Boeing 787 First Flight Delayed
November 4th, 2008
In the wake of the IAM strike and the more recent discovery on non conforming fasteners found on the first few 787’s in Everett, Boeing today confirmed that the first flight would not now take place until 2009.
“Given the duration of the IAM work stoppage, first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will not be accomplished in the fourth quarter of 2008. The timeframe for first flight has not been established and will be based on the strike recovery assessment. The program is working to determine a new program schedule that will be announced when it is finalized,” said 787 spokeswoman Yvonne Leach.
“We’ve always said the strike was day-for-day plus disruption…the strike was 58 days — almost two months — and we have about that many days remaining in the year.”
She added that it is “premature to comment” on when a new revised schedule would be in place.
The effects of the strike was seen as the key catalyst behind the decision to delay first flight, meaning that deliveries will likely commence in 2010.
“Although the admission of further 787 delays is hardly welcome, it has already been reflected in our Boeing estimates, and we think the stock continues to trade beneath its fair value, given that half the business is defense. We reiterate our Outperform rating and US$63 price target,” said analyst Robert Stallard.
Most Wall Street analysts agree now that deliveries in early 2010 seems the most likely target given this new slip in the schedule.
During the Farnborough Air Show, 787 VP/General Manager Patrick Shanahan highlighted his concerns that the programme was using margins that he didn’t want to eat into.
Responding to earlier reports of the non conforming fasteners installed on the first five test 787’s (including the static test 787) in Everett, Boeing’s Mary Hanson added:
“We first discovered this a couple of weeks ago during a regular inspection of the static airframe. We then began inspecting all the 787s in Everett and alerted our structural partners to check their units in production. The number of non-conformances vary in number by airplane but each of the airplanes in Everett is involved. The location of these non-conforming fasteners is not isolated to any particular area of the airplanes. “
It is understood that subsequent 787’s in the production stream are also affected.
Entry Filed under: 787 Dreamliner, 787 First Flight, Air Transport, Air Travel, Airlines, Airplane, Boeing, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner
15 Comments Add your own
1. 787Worker | November 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Like all this was caused by the strike. Give me a break. The 787 has been a complete disaster since day 1. A 2 month strike did not cause any of this. It just gives Boeing an excuse instead of blaming it on its own poor planning.
2. Jerrold | November 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
How disappointing…again. It appears that the strike did not help but the delays went beyond the strike problems.
This is discouraging and Boeing owes it to the shareholders to explain how and what the problems are and when we can really count on the takeoff of the 787. Erlier indications led us to believe that things wre going well…the brakes, propulsion…etc.. but apparently, not well enough.
This is the 4th delay and substantiates that there were problems we were not informed about. This, again, tarnishes the credibility of Boeing at a time when it is much needed.
3. Angel/MT-4 | November 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Just proves that outsourcing is and was the major reason for all the delays. Had we of built the plant in-house, there would have been superior quality and workmanship by our own certified machinists and the 787-Dreamliner would be in the air already. This also proves that we are worth much more than they tried to give us in their first BAFO and is why we went on strike. When Boeing gets their heads out of their asses, we will get back to reality and do what we all do best, making superior products and maintaining our leadership around the world in the aviation industry.
I’d like to add though, that part of the reason we are so good at what we do is all the intensive training and schooling we get prior to even touching the real planes and I credit Boeing for that. Too bad they gotta waste all their time and investement in us by having their products made outside of Boeing by apparently “unskilled” and “uneducated” labor just to save a buck. Boeing is getting what they pay for..CRAP.
4. Mrr | November 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Some of you have very short memories at Boeing, there have been a number of incidents over the years where fasteners where missed.
In some cases l believe the holes were not even drilled.
Quality has always been an issue, with items being missed, it has just not been so bad in the last few years.
I am not going into a Boeing v Airbus thing as both have had problems with quality and will for many years to come.
So as the saying goes, don’t throw stones in glass houses.
5. keesje | November 4th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
The non confoming fasteners should be in the first 20 or so shipsets.
The scary part for me is “The location of these non-conforming fasteners is not isolated to any particular area of the airplanes. “ So hundreds all over the aircraft. You have to check them all everywhere, also in hard to reach places requiring disassembly.. a nightmare.
6. boeing investor | November 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Good things come to those who wait…!
7. Mark | November 5th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I wouldn’t be so quick to blame outsourcing on improper installation of these fasteners if I was an IAM member. Many of these sections were delivered with temporary fasteners due to the shortage at the time, meaning IAM did a lot of the re-work. The fact that the problem is located in multiple fuselage segments that were manufactured by different vendors lends credence to the idea that it was the re-work by IAM that is the culprit in this case.
8. DonS | November 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
___The fact that the problem is located in multiple fuselage segments that were manufactured by different vendors lends credence to the idea that it was the re-work by IAM that is the culprit in this case.–
++
lets not forget to blame the IAM for
Hurricanes, bubonic plague, financial collapse, and your hemorroids
BA has already said the fastener problem extended to their partners
9. sky mapper | November 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
All of this could have been avoided if the idiot IAM members had agreed to accept the vote in September that they stupidly still agreed to nearly two months later.
Blame Boeing all you like for 787 outsourcing, but its you in Everett on the assembly line thats let 787 customers down, not Boeing.
The quicker Boeing dumps you all to a non union state to work without interruption, the darn better.
10. mike j | November 5th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I sure hope 787 doesn’t turn out to be a total dud, ie the “nightmare-liner” instead of the “dreamliner”.
Oh wait, that’s already happenning…
11. Chris C | November 6th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Boeing released that none of the 787’s require “dis-assembly” to fix the ‘non-conforming’ fasteners. This is an extract from the Wall Street Journal:
Boeing’s Ms. Leach said engineers traced the latest problem to “specifications that weren’t specific enough.” She said the problem, while significant, was confined to less than 3% of the fasteners on the airplane. “The good news is that no major structures are having to come apart to fix this,” she added.
12. Angel/MT-4 | November 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am
To Sky mapper:
It’s evident you don’t work for Boeing or you wouldn’t have that Diahrea-of-the-mouth problem. We are not to blame for the 787-delays, you always believe what the media says? And IF you worked here, you would not have accepted the contract in Sept. either..and NO, the new contract is NOT the same as was offered 2 mos. ago. There are quite a few differences..so until you stand in our IAM shoes..please do me a favor and STFU.
13. Douglas S | November 6th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
As for not having to take critical members/junctions apart, in a WSJ article, (citation below), Lori Gunter, spokeswomen for Boeing, pointed out that major assembly seams are affected, so it may be true critical assembly junctions do not have to come apart, they will however require some amount of rework. All reworked fasteners will require FAA-Qualified QA oversight which may strain Boeing’s already tight labor force.
At 3% of the aircraft, the total number of impacted fasteners will number in the thousands… Its going to be a very long winter in Everett, WA.
WSJ Article: Fastener Woes to Delay Flight of First Boeing 787 Jets
By J. Lynn Lunsford - 05/11/08
14. Jerrold | November 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I think we still have to wait for a full assessment from Boeing before drawing any conclusions about the depth and length of the new fastner problem. The inspection system has been good at picking up any discrepancies and may help solve this problem faster than expected.
Whoever and when this problem arose is important but not central to the solution.
Lets hope this glitch gets repaired asap..
15. mechanical sky | December 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Oops! it happened again……nut and bolt. yeah very little thing to hold two pieces together again slow down the production of deamliner. It gonna be dream again for Boeing.mechanicalsky.com
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed