118 Comments Add your own

• 1. Chris Wallace  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 16:55

  

  As long as the plane meets or beats expectations in performance and economics, all will eventually be forgiven.

  Boeing does have to get this right from the get-go. They can’t afford an MD-11 situation where the initial plane is sub-par and they claw it back over months and years. So better to wait and be sure then rush and hope.

• 2. boeing investor  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:01

  

  So why was Carson running his mouth off last week at the show that it would fly “in 2 weeks”.

  He’s lied too many times to be taken seriously.

  Until he goes, Boeing may yet have MORE delays to face and its all because Carson has not demonstrated leadership.

  Bring back Mulally.

• 3. Paula K  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:06

  

  Cant wait to see the research notes emerge after this!

  Perhaps this is what Akbar Al Baker was alluding to in his “rant”?

• 4. boeing investor  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:07

  

  I would also add that there will be added pressure for a second line to catch up on the delayed backlog.

  I expect to see more canceled orders, maybe beyond 100 by Dec 31.

• 5. JerryF  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:09

  

  This is an outrageous occurance given the assurances by President Jim McNearny that the plane would definitely fly by the end of the month but a few days ago.

  The first stress tests took place back several months and now we are informed that the modeling or simulation just got it wrong or whatever engineering and corporate double talk by this team indicates there is more work to do.

  Will Boeing ever get it right? A structural problem that is discovered three days before flight !

  Boeing has lost all of its credibility. We can no longer believe what they say and then cover up with talk and lack of effectiveness.

  We have all been patient but this is too much to swallow. Someone is responsible and the team is responsible and they have failed terribly. This is an outrageous insult to the shareholders and people who believed in this Company. We have little confidence in their abilities to manage this program. Their actions speak much louder than their words

• 6. 747fan  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:10

  

  Boeing has screwed up big time. Again.

• 7. edo  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:10

  

  Either way, this is ridiculous.

  This has nothing to do with AB They too may face problems with the XWB or they might not. We do not know so let’s nip that conversation in the bud.

  This is purely ridiculous. Years late, iffy performance and now more delays. They can take their dream and shove it.

• 8. Mike M  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:17

  

  >>>This has nothing to do with AB

  Only person talking about Airbus is you. No one else.

  Why bring them into this??

  Actually, dont explain. Thanks.

• 9. M. Albert Nissim  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:33

  

  Perhaps they should have gone ahead with first flight, as they did with rollout, to satisfy public nerves. By the time 001 gets into the air, all other test planes should also be ready to fly.

• 10. MPTA-098  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:38

  

  Perhaps this is what Akbar Al Baker was alluding to in his “rant”?

  Correct, the doers usually have far more insight in what’s going on behind the scene, than the talkers in the “commentariat”.

• 11. Chris C  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:41

  

  This is exceptionally disappointing news that first flight has been delayed again, but nevertheless, safety is absolute paramount, and in flying, there’s absolutely no compromise whatsoever. It’s very frustrating that Boeing reaffirmed during the Paris Airshow that all remains on track for first-flight by the end of this quarter, and now only reveal a significant schedule adjustment, again!

  It seems that Boeing understands the situation at hand, but it’s certainly a time consuming and embarrasing fix. But, again, at least these problems are discovered before the 787 is in the air!

  >> edo (Comment 7)

  How does this delay to the 787 program affect you?
  Please explain. Do you work for Boeing? You better come clean with an explanation since if you say “Boeing can take their dream and shove it,” and you’re actually not affected by the airplane, then you are really sounding emotional and childish! I’ll retract my comment if you prove me wrong sir, but until then, you shove it!!

• 12. keesje  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 17:49

  

  Dang, I guess everybody was looking forward to first flight. (or at least the youtubes on them) . I wonder how the FAA will look at this in terms of process control.

  I’m afraid the media will return to blogs and forum to get the real story on the Dreamliner.

  I’m afraid Doug McVitie, MD at Arran Aerospace will rip apart Boeing over this. He was very sharp in his comments in recent editorials.

• 13. Jacobin777  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 18:04

  

  keesje:

  I’m afraid Doug McVitie, MD at Arran Aerospace will rip apart Boeing over this. He was very sharp in his comments in recent editorials

  I thought he was “anti-Airbus”…;)

  —

  Ostensibly, it doesn’t seem something majour (like before). A few “couple of inch square patches” in a series. The planes are flight ready and the fixes will be easy to do on the other planes.

  They are saying its nothing structural (majour at least) and won’t affect aerodynamics and won’t add too much weight (”negligible”).

  I don’t think this will take too long (fingers crossed).

• 14. 787Fan  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 18:32

  

  I love how you guys are so quick to say how Boeing has screwed up again and all that. But I don’t see you guys developing and engineering anything. Cheap Talk.
  Do any of you realize how incrediblly complex this is especially with NEW Meterials. Yes..I agree things could have been done differently and things said and acknowlwged sooner. But there is NO question that Boeing is our best bet for the only American company left in the game. Just get over it and we can all cheer when it flies and is works correctly with no problems.

• 15. WingBender  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 18:37

  

  In the blog text, the phrase “sider body” needs to be replaced with “side of body”. Thanks.

  (All fixed now - Saj )

• 16. damn!  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 19:08

  

  Boeing Investor :So why was Carson running his mouth off last week at the show that it would fly “in 2 weeks”. Scott Carson shot off his mouth because he’s a idiot. He’s a media whore. The only time we see that fool on the plant floor is when he’s wandering around trying to act like he knows what’s going on. He’s never used a rivet gun or a bucking bar. He’s never installed seats. He doesn’t know how to use lockwire. He’s never used Velocity or Delmia. He doesn’t know how to drill aluminum or composite. He has a big mouth and a tiny brain and they’re not connected to each other.

• 17. ikkeman  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 19:28

  

  Shit happens. If it is so minor why not get the first bird in the sky - we know it’s not very production representative.

  2. boeing investor | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:01
  Yeah - lets stick our heads in the sand, blame a single person and when he’s gone all will be peachy. it’s nothing to do with pushing the boundaries of every technology and manufacturing process ascociated to this engineering marvell - to bad it’s a management/financial…

  5. JerryF | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:09
  sure, because it’s pointless to spend some time to identify the source of a discrepancy between your expectation and results. Best to just scream at teh top of your voice.

  9. M. Albert Nissim | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:33
  not unreasonable - A was already flying the 380 before it’s wing failed at less than the required safety factor.

  12. keesje | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:49
  

  14. 787Fan | June 23rd, 2009 at 18:32
  … so come over and watch me work once…

• 18. Jacobin777  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 19:41

  

  damn!

  Boeing Investor :So why was Carson running his mouth off last week at the show that it would fly “in 2 weeks”. Scott Carson shot off his mouth because he’s a idiot. He’s a media whore. The only time we see that fool on the plant floor is when he’s wandering around trying to act like he knows what’s going on. He’s never used a rivet gun or a bucking bar. He’s never installed seats. He doesn’t know how to use lockwire. He’s never used Velocity or Delmia. He doesn’t know how to drill aluminum or composite. He has a big mouth and a tiny brain and they’re not connected to each other.

  Wow..what brilliant commentary (so he says in a sardonic tone)! Your licentious euphemisms has contributed vastly to this particular blog.

• 19. TOGA Take-off Go Around  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 19:43

  

  damn!

  The next time you see Scott Carson “wondering around” on the factory floor, why don’t you go and speak to the man and voice your concerns? Maybe, just maybe he’ll listen to you and respect your opinion? Because, quite frankly, we’re not interested in your opinion of the BCA boss. Also remember, if you do indeed work for Boeing, you never really know who reads and watches these sites….I’d be very careful.

• 20. Vero Venia  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 20:06

  

  Buckling?

• 21. Falcon  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 20:09

  

  This is why they do all the tests. Never fun to find things that doesn’t work as planned but much better now than later even if it means a delay.

  Don’t think this will make much difference to Boeing and their customers. Sure there is a bit more delay but that’s it. Doubt there is more compensation to pay out and don’t think anyone will cancel because of this, i.e. if we see additional cancelations then it will be because of other things.

  Can’t help but compare the comments the fan-boys do here and at other places. If this can make a few of them understand that blind loyalty is not good for either team it would almost justify the negatives of the delay. Anyone dare to guess what Dougie McVitie would have said if it was Airbus delaying something.

• 22. boeing investor  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 20:41

  

  “So why was Carson running his mouth off last week at the show that it would fly “in 2 weeks” ”

  I cannot answer on his behalf, only he can explain that comment. I’d like to know myself.

  Ikkeman - I dont think things will be peachy, its about accountability, I am sure you agree.

• 23. Leelaw  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 20:44

  

  The quality of the leadership at the OEMs has to be at a an all time low. Is there any one among them that isn’t a cynical dissembler?

• 24. Steve  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 20:51

  

  “I love how you guys are so quick to say how Boeing has screwed up again and all that. But I don’t see you guys developing and engineering anything. Cheap Talk.
  “

  The only cheap talk is that coming from the mouths of Boeing execs “The 787 will fly before the end of June!”

  Just how many time have we head “Everything is just peachy” a few days before the next delay is announced? This time they’re telling us it will be “several weeks” before they can even tell us how long the latest delay will be.

• 25. Vero Venia  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 21:51

  

  I listened to the webcast and studied the consequences of this delay.

  1. Looks like the delivery and entry into service date will be delayed on one-to-one basis to the delay.
  2. Production will continue as planned, so aircraft to be delivered after the new (to be defined) certification date should not be affected.

  Briefly, if there is not any more surprise then only several deliveries will be delayed (relative to the latest schedule). The delayed units are the ones to be delivered between the current certification date and the new (to be defined) certification date.

  The number of the delayed units will be stored somewhere, pending to the (new) certification date. Boeing needs to make sure that this new certification date is not pushed to the right too far away.

  The financial impact will be known once the new (to be defined) certification date is known.

• 26. Vero Venia  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 22:05

  

  Correction:
  instead of The number of the delayed units will be stored somewhere, pending to the (new) certification date.

  please read:
  The number of the delayed units, which will be stored somewhere, depend on the (new) certification date.

• 27. Aotearoa  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 22:32

  

  “boeing investor | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:01

  So why was Carson running his mouth off last week at the show that it would fly “in 2 weeks”.

  You’d have to think Carson and McNearny didn’t know about this before now or they wouldn’t have been touting first flight dates when they did. This does make them look a little silly for sure and I reckon they will be asking some tough questions internally.

  I’m with those who say it is best to get it right but I must confess to being very diappointed.

  I would like to know however, why this has just surfaced now, a few days before planned first flight when “Results discovered from testing on static airplane” - when was that conducted?

• 28. edo  |  June 23rd, 2009 at 22:36

  

  #8 If I don’t explain, I let you off the hook.

  Many people in previous posts have pointed out the failures and delays of the other company so as to cover or justify the additional delays. This has worked in both “directions”

  Please look at post 17 where he references post #9

  “9. M. Albert Nissim | June 23rd, 2009 at 17:33
  not unreasonable - A was already flying the 380 before it’s wing failed at less than the required safety factor. ”

  And what does this or any other incident, with any other plane manufacturer have to do with all the big mouths at Boeing?
  ———————–

  #11 Perhaps you had better come “clean”
  Why is it that my comment bothers you so much that you are asking for an explanation? If you are incapable of seeing that this plane is very late while being hyped to death every step of the way, perhaps it is you who works for a manufacturer or has ulterior motives.

  Certainly I hope that Boeing is successful with this aircraft. This will mean better trips for all of us!
  This however, doesn’t give them the right to lie. At this point they have hyped and then retracted their statements one time too many. In my book that makes them liars.

  Under-promise and over-deliver; not the other way around. When it comes to aircraft there is no room for hype.

• 29. chaser  |  June 24th, 2009 at 01:05

  

  Its the good guys “engineers” I feel sorry for.
  Cannot but suspect this latest turn of events was foretold, probably pretty bluntly by said engineers when the static test failed, but Al Bakers “beancounters” probably decided there would be a cheap way out.
  Not So, as we have learned.
  It truly is time for a sacrifice at upper management. Continued disinformation is causing too much harm to Boeing.

• 30. Cyclenut  |  June 24th, 2009 at 02:10

  

  It’s pretty clear that at the Safety of Flight review the open “risk” concerning the stress notes on these areas could not be “retired”. I’ll bet the risk cube had this as a 3-3 until someone asked at the SOF what effect could this issue have on fatigue life. The delay is the outcome of a really good process that when it works well (which it did here) makes sure that every risk is properly considered prior to releasing an aircraft to flight. The lack of a schedule probably has more to do with Senior Management demanding a super rigorous re-evaluation of the pile of risks to make sure that nothing else is in the wood-pile. I’m a little worried that if the testing and data reduction was done in the April-May timeframe that a design solution was not in-work already but often it takes an extraordinary amount of effort and time to disposition these issues. Everyone needs to settle down and breathe deeply. That being said, a slew of good people will likely be hammered into smithereens because of this latest upset.

• 31. DWS  |  June 24th, 2009 at 03:32

  

  Listening to the web cast this morning, it was mentioned that while the issue has been known for a while, they still figured that they could get ZA001 of the ground on schedule, but recently decided that it wasn’t worth it due to the limits that would be imposed.

  Could it be possible that the decision to delay was finalized this weekend?

  Having spent a couple of decades in manufacturing at BCA, I know that there are battles fought when these kind of decisions are made, especially when schedule slides are involved.

• 32. robert  |  June 24th, 2009 at 05:07

  

  I too was hoping for the 787’s problems to be over. I think Boeing is again being over optimistic in it’s appraisal of the fix. This will require massive re-engineringing as well as, productions changes in Japan. A temporrary fix will be used for test airpanes but then the fix will have to be evaluated in the air and possibly another wing destruction test. They will eventually get it right. But when????

• 33. boeing investor  |  June 24th, 2009 at 05:18

  

  “Could it be possible that the decision to delay was finalized this weekend? ”

  It was made June 19.

• 34. Leelaw  |  June 24th, 2009 at 06:42

  

  “Having spent a couple of decades in manufacturing at BCA, I know that there are battles fought when these kind of decisions are made, especially when schedule slides are involved.”

  True. However, this isn’t the first time these guys have been to this dance in the last two years. The comments last week at Le Bourget by members of the leadership betrays a disconnect with reality which defies credulity. If they have any sense of honor, Mr. McNerney and Ken Duberstein, the feckless political hack who’s the leading force on the board of directors, should resign immediately. They’ll hardly be missed as the recovery effort gets underway.

• 35. Aotearoa  |  June 24th, 2009 at 07:28

  

  http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/23/328724/boeing-took-decision-to-delay-787-first-flight-last.html

  From the above link, it appears they knew about the issue some time ago(????) but only decided to delay the first test flight last Friday. It does worry me that even considering this, they still haven’t decided on a ‘plan of action’ to rectify it. WTF is going on with these procrastinators? I’m starting to agree with those that want to see heads roll including Carson at least.

• 36. Leelaw  |  June 24th, 2009 at 08:09

  

  “I’m starting to agree with those that want to see heads roll including Carson at least.”

  Carson was never there to be an “industrial manager.” He may still prove to be useful in managing the customer relations aspect of this mess. There isn’t enough time at this stage to back up the truck at the next level of management, what’s needed right now is CEO of The Boeing Company who’s a quick study at forensic analysis and also possesses a sensitive “BS meter” when comes to evaluating what his underlings are reporting to him.

• 37. JayPee  |  June 24th, 2009 at 10:03

  

  Jacobin777: Not a major structural problem?! At the wing to wingbox attachment area?! In 36 different locations?! Which at best only allowed first flight with a limited flight envelope, if a “quick”repair was made?! Right.
  Carson quote, “Consideration was given to a temporary solution that would allow us to fly as scheduled”. Sounds to me like it was not ready to fly without some sort of repair and that this contemplated “quick” repair would only allow a limited flight envelope. Long story short, there was no way it was flying at the end of this month and had they gone for the “quick” repair, they would have had to ground it shortly thereafter to do the “proper” rework.

  Another example of Boeing double talk: At one point, Fancher was trying to explain the discovery of the problem on the static rig. He mentioned the loads on the strain gages did not meet their predicitions and on inspection of the rig, found a number of things indicative of what the strain gages were saying (but did not answer the question of whether they saw delamination!). At another point he was discussing the strain gages and started talking on “increased” loads on them and corrected himself to “inconsistent” (not that increased loads is a surprise).

  Static and flight testing are done in parallell and this is common. Yes it is but basic things like the wing to fuse joint is checked pretty well at the beginning and is a mandatory test before first flight. Show me another airplane program that had a showstopping structural change less than a week before first flight. One of them even said, if we had found this problem a couple of months ago, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. They did find it a couple of months ago.!!!!

  I can’t wait for the sketch that they are “looking into” supplying.

  They are not being open (no they don’t have to be but then people should stop claiming that they are being open and up front) and I am sure there will be more problems.

  One last issue, I would certainly hope that they don’t take unnecessary risks on this program. That is expected. I do not understand why they are being praised for doing something that is expected of them. That said, it speaks volumes on their knowledge/skill base as well as their grasp of this program, which seems to be close to nonexistant in my opinion.

• 38. DES  |  June 24th, 2009 at 11:42

  

  The Airbus A380 was already flying for almost three years when they discovered the wing load problem in the static test. The real reason for delaying the first flight of the 787 is likely something else.

• 39. ikkeman  |  June 24th, 2009 at 11:52

  

  32. robert | June 24th, 2009 at 05:07
  Don’t worry to much - fixes as small as this can easily in included in the build process. The problem with Composites is the difficulty of changing anything once a tool is made. probably it’s cheaper to make the repair a stadard part of the build process rather than re-engineering the effected parts/assemblies

  37. JayPee | June 24th, 2009 at 10:03
  they could probably have waited with the rework untill the 2nd test article joined in - I’m just glad they didn’t do another 7/8/7…

  Aircraft are so complex you’ll always keep finding “room for improvement” (errors) in them. This only attracts attention because this a/c is new and very hyped…

• 40. Leelaw  |  June 24th, 2009 at 12:40

  

  “The Airbus A380 was already flying for almost three years when they discovered the wing load problem in the static test.”

  No, the maiden flight was on April 27, 2005. On February 14, 2006 during the destructive wing strength certification test on MSN5000, the test wing of the A380 failed at 145% of the limit load, short of the required 150% to meet the certification. Then A380 had been flying for not quite ten months.

• 41. Jerry1t  |  June 24th, 2009 at 13:31

  

  Scott Fancher indicates that the reinforcement does not require returning the plane to the factory and can be done in situ. It almost sounds easy if you follow Fancher’s bullet points.

  But the components have to be fabricated and tested and the fix has to be incorporated into the production schedule.

  Could someone provide a speculative script of Fancher’s implementation to give a better idea of how this would proceed in the most expeditious way and with certification conformity.

• 42. Dougloid  |  June 24th, 2009 at 14:16

  

  Could someone provide a speculative script of Fancher’s implementation to give a better idea of how this would proceed in the most expeditious way and with certification conformity.

  Comin’ right up.

  What will happen is that the old geezers who work out in the factory will figure out what needs doing based on their decades of experience building airplanes. The engineers will come along and bless what the old geezers have done, and the draftsmen will come along and document the entire process. The engineering manager will, of course, take credit for everything.

  That’s how it worked at Airesearch Aviation and that’s how it worked at McDonnell Douglas.

• 43. Dougloid  |  June 24th, 2009 at 14:26

  

  Lest we be too harsh here, I am in mind of an incident when management forced the schedule and ended up causing more delays. I worked inspecting hydraulic plumbing for Douglas. When the prototype MD11 was being developed one of the ‘milestones’ was ‘oil on’ which meant the hydraulic system got powered up.

  In order to meet the milestone management forced the issue. The end result was that they did get oil on, but all of the hydraulic plumbing ended up getting ripped out and redone. I myself wrote 36 major defect reports in three bays in the aft cargo hold where the plumbing runs.

  The point should be obvious-forcing the schedule causes more problems than it fixes, particularly on a prototype aircraft. It is far better to get it right the first time.

• 44. Erik Bloodaxe  |  June 24th, 2009 at 15:18

  

  Leelaw: Carson was never there to be an “industrial manager.” He may still prove to be useful in managing the customer relations aspect of this mess. There isn’t enough time at this stage to back up the truck at the next level of management, what’s needed right now is CEO of The Boeing Company who’s a quick study at forensic analysis and also possesses a sensitive “BS meter” when comes to evaluating what his underlings are reporting to him.

  Carson should NEVER have been promoted to CEO. He’s a nice guy and all, but knows diddly about airplanes. McNerney needs to be gone as well. He’s shown that both with the military side, and BCA that he has ZERO clue as to what is actually going on.

  As for Francher… what a waste. He barely knows the pointy end of the plane. He’s a missile guy. His experience with commercial airplane products before taking over 787… was as a passenger. MPTA could be a better head of 787 than him.

  Boeing needs to get rid of much of it’s current senior management. An entire bunch of losers, who have done nothing but damage Boeing credibility, and shareholder value. For Christ sake, Airbus even did a better job. By this same point in the A380 program they were already on their 4th CEO, and had undergone a massive restructuring at EADS. If EADS management would quit insider trading and concentrate on building airplanes, they’d be a formidable company.

  IMO this is the result of the McDac merger. Too many of the people who drove MD into the ground now driving Boeing the same way. Too many GE short term mentality guys, same thing that killed MD. Until this mess is cleaned up, BA is worth maybe 10 bucks a share.

• 45. damn!  |  June 24th, 2009 at 15:42

  

  It’s obvious,TOGA Terribly Ordinary Grungy Anus,that you don’t work for Boeing and you’ve never met Scott Carson. I have. He’s a arrogant,stupid jerk. He’s not interested in the ideas or opinions of the plant workers. He and Boeing upper management think of us as stupid,worthless primates. Never mind that we’re the ones that build the planes! “Because, quite frankly, we’re not interested in your opinion of the BCA boss.” We? Who’s “we”? Your fellow workers at Burger King? “Also remember, if you do indeed work for Boeing, you never really know who reads and watches these sites….I’d be very careful.” Oooo,I’m scared. In case you might have forgot,freedom of speech still exists in this country. I have a right express my opinion and I’m not the only person at Boeing that thinks Scott Carson is a bonehead.

• 46. damn!  |  June 24th, 2009 at 16:11

  

  Jacobin777: licentious euphemisms. What big words from such a small man.

• 47. boeing investor  |  June 24th, 2009 at 16:21

  

  “Carson should NEVER have been promoted to CEO.”

  Here here!

• 48. Paula K  |  June 24th, 2009 at 16:25

  

  Robert #32- This will require massive re-engineringing

  Not according to Fancher and this summary above saying it could be fixed without going back to the factory.

  However, I do think that just as Boeing stepped up its presence in Global Aeronautica, Fuji and Mitsubishi are gonna get some serious bitch-licks.

• 49. Dougloid  |  June 24th, 2009 at 18:00

  

  IMO this is the result of the McDac merger. Too many of the people who drove MD into the ground now driving Boeing the same way. Too many GE short term mentality guys, same thing that killed MD.

  Erik, I do not think you have a clear understanding of what that was all about and I do not think that you can identify too many managers who worked for Douglas who now occupy positions of similar responsibility at Boeing.

  In fact, the only thing that was salvaged was the Douglas jet circling the globe and the C17 order book, and that only because Uncle Sugar owns the building, the tooling and the design.

  For years Boeing had been doing a Catoesque “Douglas delenda est! Right now!” and when Douglas fell on hard times Boeing found fellow travelers in government who didn’t see any danger in a monopoly. They bought the place and ripped out the respirator and IVs and let it bleed to death.

  What was the real reason? Elementary my dear Watson-it made sure that no possible competitor would ever get a foothold in the US, and just like the Dallas Cowboys once tried to pass themselves off as America’s Team, they can now pass themselves off as the only game in North America.

  What you had in Long Beach was a fully functional large commercial aircraft production and design facility with a product line. Even if it wasn’t being run very well it was a turnkey operation that anyone wanting entree into the North American market would have loved to have.

  By bulldozing the buildings and dispersing the workforce as they did, they made damn sure no startup or offshore large aircraft competitor would ever get itself established on North American soil. Ever.

  Now. Had they kept it going, the air force would be happily tooling around in KC11 tankers. There would have been no contract dispute. Had Airbus bought the place, the KC30 might well have been a done deal too.

• 50. Francoise  |  June 24th, 2009 at 20:19

  

  Haha, look at all the Boeing fans cry over this delayed international junkplane.

  At least the Lord of the skys is flying!

  Vive la A380!

• 51. Leelaw  |  June 24th, 2009 at 20:54

  

  “Christ sake, Airbus even did a better job. By this same point in the A380 program they were already on their 4th CEO, and had undergone a massive restructuring at EADS.”

  With the exception of Mr. Streiff, who was booted out in less than 100 days for being too insensitive, all they’ve done is play musical chairs with executives and taken half measures in terms of reorganization. The current boob running Airbus, Herr Doktor Enders, is the same guy who when he was co-CEO of EADS with Mr. Forgeard, assured shareholders/stakeholder that a loss contingency wouldn’t be necessary to cope with the charges associated with the A380 delay, and that any costs resulting therefrom would be “unwound internally.”

  IMO, the real villain in the current travails at Boeing is the faceless and ever feckless board ringleader Mr. Duberstein. He was a hack at politics and equally accomplished in the art of corporate governance.

• 52. Leelaw  |  June 24th, 2009 at 21:11

  

  “Vive la A380!”

  Ah yes, the “increasingly irrelevant” WhaleBus[t], according to the “Great Satan” Aboulafia, that malignant financial turd festering in the bowels of Airbus which will ultimately have to be painfully expunged. Only a fatuous fanboy would coo about that industrial miasma.

• 53. Vero Venia  |  June 24th, 2009 at 21:18

  

  Re: 50. Francoise | June 24th, 2009 at 20:19

  I don’t believe the stake is on the A380.
  The A350 is much more important for Airbus’ future than the A380.

  It seems that the A350 development is progressing extremely well, so we are impatient to see it fly in 2012 and enter into service in 2013.

  Airbus needs to make sure that the A350 will not follow 787’s or A400M’s path.

• 54. chaser  |  June 25th, 2009 at 02:21

  

  The thing that bothers me most is that it happened at 130% load.
  Wonder what it would have looked like if the test had been continued to 150%
  A pile of CFRP shards like a seriously bent F1 race car?

• 55. boeing investor  |  June 25th, 2009 at 02:49

  

  WHat evidence is there that this happened at 130%?

  Havent seen anything, would appreciate a link etc.

  Thanks

• 56. boeing investor  |  June 25th, 2009 at 04:54

  

  Ignore, I found it.

• 57. Jacobin777  |  June 25th, 2009 at 05:40

  

  JayPee:

  When Airbus’ wing-flex test on the A380 didn’t exceed the maximum(IIRC, it was 148%), they had to make some adjustments (add some extra parts, etc.) and actually didn’t even have to redo the wing-flex test. They adjusted their FEM’s and it was found acceptable by the EASA, FAA, etc.

  Likewise, Boeing will probably have to make some minour changes as well (as they have stated).

  36 locations in itself doesn’t mean a lot.

  -

  Damn!

  Jacobin777: licentious euphemisms. What big words from such a small man.

  Thanks for proving my point.

  —

  Francoise

  Haha, look at all the Boeing fans cry over this delayed international junkplane.

  More brilliant commentary (once again stated in a sardonic tone).

• 58. ikkeman  |  June 25th, 2009 at 07:14

  

  52. Leelaw | June 24th, 2009 at 21:11
  53. Vero Venia | June 24th, 2009 at 21:18
  can’t quite manage to not react to such an obviously idiotic statement, can you.

  54. chaser | June 25th, 2009 at 02:21
  that’s 1.3 times teh maximum load ever expected in operatint the bird. Think flying through an hurricane times 1.3.
  in fact, 1.3 times limit load equates to something similar to the maximum g-force in any rollercoaster.
  So yes, it failed to meet the required 1.5 level - and yes, adjustments will need to be made. But no - the airplane was not - and if this is the first (lowest load level) problem they found - end will not be unsafe in the air. just less safe than others. (If I remember correcly, the 777 wing did 1.77 limit load?)

• 59. Steve  |  June 25th, 2009 at 08:28

  

  “WHat evidence is there that this happened at 130%?

  Havent seen anything, would appreciate a link etc.”

  Haven’t seen, or don’t want to see?

  Try this from none other than Jon Ostrower -
  http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/06/a-closer-look-understanding-th.html
  QUOTE “Previously, on April 21st, Boeing conducted the limit load test which saw the wings deflected over 17-feet and an equivalent of 120-130% of maximum load.

  “We went in and did some inspections and saw a number of things indicative of what the strain gauges were saying,” said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program, said on yesterday’s teleconference, implying that the test had left visible damage to the structure during the late May testing.”

  So, the A380 wing failed at 148% and the gleeful Boeing fanboyz were all over it like a rash. Now the nightmareliner’s wing starts to fall apart at 130%? This just goes from bad to worse.

• 60. Steve  |  June 25th, 2009 at 08:31

  

  “If I remember correcly, the 777 wing did 1.77 limit load?

  I think it failed, as expected, at just a tad over 150%.

  To have failed at 177% would mean that the wing was significantly overengineered and much heavier than it needed to be.

• 61. keesje  |  June 25th, 2009 at 09:05

  

  “Ah yes, the “increasingly irrelevant” WhaleBus[t], according to the “Great Satan” Aboulafia, that malignant financial turd festering in the bowels of Airbus which will ultimately have to be painfully expunged. Only a fatuous fanboy would coo about that industrial miasma.”

  .. and now Air China and China Eastern are talking to Airbus about the A380. What’s wrong with these guys..

• 62. Leelaw  |  June 25th, 2009 at 10:29

  

  Keesje:

  The only thing(s) that could conceivably be a more colossal commercial flop than the WhaleBus[t] would be an actual meltdown of the “nighmareliner” program, or its continuation hobbled by even more ham-handed management missteps/engineering failures leading to huge cost overruns and associated charges, etc. which could never be recouped over the production run. Stay tuned.

• 63. Falcon  |  June 25th, 2009 at 13:10

  

  A post about the 787 unfortunately suffering a delay and Leelaw must yet again drag up that the A380 project has cost too much to be a commercial success.

  Leelaw, absolutely everyone knows that. No need to bring it up in each and every post. By all means bring it up if you have a new twist on it but if not look to the future instead of being stuck in the past.

• 64. Leelaw  |  June 25th, 2009 at 13:50

  

  “Parakeet,” I thought I had a new “twist” in my post #62.

• 65. Falcon  |  June 25th, 2009 at 14:08

  

  “lowlife”,

  nope.

• 66. Dougloid  |  June 25th, 2009 at 14:33

  

  . and now Air China and China Eastern are talking to Airbus about the A380. What’s wrong with these guys..

  be careful what you wish for. Douglas sold a couple MD11s to China Eastern. I was there. Not exactly a squared away outfit.

• 67. Leelaw  |  June 25th, 2009 at 15:59

  

  “Parakeet,” you’re in need of more feathers to better protect your very thin skin and should moderate the haughty condescension, you don’t possess the gravitas necessary to pull it off.

• 68. Falcon  |  June 25th, 2009 at 17:02

  

  “lowlife”

  http://www.oldmandarin.com

• 69. Erik Bloodaxe  |  June 25th, 2009 at 17:06

  

  Keesje uber fanboi from aholes.net said:
  and now Air China and China Eastern are talking to Airbus about the A380. What’s wrong with these guys

  Good they can maybe keep a net zero loss when Thai and Kingfisher cancel.

• 70. Jacobin777  |  June 25th, 2009 at 18:45

  

  Steve:

  So, the A380 wing failed at 148% and the gleeful Boeing fanboyz were all over it like a rash. Now the nightmareliner’s wing starts to fall apart at 130%? This just goes from bad to worse.

  Actually many (probably most) of us didn’t.

• 71. ikkeman  |  June 25th, 2009 at 22:41

  

  68. Falcon | June 25th, 2009 at 17:02
  

• 72. rodger hedley  |  June 26th, 2009 at 00:15

  

  wont get me on the nightmare liner for a few years , its bringing back memories of the comet !

• 73. damn!  |  June 26th, 2009 at 00:25

  

  Dreamliner nightmare-Qantas cancels 15 and defers first deliveries of others by 4 years
  June 26, 2009 – 8:53 am, by Ben Sandilands
  “Qantas has cancelled 15 Boeing 787s and delayed the first tranche of deliveries from the balance of a remaining firm order of 50 of the jets for four years.

  The move saves the airline $US 3 billion in capital expenditure liabilities, and also keeps it clear of the consequences of current issues with the design of the 787.” This is from crikey.com.au.

• 74. Steve  |  June 26th, 2009 at 00:31

  

  BREAKING NEWS: Qantas just cancelled 15 787s and deferred delivery of another 15.

• 75. Chris Wallace  |  June 26th, 2009 at 01:14

  

  Well QF is (really, likely not) taking advantage of the delays to adjust their fleet composition to reflect their reduced need for new aircraft in the near term.

  They’ve canceled 15 787-9s to pay for the 15 787-8s due for JQ and pushed those back four years. So that Australian(?) blogger who said JQ would be ordering a dozen or so A330-200s is probably wrong since JQ and QF can’t use anything new right now.

  QF still has 50 787-9s on order with 50 options and purchase positions, so looks like they are still willing to stay on-board for the time being.

• 76. Mike M  |  June 26th, 2009 at 05:27

  

  That aussie wannabe blogger was speaking out of his ass.

  Jetstar is a f***ed entity and they will not expand using unreliable A330’s.

  Qantas has shot itself in the foot. If they’d had 777’s, they’d have coped far better.

  Well done Geoff DICK-son.

  Mqacaurie must be pleased they didnt invest in this heap of junk!

• 77. Leelaw  |  June 26th, 2009 at 06:16

  

  Not sure why the “Old Mandarin” had to be dragged into this, but he eats twats like our silly “Parakeet” for lunch.

• 78. ikkeman  |  June 26th, 2009 at 06:22

  

  73. damn! | June 26th, 2009 at 00:25
  Why, the comet had a great design and test phase - they just started dropping after everything went perfect.
  The 787 shows many and various growing pains.
  Does a Bad Dress Rehearsal Mean a Good Opening Night?

• 79. Vero Venia  |  June 26th, 2009 at 07:12

  

  Re: 75. Chris Wallace | June 26th, 2009 at 01:14

  I have alway thought that there would be huge cancellations and deferrals.
  http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/pessimist-or-realist/
  http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/simple-math/

  In the case of Australian airlines, the case is even more interesting to to the openskies agreement between the US and Australia signed last year. Competition becomes very hard in Australia.
  http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/open_skies.aspx
  You can expect other cancellations and deferrals from Qantas and other Australian airlines concerning other aircraft types.

  The competition will become harder if the openskies agreement between Singapore and Australia is signed.
  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2005/02/12/Singapore-Australia-to-discuss-open-skies/UPI-98481108259635/

  The various openskies agreements are changing air transport landscape.

• 80. Whats in a name?  |  June 26th, 2009 at 07:54

  

  Need a standard name now:

  1. Nightmareliner?
  2.Screamliner?
  3.Dream-Onliner?

  any others out there?

• 81. Vero Venia  |  June 26th, 2009 at 08:17

  

  Re: 80. Whats in a name? | June 26th, 2009 at 07:54

  The question has already been asked.
  http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172008.asp

• 82. Vero Venia  |  June 26th, 2009 at 08:19

  

  Andrea James keeps track of reactions from airlines about 787 delay.
  http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172010.asp

• 83. Vero Venia  |  June 26th, 2009 at 08:43

  

  The 787 delay clearly hurts Boeing’s credibility.

  Two to three year delay for a commercial aircraft program is obviously a disaster and very embarrassing. However they did a very good job identifying the market. Indeed, the mid-sized-jet market is huge. As I mentioned in Randy’s blog recently, Boeing has correctly seen the huge replacement market in this segment. Without taking into account growth, I estimated the market size in excess of 3,000 units.
  http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2009/06/first_flight_postponed.html#comment-55806

  Boeing is extremely lucky with the current downturn because the 787 delay happens when airlines don’t need to increase capacity.
  http://iata.org/pressroom/pr/2009-06-25-01.htm
  If you look at the figures given by IATA, in 2009 the load factors have gone down to about 70%. Obviously, increase of capacity will further decrease the load factor if the traffic does not grow.

  In this comment I wish to say that Boeing built an excellent business case for the 787 but the execution has not been as good.
  The second thought is that Boeing has been extremely lucky to have this delays today, when airlines don’t need capacity. It does not mean that they can be lenient.

• 84. edo  |  June 26th, 2009 at 09:33

  

  As predicted in post #7 we started with the “Airbus did this….” and “…the A380…..” etc. This is what always happens so it would be surprising if it didn’t happen again.

  Good thing we have the sarcastic message board God, Mike M, who in message #8 suggested that I was the only one who mentioned AB. Who can forget the other message board God in post #11 who suggested that I “shove it” simply because I am fed up with Boeing and asked them to “shove” the nightmare-liner.

  I hope QF and others cancel every last plane they have ordered. What can they order to replace the nightmare-liner? Hmmmm maybe AB will oblige with some more hot air.

  All I know is I see intelligent people banging their brains out on this board trying to make sense out of false promises and outright lies.

  As it stands the 787 is in a defective state (a nightmare) and the XWB is a drawing (a dream) How’s that for irony?

  Build first, boast later. Not the other way around.

• 85. ikkeman  |  June 26th, 2009 at 12:52

  

  84. edo | June 26th, 2009 at 09:33

  Might just be me, but I was thought that if I didn’t have anything to contribute, i should just shut up.
  If you just want to complain about the aviation twosome, find a wall. Please don’t bore me (and presumably others).

  You say you see intelligent people banging their brain out on this blog, Do you really think your last post is helpfull??

• 86. Dougloid  |  June 26th, 2009 at 13:47

  

  Rumor has it that Qantas cancelled or delayed a major 787 order this morning?

• 87. Erik Bloodaxe  |  June 26th, 2009 at 14:51

  

  Let’s face it. Boeing has MASSIVE problems in its senior management, both on the Military side, and Commercial. The end result is that McNerney should be fired. He’s the HMFIC, but he’s not acting like it.

  I guess on the plus side (for him) that 14% raise he gave himself last year must sure feel good now.

  Dougloid, this does get back to the MD merger. Harry brought in a sickness when he came. Condit was a failure at being CEO, and Harry steamrolled him. Too much MD mentality now infects the company. MD killed itself the same way BA is right now. The imported GE mentality that killed MD is now wrecking BA. Short term thinking, just make the numbers for the quarter, only think about 2 quarters ahead. Never mind that this buisiness is DECADAL. Airbus has that concept down firm, Boeing needs to pull it’s head out of its ass and get to work. Step 1 is fire McNerney, Carson and Albaugh. The problem is that the Boeing senior management ranks have been purged of all original thinkers, only a bunch of “yes men” with a few exceptions, ala MD style.

• 88. Vero Venia  |  June 26th, 2009 at 15:32

  

  When I read Flightblogger’s description of the issue, I was stunned. There are hundreds of papers including PhD thesis dealing with stiffened composite panel and buckling failure modes.
  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buckling+stringer+cap+composite+panel+stiffened+wing+skin

  What really happened?

• 89. B380  |  June 26th, 2009 at 17:17

  

  I agree with the very first comment made here:
  1. Chris Wallace | June 23rd, 2009 at 16:55
  As long as the plane meets or beats expectations in performance and economics, all will eventually be forgiven.

  The main thing is that I don’t think anybody can say with confidence that if they fix this issue, that will be the end of it or what the extent of this current issue really is. What I find hard to believe is that Carson had been giving press conferences stating the plane is ready to fly. Then suddenly, out of the blue he was told, there is a problem.

  If for example Carson was fired does anybody believe it will be plain sailing for the 787? They got rid of Bair 18 months ago, did that change anything?

• 90. Chris Wallace  |  June 26th, 2009 at 17:54

  

  Dougloid asked: Rumor has it that Qantas canceled or delayed a major 787 order this morning?

  They have canceled 15 787-9s and deferred delivery of their remaining 15 787-8s and 35 787-9s to 2014. Personally, I am inclined to believe this is to allow QF the option of choosing either 787-8 or 787-9 when it comes time to actual delivery (in other words, they pick the plane that they need at that time).

  As to your question, B830, the only person that really matters at the moment is Shanahan. He’s the one who personally has to get that bird into the air and into revenue service. If he can do it, he’s going to be the next President of Boeing Commercial Airplanes because Carson will be forced out. Heck, they may offer Carson up as a lamb and promote Shanahan into his position, anyway, but I think they should let Carson stay until Shanahan makes it happen.

  If they push Carson out now and promote Shanahan only to have the 787 continue to stumble and fumble for another year, then it probably will resonate in the Market as a sign that BCA is totally bereft of competent management and the Board is just “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

  Better to let Carson stay as an obvious lame duck until the 787 is in service, then promote Shanahan to the Presidency and make his Number Two the new 787 Program Director.

• 91. mikej  |  June 26th, 2009 at 19:47

  

  WOW, 90 some blog entries… very hot button !!!

  There is naturally a lot of “I told you so”s from SPEEA and IAM and all the semi-realistic people BCA would not listen to some years ago.

  I hope this is not a bad omen on 787, and I hope after it enters service that it isn’t a dud, nor just average.

  What else is going to crop up? (ie: more snafus that BCA top-hats already know about but haven’t anounced yet)

  I sure hope Boeing isn’t doing an Enron or a Madoff… probably not, but they sure look like idiots (minus Shanahan who only got there about a year ago).

  I think Boeing should fly ZA001 on-schedule once or twice or thrice , then start the repairs/rework after that. A least we’d all know that it flew.

• 92. Mike M  |  June 26th, 2009 at 20:29

  

  >>>>84. edo | June 26th, 2009 at 09:33

  Seriously, STFU about Airbus.

  Last I checked this was a very Boeing-orientated discussion based on Tuesday’s news.

  Debate the A380 and Shitebus on an appropriate fora.

• 93. Aotearoa  |  June 26th, 2009 at 23:00

  

  ^ I have to agree with you Mike M. These sorts of comments from edo

  “I hope QF and others cancel every last plane they have ordered. What can they order to replace the nightmare-liner? Hmmmm maybe AB will oblige with some more hot air.

  All I know is I see intelligent people banging their brains out on this board trying to make sense out of false promises and outright lies.”

  aren’t very helpful and actually tell us more about edo than anything else.

  By the way edo-it, QF’s motives had nothing to do with the aircraft, just their financial situation and their revised future plans.

• 94. ikkeman  |  June 27th, 2009 at 00:07

  

  88. Vero Venia | June 26th, 2009 at 15:32

  Assumed material properties didn’t materialize, local load distribution is disrupted, methods used aren’t valid or conservative.
  That the problem with actually building something - reality has an irritating way of not conforming to the results of the spreadsheet. most annoying.

• 95. Falcon  |  June 27th, 2009 at 00:09

  

  How come Doug McVitie doesn’t have anything to say about this? The closest is a rant about bloggers published today. What are the chances he will be this silent if there is an Airbus delay or cancellation?

• 96. Dougloid  |  June 27th, 2009 at 01:39

  

  “Dougloid, this does get back to the MD merger. Harry brought in a sickness when he came. Condit was a failure at being CEO, and Harry steamrolled him. Too much MD mentality now infects the company. MD killed itself the same way BA is right now. The imported GE mentality that killed MD is now wrecking BA.”

  You identified one freaking person. You’re generalizing on the back of one isolated person who washed up on Boeing’s shore.

  I didn’t know you could make bricks without straw but you’ve done it.

  When you look at it, your premise is laughable. Boeing didn’t want to do anything except dismember Douglas. That was the play all along. If Boeing’s got a problem you can be damned sure it is home grown.

  Ahhhhhhh what the hell do I know about it, anyway? I was only there at the plant in Long Beach for five freakin’ years.

• 97. chaser  |  June 27th, 2009 at 08:52

  

  Maybe an Airbus man at heart, but the industry cannot afford a meltdown by Boeing.
  For my 2cents worth, I think a solution for finality is not too far away, but a further bit of pain may be unavoidable.
  AB have shown that a wing box in composites is possible with the A380 example.
  I sincerely hope that the 787 issue can be solved by adjusting the mix of the composite resin ratio.
  Is it at all possible (composite people please respond) that in attempts to reduce weight, the essential bonding strength could have been compromised.
  Fibre properties are fairly well known and documented, but I wonder if the same applies with the “cocktail” of fibres, bonding resin and curing?

• 98. ikkeman  |  June 27th, 2009 at 15:48

  

  97. chaser | June 27th, 2009 at 08:52
  And Mr Venia. The problem with material properties in aviation, most especially with any revolutionary new material (glare on 380, CFRP in 787) is it’s properties are not yet defined when the design/stress work starts. Material certification takes years and millions - it’s not cost effective to validate it without an application, and to wait with design/stress till the properties are defined would add years to the cycle (and means your final product does not take advantage of the most modern materials).
  So you base the design process on assumed allowables (and loads, and performance) and refine them as you go. the full scale test is the final check of your assumptions.
  BTW, adding strength to such critical locations is easier than removing excess weight - it’s not pretty but it works, and it prevents the whole fleet being overweight.
  It’s not a biggie, though it does look bad.

• 99. Leelaw  |  June 27th, 2009 at 22:14

  

  “It’s not a biggie, though it does look bad.”

  What makes the situation infinitely worse is that the very highly compensated dweebs that run Boeing, given everything that’s already transpired with regard to the 787 program, apparently didn’t think it was necessary to have a comprehensive assessment of program status before running their mouths at the most important industry event of the year. Perhaps they can afford to look ridiculous personally, however, at this conjuncture their company, and its shareholders, are seriously damaged by such ineptitude.

• 100. Falcon  |  June 28th, 2009 at 02:50

  

  “apparently didn’t think it was necessary to have a comprehensive assessment of program status before running their mouths at the most important industry event of the year.” Leelaw

  How do you know they didn’t? Don’t say because they missed the first flight milestone because there are plenty of valid reasons why they could have every reason to believe they would achieve it one day and know they would not the next.

  Now I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. It may have been a big FU but I have the experience to know that just looking at the result doesn’t say it was.

  It is so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. It is a lot harder to predict what will happen before the game and even perfect play does not guarantee the outcome.

• 101. Dougloid  |  June 28th, 2009 at 05:24

  

  97. chaser | June 27th, 2009 at 08:52
  And Mr Venia. The problem with material properties in aviation, most especially with any revolutionary new material (glare on 380, CFRP in 787) is it’s properties are not yet defined when the design/stress work starts.

  I tend to disagree. I’d say the material properties have to be known and documented, or else the regulatory authorities would never let you license the bird or fly it over populated areas. Maybe what you’re saying is that exactly how such material will behave in a certain application is unknown, and that is true, but the materials properties people can tell you pretty well what it will and will not do-if you build in the safety margin and design conservatively you’re fine.

  My old man was a metallurgical engineer with his degree from MIT and I can tell you he knew his metals backwards and forwards, even after he;d been out of the field for 30 years. I remember him telling me about designing superchargers in war 2, the machinists were standing there waiting for prints so they could cut metal, they didn’t bother with prototypes, but they knew what the metals they had could do.

• 102. Leelaw  |  June 28th, 2009 at 11:59

  

  Parakeet:

  Sorry, after five trips to same dance, McNerney and Carson’s performance at Le Bourget was bush league and inexcusable…at this point they’ve even got some of the “analysts” essentially calling them out as incompetents and/or liars.

• 103. Vero Venia  |  June 28th, 2009 at 15:55

  

  OFF TOPIC

  How many A380 did LH actually order?
  http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/28/328938/lufthansa-commits-to-747-8-but-braces-for-possible-delay.html

  “But it’s a mixture, it’s a firm order for the first 10 and there is an option for a final decision for number 11 to number 15. This has never changed, this was the original negotiation in the deal that we had with Airbus.”

• 104. Chris Wallace  |  June 28th, 2009 at 17:19

  

  LH ordered 15, but apparently guaranteed only to take 10.

  It’s similar to when the Qantas Group ordered 50 787s, but noted at the time they would be taking 65 because they were going to exercise 15 of their options (which they recently decided to subsequently cancel).

  So at the moment, LH will certainly take delivery of 10 A380s, may take delivery of 15 A380s and could conceivably take delivery of up to 25 A380s if they exercised their options.

• 105. Falcon  |  June 28th, 2009 at 18:17

  

  Leelaw,

  I notice your complete failure in substantiating your claim. Not surprised since I don’t expect you can. Keep up the insults because without them you obviously have nothing.

  http://www.oldmandarin.com

• 106. Leelaw  |  June 28th, 2009 at 18:58

  

  This recent, entirely moronic cyber affectation of yours, i.e. “oldmandarin.com,” is dispositive proof you are a childish “BIRDBRAIN!”

• 107. Falcon  |  June 28th, 2009 at 22:27

  

  Leelaw,

  Grow up and I’ll start treating you like an adult.

• 108. Chris Wallace  |  June 29th, 2009 at 01:17

  

  LH ordered 15, but apparently guaranteed only to take 10.

  Thing about this more, I am now of the opinion that what Herr Deprosse was referring to was pre-assigned delivery slots. So LH and Airbus agreed on 10 delivery slots at the time the contract was signed, and would at a later date decide when to take the final five frames and Airbus would work to accommodate them.

• 109. Leelaw  |  June 29th, 2009 at 06:47

  

  Really “Birdbrain,” considering the constant stream of absolute drivel you post to this blog, often in the form of inappropriately emotional, retaliatory, and childish outbursts injected into otherwise civil colloquy, the notion you would have the temerity to criticize anyone else who actively participates here, least of all me, strikes me as pomposity in the extreme. BTW, kindly refrain in future discourse from your nasty habit of investing yourself with a gravitas which you do not possess.

• 110. ikkeman  |  June 29th, 2009 at 07:50

  

  99. Leelaw | June 27th, 2009 at 22:14
  it’s not a biggie in tech terms - I do not (intend to) make comments on managerial issues.

  101. Dougloid | June 28th, 2009 at 05:24
  I’m sorry but you’re (mostly) wrong. Yes, authorities require the material validation is done before any flight clearance is issued. But before you request that clearance nothing is required.
  Yes, the properties of alu 2024, TI 6AL-4V and 17-4PH are all very well documented and known. 787 CFRP, A380 GLARE and other new materials not so much.

  106. Leelaw | June 28th, 2009 at 18:58
  “is dispositive proof you are a childish “BIRDBRAIN!”” - with a sence of humor!

• 111. Edo  |  June 29th, 2009 at 10:33

  

  To the guy that called my post boring I would answer that talking about delivery slots and the financial meltdown is boring as well as off-topic. The topic here is BOEING’S TREMENDOUS DELAYS despite multiple announcements to the contrary.

  Look at the top of this page. It clearly says:

  Boeing 787 First Flight Delayed Again

  Fifth Slippage In 787 Dreamliner Program

  Service Entry To Be Updated

  So, boring to you or not, my post is on topic.
  They are still LIARS regardless of slots and financial meltdowns.

  As for #92, there are over 20 references to Airbus in here so perhaps you can tell all the other people to STFU as well??

  All I did in the very beginning was ask people to not even mention what AB did or may do simply because it was unrelated.

  You still won’t admit that they are outright LIARS and you attempt to hide this fact by telling me to STFU. Go play flight simulator or something because you too are attempting to discredit my post with foul language that is entirely misplaced.

  I still say: Build first, boast later.

• 112. Give it a rest  |  June 29th, 2009 at 10:43

  

  Falcon & Leelaw, I believe you 2 are starting to be about as relevant to the topic here as Edo is, and being much more childish at it to boot.

  Why has the discussion of this Boeing board wandered over to the A380?

• 113. Steve  |  June 29th, 2009 at 12:17

  

  “As for #92, there are over 20 references to Airbus in here so perhaps you can tell all the other people to STFU as well??

  SOP for this board whenever the news from Boeing is less than brilliant. It’s happening a lot recently.

• 114. Mike M  |  June 29th, 2009 at 14:49

  

  EDO -

  The first post you made referred to Airbus. Why?

  The others who have also contributed with their non Boeing comments are also as wrong as you to have done so.

  And if it makes you feel any better, yes Boeing had been lying its tits off at this delay.

• 115. edo  |  June 29th, 2009 at 22:54

  

  Hi Mike.

  Your post #114 is far more civil and greatly welcome.

  People are very passionate about planes and it appears they are also very passionate about which manufacturer they chose to support.

  My first post did make a tiny reference to AB, that is correct. That post however, simply asked people to not bring up any mistakes, errors or miscalculations that AB may have made because this exchange is basically about Boeing hype. Some may take that as a pro AB statement. It is not.

  I am sure the engineers at Boeing have worked tirelessly to offer the best possible aircraft given
  our present technical capabilities and they are pushing the envelope. If anyone if acting childish it is Boeing by over-promising and then being forced to under-deliver.

  I also find it childish that such complex and vital pieces of equipment that are essential to our way of life have to be hyped and pumped like some car commercial.

  If Boeing had not hyped this plane so much, they could have released a statement referring to some of the difficulties being encountered by the ALL-NEW approach to building aircraft and I am certain many would have understood. Heck, I can respect that aspect even now.

  It just seems like we stray from reality sometimes by building things up. Perhaps they hyped it so much they started to believe it too? Who knows?

  Despite the fact that this is nothing more than a more polite recap of previous messages, it doesn’t change the fact that they have lied. I maintain that they should have become a bit more cautious with press releases after the first couple of retractions.

  Could there be some intrigue behind all this? Sure. Perhaps release info out there hoping the opposition will commit to something that will wind up costing them etc. Is this what building airplanes has come to?

  Lastly, to those that call me childish and misinformed etc. in an attempt to discredit my posts, I still say: Build first, boast later.

  Boeing is a pioneer in the field of aviation. They have introduced countless beautiful aircraft that have carried almost everyone that has ever flown at least once. This is a proud history built on the pride, honor and great service of the 707, 727, 737, 747 and today the 777 which manages to distinguish itself despite the fierce competition. These are facts and not hype.

  That history deserves a bit more than to be reduced to a hyped-up car commercial.

  Boring, childish or not, this is what it is.

• 116. Rob  |  July 20th, 2009 at 06:53

  

  Do we have a revised timeline anywhere?

  Maybe Boeing have gone a bit quiet due to wanting to be super thorough and making sure they meet the next one but I can’t seem to find an updated one anywhere.

  2nd quarter results are out July 22, I’m guessing we might find out then unless I’m mistaken an they’ve been released already and I can’t find them?

• 117. FleetBuzz Editorial.com  |  July 20th, 2009 at 14:56

  

  Do we have a revised timeline anywhere?

  Maybe Boeing have gone a bit quiet due to wanting to be super thorough and making sure they meet the next one but I can’t seem to find an updated one anywhere.

  Hi Rob

  As of writing, Boeing has not provided any formal update on the 787 program, either with regard to first flight, certification or deliveries.

• 118. Rob  |  July 21st, 2009 at 02:32

  

  thanks chief

  Rob

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