Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[Samsonite 181]

Duplicate. Please delete.

Thanks.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Samsonite

[BigDUSA 71]

Still being the operative word. You've been saying that for the last 3 years, FFS. It's worse than your "when I make the big move" nonsense.

 

Well, maybe not quite that bad.

 

Anyway, how many more times are you going to try and shift the goalposts ... it's either a big deal, or it's not.

 

The BIG DEAL is the European suppliers can't do the JOB they said they were able to do.

[TheFiend 1,181]

The BIG DEAL is the European suppliers can't do the JOB they said they were able to do.

 

The electrical fire was nothing to do with European suppliers!!!

 

The current delay can't be blamed on anyone else but Boeing and their engineers!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The BIG DEAL is the European suppliers can't do the JOB they said they were able to do.

 

One thing to remember is ....

 

 

 

 

Remember Vought? How does the Boeing ad go? ... "They were so shit, I bought the Company!"

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2010 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

It's been revealed that the engine that disintegrated on a Qantas Airbus A380 near Singapore last month had earlier been taken off the aircraft to fix another problem.

 

The Australian newspaper says investigators have revealed that the engine was only refitted in February.

 

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week shows the No 2 engine was originally fitted as the aircraft's No 4 engine but was removed last year after metal was found in a chip detector.

 

Chip detectors are often a permanent magnet used to gather metal fragments, usually from lubrication oil.

 

The relatively new engine had performed just 3419 flight hours and 416 landing and take-off cycles at the time.

 

The engine was sent to a Singapore workshop certified to maintain and repair Rolls-Royce engines in September last year.

 

Engineers found spalling in a low-pressure compressor bearing and replaced the bearing assembly. Spalling occurs when flakes break off from a larger component and is usually associated in mechanical systems with high-stress points.

 

The low-pressure compressor is a different part of the engine than the one that failed in the dramatic Singapore incident.

 

The repair was completed in December last year. The engine was fitted to the aircraft on February 24 and had completed a further 2895 flight hours since then, the report said.

QUOTE

 

Another week has started and the Airbus A380 problems continue to make the news.

[Samsonite 181]

The electrical fire was nothing to do with European suppliers!!!

 

The current delay can't be blamed on anyone else but Boeing and their engineers!!!

"Monday, November 22, 2010

 

French Newspaper: Forgtten tool in P100 sparked fire

 

....there is now this from the French newspaper "Le Figaro". The article refers to a report in another French newspaper "La Tribune" about a tool being left in the panel. Click HERE to access the article in French. Click HERE for the artice in La Tribune. Below is a translation using Google Translation fro the article in Le Figaro:

 

A foreign body may have triggered the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the American manufacturer to suspend his campaign test flight within 3 months delivery date official said Monday The Tribune.

 

"A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software components, ie), has caused a short circuit," according to comments from industry sources reported by the daily La Tribune.

 

However, this would not have such consequences, notes the newspaper, noting that the entire power distribution system is at stake.

 

The Tribune added that several manufacturers are involved, including French Zodiac, one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton, supervisor of the electricity distribution and Boeing aircraft, Specifications and controls.

 

And translation of the La Tribune article:

 

Incredible as it may seem, it is a forgotten tool in a cabinet that is at the origin of the fire on 9 November that forced Boeing to halt flight testing of the B787. Although detected, the anomaly still poses problems for engineers who need to understand how to prevent it from reproducing. Among the subcontractors in the crosshairs: French Zodiac.

 

FOD for "foreign object damage" or damage caused by foreign body. That, according to several industry sources, the triggering element of the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the manufacturer to suspend its test campaign flight three months after the first delivery to All Nippon Airways. "A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software, components ..., ed) caused a short circuit," says Will we at The Tribune.

 

However, this should not have such consequences. Because the whole system of power distribution, a crucial point in the plane, which is involved. "For security, everything is redundant in a plane. But the blackout that occurred in the first cabinet spread to the second, and the aircraft had to use emergency power management to ask, "say the sources. This is a small wind turbine (called the rate) that is located on the fuselage and a small generator supplying emergency power for the aircraft to land.

 

Several manufacturers are involved in this can of worms. Including French Zodiac one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton (subsidiary of United Technologies), supervisor of distribution of electricity in the air, and of course Boeing, Specifications and controls. The French equipment provides such components in the cabinet. Hamilton provides other. "However, you can not blame anyone for now, says one industry, as more than a problem of quality of play is a problem in the logic of management of the electrical system since the breakdown spread.... "

 

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2010/11/frnech-...ol-in-p100.html

Edited December 7, 2010 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

"Monday, November 22, 2010

 

French Newspaper: Forgtten tool in P100 sparked fire blah, blah, blah ...

 

You missed a bit. Like you, the report has subsequently proved to have no credibility at all.

 

 

 

[Samsonite 181]

You missed a bit. Like you, the report has subsequently proved to have no credibility at all...

I didn't miss a thing.

Obviously, you are not bright enough to have noticed the date of the article (in bold print), which in turns means, if you were up to date, you would, one, be aware I know a 'tool' had nothing to do with it, and, two, the 'tool' was not the purpose of the post (also in bold print).

How can you be so incredibly dense and still function as a normal, adult human being? Oh, that's right! You don't!

Edited December 8, 2010 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

"Monday, November 22, 2010

 

French Newspaper: Forgtten tool in P100 sparked fire

 

....there is now this from the French newspaper "Le Figaro". The article refers to a report in another French newspaper "La Tribune" about a tool being left in the panel. Click HERE to access the article in French. Click HERE for the artice in La Tribune. Below is a translation using Google Translation fro the article in Le Figaro:

 

A foreign body may have triggered the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the American manufacturer to suspend his campaign test flight within 3 months delivery date official said Monday The Tribune.

 

"A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software components, ie), has caused a short circuit," according to comments from industry sources reported by the daily La Tribune.

 

However, this would not have such consequences, notes the newspaper, noting that the entire power distribution system is at stake.

 

The Tribune added that several manufacturers are involved, including French Zodiac, one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton, supervisor of the electricity distribution and Boeing aircraft, Specifications and controls.

 

And translation of the La Tribune article:

 

Incredible as it may seem, it is a forgotten tool in a cabinet that is at the origin of the fire on 9 November that forced Boeing to halt flight testing of the B787. Although detected, the anomaly still poses problems for engineers who need to understand how to prevent it from reproducing. Among the subcontractors in the crosshairs: French Zodiac.

 

FOD for "foreign object damage" or damage caused by foreign body. That, according to several industry sources, the triggering element of the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the manufacturer to suspend its test campaign flight three months after the first delivery to All Nippon Airways. "A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software, components ..., ed) caused a short circuit," says Will we at The Tribune.

 

However, this should not have such consequences. Because the whole system of power distribution, a crucial point in the plane, which is involved. "For security, everything is redundant in a plane. But the blackout that occurred in the first cabinet spread to the second, and the aircraft had to use emergency power management to ask, "say the sources. This is a small wind turbine (called the rate) that is located on the fuselage and a small generator supplying emergency power for the aircraft to land.

 

Several manufacturers are involved in this can of worms. Including French Zodiac one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton (subsidiary of United Technologies), supervisor of distribution of electricity in the air, and of course Boeing, Specifications and controls. The French equipment provides such components in the cabinet. Hamilton provides other. "However, you can not blame anyone for now, says one industry, as more than a problem of quality of play is a problem in the logic of management of the electrical system since the breakdown spread.... "

 

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2010/11/frnech-...ol-in-p100.html

 

Well, that is a very poor translation!!!

 

It seems as though the fire is being blamed on a foreign object being left in the panel. The major problem is that the vital systems failed as a result of the fire.

 

The fire would have been caused by over-heating due to over-currents caused by a short circuit. Circuit protection should have prevented this from occurring, but it obviously didn't. The question is though, was it by design or by construction?

 

It is obvious they need to investigate why the circuit protection failed so disastrously and implement design changes to prevent a re-occurrence. They also will need some redesign to prevent loss of vital systems if the power supplies fail again.

 

Modifications will then need to be made to the planes already that have already been built.

 

It will cause a long delay to the 7LATE7 program.... Boeing are already halting deliveries of parts.

 

It seems as though they are also suffering humidity problems on the Nightmareliner leading to another rethink on the on-board ventilation!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I didn't miss a thing.

Obviously, you are not bright enough to have noticed the date of the article (in bold print), which in turns means, if you were up to date, you would, one, be aware I know a 'tool' had nothing to do with it, and, two, the 'tool' was not the purpose of the post (also in bold print).

 

The title of the article, is "Forgtten tool in P100 sparked fire" - the "forgotten tool" is most definitely the subject. Ask BigD.

 

Since you only done a cut and paste, we can only guess what was the 'purpose' of your post - other than clutching at straws - if, indeed, it had any purpose. Given your track record, I certainly wouldn't assume that you knew very much at all.

 

How can you be so incredibly dense and still function as a normal, adult human being? Oh, that's right! You don't!

 

Do you have anything to back-up your assertion, or is it just another rant? I'm certainly not that dense that I believed the 787 was going to be delivered on time, to spec and within budget.

 

One guy who does have his finger on the pulse is Ben Sandilands ...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2010 by CheshireTom

[sabang 0]

Airbus still late, Boeing still late? Good, carry on then. I'll check in again next year.

[BigDUSA 71]

Boeing May Win in Orders as Airbus Waffles on A320

 

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. may be headed for its first victory in aircraft orders in three years, buoyed by demand for the 737 jet as larger rival Airbus SAS defers a decision on whether to offer a new engine on its A320.

 

Boeing booked 480 net orders through October, compared with Airbus’s 369. Chicago-based Boeing’s total includes 432 for the 737, almost twice as many as Airbus’s 217 for the A320, and was boosted by another three jets in an update last week.

 

The 787 Dreamliner’s flight-test suspension after a fire last week spotlighted the importance of the 737, the world’s most widely flown jetliner. While the 787 has racked up record advance orders, it has lost four more than it won in 2010, and Boeing isn’t getting revenue because the first delivery is almost three years behind schedule.

 

“The 737 is a high-volume, high-profit machine,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia.

 

Delivery of the 787 has been delayed six times, and Sanford C. Bernstein’s Doug Harned predicted a seventh, which he said will pressure Boeing’s earnings margins. The New York-based analyst, who rates the company’s shares “market perform,” told clients in a note last week he expects Boeing to keep boosting 737 output and post higher profits on the plane.

 

Airlines are responding positively to Boeing’s firm signal that it will develop a new plane rather than extend the 737’s life with a new engine, said Aboulafia. Airbus has said for more than a year it wants new engines on the A320 as an interim step until the technology is ready for a replacement, without making a commitment.

 

‘Big Advantage’

 

Boeing’s stiffer stance “just might win some market share until all the confusion is cleaned up,” Aboulafia said “It’s OK to have that uncertainty for a couple of weeks, but do this all year? That’s what gives the other guy a big advantage.”

 

Airbus, based in Toulouse, France, has held back on committing on the A320, saying it’s not sure it has the resources while engineers work on the super jumbo A380, twin- aisle A350 and A400M military transport.

 

Chris Jones, vice president of sales for Airbus in North America, said the company intends to decide on the A320 by the end of December. He said that deliberations won’t stretch into 2011, as United Technologies Corp. Chief Executive Officer Louis Chenevert on Nov. 3 said could happen. United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney unit makes engines for the A320.

 

Airbus has delivered more jets than Boeing every year since 2003, making it the largest commercial-plane manufacturer.

 

Boeing’s Preference

 

While Boeing hasn’t officially decided on the 737 either, executives have said since at least March that they’d prefer to focus on developing a new narrow-body aircraft, the backbone of the air-travel industry, because airlines see a weak business case for the current jet with a new engine.

 

Both the 737 and the A320 are twin-engine models that seat about 125 to 185 people. List prices for each plane range from about $65 million to $95 million, depending on the version.

 

Boeing also has stressed this year that the 737 is still viable as it is. The plane’s fuel efficiency is set to improve by about 2 percent starting in 2011 with a group of tweaks. Engine maker CFM International, a venture of General Electric Co. and Safran SA, is smoothing out the 737 power plant’s air flow, and Boeing is reducing drag by re-engineering parts including the flashing red light on the jet’s belly.

 

For its part, Airbus plans to offer so-called sharklets for an A320 version’s wings in 2012 to boost range and payload.

 

About half of the airlines with 737s on order are paying to switch to the new Sky interior, delivered to the first customer two weeks ago, which draws from a decade of studies by psychologists and architects for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

 

Pushing Production

 

With a backlog of more than 2,100 737s, Boeing has pushed production of the plane to a record 31.5 a month and plans to boost that in steps to 38 by 2013. Airbus has more than 2,200 unfilled orders for its A320, which it builds at a rate of 36 a month. Boeing executives are considering another increase, to 40 737s a month.

 

“I can’t quote delivery positions before 2015, even at those production rates,” Boeing’s sales chief, Marlin Dailey, said at a briefing last week. “We have a brilliant airplane.”

 

Boeing also benefits from its wide-body 777, which Aboulafia said is “low volume but it absolutely dominates the market, so it has strong profits.”

 

Airlines don’t seem to be interested in a 737 with new engines because it would add complexity to their fleets, Nicole Piasecki, Boeing’s vice president of business development, said on Nov. 3. Different engines on the same model make maintenance more complicated.

 

‘Bread and Butter’

 

“There are virtually no customers I can name off the top of my head, throughout their executive suites, that are pushing us to re-engine,” Piasecki said. “Right now, there is so much demand for the 737 and 777 that our primary focus, after delivering the 787 and 747-8, is getting production up.”

 

The 737 is Boeing’s “bread and butter,” in Piasecki’s words. The company needs the jet’s steady revenue stream to fund other projects, especially amid the 787’s three-year setback.

 

Boeing will decide “within the next several months” on what to do with both the 737 and the 777, which will be threatened by Airbus’s A350, Jim Albaugh, president of the company’s commercial-airplanes unit, said at an American Bar Association conference on Oct. 27.

 

‘What’s the Rush?’

 

“I suspect Boeing will look to a 777 replacement first, rather than the still strong-selling 737,” said Doug Runte, managing director at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York.

 

“If this thing is going gangbusters, and people love the airplane, and they can pump out 35 a month with their eyes closed, what’s the rush to re-engine or replace it?” Runte said. “I don’t see it.”

 

Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. fell 13 cents to 18.03 euros in Paris trading and has gained 28 percent this year. Boeing, which dropped 11 percent last week, rose 52 cents to $63.61 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The U.S. company’s shares have increased 18 percent this year.

 

Robert Stallard, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in New York, said in a report today that Boeing shareholders shouldn’t overreact to the 787 fire and recommended buying the stock.

 

“The major driver of the Boeing stock price is the aerospace cycle,” he wrote. “With this end market still robust, we think the outlook for new orders in encouraging, and build rates are set to go higher.”

 

Protecting Slots

 

Airlines are expanding as the economy recovers and are placing orders for single-aisle jets now to reserve production slots, which are sold out for the next two to three years, said Howard Rubel, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. Some have contracts to let them switch to a new engine, if one ends up being offered, he said.

 

“There are a few airlines holding out to wait and see how this all plays out,” Rubel said. “The market is still growing faster than anybody can meet it. The things that work are selling.”

 

Airbus’s Jones said the indecision hasn’t hurt A320 sales, because it’s a matter of resource management, not credibility. He spoke in an interview Nov. 3, a day before the company narrowed Boeing’s lead by selling 50 A320s to Chinese airlines.

 

“We’re not done with the year yet,” he said.

QUOTE

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Boeing May Win in Orders as Airbus Waffles on A320

 

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. may be headed for its first victory in aircraft orders in three years, buoyed by demand for the 737 jet as larger rival Airbus SAS defers a decision on whether to offer a new engine on its A320 blah, blah, blah ...

 

The A320 NEO has already been announced. Try to keep up.

Edited December 8, 2010 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

The A320 NEO has already been announced. Try to keep up.

 

GoogleDenny spends all day looking for anti-Airbus propoganda...... and even resorts to digging up old news.

 

And then when he posts it he struggles with using the "quote" function!!!

 

This year the 7LATE7 has had 36 orders .... and 40 cancellations..... but how many more will cancel after the latest delay???

[BigDUSA 71]

GoogleDenny spends all day looking for anti-Airbus propoganda...... and even resorts to digging up old news.

 

And then when he posts it he struggles with using the "quote" function!!!

 

This year the 7LATE7 has had 36 orders .... and 40 cancellations..... but how many more will cancel after the latest delay???

 

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point. Airbus is still way below the break even point. One could even say the EU Taxpayer Airbus.

Edited December 9, 2010 by BigDUSA

[ozboy 31]

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point. Airbus is still way below the break even point. One could even say the EU Taxpayer Airbus.

 

 

And that is without a plane in service and in fact not a plane in the sky!!!!!!!!! jeez that sure is one brilliant business plan.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point.

 

And just what exactly is the break even point on the 787 these days? And how can you tell if you don't know how long it's going to be delayed and therefore how much compensation has to be paid to the airlines?

 

One could even say the EU Taxpayer Airbus.

 

According to the WTO, no different from Boeing.

[joekicker 53]

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point.

 

Yeah, the other posters approached this, but let me ask straight up: Why would Boeing bother even testing and flying this plane any more, if it's so profitable just leaving it in burnt pieces on the ground?

 

It seems to me that "break even" and profitability require an airborne people-carrier - which Boeing doesn't yet have and has no clue when it will have -- if ever. I actually think that "never" is a possibility. Horrible to contemplate, but I really think you have to contemplate it. This thing is the real-world version of Duke Nukum Forever - except that Duke Nukum Forever may actually, finally be in final production.

 

.

[TheFiend 1,181]

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point. Airbus is still way below the break even point. One could even say the EU Taxpayer Airbus.

 

One could also say Airlines Boeing

[MrMango 670]

Yeah, the other posters approached this, but let me ask straight up: Why would Boeing bother even testing and flying this plane any more, if it's so profitable just leaving it in burnt pieces on the ground?

 

It seems to me that "break even" and profitability require an airborne people-carrier

Well, look at the present backlog- Airbus - Maybe what? 100-200? New order possibility? ZERO.

 

Boeing - 800-900 maybe firm orders, with a good possibility of many more once the kinks are straightened out.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Well, look at the present backlog- Airbus - Maybe what? 100-200? New order possibility? ZERO.

 

Boeing - 800-900 maybe firm orders, with a good possibility of many more once the kinks are straightened out.

 

The A380 order total is currentlly 234 with the possibility of more to come. Considering the state of the global economy it has still manged to pick up orders.

 

Yes, the 7LATE7 has been picking up orders...... and has also seen orders being canceled... Total orders for this year? -4 And with the current indeterminate delay it's probably a good bet that there will be more cancellations.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Well, look at the present backlog- Airbus - Maybe what? 100-200? New order possibility? ZERO.

 

Boeing - 800-900 maybe firm orders, with a good possibility of many more once the kinks are straightened out.

 

What are you comparing?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The A380 order total is currentlly 234 with the possibility of more to come. Considering the state of the global economy it has still manged to pick up orders.

 

Yes, the 7LATE7 has been picking up orders...... and has also seen orders being canceled... Total orders for this year? -4 And with the current indeterminate delay it's probably a good bet that there will be more cancellations.

 

Why is he comparing the A380 and 787? The competing aircraft are the A380/747 and the A350/787. Or, of course, you could compare the A350 with the 747.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Yes, the 7LATE7 has been picking up orders...... and has also seen orders being canceled... Total orders for this year? -4 And with the current indeterminate delay it's probably a good bet that there will be more cancellations.

 

Its cumulative orders for 2009/2010 is -63.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Why is he comparing the A380 and 787? The competing aircraft are the A380/747 and the A350/787. Or, of course, you could compare the A350 with the 747.

 

And how many orders has the old dinosaur 747 picked up lately? Over the last 3 years they had 5 ordered by Korean and 3 for Business jets!!!

 

The 747 is dying a slow and painful death!!!