the month of July, Boeing recorded only 70 new orders, down from 147 last July.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Will Azerbaijan Airlines be the only ones to cancel an order for the Nightmareliner? In light of the current global economic situation I will hazard a guess the answer will be no!

 

And with regards to the tanker contract there is a rumour that Boeing might change from the 767 to the 777 as the basis for it's tender on the 3rd attempt at winning the contract.

[eltib 54]

Will Azerbaijan Airlines be the only ones to cancel an order for the Nightmareliner? In light of the current global economic situation I will hazard a guess the answer will be no!

 

And with regards to the tanker contract there is a rumour that Boeing might change from the 767 to the 777 as the basis for it's tender on the 3rd attempt at winning the contract.

 

The answer to this is very obvious...

 

1, When it rains it pours.

 

2, Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

I'm suprised ANA hasn't cancelled any yet.

 

BTW, they will have a hard time comparing tanker statistics to the A330, if they change platforms from a 767 to a 777. They are both different animals. If they do, I'm sure Airbus will win again.

Edited August 9, 2008 by eltib

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The answer to this is very obvious...

 

1, When it rains it pours.

 

2, Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

I'm suprised ANA hasn't cancelled any yet.

 

BTW, they will have a hard time comparing tanker statistics to the A330, if they change platforms from a 767 to a 777. They are both different animals. If they do, I'm sure Airbus will win again.

 

The Air Force wants the first aircraft next year so I think Boeing would still be sharpening their pencils as far as the 777 is concerned. They're still struggling to put the 767 in the hands of the Italians.

[eltib 54]

Boeing may not bid on $35 billion tanker deal: report Mon Aug 11, 12:24 PM ET

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080811/ts_nm/...r8kdbg8S1hg.3QA

 

Boeing Co is "strongly considering" not bidding on the upcoming competition for a $35 billion U.S. Air Force refueling tanker contract, Aviation Week, the aerospace industry magazine, reported on Monday, without identifying its sources.

 

The No. 2 Pentagon contractor has not commented on the issue publicly, but some of its backers in Congress have argued that the revised terms of the competition, issued by the Pentagon last week, favor Northrop Grumman Corp and its European partner EADS.

 

Boeing officials are "strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal," according to the report on the magazine's website, citing "multiple sources familiar with Boeing's internal discussions."

 

Boeing declined comment on the report, saying that it had responded to the initial request for proposal and was set to meet Pentagon official on Tuesday to discuss it. Any decision on the competition before that would be "premature," said Boeing spokesman Dan Beck.

 

The company's shares were down 1.8 percent at $66.61 on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

The Pentagon last week reopened the tanker contract contest with a draft version of its requirements, and will spend the next week or so discussing the criteria with bidders. A final request for proposal is expected in mid-August, with a deadline of October 1 for submission of bids.

 

The prospect of having only one bidder for the contract would be embarrassing for the Air Force and the Pentagon, which have gone out of their way to demonstrate that the competition is open and fair.

 

The Northrop/EADS team won the contest in February, but government auditors subsequently found errors in the way the competition was run. Prior to the competition, the Northrop/EADS team also vacillated about entering the competition, raising questions about fairness.

 

Last week, Boeing backers bristled at the terms and timetable of the Pentagon's new tanker competition.

 

The new criteria "appear to favor a tanker larger than any real-world scenarios would require," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington state Democrat and Boeing backer last week, implying that it would favor the larger plane offered by Northrop/EADS.

 

Sen. Patty Murray, another Washington state Democrat, said the new documents raised some "red flags," and the timetable for new submissions was "simply unrealistic."

 

Boeing, which has traditionally built tankers for the U.S. Air Force, had a deal to supply a new fleet of tankers but the arrangement was scrapped in 2004 after it came to light that Boeing offered a job to a top Air Force procurement officer.

 

(Reporting by Bill Rigby; editing by Tim Dobbyn)

[Samsonite 181]

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/

[TheFiend 1,181]

And with regards to the tanker contract there is a rumour that Boeing might change from the 767 to the 777 as the basis for it's tender on the 3rd attempt at winning the contract.

 

It looks like the rumour was right

 

So after all the whinging by Boeing about how the KC-767 was the ideal product for the USAF they are now thinking about changing their candidate for the 3rd attempt at winning the contract.

[Samsonite 181]

It looks like the rumour was right

So after all the whinging by Boeing about how the KC-767 was the ideal product for the USAF they are now thinking about changing their candidate for the 3rd attempt at winning the contract.

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.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Scally,

 

Has the 767 ever won a contract in direct competition against the 330? Ever wondered why?

[BigDUSA 71]

Scally,

 

Has the 767 ever won a contract in direct competition against the 330? Ever wondered why?

 

Could it be EU "launch aid" that allows Airbus to sell at cost?

[eltib 54]

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.

 

Did you ever think the criminal behavior exhibited in 2003 is the REAL reason the USAF doesn't want the Boeing product? I'm sure Sen Jeffries would laugh at you Scally (If you wrote him to start a criminal investigation) considering EADS / Northrop will providing many jobs in your state.

 

 

Scally,

 

Has the 767 ever won a contract in direct competition against the 330? Ever wondered why?

 

The answer is just look at the airlines that have replaced 767s with A330s.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Could it be EU "launch aid" that allows Airbus to sell at cost?

 

More likely the fact that they can actually deliver the things ...........

 

Boeing faces penalty

Company late with delivery of refueling tankers for Italy

BLOOMBERG NEWS

Italy will penalize The Boeing Co. for being three years late in delivering the first of four aerial refueling tankers.

 

The company is negotiating with the Italian government over the penalty's size and composition, Cliff Hall, director of Boeing's international tanker programs, said Tuesday. Boeing paid a fine to Japan last year for being one year late on delivering the first of four tankers to that nation's air force.

 

Performance on prior contracts is a factor in the U.S. military's contest between Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corp. for a $35 billion aerial refueling tanker contract. The Pentagon hopes to award a contract by late December.

 

Boeing's record on the Japanese and Italian tanker programs is "totally relevant" to its bid for the U.S. program, Scott Hamilton, an aviation consultant with Seattle-based Leeham Co., said. "This goes directly to 'past performance.' You don't pay penalties for good performance."

 

Boeing's December 2002 contract with Italy promised the first tanker by November 2005. Delivery now is set for November, three years late, with the second slated for delivery in December, or 21 months late. Boeing expects the third and fourth planes to be delivered at least 16 months and 12 months late, respectively.

[Samsonite 181]

........considering EADS / Northrop will providing many jobs in your state.

 

My State?

 

The answer is just look at the airlines that have replaced 767s with A330s.

 

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.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Scalawag

[eltib 54]

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.

 

 

Sorry I thought you were from Alabama.....

 

 

Yeah but BOEING was using the 767/777 comparison against the A330/A340 in it's sales pitches. Another mistake Boeing made was making the 767-400 because ONLY 2 airlines wanted it. But that was McD management leadership again.

Edited August 20, 2008 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

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.

[eltib 54]

No nonsense on my part. Five CEO gone in two years. Going going and soon to be gone are 10,000 employees. Factories to be sold or closed. Simply brilliant.

 

Heh,,,

 

You forget to mention the 30000+ plus laid off from Boeing between 2001-2003, and the forced departure of Condit, and Stonecipher from Boeing... What's new?

 

What about Wichita Commercial being sold? How about all the plants Boeing has shut down.(Including mine) Your argument is pretty weak.

Edited August 22, 2008 by eltib

[TheFiend 1,181]

The Three Stooges seem to have missed this latest little hiccup in the story of the Nightmareliner

 

Ahead of a potential strike, Boeing 787 schedule tightens with assembly completion slip

 

With just over twenty-four hours to go before the contracts of 26,800 machinists expire, Boeing's beleaguered 787 is quickly running out of margin to achieve its first flight in the fourth quarter with a fresh slip in assembly completion.

 

According to several sources inside the 787 program and others familiar with the schedule, assembly completion of Dreamliner One is now tentatively targeted for early October, a slip of about five weeks.

 

Assembly completion was initially set for August 31, just four days prior to the expiration of the IAM's three-year contract.

 

The change in the internal schedule is separate from the looming spectre of a potential strike.

 

Boeing spokesperson Yvonne Leach reaffirmed that 787 is "on track for first flight for the fourth quarter of this year."

 

According to another source familiar with the schedule change, the remaining work centers largely on the installation of flight test instrumentation and cabin equipment.

 

The slip was necessitated by the production of long lead-time parts resulting from design changes, as well as small, but time-consuming, issues arising from systems integration.

 

When Boeing announced its recovery plan for the 787 program in April, the first flight of ZA001 was slated for late October. A five-week schedule slip would push first flight to early-to-mid December.

 

Yet anecdotally from suppliers, indications exist that first flight could slip to the early part of 2009, though these are currently unconfirmed.

 

787 Program Vice President and General Manager, Pat Shanahan, said in July at the Farnborough air show that he was "eating margin" built into the schedule to provide a buffer between first flight and the close of the year.

 

Shanahan also said at the time first flight was set for November.

 

A December first flight would still meet Boeing's projected fourth quarter target for ZA001. Though the change in the schedule underscores just how tight the 787 schedule currently is, even before any impact of a potential IAM strike.

 

Yet with the slip, the 787 program is not without progress. Dreamliner One recently had all its movable control surfaces reinstalled and landing gear swing tests were successfully initiated.

 

In addition, section 43, the Kawasaki-built forward barrel of the center fuselage, was declared shop complete.

 

Even with the remaining work left to complete assembly of Dreamliner One, aircraft is set to move out of the factory to a slant position in Building 40-24 later this month, once the fatigue airframe is moved to the test rig.

 

The vacancy created by ZA001 leaving Building 40-26 allows Dreamliners Two, Three and Four to advance on the line, making way for assembly of Dreamliner Five, the first GEnx powered 787. The first four 787s are powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines.

 

Personally I love this little one:-

 

The slip was necessitated by the production of long lead-time parts resulting from design changes, as well as small, but time-consuming, issues arising from systems integration.

 

If i remember rightly I predicted that commissioning of the control systems would not be straight forward and was bound to cause a few problems...... Whereas the Three Stooges claimed the Nightmareliner would be not have any problems with it's systems... As I am Instrumentation and Control Engineer I know systems integration causes problems, and especially with safety-critical systems such as on a prototype airplane.

 

Will the Nightmareliner fly this year? I think that is starting to look doubtful.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The Three Stooges seem to have missed this latest little hiccup in the story of the Nightmareliner

Personally I love this little one:-

If i remember rightly I predicted that commissioning of the control systems would not be straight forward and was bound to cause a few problems...... Whereas the Three Stooges claimed the Nightmareliner would be not have any problems with it's systems... As I am Instrumentation and Control Engineer I know systems integration causes problems, and especially with safety-critical systems such as on a prototype airplane.

 

Will the Nightmareliner fly this year? I think that is starting to look doubtful.

 

I'm sure I read that Boeing wouldn't particularly mind a strike becaue it would get the off the hook re some late delivery payments. Can't remember the nitty gritty but I'm sure Stooge #1 could do a cut and paste to fill us in.

[Samsonite 181]

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.