Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[TheFiend 1,181]

I like how they use "“With the new challenges caused by the Rolls-Royce engine issue, we’re now comfortable to deliver 19 planes this year,” Schaffrath said by phone". Yeah the mother fuckers are prone to explode.

 

Yes, one engine exploded - but nobody died......... Unlike the exploding P&W engines which have resulted in over 50 deaths.

 

Airbus had sought to double last year’s delivery tally of 10 superjumbos. Parent company European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. said last month that 22 had been built and were largely ready to go to customers this year. However, one for Singapore Airlines Ltd. was held up by problems with seating supplied by Koito Industries, and another to an undisclosed airline was awaiting final clearances for financing, it said.

 

Two deliveries are being held up by external factors........ Airbus would have achieved the 20 deliveries if it wasn't for external factors.

[BigDUSA 71]

Yes, one engine exploded - but nobody died......... Unlike the exploding P&W engines which have resulted in over 50 deaths.

 

 

 

Two deliveries are being held up by external factors........ Airbus would have achieved the 20 deliveries if it wasn't for external factors.

 

How many thousands of P&W engines are in service? Compared to the very few Rolls Royce engines currently in service with the A380? The passengers and crew on the Qantas A380 were damn lucky the crew was very well trained by Qantas and the plane was able to limp back to S'pore.

[MrMango 667]

Back to Aircraft for a mo'

 

Am I the only one to be perplexed about the demise of two of the most innovative aircraft in our time that are no longer flying ?

 

Forty years ago, we had an commercial aircraft that crossed the Atlantic in 3-1/2 hours- now it takes over 6 !

 

We also had a military aircraft that could land and take off on a tennis court, that is to be replaced by one that can't !

 

It is like mobile phones going back to being the size of a briefcase, or PC's of 1GB memory.

 

Strange thing is, both were built in the U.K and Europe. Where are Boeing when you need them to keep up the advancement in aviation ?

 

Could it be the lack of interest of these aircraft in America, due to the U.S's N.I.H ( not invented here ) policy, that caused their demise ?

You missed one thing in your analogy - Boeing looked at doing a SST, but deceided it would be unprofitable, which it was! As I remember,they built something like 15 of them!

 

You are touting this ship as a success? Unbelievable!

 

 

Makes you fink, don't it ?

Makes me think that we have some board members here that do not have a clue on how free enterprise works.

[TheFiend 1,181]

How many thousands of P&W engines are in service? Compared to the very few Rolls Royce engines currently in service with the A380? The passengers and crew on the Qantas A380 were damn lucky the crew was very well trained by Qantas and the plane was able to limp back to S'pore.

 

Nobody died as a result of the catastrophic failure of The RR Trent.... get over it!!!

[BigDUSA 71]

Nobody died as a result of the catastrophic failure of The RR Trent.... get over it!!!

 

They came damn close.

[Samsonite 181]

They came damn close.

From all reports it would appear that if there hadn't been two extra pilots in the cockpit when it

happened, for a total of 5, they wouldn't have survived. Airbust builds flying computers

and the computer has the last word in their fly-by-wire system.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

Jeez ... another xenophobic idiot.

Defending the frogs? Mon Dieu!

You better take a Long look in the mirror before you call anyone other than yourself an idiot.

[TheFiend 1,181]

So far the Airbus A380 is a sales loser.

 

Is it?

 

Comparing the 1st 9 years order books for the A380 with those of the 747.... the A380 gained 234 orders against 281 for the 747....

 

Would you classify the 747 as a sales loser on that performance?

[TheFiend 1,181]

They came damn close.

 

No passengers were hurt. The plane was still able to fly, and land.

[Samsonite 181]

You missed one thing in your analogy - Boeing looked at doing a SST, but deceided it would be unprofitable, which it was! As I remember,they built something like 15 of them!

 

You are touting this ship as a success? Unbelievable!

 

Makes me think that we have some board members here that do not have a clue on how free enterprise works.

 

Not sure about the number they built, but you are correct.

 

In more recent times Boeing shopped what they called the "Sonic Cruiser" to the airlines. It was designed to fly faster, but not use any more fuel than existing aircraft. The airlines didn't want it and said they would prefer a plane that would lower their operating costs. Boeing took what they learned from the Sonic Cruiser and built what we now know as the 787, the best selling new airliner in history (regardless of cancellations).

[Samsonite 181]

Is it?

 

Comparing the 1st 9 years order books for the A380 with those of the 747.... the A380 gained 234 orders against 281 for the 747....

 

Would you classify the 747 as a sales loser on that performance?

You can't really compare the two on that basis.

The a380 was introduced at a completely different time in the history of aviation. Had both the 747 and the 380 been introduced in 1970 you would have a valid comparison. Even if the the a380 had been first flown in 1980 you could made your argument, but by the year 2000, it was too late. Aircraft that better fit the needs of the majority of airlines had been flying for years and there was no longer the market for two VLA.

The Boeing 747 was the right airplane at the right time. The a380 was 37 years too late getting into the hands of the airlines.

[TheFiend 1,181]

You can't really compare the two on that basis.

The a380 was introduced at a completely different time in the history of aviation. Had both the 747 and the 380 been introduced in 1970 you would have a valid comparison. Even if the the a380 had been first flown in 1980 you could made your argument, but by the year 2000, it was too late. Aircraft that better fit the needs of the majority of airlines had been flying for years and there was no longer the market for two VLA.

The Boeing 747 was the right airplane at the right time. The a380 was 37 years too late getting into the hands of the airlines.

 

Yes, you can compare the 2 aircraft, despite the time difference.

 

And if there isn't a market for 2 VLA then why have Boeing developed the 748?

 

There is a market for the A380, orders have proved it. For the airlines it allows them to increase the number of bums on seats without having to use extra aircraft.

[TheFiend 1,181]

You missed one thing in your analogy - Boeing looked at doing a SST, but deceided it would be unprofitable, which it was! As I remember,they built something like 15 of them!

 

Not sure about the number they built, but you are correct.

 

The Boeing 2707 SST project was cancelled before 2 prototypes were completed, after the government withdrew the funding...

 

The cancellation of the project had nothing to do with it being unprofitable.

[BigDUSA 71]

The Boeing 2707 SST project was cancelled before 2 prototypes were completed, after the government withdrew the funding...

 

The cancellation of the project had nothing to do with it being unprofitable.

 

If the SST market was going to be profitable. Boeing would have funded the project. Since it wasn't. Boeing didn't. Smart move on their part.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

If the SST market was going to be profitable. Boeing would have funded the project. Since it wasn't. Boeing didn't. Smart move on their part.

 

The government withdrew the funding. Nothing to do with smart moves at Boeing.

[TheFiend 1,181]

If the SST market was going to be profitable. Boeing would have funded the project. Since it wasn't. Boeing didn't. Smart move on their part.

 

The 2707 had 115 orders from 25 airlines, compared to 74 from 16 for the Concorde when the US government withdrew the funding.

 

Who is to say that it wouldn't have been profitable if the funding hadn't been withdrawn?

[nidnoyham 30]

. BTW the US Marines fly the US version of the Harrier.

 

 

When I said WE. I was using the Royal 'WE', as in Great Britain. Designed here, built here and made obsolete here.

 

In 2011, our commercial aircraft, will fly at the same speed they have flown for decades and future military ones, will need a runway to operate.

 

One step forward two steps back.

 

To think if it wasn't for our idea of a movable tail trim, the Americans would never of broken the sound barrier. We got well stitched up on that deal. " You share your technology with us and we'll share ours with you " Trouble is ours worked. They used it and Hollywood made another film !

[ozboy 31]

Not sure about the number they built, but you are correct.

 

In more recent times Boeing shopped what they called the "Sonic Cruiser" to the airlines. It was designed to fly faster, but not use any more fuel than existing aircraft. The airlines didn't want it and said they would prefer a plane that would lower their operating costs. Boeing took what they learned from the Sonic Cruiser and built what we now know as the 787, the best selling new airliner in history (regardless of cancellations).

 

 

Surely you mean ORDERED no order can be considered sold until it has been delivered and paid for.

[Samsonite 181]

Surely you mean ORDERED no order can be considered sold until it has been delivered and paid for.

Firm orders, signed and deposits paid, but, as you say, not delivered.

However, unlike airbust who beats the drum every time someone expresses an "interest" in one of their aircraft, Boeing doesn't count the orders until the contracts (not MOUs or MOIs) are signed and often they won't even announce a new order, but leave that up to the buyer.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

Looks like Thai is going to be keeping their Boeing 747s for many years to come:

 

 

"DATE:17/12/10

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news

Thai details fleet refurbishment plan

By Ghim-Lay Yeo

 

Thai Airways International plans to spend 2.3 billion baht ($76.3 million) to retrofit six Boeing 747s with new seats and in-flight entertainment systems, as part of a bigger project to refurbish its fleet.

 

It will carry out the retrofitting of the six 747s from 2012 to 2013. The aircraft, which is operated on intercontinental routes, will be fitted with new seats in all classes and a new in-flight entertainment system with personal screens.

 

The new first class and business class cabins on the 747s will feature lie-flat seats, while the new economy class seats will be fitted with personal screens.

 

"Passengers in all classes will enjoy the in-flight connectivity functions to access voicemail, short messages and multi-media messages, and the Internet," says the Star Alliance airline.

 

B/E Aerospace will supply the first class and economy class seats on the 747s, while EADS Sogerma Services will provide the business class seats. Panasonic Avionics will supply the in-flight entertainment system and in-seat power supply system.

 

Thai will also retrofit another six 747s from 2011 to 2012 with new seats and personal in-flight entertainment system screens in economy class. During the same period, it will add personal screens to economy class in eight Boeing 777-200s.

 

From 2012 to 2017, the carrier will progressively carry out improvements to cabin interiors and in-flight products on six A340-600s, four A340-500s and six 777-200ERs.

 

The airline will have its new product offering on new aircraft to be delivered from 2011. It also aims to roll out a greater variety of in-flight entertainment offerings from January 2011.

 

"These projects will create value for customers and increase customer satisfaction as well as enhance [our] corporate image and competitiveness," says the carrier."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...hment-plan.html

Edited December 17, 2010 by Samsonite

[MrMango 667]

The 2707 had 115 orders from 25 airlines, compared to 74 from 16 for the Concorde when the US government withdrew the funding.

 

Who is to say that it wouldn't have been profitable if the funding hadn't been withdrawn?

This drives me Crazy!!!

 

They are bookings, not sales!!!

 

When you get a firm order, it is a booking.

 

When you ship something, it is a sale.

 

Got it???

[TheFiend 1,181]

This drives me Crazy!!!

 

They are bookings, not sales!!!

 

When you get a firm order, it is a booking.

 

When you ship something, it is a sale.

 

Got it???

 

Been drinking Mr Magoo? Can't you understand simple English?

 

Boeing had orders for the aircraft........ but closed down the project when the US government pulled the funding......

 

At no point have I claimed they actually sold any.... they couldn't since they didn't even complete building the prototypes!

 

To tell the truth I think it is a pity the 2707 project never came to fruition.

[TheFiend 1,181]

I like how they use "“With the new challenges caused by the Rolls-Royce engine issue, we’re now comfortable to deliver 19 planes this year,” Schaffrath said by phone".

 

Two deliveries are being held up by external factors........ Airbus would have achieved the 20 deliveries if it wasn't for external factors.

 

Airbus would have made the 20, no ploplem.... Lufthansa's 5th is sitting waiting for delivery but Lufthansa won't take it until January as the finance hasn't yet been sorted.

 

The 19th delivery should be taking place on the 21st.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Ooops ... again.

 

From the Seattle Times ...

 

Dreamliner's woes pile up

 

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

 

As Boeing prepares to announce yet another delay for the 787 Dreamliner — at least three months, possibly six or more — the crucial jet program is in even worse shape than it appears.

The problems go well beyond the latest setback, an in-flight electrical fire last month that has grounded the test planes.

 

A year after the airplane's first flight, the cascade of systems failures caused by that fire, as well as two major problems since summer with the 787's Rolls-Royce engine, have raised red flags with aviation regulators.

 

A top Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official 10 days ago warned Boeing that without further proof of the plane's reliability, it won't be certified to fly the long intercontinental routes that airlines expect it to serve.

 

Meanwhile, on the production side, one veteran employee on the 787 said he's witnessing "the perfect storm of manufacturing hell."

 

The global supply chain is at a standstill, and outside the Everett factory the rows of partly finished jets will take many months to complete.

 

To deliver the 20 Dreamliners built since the six flight-test planes, mechanics will have to complete more than 100,000 tasks.

 

Among the 787's lesser ongoing problems is "rain in the plane," the term used for heavy condensation dripping inside the jet's composite plastic fuselage. Yet that issue is piddling compared with the major flaws that have brought a wave of successive delays.

 

"The purpose of flight tests is to find out what you did wrong," said a senior engineer who expects the 787 will ultimately prove successful. "But the amount of stuff we are finding is horrible. We shouldn't be dealing with this many issues this late in the program."

 

With the Dreamliner nearly three years overdue — and a postponement of the mid-February target for first delivery expected to be announced by Christmas — analysts estimate Boeing's cost overruns at a staggering $12 billion or more.

 

The head of the 787 program, Scott Fancher, conceded in an interview this past week that he and his team have "a tough job in front of us."

 

"There's no doubt we've had a lot of challenges," Fancher said. "The development of a new airplane is hard, especially one with as much innovation as this."

 

Costs soaring

 

More than a dozen people who work on the Dreamliner or have some knowledge of the program's state were interviewed for this story. All were granted anonymity because Boeing doesn't permit employees to speak publicly about its internal problems.

 

Boeing has bet its future on the 787, which made its maiden flight one year ago. The company aimed to reduce the cost and risk by outsourcing an unprecedented share of manufacturing and design work to partners around the globe.

 

It's the first new Boeing jet in more than 15 years, and the first airliner built largely from light, tough carbon-fiber-reinforced composite plastic. And it's been a marketing blockbuster: Despite a total of 120 cancellations, Boeing still has 846 orders.

 

Yet the 787 has run into more trouble than any previous Boeing jet.

 

The company's original internal target for its own development costs was $5 billion. But with yet another delay, several Wall Street analysts estimate that fixing the litany of manufacturing problems, plus paying penalties to suppliers and airlines, has piled on an additional $12 billion to $18 billion.

 

The 20 built but incomplete Dreamliners sitting in Everett are emblematic of all that has gone wrong.

 

They are so far from done that the total number of unfinished jobs exceeds 105,000.

 

Counting further rework planned after some of the jets are flown to San Antonio, Texas, for refurbishment before delivery, the tally of incomplete jobs is more than 140,000.

 

"Some jobs take a day, some take weeks," said a worker dealing with the backlog.

 

Boeing is reworking six partly finished jets at a time, two of them in an empty bay inside the factory, two in a hangar at the south end of Paine Field, and two more on the flight line. Mechanics can complete only about 500 jobs a month out on the field, and perhaps 1,000 jobs a month on those inside the factory, the person said.

 

These jets have no seats or sidewalls, and many interior systems are missing or incomplete. Passenger doors are missing. Mechanics installed temporary air-conditioning units after those fitted initially kept failing.

 

Horizontal tails poorly built by Alenia in Italy are still being reworked. With the workmanship on the tails varying from one plane to the next, mechanics have to painstakingly customize the fixes plane by plane.

 

(That headache at least produced one piece of good 787 news for this region. Alenia will still build 787 tails, but as Boeing ramps up beyond seven planes a month, it plans to build the additional tails in the Puget Sound area, possibly at its parts-manufacturing plant in Auburn, according to employees.)

 

Despite the attention focused on achieving the first delivery, the manufacturing quagmire suggests that Boeing will be slow to deliver the next few dozen planes.

 

"Hopping around"

 

With its parked Dreamliners many months from completion, Fancher said Boeing is likely to skip over earlier planes that need more work and move up the delivery of some later-built, more completed jets.

 

"You may see us hopping around a bit," he said, adding that it's a matter of balancing the most efficient way to finish the work with the customers' need to get a specific jet by a specific date.

 

The worker dealing with the backlog puts it differently: "They've dug a hole so deep, they have no choice but to go around it and leave the hole there."

 

On Boeing's 747, 767 and 737NG programs, parts shortages and late redesigns on early planes also stacked up dozens of incomplete jets on the flight line. But the company worked through those stacks without skipping over a significant number of deliveries.

 

Meanwhile, the flight tests have brought new design problems to light.

 

After runway tests in Roswell, N.M., in September, four Rolls-Royce engines had to be swapped out from the flight-test airplanes. According to a person familiar with the problem, mechanics discovered cracking of small blades called airfoils in one of the engine's compressors.

 

GE and Rolls both provide 787 engines, but the Rolls engine will power most of the early Dreamliners.

 

A separate and more serious incident occurred a month earlier, when a Rolls engine blew up on a ground test stand in England, sending metal pieces shooting out of the engine casing.

 

Another person with knowledge of that event said an investigation afterward revealed that one of the engine shafts can, under certain conditions, turn too fast. That may not have caused the blowup, but it is out of compliance with FAA regulations.

 

Rolls is testing hardware and software changes to solve the problem, though it hasn't won approval from the regulatory agencies.

 

Company spokesman Josh Rosenstock said Rolls is convinced the engine will pass muster with the FAA in time for Boeing's delivery schedule.

 

However, the engine modifications, plus an electrical system redesign needed as a result of the in-flight fire last month, will add to the glut of out-of-sequence work in the jets already built.

 

FAA issues

 

Worse, the engine and electrical issues have also raised crucial questions late in the program about the plane's reliability, potentially affecting regulators' certification of the airplane.

 

Earlier this month, John Hickey, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for aviation safety, visited Seattle and warned 787 executives that in the current state of the program, the jet cannot be certified for long-distance transocean and transpolar flights, according to a person familiar with the details.

Boeing designed and marketed the 787 as an ultra-long-range jet, and its customers are counting on that capability from the moment the plane enters service.

 

But the 787 wouldn't be allowed to fly more than 60 minutes from the nearest airport without the certification known as ETOPS, for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. That would drastically curtail the use of the jet for many airlines, including launch customer All Nippon Airways of Japan.

 

Hickey, a former Boeing engineer, put Boeing on notice that to get an early ETOPS rating the company will have to do more to demonstrate the plane's reliability, including specifically the reliability of the engine and electrical systems.

 

Dreamliner chief Fancher confirmed the recent meeting with the FAA over ETOPS and acknowledged that engine and electrical system reliability were discussed. But he said that such meetings about the FAA's certification requirements are "typical," and that Boeing will "fully address their concerns."

 

Also drawing separate FAA scrutiny is repeated poor-quality workmanship in the 787 fuel tank, including issues with fasteners, said the person familiar with the FAA visit.

 

That problem reaches back into the 787 supply pipeline, which continues to stutter.

 

Suppliers go slow

 

In November, for the fourth time this year, Boeing stopped moving planes forward on its final assembly line and halted deliveries of the major sections to Everett. Just one airplane had come off the line since the previous line stoppage in October.

 

Fancher said the line halts are part of his "balancing act" to allow some suppliers to catch up with others and to slow the flow onto Paine Field of new planes needing to have the latest fixes applied.

 

Despite the slowdown, he said, the supply chain is improving.

 

Fancher cited "solid progress" at Boeing Charleston, which makes the 787's rear end. He conceded that Alenia of Italy "definitely remains a challenge."

 

The other partners and the final-assembly team in Everett are "coming down the learning curve nicely," he said.

 

For now, though, the pipeline is still blocked.

 

Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kan., which makes the Dreamliner's forward section, has reassigned most of its 787 work force until work picks up again. And though in recent years Boeing's 787 employees have worked through most of the Christmas holidays to catch up, a worker at Boeing Charleston said that plant this year will largely shut down its production lines.

 

The latest delay will at least give engineers more time to test design fixes, including some for less consequential troubles, not uncommon on new jets, such as the maddening drip, drip, drip of "rain in the plane." On 787 flight tests, drip trays padded with squares of absorbent cloth are positioned to collect the condensation.

 

Fancher said "a good design fix" to dehumidify the interior is being installed and will be tested when the Dreamliners resume flying.

 

Employees working on the 787 complain about insufficient oversight of suppliers and a management system that the senior engineer called "totally broken."

 

"This program is not like anything we've seen," said the veteran 787 employee. "It's a screwed-up mess."

Yet Fancher said the feedback he receives is that employees are "proud to be part of an adventure like this."

 

He insists his team will surmount all the problems.

 

"This is a great airplane. It will deliver on the promises," Fancher said. "Our job is to get it over the goal line."

 

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@seattletimes.com

[BigDUSA 71]

Once again Rolls Royce can't cut the mustard and produce a quality product. Damn shame.