Like Airbus, so does Boeing

[Skybird]

Hört, hört:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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.

[jumpy]

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

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hört, hört:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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.

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. :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!

-S

[Lurchi]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

... 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

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

...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]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

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

[The Avon Lady]

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

[Camaero]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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

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.

Chock

[Lurchi]

Hey, mine too, with Goldfinger ...

i mean Gert Fröbe!!

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

Hey, mine too, with Goldfinger ...

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.