Like Airbus, so does Boeing

[Skybird]

Hört, hört:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,510811,00.html

Let's see if we will see the same ammount of mockery that we saw when Airbus admitted it would need to fail the planned delivery date. :D

[jumpy]

Hehe, I refer you to the quotation in my signature...

[The Avon Lady]

Hört, hört:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,510811,00.html

Let's see if we will see the same ammount of mockery that we saw when Airbus admitted it would need to fail the planned delivery date. :D
If I remember correctly, the Airbus delay was because of fuselage parts that wouldn't fit together or some other right-hand-not-knowing-what-left-hand-is-doing situation. Is that correct? I seem to recall 2 different CAD softwares being used or similar.

Also, is this the first delay announced by Boeing for the 787? How many did Airbus announce?

What contract penalties will Boeing incur, versus what Airbus did?

Anyway, folks, put your money where your mouth is (http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,23483,22524109-27977,00.html?from=mostpop). :p

[Steel_Tomb]

Yeah the wireing didn't match up because they were using two different CAD programs at different areas. So they had to gut all the wireing and do it from fresh.

[Linton]

This is the fine print in Boeing promise:

Forward-Looking Information is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty

Certain statements in this report may constitute "forward-looking" statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as "expects," "intends," "plans," "projects," "believes," "estimates," and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, among others, statements regarding future results as a result of our growth and productivity initiatives, our 2007 and 2008 financial outlook and the benefits of the IDS structure. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions as to future events that may not prove to be accurate. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak only as of the date they were made and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Our actual results and future trends may differ materially depending on a variety of factors, including the continued operation, viability and growth of major airline customers and non-airline customers (such as the U.S. Government); adverse developments in the value of collateral securing customer and other financings; the occurrence of any significant collective bargaining labor dispute; our successful execution of internal performance plans including our company-wide growth and productivity initiatives, production rate increases and decreases (including any reduction in or termination of an aircraft product), availability of raw materials, acquisition and divestiture plans, and other cost-reduction and productivity efforts; charges from any future SFAS No. 142 review; ability to meet development, production and certification schedules for the 787 program and the ability to meet scheduled deliveries of the 787 airplane; technical or quality issues in development programs (affecting schedule and cost estimates) or in the satellite industry; an adverse development in rating agency credit ratings or assessments; the actual outcomes of certain pending sales campaigns and U.S. and foreign government procurement activities, including the uncertainty associated with the procurement of tankers by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and funding of the C-17 program; the cyclical nature of some of our businesses; unanticipated financial market changes which may impact pension plan assumptions; domestic and international competition in the defense, space and commercial areas; continued integration of acquired businesses; performance issues with key suppliers, subcontractors and customers; significant disruption to air travel worldwide (including future terrorist attacks); global trade policies; worldwide political stability; domestic and international economic conditions; price escalation; the outcome of political and legal processes, changing priorities or reductions in the U.S. Government or foreign government defense and space budgets; termination of government or commercial contracts due to unilateral government or customer action or failure to perform; legal, financial and governmental risks related to international transactions; legal and investigatory proceedings; tax settlements with the IRS and various states; U.S. Air Force review of previously awarded contracts; costs associated with the exit of the Connexion by Boeing business; and other economic, political and technological risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in our SEC filings, including, without limitation, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2007 and June 30, 2007.

[SUBMAN1]

In my mind, they can take as long as they need to get it right with everything working right. This is a good delay, not a funny one like the fuselage not fitting together causing years of delays! :rotfl:

Anyway, getting it wrong with a fast delivery at the expense of safety for improper testing is not an option in my book. Man, we give software developers so much more slack when they say they need another 6 months! With an aircraft, that is one project where I am happy to give them the 6 months they requested! :up:

-S

[Lurchi]

... This is a good delay, not a funny one like the fuselage not fitting together causing years of delays! :rotfl:
LOL, it is the other way round: It is the 'Dreamliner' which has problems with non-fitting parts. This is nothing unusual when you have (multinational) subcontractors. The A380's main problem had to do with the cabling and not with fuselage.

Based on this i cannot understand your distinction between a 'good' and a 'funny' delay now ... but i guess your for words had more to do with this primitive logic:

Boeing = USA = good delay
vs.
Airbus = Europe = funny delay
:roll:


...that is one project where I am happy to give them the 6 months they requested! Wow, thanks for your generosity by 'giving' them those extra 6 months, so are willing to pay for this 'good' delay, right??? Quantas will surely be happy about that!:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

LOL, it is the other way round: It is the 'Dreamliner' which has problems with non-fitting parts. This is nothing unusual when you have (multinational) subcontractors. The A380's main problem had to do with the cabling and not with fuselage.

Based on this i cannot understand your distinction between a 'good' and a 'funny' delay now ... but i guess your for words had more to do with this primitive logic:

Boeing = USA = good delay
vs.
Airbus = Europe = funny delay
:roll:
Not at all. THere were some fitting problems with the dreamliner that were quickly ironed out. The A350 however had a major issue that required ditching the entire design and going with a carbon fibre type design that is exactly like Boeing's body material. That is a major oops. Not a minor one.

...that is one project where I am happy to give them the 6 months they requested! Wow, thanks for your generosity by 'giving' them those extra 6 months, so are willing to pay for this 'good' delay, right??? Quantas will surely be happy about that!:rotfl:Quantas will not be pleased, but they are willing to accept a minor delay I am sure in the name of safety.

-S

[Camaero]

Boeing = USA = good delay
vs.
Airbus = Europe = funny delay
:roll:


:lol:

[The Avon Lady]

This thread reminds me of an ancient Tony Curtis and Terry Thomas classic. :yep:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6991/magnificentmenlb4.jpg

[Camaero]

This thread reminds me of an ancient Tony Curtis and Terry Thomas classic. :yep:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6991/magnificentmenlb4.jpg

That is one of my favorites!

[Chock]

Not good timing PR-wise when Singapore Airlines are just about to accept delivery of the first A380.

:D Chock

[Lurchi]

Hey, mine too, with Goldfinger ...
http://www.breitwand.com/upload/938/1.jpg
i mean Gert Fröbe!!

The A350 however had a major issue that required ditching the entire design and going with a carbon fibre type design that is exactly like Boeing's body material. That is a major oops. Not a minor one.
This is correct, no customer wanted the A350 as it was planned - a costly failure.

Funnily though, this is another parallel between Boeing and Airbus:

Boeing had to cancel the 'Sonic Cruiser' project (trying to counter the A380 by putting more emphasis on speed than space) because *meeep* no customer wanted it. That's why they finally developed the more conventional (slower) B787.

[SUBMAN1]

Hey, mine too, with Goldfinger ...
http://www.breitwand.com/upload/938/1.jpg
i mean Gert Fröbe!!

This is correct, no customer wanted the A350 as it was planned - a costly failure.

Funnily though, this is another parallel between Boeing and Airbus:

Boeing had to cancel the 'Sonic Cruiser' project (trying to counter the A380 by putting more emphasis on speed than space) because *meeep* no customer wanted it. That's why they finally developed the more conventional (slower) B787. Not quite. THe sonic cruiser morphed into the 787. The sonic cruiser version is not completely gone either, just shelved for the time being.

By the way, your pic reminds me of the game I'm playing - Evil Genius. Its a way better game that I anticipated. I'm having great fun with it.

-S

[TteFAboB]

Boeing has operated double-deckers even before the 747. Then came the 747 and all the years of operation. So Airbus is mounting the A380 on Boeing's record of success.

[Skybird]

Popcorn, anyone? :sunny:

[bookworm_020]

I'll pass on the popcorn:)

Quantas will not be pleased, but they are willing to accept a minor delay I am sure in the name of safety.

-S

I think you are refering to Qantas, I've never heard of Quantas!:rotfl:

Qantas has already said they would be asking for compinsation, but have said that it won't be as long as many have said it wold be. Boeing have said they will be back on track by 2009 (that they will have caught up by then), haveing delivered all aircraft owing up to that point.

I reckon that Qantas is going to get a good deal on any more purchases that it makes in the near future. I can see more options being turned into orders!:yep:

Boeings problems are different to Airbus, they have just have had slow delivery of parts from contractors (namely fasteners) It isn't like they have to rewire the aircraft from scratch like Arbus

[Chock]

Boeing has operated double-deckers even before the 747. Then came the 747 and all the years of operation. So Airbus is mounting the A380 on Boeing's record of success.

Apart from the fact that Dornier and Shorts both produced twin deck aircraft well before Boeing, so it was hardly an idea originated at Boeing. But on a more serious note, Boeing and Airbus Industrie, both took on different philosophies some years ago, with Boeing projecting that small to medium-haul airliner orders would be where the sales would come, whereas Airbus figured it would be long-haul stuff. Which was when Airbus first mooted the A380 (which at that point was merely the A3XX). Boeing had a rethink and produced feasibility studies for larger versions of the 747-400 with an extended top deck and lengthened fuselage. They came to the conclusion that their original small and medium-haul projections were correct and put the bigger 747 idea on ice. Which means that the absolute last thing Airbus is doing is copying Boeing, they are in fact going for completely the opposite market.

In recent years, Boeing's speculation has proved fairly correct, with small commuter aircraft being one of the more popular growth areas, which is why Avions Transport Regional is doing 'very nicely thank you' with the ATR-42 and ATR-72.

Airliner manufacturers have always purloined ideas from one another, in fact the grand-daddy of modern airliners (the Douglas DC-3) was born in just such a way, with it being ordered by rival airlines in the US when they were unable to buy the Boeing Model 247. The same thing happened with the Lockheed Constellation and the DC-4, the Douglas DC-8 and the Boeing 707, plus a Convair rival and to some extent the DeHavilland Comet, also the Boeing 737 and the Dassault Breguet Mercure, and it even went on in the helicopter market, with the Boeing CH-47 and other twin rotor aircraft being based on helicopter designs produced by Fairey and Bristol.

And if you really want to name the originator of the ETOPs-rated type of wide-bodied twin (which most of the Boeing range consists of), then that is almost certainly the original Airbus model A300. A design which has been around so long, it was in fact the aircraft which was involved in the terrorist actions and subsequent Israeli special forces raid at Entebbe in 1976.

Boeing and Airbus have both produced excellent designs and both have had their problems too, and it is really rather pointless to indulge in some sort of ridiculous p*ssing contest about which is better or more original, their relative success is has and probably always will see-saw.

:D Chock

[Torpedo Fodder]

Eh...a few months delay isn't terribly unusual for a commercial airliner. Get back to me when the aircraft gets delayed a full 2 years like the A380. Aditionally, while the A380 is a long way from making the 400+ orders it needs to be profitable, I cannot fathom the 787 has not surpased it's own break-even point (anyone happen to know what that is?), with over 700 confirmed orders. I wish Airbus the best of luck with the A350 though: It is in that aircraft and the 787 where the future of air travel lies, not the A380.

[The Avon Lady]

Popcorn, anyone? :sunny:
Not unless you Euro-weenies have got anything near Orville Redenbacher's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcn4p213Zg8)!

On second thought.......... :doh:

[TarJak]

Someone I know close to a subcontractor responsible for the construction of one of the major components (not fasteners) of the 787 reckons that the project is likely to be further delayed due do trouble in setting up the production line for that component. He reckons it could be up to another 8-10 months delayed beyond what has already been admitted to by Beoing.

[The Avon Lady]

Someone I know close to a subcontractor responsible for the construction of one of the major components (not fasteners) of the 787 reckons that the project is likely to be further delayed due do trouble in setting up the production line for that component. He reckons it could be up to another 8-10 months delayed beyond what has already been admitted to by Beoing.
Sounds like a sell short stock tip to me! :yep:

[Skybird]

Eh...a few months delay isn't terribly unusual for a commercial airliner. Get back to me when the aircraft gets delayed a full 2 years like the A380. Aditionally, while the A380 is a long way from making the 400+ orders it needs to be profitable, I cannot fathom the 787 has not surpased it's own break-even point (anyone happen to know what that is?), with over 700 confirmed orders. I wish Airbus the best of luck with the A350 though: It is in that aircraft and the 787 where the future of air travel lies, not the A380.
Wishing luck for the A350? when that thing comes out the 787 already will have sweeped the market.

Although targetting totally different market sgments, the 787 and the 380 are the real contemporary competitors for the imminent design of air traffic patterns. Chock is right with what he said. airbus had lost many contracts due to the delays, but it is possible that due to the enormous econimc value of the plane and it's low fuel consummation, orders swing back to normal if the customers getting it are satisfied and no new problems arise from customer feedback. Whereas you can expect that Boeing just has announced the first of more delays, and will loose a certain ammount of contracts. that'S how the business is, and was.

Anyway, do not take all this to seriously. I just made a little mockery of the nationalism some people had shown up with in earlier discussion about the "shootout" between Boeing and Airbus. so when I provoked a bit when starting this thread, in fact I was pulling some people's leg. As Chock said, both planes, the 380 as well as the 787, are extremly well-done planes and represent extremely high technological standards. Trying to justify why this plane must be better that that, is childish. Both planes have different economical strategy targets. If any you can compare them only by to what degree each plane is fulfilling it's intended role in the choosen market strategy. And if one planes fulfills it's purpose less than the other, it still does not mean that it is "bad" in a technological understanding when compared to it's distant strategic rival.

In flightsims I prefer the cockpit philosophy of Boeing, btw.

[jumpy]

Looking at airliners on youtube today..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk&feature=PlayList&p=AD89368D6EAD430C&index=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sneYFUtiKKc&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dK5VOhKk8s&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpmTpioTFZg&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkJr2kY1TqY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ&mode=related&search=

It seems to be all of the same airliner from a couple of different vantage points. Dig the low pass in the first one :up: