Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I heard that the US Air Force will soon be ordering one so that they can chauffeur Speaker of the House Pelosi and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco and DC.

 

Surely she'll need a 380!

[cowboy 0]

Remarkably enough, bankruptcy has not seemed to be a deterrent to many airlines when it comes to leasing/buying new aircraft.

 

My point about the delivery of the two aircraft. The 380 does not involve any drastic new technology that I know of. It is just bigger than other planes. That does create some logistical problems, but nothing that knowledgable management can't plan for. The 787 involves using all composite materials on a commercial airliner. Something that no one has ever done before. Being at this point appears that it will deliver their planes somewhat later than projected but close to original timetables. The 380 can't seem to get to the point where it will be produced at anywhere near original projected timetables.

 

Speaking of original technology Lockheed has been showing off their new mach II private jet airliner. Faster than a concorde and NO SONIC BOOM. able to fly over land and sea. Just wish they would make a version that a regular joe can fly in.

[wacmedia 277]

. Being at this point appears that it will deliver their planes somewhat later than projected

 

Hi,

 

This is the first time anyone on here from America has suggested they may not be delivered on time.

[Samsonite 172]

Hi,

 

This is the first time anyone on here from America has suggested they may not be delivered on time.

Oh, they will. Boeing has only been late once since the 747-200. It is a company policy not to promise more than they can deliver.

[wacmedia 277]

Oh, they will. Boeing has only been late once since the 747-200. It is a company policy not to promise more than they can deliver.

 

served more than 25 years of the commercial airline subcommittee. I have toured the plants of douglass, lockheed and some boeing subcontractors.

 

Hi,

 

The jury is out old boy, Cowboy has a lot of aviation experience and has a different view.

 

Being at this point appears that it will deliver their planes somewhat later than projected

Edited February 23, 2007 by wacmedia

[MrMango 655]

Speaking of original technology Lockheed has been showing off their new mach II private jet airliner. Faster than a concorde and NO SONIC BOOM. able to fly over land and sea. Just wish they would make a version that a regular joe can fly in.

Have to disagree with you here - Lockheed has NO such plane built that I know of. They may have a design of one (like many Aerospace companies) that they are touting, but nothing in the air.

 

Boeing also has a "Suborbital ship" under concept design that will anywhere int he world in a couple of hours.

[TheFiend 1,176]

Oh, they will. Boeing has only been late once since the 747-200. It is a company policy not to promise more than they can deliver.

 

But what would you rather have - a product that has been rushed through development and into production just to deliver at a promised time, or a product that has been properly developed, tested and then finally put into production with all the bugs ironed out.

 

I know what i would go for - the properly developed and tested product.

 

The company I work for likes to have it's new chemical plants handed over to the company on time but we find they are never completed, and fully tested and are full of bugs and errors. We then have to spend months ironing out all the problems because the projects have been rushed to meet the handover date.

 

If someone is happy with a shoddy product as long as it is delivered on time then more fool them!

[wacmedia 277]

I know what i would go for - the properly developed and tested product.

 

 

Hi,

 

You have to deal with the difference in culture between Europe and America. America has a different business culture. Microsoft sells it's new OS's and let the customer find out and iron out all the bugs. Europeans try to get the job done right first time.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The difference at this point in time is that the A380 has been built, is currently flying and has gained its certification from both the US and EU regulatory bodies. The 787 has only undergone computer simulation which is far removed from actually getting a product fit to fly passengers. I look forward to flying on the 787 but it is naive in the extreme to believe that there will not be significant obstacles to overcome, both within Boeing and its partners, between now and the thing entering commercial service.

[wacmedia 277]

The difference at this point in time is that the A380 has been built, is currently flying and has gained its certification from both the US and EU regulatory bodies. The 787 has only undergone computer simulation which is far removed from actually getting a product fit to fly passengers. I look forward to flying on the 787 but it is naive in the extreme to believe that there will not be significant obstacles to overcome, both within Boeing and its partners, between now and the thing entering commercial service.

 

 

Hi,

 

Well said. Cowboy is the first poster on here who has said the 787 is behind schedule, but I have a feeling that some of the problems, or other problems, which Airbus have encountered will be encountered by the Americans as well. I'm not often wrong.

[Samsonite 172]

I'm not often wrong.

You are quite often wrong.

There was the time you posted that an airline had ordered a large number of A380s when it turned out to be A320s, and so on, and so on.

Unlike Airbust, Boeing provides enough lead time to properly design, build, and test their products without having to "rush to market" with an unfinished product as someone has inferred.

And, again, unlike Airbus, Boeing is not likely to make promises they can't keep.

Let us see if the French and Germans can keep from tearing Airbus apart.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Unlike Airbust, Boeing provides enough lead time to properly design, build, and test their products without having to "rush to market" with an unfinished product as someone has inferred.

And, again, unlike Airbus, Boeing is not likely to make promises they can't keep.

Let us see if the French and Germans can keep from tearing Airbus apart.

 

What happened with the Dreamlifter then? It was due certificication in December last year but as of now there is no indication when that will happen. It looks like a brick and unfortunately flies like a brick, hence no certification from either the US or EU. One can assume that it underwent the same computer simulation as the 787.

 

I think Boeing promised wi-fi entertainment on the 787 ........... that has been ditched simply because they can't deliver what they said they could.

[cowboy 0]

popular science has picture of the new lockheed in the current issue, Problem is it is a private jet built to hold something like 12-20 passengers. I guess I got my speed wrong I think they say mach 1.6 and the concorde i think was 2+ so not faster than the concorde.

 

Boeing hasn't announced any delays in the 787 that I know of, but it just looks like they might not make their project schedule. Part of the reason is this is the first attempt in aviation history of mass production of composite large scale jets. Just my pondering. But any delay in the 787 will pale in comparison to what delays the 380 appears it will have before production is up to speed. The 380 also presents a very real threat to airbus.

 

In the early 1980's McDonnel Douglass brought out the MD-80. It really was a superlative jet at the time. But they contracted with American Airlines based on the assumption that as they ramped up production the time to complete the plane would be reduced and cost per plane in quantity would also drop. The assumptions were false and the production of the MD-80 drove McDonnel Douglass out of business, only to be acquired by Boeing. The projections I have read about Airbus's production assumptions are almost identical to the business plan I read of MD in the 80's. If Airbus pulls it off they will have created a great plane. But they may also destroy the company.

 

BTW Boeing farms out much of the production of its jets to companies in other countries. The reason is becuase they face the real prospect of not getting business from those countries unless part of their production is based there. Last I knew Boeing had production in austrailia and several other countries.

[BigDUSA 71]

 

The projections I have read about Airbus's production assumptions are almost identical to the business plan I read of MD in the 80's. If Airbus pulls it off they will have created a great plane. But they may also destroy the company.

 

As long as the EU taxpayer is willing to fund Airbus there in no danger of going tits up. EU taxpayer Airbus/politicians

[wacmedia 277]

I think Boeing promised wi-fi entertainment on the 787 ........... that has been ditched simply because they can't deliver what they said they could.

 

Hi,

 

The penny will finally drop and American's will realize why I call it the Nightmareliner.

[TheFiend 1,176]

As long as the EU taxpayer is willing to fund Airbus there in no danger of going tits up. EU taxpayer Airbus/politicians

 

I am a EU taxpayer - and I don't complain about where my tax gets spent. If some of it is loaned to Airbus, then it is no problem to me.

 

Why? Because it is helping provide employment for thousands of europeans, not just those employed by Airbus, but also their suppliers.

[BigDUSA 71]

I am a EU taxpayer - and I don't complain about where my tax gets spent. If some of it is loaned to Airbus, then it is no problem to me.

 

As the inimitable Gabor would say: LDOP

[torrenova 644]

Probably got more right to say where his taxes are being spent than a yank, don't you think ?

[MrMango 655]

I am a EU taxpayer - and I don't complain about where my tax gets spent. If some of it is loaned to Airbus, then it is no problem to me.

The word "Loan" is a misnomer - It has in the past been a gift, and will again in the future.

 

Why? Because it is helping provide employment for thousands of europeans, not just those employed by Airbus, but also their suppliers.

Economics 101 states that giving money to companies to provide employment is a net loser to the giver taxpayers.

 

Personally, I hold a U.S. Passport, but I don't care if Airbus and it's stockholders put a million dollars in every seat of every 380 that they sell to the airlines - Why not give more so we all can fly cheaper?

[sabang 0]

That would be Monetarist Economics 101 though.

The Keynesian school believes that fiscal policy (government spending) can play a productive part in economic management, FDR's New Deal being the text book case.

 

I am quite impressed with the achievements of Airbus to date- if nothing else, it shows that a nominally loose consortium of international contractors with a fair percentage of their seeed funding provided by the government can still profitably build a good plane, and capture a substantial market share.

But I feel the time has come for the EU politicians to stop meddling in the affairs of Airbus, and for the company to be operated on the same corporate principles as Boeing, or any other corporation. This current haggling over job cuts by French and German politicians is nonsense- it should be the companies decision alone, based on efficiency factors alone.

Actually, I think the process of Airbus disentangling itself from the gordian knot of EU venture capital and hence political meddling may well prove to be a more important challenge in establishing itself as a world class company than the hiccup of the A380 delays, which after all they can learn from.

[BigDUSA 71]

Probably got more right to say where his taxes are being spent than a yank, don't you think ?

 

Not really when the EU taxpayer is contributing to Airbus being able to sell most likely planes at a loss. This matter will be adjudicated in the court system and we will find out how anticompetive the taxpayer money has been.

[sabang 0]

Not really when the EU taxpayer is contributing to Airbus being able to sell most likely planes at a loss. This matter will be adjudicated in the court system and we will find out how anticompetive the taxpayer money has been.

 

I thought this had already been established BigD. Airbus does not sell planes at a loss- the company had been declaring operating profits that were growing quite nicely, until last years loss due to A380 delays.

If they were selling at a loss, the court case would be about 'dumping', which is a much simpler case to prove. It is not- actually both AB & Boeing are suing each other over illegal, or undeclared subsidies. Airbuses subsidies are at least transparent, being the seed capital provided from the EU budget some years ago. Boeings are more obscure, being tied up with the Pentagon budget, R&D tax breaks etc.

Personally I think that they should both kick the bloody lawyers out of the equation and get on with business.

 

If you are so convinced that Airbus is reliant for EU funding for it's working capital, how can you explain that AB neither asked for, or received any additional EU funding on the back of the production delays to the A380 and the resultant operating loss in 2006? At least try and get your facts right.

[TheFiend 1,176]

Not really when the EU taxpayer is contributing to Airbus being able to sell most likely planes at a loss. This matter will be adjudicated in the court system and we will find out how anticompetive the taxpayer money has been.

 

Here we go again! BigD just doesn't give up!!!

 

What about the multi-billion dollar tax breaks given to Boeing??? Isn't that being anti-competetive???

[CheshireTom 1,377]

As Sabang quite correctly said, both Airbus and Boeing will be having their cases heard at the WTO where, most likely, they will both be found to have been in receipt of prohibited subsidies under the WTO's rules. Beyond that, the likely outcome is that the US will do what it always does when international rulings don't suit it ......... simply ignore the ruling and if that stuffs the WTO so be it ........ exactly the same principles they are adopting at the moment into the WTO rulings on their massive farming subsidies.

 

At the end of the day why should the EU give a fuck about what the US, or anybody else, thinks about how it does business. The whole point of the original EC was to create a trading block that was strong enough to give the finger to America's corporate greed, corruption and manipulation of the world's markets. That it is now able to do so is testimony to the EU's success despite its growing pains and many faults in the comparitively short time it has been in existence. The US makes no apologies for protecting and promoting its own corporations; neither should the EU. As consumers we should be grateful that Airbus has forced the world's airline industry to produce better and better products more efficiently, just as Nokia has done in the mobile phone market, Japanese car makers have done in the auto market, Korea has done in the shipbuilding market etc, etc.

 

Despite what the US may think its days of disproportionate influence are receding rapidly with the emergence of other market alliances and in the future the EU's main trading partners will lie to the east rather than the other side of the Atlantic.

[wacmedia 277]

Here we go again! BigD just doesn't give up!!!

 

What about the multi-billion dollar tax breaks given to Boeing??? Isn't that being anti-competetive???

 

Hi,

 

Back to square one I'm afraid.