It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And another delay for dreamliner - Q1 2009 first flight

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
www.flightglobal.com...


As a result. Boeing has now begun to publicly speculate that first flight for 787 could move into 2009, while maintaining officially that first flight will occur in 2008.


so , 2011 before they get delivered to the airlines? i reckon late 2010




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I wonder how the A350 is coming along? That lead is disappearing day by day



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I wonder how the A350 is coming along? That lead is disappearing day by day


I expect A350 will slip too - Airbus will just keep quiet on this



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by waynos
I wonder how the A350 is coming along? That lead is disappearing day by day


I expect A350 will slip too - Airbus will just keep quiet on this


I actually don't think the A350 will slip - I think Airbus manufactuered a significant amount of buffer into their program after the last fiasco of theirs.

Consider this -

Boeing launches the 787 in 2004, with first delivery due in 2008. They gave themselves 4 years from launch (and first order) to delivery.

Airbus launched the A350XWB in mid 2006, with first delivery due in mid 2011. Thats 7 years, nearly double what Boeing gave themselves.

And now.... well, now Boeing is approaching 6 years between launch and first delivery....

Think about it.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The strike is crippling them - whats the chance airlines will walk away? airbus is allready offering a heavier mtow to compete short term with the failiner (tm)



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I think the 787 is still far from being in a position where customers will walk away. As much as its lead over the A350 has eroded, it does still have a lead and anyone changing horses will have to go to the back of the Airbus queue and be possibly even worse off.

They might not like it, but the airlines don't have any alternative that is cost effective.

However if it goes on........who knows?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I think the 787 is still far from being in a position where customers will walk away. As much as its lead over the A350 has eroded, it does still have a lead and anyone changing horses will have to go to the back of the Airbus queue and be possibly even worse off.


The big difference is lack of production means delivery slots move backward as well - Boeing are looking at peaking their production at 10 frames a month at some point in 2012, 3 years later than initially planned. This means that Boeings next 'free' slots move out to 2017+, which is right where the A350XWBs next free slots are sitting.

Basically, Boeing just lost the 'we have a plane available sooner' plus point in any new deals - and Boeing doesn't have a decent 'interim' model either, while Airbus has the A330 which has slots available from 2012 onward.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I agree completely, I was thinking in terms of existing customers cancelling to order the A350 instead.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I actually don't think the A350 will slip - I think Airbus manufactuered a significant amount of buffer into their program after the last fiasco of theirs.


Possibly, possibly...


But Airbus have a few distractions, such as A380, and the A320 replacement.


Boeing have, Y1? or has it been scrapped?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
They also have 747-8 and KC-X to keep them occupied too.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
747-8 has 3 years productuion in it then its out - only 4 companies have oredered about 50 between them



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
They also have 747-8 and KC-X to keep them occupied too.


Would KC-X be military or civilian?

I would assume they are not the same design offices for security reasons alone.


Yes, the 747-8 farce will be taking engineers off 787.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
747-8 has 3 years productuion in it then its out - only 4 companies have oredered about 50 between them


There are currently 106 orders from 11 customers.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Possibly, possibly...


But Airbus have a few distractions, such as A380, and the A320 replacement.


Boeing have, Y1? or has it been scrapped?


Both Airbus and Boeing have said that their narrowbody replacements will not be available until the latter half of the next decade, so 2015 onward. They are also hinting that it will be toward the end of that period as well.

Boeing has the 787-8 to get into the air, then it has to solve the design and weight issues with the basic airframe before the 787-9 is scheduled to go into production in 2012 (three years later than scheduled). Boeing also has to solve the '787-3 question' - are they going to produce it or not, and if not, then what else are they going to offer?

Boeing has the 747-8 to get into the air, they also have the 777 refresh to bring to the table which is not going to be trivial if they wish for it to compete against the A350 in any decent form.

Boeing has stated that the 777 replacement won't be happening for the forseeable future - they are sticking with a 777 upgrade.

Boeing also has the 787-10 to sort out - a lot of airlines are asking for something in that area, and currently only Airbus have an offering.

Airbus, on the other hand, have the A380 production to ramp up - this is largely on its way and any minor hiccups won't massively affect anything as they will be contained within the current A380 workforce.

The A330F program is little more than a refresh of Airbuses 2001 program, meaning the engineering work is pretty much done. I don't forsee any issues here at all, especially as Airbus already have experience through their MRTT offerings to the Australian Airforce and others - its almost the same airframe.

Airbus also have the A350XWB to design, and bring all three variants to fruition - I feel that Airbus have the upper hand here, because they are designing the A350 with the -900 variant as the base, while Boeing has the 787-8 as their base in the family. This means that the 'double stretch' 787-10 will be more of an engineering issue than the A350-1000 as Airbus are doing it straight from the word go.

Airbus are solving the '787-3' issue from the very start as well - they aren't offering any specialised variant of the A350 range in any mechanical form, but they *are* offering a software restricted version of all three models for a lower MTOW for shorter routes etc. This means parts can be managed differently (rather than simply using a standard A350 and jsut not loading it to MTOW) and maintenance is reduced.

Airbus are also improving the A330 using the original A350s proposed design enhancements - there was recently a weight increase offered to improve the range (bringing it very close the 787-800s design range), and with the probability of putting the GEnx or TrentXWB onto the airframe (or even a GTF) it means that the, already very competitive, offering will be made much more competitive.

The KC-X will affect Boeing more than Airbus - Boeing needs to get the USAF to accept the 767 as the prime aircraft, because the civilian 767 production is pretty much dead at the moment (one airframe a month on average). If, as has happened, the USAF want a bigger aircraft, then Boeing have a problem.

Both the 777 and 787 lines are full, which means investment to bring second lines to the table would be needed - also, both aircraft are bigger than the A330, which may actually act against Boeings offering (sure, the USAF wants more capability, but theres a reason they aren't going for the biggest aircraft anyone in the world can offer... theres a fine line between 'more' and 'too much' and in a lot of peoples opinions the 767 doesn't suffice for 'more' and the 777 is past the line of 'too much'). If Boeing can't get the 767 accepted for the KC-X, it means they have to close down that line.

Airbus are in a much better position, because they already have experience with setting up production lines in other countries (the China FAL just came online - theres not much difference logistically between assembling A320s in China and A330s in America) and the airframe is based off an evolving product rather than a product at the end of its civil life.

Hope that all makes sense.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Harlequin
747-8 has 3 years productuion in it then its out - only 4 companies have oredered about 50 between them


There are currently 106 orders from 11 customers.


of which 76 are the freighter version and 8 are to be configured as business jets - whivh leaves Lufthansa as the only airline operator of the passenger version;

also there are only 6 more 747`s left to be built - all frieghters and all in final assembly;

Lufthansa are taking a risk with the new type , it requires new certification and as the only customer the spares issue could be a problem.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Both companies narrowbody books are full - and both are looking at the new engines on offer for them - with possible stretches for teh airframes as well - so slightly longer and new engines meaning they don`t actually have to build a new one right now - all IMO of course



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join