Boeing 787 delayed

Dailytech

Randy Tinseth, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Vice President for Marketing, reported that the program was still on schedule earlier this week. Tinseth remarked that despite supply issues, the Dreamliner program would meet its scheduled first delivery date in May 2008.

"It is still our objective to meet that May 2008 delivery but in doing that we have had to compress our flight-test schedule," said Tinseth on Monday. "It is an aggressive schedule but we believe we can do it."

Apparently, Boeing simply cannot live up to the statement made by Tinseth and the company today announced that it would delay deliveries for the Dreamliner.

Hopefully some of the idiots that populate many forums will now realise that aircraft are complicated, and putting them together isn't easy, no matter what side of the Atlantic your on.

[edit on 10/10/07 by kilcoo316]

reply to post by kilcoo316


I'll agree with that satement Kilcoo. This is what I was trying to hint at 2 months ago when we started to see more and more small delays pop up. The A380's testing hasn't been perfect and neither will the 787's and both complex machines will have problems. My hunch was that 2 months ago that those delays then put the 787 in a positions where if it hit more snags like now it may have to have a short delay.

Yes the signs were there and as I said in an A380 thread a while back Boeing had best keep to the schedule or they will get hammered. Thier stock was down 2-3% today. But, I think that is where it will stay. Anyother delays and its going to get hit hard IMHO

But this is big..

A 6 month delay I believe:
If this delay goes to 9 months and maybe a year then it could spell real trouble for Boeing. Especially since Tenneth gave his word.

Dreamliner orders are at ~700 where as A380 orders are at ~150..
The Dreamliner hasn't even gotten off the ground as yet.
Quite grave if you ask me.

I don't think Boeing will be hit too hard actually, the 787 and the A350 are going to be THE twins to have in next couple of decades and the airlines that fly them will enjoy significant advantages over those that do not, in terms of operating economics and passenger appeal especially.

Its not as if the customers for these 700 planes can go somewhere else, as Boeing still has a good lead over the A350 mark 4, If Airbus had got their first attempt right things might have been very much more serious for Boeing.

I'm sure the airlines will squeeze for penalty payments as the A380 customers did, but Boeing will ride it out. They are after all no strangers to penalty payments for late delivery, only this year they had to pay a penalty charge to Australia over the military 737 programme delays, which went curiously unnoticed by all those berating Airbus and gleefully rubbing their hands over the A380 difficulties

One of the surprising things that has emerged from this story for me is the fact that the roll out was basically a sham, because the aircraft was nowhere near complete and Boeing basically fitted all the outer panels and painted it up to look complete to meet the roll out date and then took it back inside and disassembled it to build it properly - How they hoped to avoid a delay or maintain the illusion I can't imagine, imagine this board if Airbus had done that

The fact of this actually became known several weeks ago, long before the delay was revealed but I decided to let it lie as I am bigger than that. It would seem I am not

[edit on 11-10-2007 by waynos]

Hi guys just stopping by briefly for a breather from some intense additional engineering exams at the moment.

One thing not often mentioned is the hassle that the delay in both the A-380 and 787 programs is causing for airline maintenance operations, and the associated planning for these new generation aircraft. Talking with one of my avionics lecturers this afternoon, he brought up the point that these delays were causing a huge problem for the operators (which I had allready been hearing from the senior engineers at work). In the past for example Boeing or Airbus would bring out a new model and you would send off your senior engineers and type course staff to get all the latest info, bring it back and slot it in to your program. One aircraft was more or less like another and with some adjustment it could be easily fitted into your airlines maintenance system and engineering philosophy.

But these new aircraft are a different ball game. They are not just a new aircraft but completely new technologies and a new maintenance philosophy that is forcing a small revolution in many leading airlines. Case in point, fault finding. Once upon a time if say an electrical system component was giving trouble you send out an avionics technician of the appropriate discipline, he would analyse it, trouble shoot and begin looking for the root cause of the problem. This meant well skilled and experience engineers who could fix the problem either on the spot or bring it in for a bit of "lets stick our hands in it's innards" surgery. The end result was hands on experince and a bank of corporate engineering knowledge that proved invaluable down the track, particularly given that each aircraft is a little different, and each has her idiosyncrasies.

The A-380 and 787 dont play this game however. They have moved to the corporatised plug and play model. Now the aircraft will tell you it has a problem and your only job is to run diagnostics, do a check list and if still no joy, start pulling out and swapping boxes. If you can't fix the problem on the spot you send it back to the manufacturer and they fix the problem. There is no need for a lot of the fundamental theories and trouble shooting skills in this system that often allowed other more hidden problems to be found in the past. There are pros and cons with this idea I wont go into here right now except to say that if it works well that would be great,... except for one thing. Nobody knows if ultimately this system will work well in the real world. And the only way you can find out is to have the aircraft in use and give it a real world test, all these delays and glitches are causing maintenance managers in the major pioneering operating airlines to loose sleep at nights. To put it simply their thinking is that if they(manufacturers) can't roll the aircraft out the door on time and without issues they promised wouldn't eventuate, then what other nasty surprises in the airframe and it's new maintenance regime are waiting to rear their ugly head?(my lecturers tells me this is exactly the kind of problem they dealt with in the RAAF's C-130J program) What is the likely possibillity that it's found we have to dump these new maintenance practices and operating procedures, and revert to a more traditional and costly approach?

These production problems might just evaporate ,or they could be a portent of longer term trouble down the track. I for one certainly hope not because I'm the poor mug that will have to work on them and deal with any of the issues that might arise.

LEE.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by thebozeian]

Originally posted by thebozeian
The A-380 and 787 dont play this game however. They have moved to the corporatised plug and play model. Now the aircraft will tell you it has a problem and your only job is to run diagnostics, do a check list and if still no joy, start pulling out and swapping boxes. If you can't fix the problem on the spot you send it back to the manufacturer and they fix the problem.

I think given time, people will begin to recognise the problem symptoms.

I reckon it will be similar to the local mechanic/electronic engine management scenario. When smaller operators have a problem, they'll run to their bigger mate a few miles down the road who does have a engine diagnostic machine and stick the car on it.

BOEING'S new carbon-composite 787 Dreamliner plane may turn out to be unsafe and could lead to more deaths in crashes, according to a report by veteran journalist Dan Rather to be broadcast in the US today.

The new plane, which is mostly made from brittle carbon compounds rather than flexible aluminum, is more likely to shatter on impact and may emit poisonous chemicals when ignited, Rather will report based on interviews with a former Boeing engineer and various industry experts, according to a transcript of the show.

Boeing 787, the new flying coffin

Well, to me it sounds way too harsh to dub the 787 'the flying coffin'. Also, credibility of the site that had presented this info is questionable.

However, if these are truly the words of a Boeing engineer, it is troubling news.

[edit on 10/12/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by Duby78

Well, to me it sounds way too harsh to dub the 787 'the flying coffin'. Also, credibility of the site that had presented this info is questionable.

However, if these are truly the words of a Boeing engineer, it is troubling news.

They are the words of a Boeing engineer, but not one that has worked on the project in any form.

Both Boeing and the FAA have ridiculed the criticism, and surprisingly Airbus has also supported Boeing in this as well.

The 787 is as safe as any other modern airliner.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Well, of course that the firm would ridicule him, since it sounds blasthemous for Boeing. But being an engineer bears some credibility, even though he didn't work on the 787 project. Or maybe he is way too sceptical about these new materials? Otherwise, why would he bash the firm that hired him? I wouldn't know.

But Airbus supporting Boeing? That's new to me.

reply to post by Duby78


The support is because the claim is about composites which airbus is using extensively in the A350. nice to see that they will bury the hatchet at times when needed. but it does make me leary. How well have they tested composites in a crash?

Originally posted by Duby78
Otherwise, why would he bash the firm that hired him? I wouldn't know.

a former Boeing engineer

Could be why.

But Airbus supporting Boeing? That's new to me.

Actually, since carbon compounds are generally going to be used more and more in airline designs (as is my understanding, I could be wrong), Airbus's use may also come under fire from the same arguments. Might as well nip the argument in the bud now, right?

Well, these answers are sufficient for me. Carbon compounds are the future, if you ask me. And I would like to see the results of 'crash tests', too. Thanks for your input, Canada_EH and Darkpr0.

The 'Boeing 787, the new US flying coffin' is a complete load of crap. Bla bla bla bla bla, the whole thing is a load of mindless asumptions.

In real world scenarios it's been proven that passengers will be more likely to survive when seated in stronger parts of the fuselage (Ontop of the Forward Wing Spar). Go look at passenger maps from various accidents.... the A300 which crashed into Japan from out of trim.... and the AA 757 crashing into mountain. Formula one, imagine if they were made of Aluminium. Do Formula one cars shatter? What about high performance gliders? There's been cases of Composite gliders hitting the ground at well over 100 knots a few degrees pitch with the glider retaining its shape. If it were aluminium, the pilot would of been smushed into the ground like a bug hitting the windscreen.

Composite fibres disperse energy in all directions through the fibres by tempoarily deforming like a spring, therefore there is no need for crumpling to absorb the energy.

Not like it matters anyway, chances are the 787 will not have a single crash where a aluminium fuselage would of helped.

Wait, there's more. Scroll down.

Todd Wissing, a commercial pilot, says he would fly the 787 as long as the composite materials are rigorously tested.

Hahahahahaha.

A 'Commercial pilot', who won't fly the 787 because the composite materials are not 'rigorously tested'? Hahahahahaha, what a crack up.


787.... unsafe in a crash? Well personally, I think it's unsafe to be in any kind of a crash, and would recommend avoiding it.