<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: After The Delay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: boeing investor</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2098</link>
		<dc:creator>boeing investor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2098</guid>
		<description>http://www.komonews.com/news/local/50145437.html

Seems the wing issue has not stopped taxi tests.

I hope a fix is announced soon so it can fly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/50145437.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.komonews.com/news/local/50145437.html</a></p>
<p>Seems the wing issue has not stopped taxi tests.</p>
<p>I hope a fix is announced soon so it can fly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry1t</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2097</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry1t</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2097</guid>
		<description>Is there any chance that the fix for this problem is a simple one and the skeptics above think that lessons that were learned were forgotten but, in truth, will add to the solution.

    Until there is some definitive information regarding the time schedule, alot of the above comments are just arm chair technologists who may or may not really understand what happened.

    I hope we will be surprised and Boeing will come forth with a solution that will get this plane up in the air quickly and safely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any chance that the fix for this problem is a simple one and the skeptics above think that lessons that were learned were forgotten but, in truth, will add to the solution.</p>
<p>    Until there is some definitive information regarding the time schedule, alot of the above comments are just arm chair technologists who may or may not really understand what happened.</p>
<p>    I hope we will be surprised and Boeing will come forth with a solution that will get this plane up in the air quickly and safely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikej</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2053</link>
		<dc:creator>mikej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2053</guid>
		<description>The "intended swindle" theory is just a theory... make one pause to wonder though. 

There were rumors and wispers of this sob-center-structure fatigue buckling problem over a year ago... they were trying to solve it the whole time, but couldn't... it turns out that it really is just a few areas need reinforcing... which still means designing and fabricating and installing parts, which will take some time...

It's what they (BMA) get for too much outsourcing, and too much dreaming with no reality-checks... until reality forced its way in. 

Oh well huh...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;intended swindle&#8221; theory is just a theory&#8230; make one pause to wonder though. </p>
<p>There were rumors and wispers of this sob-center-structure fatigue buckling problem over a year ago&#8230; they were trying to solve it the whole time, but couldn&#8217;t&#8230; it turns out that it really is just a few areas need reinforcing&#8230; which still means designing and fabricating and installing parts, which will take some time&#8230;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s what they (BMA) get for too much outsourcing, and too much dreaming with no reality-checks&#8230; until reality forced its way in. </p>
<p>Oh well huh&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vero Venia</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2041</link>
		<dc:creator>Vero Venia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2041</guid>
		<description>32.  ikkeman  &#124;  July 1st, 2009 at 16:18 &lt;blockquote&gt;Boeing is the only large commercial airframe integrator in the US - it is therefore a monopoly in the US.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I didn't know that US airlines could not buy Airbus products.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>32.  ikkeman  |  July 1st, 2009 at 16:18<br />
<blockquote>Boeing is the only large commercial airframe integrator in the US - it is therefore a monopoly in the US.</p></blockquote>
<p>I didn&#8217;t know that US airlines could not buy Airbus products.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ikkeman</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2040</link>
		<dc:creator>ikkeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2040</guid>
		<description>and I think management has a hard time coming to grips with the realities of large and complex engineering projects like this. Problem is, it's unlike any other industry. Low production numbers, high complexity and immense regulations make aviation a hard business to get inline with new managemetn techniques.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and I think management has a hard time coming to grips with the realities of large and complex engineering projects like this. Problem is, it&#8217;s unlike any other industry. Low production numbers, high complexity and immense regulations make aviation a hard business to get inline with new managemetn techniques.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacobin777</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2039</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacobin777</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2039</guid>
		<description>mikej:

&lt;em&gt;This latest snafu has me wondering if the entire 787 program wasn’t really intended to be swindle from the get-go&lt;/em&gt;

It will be the end of Boeing if that were true. I just think its been a huge mess up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mikej:</p>
<p><em>This latest snafu has me wondering if the entire 787 program wasn’t really intended to be swindle from the get-go</em></p>
<p>It will be the end of Boeing if that were true. I just think its been a huge mess up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikej</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2033</link>
		<dc:creator>mikej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:08:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2033</guid>
		<description>This latest snafu has me wondering if the entire 787 program wasn't really intended to be swindle from the get-go... after all the Board approved every action thus far.  Maybe they really were doing a swindle while making it "look like" honest mistakes.  Thats how Enron and Madoff did it.  And the US Government does it everyday. (ie: too insidious to merely be "mistakes")

Or maybe I'm wrong and BCA are merely idiots... but if they're merely idiots why are the in charge of building airliners that people have to fly in?

Even so, I've read the word "credibility" a few times above, Boeing is lacking serious credibility on this entire 787 program.  Even IF it flies, would I trust them?  NO!  What else did they miss?!?

So good-guys like Shanahan get stuck holding the bag trying to fix a swindle.

I heard ZA001 wing-sob-joint has fatigue/cracking problems just from vibrations of engine run-ups... Big-B Management is afraid the wings might fall off just from this, leave alone taxi tests.

Also every 787 thus far sitting in the Final Assembly bay, the center wing stub-sob-joint has buckling problems just with the weight of the wings as they sit on their wheels (with no flying loads).

They grossly underestimated the loads on the center wing-stub/side-of-body-join areas.

I've heard that the 777 originally had similar sob developemental problems, which got fixed/redesigned... yet then how come they got it wrong AGAIN on 787?

Answer: at the beginnning of 787, BCA Management would NOT listen to reason, and threw away ALL lessons-learned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This latest snafu has me wondering if the entire 787 program wasn&#8217;t really intended to be swindle from the get-go&#8230; after all the Board approved every action thus far.  Maybe they really were doing a swindle while making it &#8220;look like&#8221; honest mistakes.  Thats how Enron and Madoff did it.  And the US Government does it everyday. (ie: too insidious to merely be &#8220;mistakes&#8221;)</p>
<p>Or maybe I&#8217;m wrong and BCA are merely idiots&#8230; but if they&#8217;re merely idiots why are the in charge of building airliners that people have to fly in?</p>
<p>Even so, I&#8217;ve read the word &#8220;credibility&#8221; a few times above, Boeing is lacking serious credibility on this entire 787 program.  Even IF it flies, would I trust them?  NO!  What else did they miss?!?</p>
<p>So good-guys like Shanahan get stuck holding the bag trying to fix a swindle.</p>
<p>I heard ZA001 wing-sob-joint has fatigue/cracking problems just from vibrations of engine run-ups&#8230; Big-B Management is afraid the wings might fall off just from this, leave alone taxi tests.</p>
<p>Also every 787 thus far sitting in the Final Assembly bay, the center wing stub-sob-joint has buckling problems just with the weight of the wings as they sit on their wheels (with no flying loads).</p>
<p>They grossly underestimated the loads on the center wing-stub/side-of-body-join areas.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve heard that the 777 originally had similar sob developemental problems, which got fixed/redesigned&#8230; yet then how come they got it wrong AGAIN on 787?</p>
<p>Answer: at the beginnning of 787, BCA Management would NOT listen to reason, and threw away ALL lessons-learned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ikkeman</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2029</link>
		<dc:creator>ikkeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2029</guid>
		<description>30.  Vero Venia  &#124;  July 1st, 2009 at 08:14
before the why must come the what - what did you do, 

Boeing is the only large commercial airframe integrator in the US - it is therefore a monopoly in the US.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>30.  Vero Venia  |  July 1st, 2009 at 08:14<br />
before the why must come the what - what did you do, </p>
<p>Boeing is the only large commercial airframe integrator in the US - it is therefore a monopoly in the US.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Falcon</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2020</link>
		<dc:creator>Falcon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:43:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2020</guid>
		<description>&lt;/blockquote&gt;There is a very interesting concept called anti-trust law or competition law. &lt;b&gt;By law&lt;/b&gt;, there won’t be any monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
Vero Venia

I’m sorry Vero Venia but the anti-trust law does not prevent monopolies. There is absolutely nothing stopping a monopoly from &lt;b&gt;existing&lt;/b&gt; in US and your suggestion that this law will prevent a monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing is unfortunately a gross misunderstanding of what this law does.

What the antitrust law does is a) Prevent a company with dominating position from abusing its competition. This should allow new entrants but unfortunately doesn’t always work as we have seen with small airlines trying to enter a route just to be strangled by the existing dominant airline.

b) Prevent agreements between companies that restrict competition.  This is why you often see statements that mergers and JVs await approval.

There is nothing preventing a monopoly to form because it is the only remaining company in a segment where all other competitors folded “by their own” and there is no requirement for two companies to establish at the same time in a new segment so there can &lt;b&gt;legally&lt;/b&gt; be a monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a very interesting concept called anti-trust law or competition law. <b>By law</b>, there won’t be any monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing.<br />
Vero Venia</p>
<p>I’m sorry Vero Venia but the anti-trust law does not prevent monopolies. There is absolutely nothing stopping a monopoly from <b>existing</b> in US and your suggestion that this law will prevent a monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing is unfortunately a gross misunderstanding of what this law does.</p>
<p>What the antitrust law does is a) Prevent a company with dominating position from abusing its competition. This should allow new entrants but unfortunately doesn’t always work as we have seen with small airlines trying to enter a route just to be strangled by the existing dominant airline.</p>
<p>b) Prevent agreements between companies that restrict competition.  This is why you often see statements that mergers and JVs await approval.</p>
<p>There is nothing preventing a monopoly to form because it is the only remaining company in a segment where all other competitors folded “by their own” and there is no requirement for two companies to establish at the same time in a new segment so there can <b>legally</b> be a monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vero Venia</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/06/29/boeing-787/comment-page-1/#comment-2019</link>
		<dc:creator>Vero Venia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=679#comment-2019</guid>
		<description>29.  ikkeman  &#124;  July 1st, 2009 at 06:50 &lt;blockquote&gt;I’m not interested in it for financial reasons, ROI or any of that… I’m interested in how much effort these birds took to take off.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Understood. 
But then you won't have any conclusion and what you do becomes absolutely useless. The most interesting question is always, "&lt;b&gt;Why&lt;/b&gt; do you do an effort?"
I don't think a company invests just for fun.

29.  ikkeman  &#124;  July 1st, 2009 at 06:50 &lt;blockquote&gt;Bo will not be allowed to stop their BCA activities (though it could always sell) and Ab will never be allowed to go bankrupt&lt;/blockquote&gt;
There is a very interesting concept called anti-trust law or competition law. &lt;b&gt;By law&lt;/b&gt;, there won't be any monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>29.  ikkeman  |  July 1st, 2009 at 06:50<br />
<blockquote>I’m not interested in it for financial reasons, ROI or any of that… I’m interested in how much effort these birds took to take off.</p></blockquote>
<p>Understood.<br />
But then you won&#8217;t have any conclusion and what you do becomes absolutely useless. The most interesting question is always, &#8220;<b>Why</b> do you do an effort?&#8221;<br />
I don&#8217;t think a company invests just for fun.</p>
<p>29.  ikkeman  |  July 1st, 2009 at 06:50<br />
<blockquote>Bo will not be allowed to stop their BCA activities (though it could always sell) and Ab will never be allowed to go bankrupt</p></blockquote>
<p>There is a very interesting concept called anti-trust law or competition law. <b>By law</b>, there won&#8217;t be any monopoly in big commercial airplane manufacturing.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
