Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[Yzi 72]

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

 

selective reading?

It's clearly not just engines that are causing problems...

[CheshireTom 1,377]

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

 

Quite ....

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2010 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

Nice of Boeing to provide showers for the whole plane, not just First Class!!!

[BigDUSA 71]

selective reading?

It's clearly not just engines that are causing problems...

 

Of course it's selective reading. I'm just pulling a tommie. He does it all time.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

 

 

 

[Samsonite 181]

Ooops ... again.

 

From the Seattle Times ...

 

Dreamliner's woes pile up

By Dominic Gates

 

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....

Read it and agree with it.

The sole responsibility for this complete screw up lies in the executive suite. They need to get rid of the bean counters, the lawyers, the MBAs and all former McDonnell/Douglas managers, and replace them, as I've said before, with Boeing trained (pre-merger) executives with engineering backgrounds who know how to get the job done right.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

 

3 years later....... on time???

 

Looks like Boeing jumped the gun with the 7LATE7 production line....... and will have to pay the price with retro-fitting design modifications......

 

The 7LATE7 is really living up to it's Nightmareliner name.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

3 years later....... on time???

 

Looks like Boeing jumped the gun with the 7LATE7 production line....... and will have to pay the price with retro-fitting design modifications......

 

The 7LATE7 is really living up to it's Nightmareliner name.

 

It's particularly worrying that the story came from the pen of Dominic Gates at The Seattle Times. Normally, he either acts as Boeing's mouthpiece or puts out reports to soften-up the market before Boeing's own announcements.

 

 

 

 

[BigDUSA 71]

Jet Age' recounts how Boeing beat the Brits

 

EmailPrint.. AP – In this book cover image released by Avery, 'Jet Age: The Comet, the 707 and the Race to Shrink the World' … .By JERRY HARKAVY, For The Associated Press Jerry Harkavy, For The Associated Press – Wed Oct 13, 10:52 am ET

"Jet Age: The Comet, the 707, and the Race to Shrink the World" (Avery, $27), by Sam Howe Verhovek: The years immediately following Britain's victory in World War II were unkind to the island nation. Rationing seemed as if it would never end; Britons suffered through the coldest winter in memory; and the empire on which the sun would never set was dissolving ever so quickly.

 

Amid the gloom, there was one great source of pride: Britain's leadership in the development of a commercial jetliner that would usher in a new era in air travel. The de Havilland Comet, a sleek, bullet-shaped plane with its four engines tucked into its wings, made its debut in 1952 and was the odds-on favorite to be the first to fly passengers across the Atlantic.

 

That was before three Comets blew apart in the sky in less than a year. As the aircraft maker scrambled to determine the cause of the mysterious explosions, Boeing entered the competition, in effect betting that a company that thrived on military contracts could reinvent itself by developing passenger jets.

 

The race between the U.S., also represented by Douglas and Lockheed, and Britain is brought to life in Sam Howe Verhovek's fast-paced book, "Jet Age: The Comet, the 707, and the Race to Shrink the World." The book captures the zeitgeist of a decade in which all manner of advances, including globe-girdling flight, seemed possible.

 

The leaders of the rival plane makers were Boeing President Bill Allen, a mild-mannered lawyer with scant background in aviation who oversaw the development of what became the 707, and Geoffrey de Havilland, a legendary aircraft designer whose loss of two sons in accidents aboard his company's planes could not quell his determination to see British jetliners dominate the skies.

 

Other key figures include the colorful test pilots who helped market the aura of jet travel; the British aeronautics professor whose investigation uncovered the cause of the Comet explosions; and the airline chieftains, including Pan American's Juan Trippe and TWA's Howard Hughes, whose orders for planes would determine the outcome of the competition.

 

Verhovek, a veteran newsman, sets the stage for his story by sharing the colorful history of the dawn of commercial flight. He describes the high death toll among pilots whose planes went down during the early years of air mail; the wretched passenger conditions such as wooden-slat seating in extreme heat and cold; and the earliest stewardesses, who were required to be registered nurses so they could deal calmly with medical emergencies.

 

By contrast, the dawn of the jet age was a time of glamour, elegance and excitement, when passengers would don their finest clothes before boarding.

 

Although today's flights are far cheaper in constant dollars, travelers of a certain age can look back wistfully to an era in which riding in a jetliner was something more than traveling in a flying bus.

 

"Jet Age" is a quick read, one that can be completed in the time it takes to wait in a terminal, board a jet and cross an ocean. It's a book that is likely to prompt some readers to delve more deeply into this fascinating subject.

 

Boeing's dominance is revealed by how its 707 Jet Stratoliner emerged as the first workhorse of the Jet Age. Indeed, there were barely one-tenth as many Comets built as there were 707s. Still, Britain got a morale boost when British Overseas Airways Corp. Comet flights between London and New York in October 1958 marked the inauguration of trans-Atlantic air service.

 

Three weeks later, a Pan Am 707 flew from New York to Paris. By that time, Britain already was emerging from its postwar funk. The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and Roger Bannister's 4-minute mile had captured headlines, and it wouldn't be long before a new British export, the Beatles, made their mark.

QUOTE

 

It won't be long before we're reading how Boeing beat Airbus into the ground with the advanced Boeing 787. So many orders for the 787 from so many airlines.

[Yzi 72]

It won't be long before we're reading how Boeing beat Airbus into the ground with the advanced Boeing 787. So many orders for the 787 from so many airlines.

 

So, it happend once at 50's and you found a pattern?

Dammit, how could i miss that on...

[CheshireTom 1,377]

It won't be long ... blah, blah, blah ...

 

So you've been saying for the past four years.

 

 

 

[joekicker 53]

Stand by for this important development:

 

One lucky poster will soon send this conversation to Page 100.

 

MM, is it true that the person who sends a convo onto Page 100 gets the FLB Limo and driver for an entire weekend?

 

.

[BigDUSA 71]

So, it happend once at 50's and you found a pattern?

Dammit, how could i miss that on...

 

It's in a book. That's how you missed it.

[TheFiend 1,181]

It won't be long before we're reading how Boeing beat Airbus into the ground with the advanced Boeing 787. So many orders for the 787 from so many airlines.

 

Why is that??? The "advanced" 7LATE7 is taking so long that it will be out of date by the time it enters service....... providing the airlines haven't cancelled their orders by then....

 

Want to hazard a guess when the test flights will be resuming....... you're good at predictions!!!

 

So, it happened once at 50's and you found a pattern?

Dammit, how could i miss that on...

 

Xenophobic GoogleDenny strikes again!!!!

[BigDUSA 71]

Why is that??? The "advanced" 7LATE7 is taking so long that it will be out of date by the time it enters service....... providing the airlines haven't cancelled their orders by then....

 

Want to hazard a guess when the test flights will be resuming....... you're good at predictions!!!

 

 

 

Xenophobic GoogleDenny strikes again!!!!

 

So many confirmed orders for the Boeing 787 compared to the Airbus A380. Could it be the airlines know something the Airbus fanboys don't?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

So many confirmed orders for the Boeing 787 compared to the Airbus A380. Could it be the airlines know something the Airbus fanboys don't?

 

LOL. Grounded in the US with so many ailments and unable to generate any cash. The 787 ain't much better either.

Edited December 20, 2010 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

LOL. Grounded in the US with so many ailments and unable to generate any cash. The 787 ain't much better either.

 

Reminds me of the A380 wing not meeting specs or was it the wiring harness fiasco. Then again it could be the exploding Rolls Royce engine that damn near killed the passengers, crew.

[Yzi 72]

It's in a book. That's how you missed it.

 

I never did read the book of illogical reasoning

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Reminds me of the A380 wing not meeting specs or was it the wiring harness fiasco.

 

Quite. And do you remember what you said at the time ..... How to make a cunt of yourself without really trying.

 

 

[joekicker 53]

How to make a cunt of yourself without really trying. clap1 clap1 clap1

 

That's not fair. He's trying.

 

.

[TheFiend 1,181]

So many confirmed orders for the Boeing 787 compared to the Airbus A380. Could it be the airlines know something the Airbus fanboys don't?

 

 

 

Oh dear..... don't know too much about aviation do you..... The 7LATE7 and the A380 serve are aimed at different market segments....

 

And Boeing's 7LATE7 net orders over the last 2 years has been -63, whereas the A380 has gained orders.... Perhaps the airlines do know something....

[TheFiend 1,181]

Reminds me of the A380 wing not meeting specs or was it the wiring harness fiasco. Then again it could be the exploding Rolls Royce engine that damn near killed the passengers, crew.

 

Have you forgotten about the 7LATE7 wing fixings fiasco? OR the P&W engines that have killed people....

[Samsonite 181]

...the P&W engines that have killed people....

You keep harping on a 15 year old accident.

 

Can you tell us if that was a one off accident?

 

Can you tell us that when the P&W engine was inspected did it reveal a poor quality design, craftsmanship and inferior materials (like the Trent 900)?

 

Can you tell us if all planes using that engine were grounded (like the Trent 900)? If so, for how long?

 

Can you tell us if even after two modifications the engine manufacturer said the engine should not be used after 75 takeoffs at maximum thrust (like the Trent 900)? What is 75 take offs for a airliner, four to six weeks, if that?

 

Can you tell us if because of that engine the aircraft using it could no longer be use for the profitable routes for which it was intended (like the Trent 900)?

 

Edited December 20, 2010 by Samsonite

[BigDUSA 71]

Oh dear..... don't know too much about aviation do you..... The 7LATE7 and the A380 serve are aimed at different market segments....

 

And Boeing's 7LATE7 net orders over the last 2 years has been -63, whereas the A380 has gained orders.... Perhaps the airlines do know something....

 

I do know one thing about aviation. The Boeing 787 is way above the Airbus A380 in total orders.

[TheFiend 1,181]

You keep harping on a 15 year old accident.

 

An accident....... not quite, there have been two accidents where people have died when a P&W engine exploded...

Manchester Airport didaster in 85 and a Delta MD88 in 96 at Pensacola, Florida.

 

Can you tell us that when the P&W engine was inspected did it reveal a poor quality design, craftsmanship and inferior materials (like the Trent 900)?

 

Can you tell us if all planes using that engine were grounded (like the Trent 900)? If so, for how long?

 

Can you tell us if even after two modifications the engine manufacturer said the engine should not be used after 75 takeoffs at maximum thrust (like the Trent 900)? What is 75 take offs for a airliner, four to six weeks, if that?

 

Can you tell us if because of that engine the aircraft using it could no longer be use for the profitable routes for which it was intended (like the Trent 900)?

 

 

It is only one route, and at one airport that it is currently affecting, and that is because it is limited to using a certain runway at LAX.... funny how the Boeing fan-boys fail to mention that...