51 Comments Add your own

• 1. Paula K  |  October 6th, 2009 at 18:14

  

  Last line says it all.

• 2. Anon  |  October 6th, 2009 at 18:33

  

  Why are we not surprised?

• 3. MPTA-098  |  October 6th, 2009 at 19:05

  

  As for the 747-8F being “90 percent complete”; that’s not the case according to FlightBlogger:

  “This newly announced delay, FlightBlogger has learned, comes as part of a comprehensive status review of Boeing’s commercial programs conducted by newly installed commercial airplanes chief, Jim Albaugh. In addition, program sources indicate the level of completion of tasks on the 747-8F required ahead of first flight stand at just 50%.”

• 4. FleetBuzz Editorial.com  |  October 6th, 2009 at 19:13

  

  MPTA-098

  The first 747-8F is indeed over 90% complete - I saw it first hand less than 4 days ago (unless something drastic has since happened!?!)

  The inference from the excerpt you quote may relate to the tasks required to perform first flight (gauntlet testing, fuelling, vibration tests, taxi texts etc) but that is not the same as the airframe completion status.

  And even then I’d beg to differ with that figure as I have been told its far higher than that from the 747-8 program manager himself.

  Cheers.

• 5. MPTA-098  |  October 6th, 2009 at 19:39

  

  Ok, that sounds plausible. It looks though as the 747-8 programme has suffered the consequences of a lack of engineering manpower available, which primarily is due to the long delay in getting the 787 airborne. As for the 787, do you see first flight happening this year?

• 6. Dave  |  October 6th, 2009 at 19:47

  

  Not a great start for Albaugh by any account. I guess he wants the 787 to fly first!

• 7. AF Won  |  October 6th, 2009 at 21:07

  

  “And even then I’d beg to differ with that figure as I have been told its far higher than that from the 747-8 program manager himself.”

  Was this the same program manager who said 3 would be flying by the end of the year? And you STILL believe him?

• 8. AF Won  |  October 6th, 2009 at 21:09

  

  “747-8 program now in loss position”

  I’m sure Doug McVitie will be along shortly to tell us all what an unmitigated disaster Boeing is….

• 9. The 747-8 Delay | Airplan&hellip  |  October 6th, 2009 at 21:41

  

  [...] our story from earlier today, just the facts, ma’am. Later on, Saj over at FleetBuzz Editorial had a long entry that includes this observation: Having visited the 747-8 line just last week, [...]

• 10. Anon  |  October 6th, 2009 at 21:42

  

  Putting the 787 ahead of the 747 is what gives us this result.

  And I would bet my grandmothers bra that the 787 still dont fly by year end either.

  Carson got out at a good time!

• 11. ikkeman  |  October 6th, 2009 at 22:28

  

  Knowing something of the 748 program, and knowing the status at some suppliers, and seeing how Boeing apparently spend 600+ million to make sure the suppliers kept to the schedule - I’m doubtful the production schedule slipped by that much - As Saj notes, this may be a bonus in disguise for the cargo customers. Could this be a deferral in disguise?
  albeit costly, surely if this program were to follow the last very large cargo plane attempt it would be worse…

  4. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | October 6th, 2009 at 19:13
  hardly an impartial source. there’s the truth, there’s lies and then there’s statistics - I think this claim falls in the latter category.

  6. Dave | October 6th, 2009 at 19:47
  how can this have anything to do with Albaugh? If anything - he’s showing he identifies and acts on trouble sooner than the last lot.

• 12. Chris Wallace  |  October 6th, 2009 at 22:30

  

  I wonder if Cargolux privately told Boeing they no longer wanted to take delivery per plan and Boeing is now scaling back the work since the pressure is no longer on. If Boeing was spending (or planning to spend) serious overtime to get the birds in the air to the original plan, pushing it back would save them some money and prevent them from having three planes parked on the PAE flight line for months waiting for Cargolux to pay for them.

  Supposedly Boeing is laying off a number of 747-8 assembly people and moving over folks from the 787 line who currently have nothing to do while they wait for that program to resume production.

• 13. ikkeman  |  October 6th, 2009 at 22:44

  

  Knowing something of the 748 program - knowing the status at some suppliers - seeing how Boeing spend 600+ million to hold suppliers to the schedule… I’m doubtful this delay is purely technical.
  as Saj notes, this could be a bonus in disguise for the customers. Is this a deferral in disguise?
  It’s costly - but even the implication that this program could follow in the footsteps of the last very large cargo plane attempt would be worse.
  anyone from the operator side know?

  4. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | October 6th, 2009 at 19:13
  Hardly an impartial source. as my mommy thought me: there’s the truth, there’s lies and then there’s statistics. I think your source’s claims (and flightblogger’s for that matter) fall in the latter category.

  6. Dave | October 6th, 2009 at 19:47
  how does this have anything to do with Albaugh? If anything it shows the new chief is faster in identifying trouble in a program, and more quick to act on it.

  8. AF Won | October 6th, 2009 at 21:09
  I’m sure Mr McVitie will be able to explain to us all how this is secretly an immense win for Boeing and how this 748 delay will eventually spell the inevitable demise of A380, Airbus, EADS and the whole darned eurotrash airjunk industry.
  I always look forward to his… visions. they remind me of Ray Charles.

  10. Anon | October 6th, 2009 at 21:42
  let’s hope you’re wrong. We’ve waited long enough - 787, 748 or A400 - get me a new big bird in the air to marvel at.
  ofcourse, we may still celebrate Gulfstream - 2 new jets in a single year (and both look good!). WhoHoo

• 14. Boeing Investor  |  October 6th, 2009 at 23:13

  

  There is more behind this story than greets the eye. I could well be a form of “defferal” to accomodate Cargolux as well as a production rampdown from a pushed timetable.

  Although it is not good news, it does not represent some production/structural/design issue but rather a realistic response to the economic climate.

  The market did not punish Boeing today so maybe there is a larger recognition of the postponement.

  All eyes are now on the 787

• 15. Paulo M  |  October 6th, 2009 at 23:20

  

  Just a few days ago, Vero Venia had a piece titled Delays. This delay looks like..

  The original 747 was delayed a couple of months because of engine trouble. When it eventually flew, the engines where still not ready - I think the forces where bending various parts.

  “747-8 program now in loss position” Well, at least they’re honest! Unfortunate

• 16. Hairy Goomer  |  October 6th, 2009 at 23:40

  

  Boeing ought to move to making model airplanes. Perhaps they could actually build them.

  I think the 787 and 748 fiascos are the direct result of McDD’s stealth takeover.

  Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.

• 17. Vero Venia  |  October 7th, 2009 at 07:46

  

  This is not an apology for the latest delay announcement from Boeing. But the market reality out there is simply horrible.

  If you read the data in the following link you can see that passenger and cargo traffic in 2009 is a disaster.
  http://iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/traffic_results/2009-09-29-01.htm

  With such a traffic volume slowdown, I can’t believe airlines can make any money. They can’t make decent profit even when traffic is about normal.

  In my humble opinion, there are cargo operators who ask to defer their new built cargo aircraft, including the 747-8F. It is not reasonable to add capacity when the cargo traffic falls by 18%. Yes, eighteen percent less FTK year-to-date in 2009 compared to 2008. It’s a very huge number. Don’t forget that only two years ago everybody was expecting high growth in cargo traffic. The difference between the forecast and the reality in 2009 is unimaginable.

  I think Boeing is reasonable to take charges in 2009 because 2010 will be even harder. They will be obliged to lower production rate unless the economic recovery comes faster than predicted. The turnover will suffer seriously in 2010. Taking huge charges this year forward-spreads the bad figures from 2010.

• 18. Vero Venia  |  October 7th, 2009 at 08:31

  

  15. Paulo M | October 6th, 2009 at 23:20 “Just a few days ago, Vero Venia had a piece titled Delays.”

  The post is in the link below:
  http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/delays/

  I would like to add that almost all current aircraft programs suffer from delays. I tried to understand the issue and found several explanations.

  The first issue is the famous and anticipated “brain drain” in the aerospace industry. In my past experience I worked with “old” people who worked with passion and dedication. I worked successively in several areas from R&D, engineering, marketing and others, in the vicinity of the aerospace industry. I met wonderful people with very high level of competency and dedication. I will keep in my memory four people in this category with whom I worked. All of them retired in the last 4 years. Believe me or not, those “big” guys didn’t wear ties.
  Today, when I go to meet people from the same department where I worked in the past, I see many people wearing ties. Today, we can spend easily three hours of meeting without any decision taken at the end. I am maybe an “oldie”, but I think nowadays the work in the aerospace has been polluted by unnecessary “tasks”. Thus, not only there is a brain drain, there also is a “brain freeze”. People are less passionate about aerospace. For many people it’s just a job like any other.

  The second point is about funding, profitability and creativity. Once upon a time, we did the work because we liked it. I have the feeling that people now have much pressure on the financial side of the work they’re doing, while the reality is that they don’t have enough knowledge about what they’re doing. I still remember almost twenty years ago we did a R&D program without any financial constraint. It was fun and we did a wonderful job relatively quickly in an excellent mood. Paradoxically, I’m sure the real cost of the work (twenty years ago) was much lower that it would take if it is done today with many financial controls. I remember at that time we used to solve problems, not assessing them like some do today.

  Another issue is that the trend I mentioned above is wide spread, not only in big corporations like Boeing or Airbus but also in the whole supply chain. I remember having seen some aerospace suppliers say, “Yes, we can“ when I knew they didn’t have the engineering capability nor the resource to do the job correctly. Worse, once they got the market, they sub-contracted the work to some one else who was “supposed to know“.

  I think huge corporations like Boeing or Airbus must put more control on their supply chain. I know it is very difficult to monitor multi-layer supply chain. But, a global, in-depth and multi-layer supply management is necessary.

• 19. FleetBuzz Editorial.com  |  October 7th, 2009 at 09:43

  

  MPTA-098: As for the 787, do you see first flight happening this year?

  I hope so, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesnt

  Ikkeman: hardly an impartial source. there’s the truth, there’s lies and then there’s statistics - I think this claim falls in the latter category.

  Let me “re-phrase” it for you. I’m telling you that the 50% figure is wrong unless you have something to the contrary to share with us?

• 20. Sick as a parrot  |  October 7th, 2009 at 13:47

  

  Vero Venia - none of which explains how the 748 program manager can tell us that no less than three 748s will be flying before the end of the year, then just a few days later the story’s changed to “first flight in 2010″.

  I don’t believe that has anything to do with market conditions.

• 21. Mike M  |  October 7th, 2009 at 13:57

  

  Seems Mr FlightBlogga got it horribly wrong. From the Seattle PI:

  “Boeing spokesman Tim Bader said: “I am not sure where he gets the 50-percent number. The airplane is more than 90-percent assembled. The remaining work is mostly in systems functional tests.”

• 22. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 13:58

  

  Fleetbuzz Editorial: Saying you” hope so but would not be surprised if it did not happen” is the attitude most of us have to have because of the last minute surprises and postponements that Boeing has showered us with. There has been no reason to be definite about announced schedules…and that is fundamentally disconcerting.

  If the 50% is fundamentally wrong by your assurances, then another surprise or false information is being perpetrated by Boeing’s Management.

  Perhaps a clearer understanding of what was at hand would have been more appropriate that this obfuscation which you indicate is false.

• 23. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 14:05

  

  Responding to #20 & 21

  Isn’t it clear that there is some confusion in the assessment of the completion and pre flight gauntlet time.

  Am I even more confused between the issue of the % completion of the aircraft and the % of completion of the remaining preflight testing..

  It appears that the aircraft is 90% completed in its building but only 50% completed in its preflight testing.

  Maybe someone, OR EVEN BOEING, would clarify this. The postponement by a month or two because of testing issues is not so serious. If presented well it would not have been so upsetting but combined with the writeoff and the surprise, it is another pr mess

• 24. Mike M  |  October 7th, 2009 at 14:09

  

  >>>Maybe someone, OR EVEN BOEING, would clarify this.

  They have, read post #21.

• 25. Erik Bloodaxe  |  October 7th, 2009 at 15:03

  

  18. Vero Venia | October 7th, 2009 at 08:31

  Excellent post. I think you have hit on a very key point. The brain drain, IS a big factor. The other part that you miss is the near total decimation of the “middle ranks” of Boeing. Successive layoff cycles that have near about wiped out the 10-15 year experience levels have really hurt the company. These are the very people you need to actually execute complex programs. It’s one thing to have good senior level people, but you need the “sargents” to get the noobs moving in the right direction. That, from what I’ve seen at Boeing, is what is sorely missing. This is the direct result of BAD management in the late 90s and early/mid 2000s. Of course, we all know what happened in those time frames… MDtakeover The same is true, but worse on the Mechanic side, when you go out and tour the final assembly line, it’s nothing but guys in their 50s. In general, nothing wrong with that, but who replaces them in 5 to 10 years when they say “F off Boeing, I’m retiring”, and given the demographics, they could do it en masse.

  On the Airbus side, I dont’ see this same pattern. Airbus tends to have a younger work force. The people in the factory seem to be in their 20s and 30s with a good cadre of 40s and 50s leading them. The middle rank engineers tend to be in their 30s and 40s, with a good sprinkling of 50s and some 60s providing direction. Airbus’ problems seem to come from internicine warfare, jealousy, and lack of program management skills.

  Your points about supply chain management are also quite spot on.

• 26. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 15:25

  

  Mik#24 and Saj,

  Lets try to forget all this to do about some misunderstood 50% confusion that Flightblogger released as what program contacts at Boeing indicated was the status of the pre flight test accomplishments…not the % of completion of the work done on the actual aircraft which is closer to 90%.

  What, to me, is more important was the way the postponemet was handled and the lack of explainatory language leaving the possible belief that ther are problems of a structural or who knows what “unknown of unknown” causing the postponement.

  How could they possible expect this to be swallowed without spitting up….and my major point is that they HANDLED THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION POORLY AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EXPLINATION TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGE. Post #21 says they did but it got by me and many others. Why wasn’t this part of the postponement language?

  I am sure you get the point and I think Saj has updated his post and in a nicer way indicates what probably happened but indicates that much of what has happened is SELF INFLICTED . To My thinking too, these gaffes and false promises and misleading information just has to stop. Boeing has to appear as if it knows what it is doing…it appears far from that right now to many people’s disappointment and one more mistake,I think, will bring the issues of Management alignment right up to the top

• 27. Chris Wallace  |  October 7th, 2009 at 15:36

  

  While I doubt it fully explains the delay, I’m thinking Boeing doesn’t have a customer ready and willing to take delivery in 2010. With only eight customers, they don’t have the flexibility to shuffle deliveries so all they could do is build planes and then park them on the tarmac.

  Since Boeing is now losing money on every 747 they build, spending money on overtime or additional staff to meet the original EIS schedule just makes the loss position worse so slowing down production and pushing back EIS makes sense.

• 28. Vero Venia  |  October 7th, 2009 at 16:19

  

  20. Sick as a parrot | October 7th, 2009 at 13:47 “Vero Venia - none of which explains how the 748 program manager can tell us that no less than three 748s will be flying before the end of the year, then just a few days later the story’s changed to “first flight in 2010″.”

  Frankly, three more months of delay is not a big deal especially for a product that has such a severe headwind due to market conditions. I would even say that they should delay the program by six months and put the necessary resource on the 787.

  The 787 is where the market is when the economy will recover. No airline is going to take the risk with expensive and big aircraft. On top of that, freight market won’t recover before 2011. As long as the cost of shipping (maritime) is still at a fifth of what is was two years ago, I don’t expect to see air cargo market to recover.

  I really believe Boeing is playing with priorities. And the top priority today is on the 787. I don’t think there is anything technical in the latest 747-8 delay.

  As I already mentioned ad nauseum the VLA market is a small market and this market is the first to suffer with economic downturn. Unfortunately today the cargo market is crappy as well. The 747-8 program gets hit twice by the market conditions.

  So yes, I think delaying the 747-8 is an excellent good move. It is better than parking those VLAs on the tarmac or in the desert.

  On the other side, they need to fly the 787 as soon as humanly possible. Again, that’s the aircraft airlines need to recover from the downturn.

• 29. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 16:21

  

  Chris,
  You are probably right and that may well explain most of the reason.

  Unfortuneately, i the postponement looks like incompetence and adds to the continuous series of disappointments as well as skepticism.

  The 787 first flight could improve things a great deal but until that occurs Boeing looks bad.

  I felt they could have delivered the news in a way that still made the 747 program look viable from a technical point of view. In essence, they had to cover the real reason for the delay but their method makes the Company seem incompetent.

• 30. Vero Venia  |  October 7th, 2009 at 16:28

  

  25. Erik Bloodaxe | October 7th, 2009 at 15:03 says, “On the Airbus side, I dont’ see this same pattern. Airbus tends to have a younger work force. The people in the factory seem to be in their 20s and 30s with a good cadre of 40s and 50s leading them. The middle rank engineers tend to be in their 30s and 40s, with a good sprinkling of 50s and some 60s providing direction. Airbus’ problems seem to come from internicine warfare, jealousy, and lack of program management skills.”

  It’s not because they’re younger they’re better. They tend to work faster and thus making mistakes faster too. Guess who must clean the mess?

  Younger guys lack maturity, experience and character. I mentioned the “brain freeze” phenomena, I sincerely believe it could happen in Europe as well. Believe me, the brain can freeze very quickly especially during European winter.

• 31. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 16:28

  

  You are right again, as usual, Mr. Venia.

  Unfortuneately, they had to appear more incompetenet to cover the real reason for the postponement.

  Do you think that resources fron the 747 Program can actually be transferred to the 787 Program to improve its production?

  Is there some correlation between the number of people working on it…or is the early production still more dependent on the supply chain and their ability to ramp it up.

  Should more Boeing people be sent to the Suppliers? How can additional resources speed that program up?

• 32. Vero Venia  |  October 7th, 2009 at 16:52

  

  31. Boeing Investor | October 7th, 2009 at 16:28 “Do you think that resources fron the 747 Program can actually be transferred to the 787 Program to improve its production? ”

  I don’t know. But I read somewhere that some 787 had been transfered to the 747-8 program. So maybe it means they must go back to their old job. In addition, I don’t think the 787 needs many people during the fix and the preparation for flight test.

  Perhaps the 747-8 delay is also to relieve the pressure on the flight test team. In my past experience I was lucky enough to be in direct contact with some people from flight test dept and engineering. The process that takes the most of time is not flying the aircraft. It’s all about analyzing the flight test data and adjust the aircraft mathematical models to those data.

  In other words, the flight tests store data and also send other data via telemetry (and satellite). The engineers on the ground analyze those data day and night. They must also validate or invalidate the data. Measurement mistakes do happen. Snags happen too. So, flight testing (and analysis) is not an easy stuff.

  Once the data are validated and the models are adjusted, they need to write down the certification document also the documentation and the data required for airline operations. That’s a huge task.

  Honestly, If I were a decider at Boeing, I would delay the 747-8 by six to eight months instead of three.

• 33. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 17:18

  

  Mr. Venia,

  It makes sense what you have said. Those of us not familiar with the flight test preparations etc. would not understand this. Despite Boeing’s earlier statement that they would run two separate crews..one for each program…the combination of cost savings on both the postponement and testing makes the decision a more sensible one.

  I do not know why they would not actually say this instead of just postponing but I may be naive about these matters.

  All eyes are on the 787 now. No word of any progress, but based on your prior estimates of 22 days to complete the task, they could be almost 66% of the way there.

  When the static wing test is ready to move foward, I imagine there will be some information getting out there…officially or unofficially

• 34. Leelaw  |  October 7th, 2009 at 17:22

  

  It’s clear Airbus and Boeing are both “slow walking” the ramp-up of their VLA programs until such time as the market might turn, hoping the $20B+ (and growing) financial black hole they’ve created between them trying to profitably “exploit” this niche market doesn’t devour them in the meantime. Live in hope, die in despair.

• 35. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 17:36

  

  I am sure we wil hear more about this at the Boeing Earnings Call on Oct 21st.

  Leelaw’s above comment also rings with truth.

• 36. ikkeman  |  October 7th, 2009 at 18:28

  

  16. Hairy Goomer | October 6th, 2009 at 23:40
  from personal experience - model airplanes don’t hold to any deadline either…

  19. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | October 7th, 2009 at 09:43
  and I’m telling you the 90% figure is wrong - just like the 50% one - no matter how much supporting evidence you provide.
  it’s at best a “guestimate” and at worst management doublespeak.

  18. Vero Venia | October 7th, 2009 at 08:31 &
  25. Erik Bloodaxe | October 7th, 2009 at 15:03
  spoken like true old farts

• 37. FleetBuzz Editorial.com  |  October 7th, 2009 at 18:37

  

  and I’m telling you the 90% figure is wrong - just like the 50% one - no matter how much supporting evidence you provide.

  Sorry, but the only one wrong here is you - even today, Randy Tinseth updated his blog to reaffirm the same.

  http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2009/10/it_dont_come_easy.html

  “The first freighter is more than 90% assembled, and power-on has been achieved. The remaining work is mostly in systems functional tests.”

  So again, unless you have something to the contrary, I’d like to see it as would every other reader I suspect.

  Until such time, you remain wrong Sir and the mythical 50% citation is not worth my discussion time as I clarified that earlier too.

• 38. No name fandango!  |  October 7th, 2009 at 19:02

  

  Ikkeman, instead of calling people old farts why not provide some substance to your claim that the 90% figure is wrong?

  Leelaws post is correct about the VLA market, however I would think that the $20bn figure is a lot higher given the $20bn+ baggage the A380 alone accounts for

• 39. NH  |  October 7th, 2009 at 19:45

  

  36. ikkeman | October 7th, 2009 at 18:28

  37. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | October 7th, 2009 at 18:37

  I’ve seen this “90% assembled” number flying around a bit here and elsewhere. I’m not doubting the figure, but what does “90% assembled” actually mean? 90% of components are installed on the airframe? The aircraft has moved 90% of the way down the production line? We are 90% of the way through expected assembly man-hours? It is 90% of the way through the expected production schedule? Does the 90% include ground testing, or just actual assembly work? What about painting, installation of flight test equipment, etc?

  My point is that we need some clarification of what that 90% includes and doesn’t include for it to have any real meaning, otherwise we start comparing oranges and apples.

• 40. Paulo M  |  October 7th, 2009 at 21:07

  

  When you look at, it’s pretty shocking news. This plane - it’s based on a 40-year old giant of aerospace engineering - it is by far the most successful widebody jetliner ever built. It’s an engineering icon, the story is known globally.

  Think of it. 40 years and just over 1,400 built.

  How do you do that?
  I think the answer is in these two post:
  18. Vero Venia | October 7th, 2009 at 08:31

  25. Erik Bloodaxe | October 7th, 2009 at 15:03

  There may yet be some truth in all the rumours linked to the MD takeover - which ever way it went. And yet, Boeing’s primary focus is the 787. The company simply does not have the capacity to deal with a fairly difficult birth and a straight forward one at the same time. Flight testing is a massive undertaking as one might imagine. And the target market for the 747 has just taken an almighty blow. Hell, every leading indicator says that they should delay.

  But, this delay is just another one on top of another. No amount of explaining by top brass is going to clear the egg. But it has to be the right move. Let’s not have superman try do both without powers.

  Today, in a local business daily, the story was a 35% increase in Q3 deliveries - there where 90 737s, 4 767s, 19 777’s and 0 747s - and no mention of the strike that is the primary reason for deliveries being 35% higher in 2009 than in 2008. (That mention was in a previous day post - about this latest 747 - nay, Boeing - delay and financial charge - huge.) They’re under pressure — both Airbus & Boeing. I just can’t help thinking Boeing took the lead in self inflicted downstream injuries. I think everyone is at Facebook.

• 41. Boeing Investor  |  October 7th, 2009 at 21:19

  

  NH,

  These numbers that are being bandied around are metaphors…signs of near completion. I am sure there is some basis for them and your point is well taken.

  But interested parties are trying to get a measurement or indicator of closeness to the finish line so these were close enough. The confusion over the difference between 90% and 50 % is what sent of some of the alarm bells.

  The postponement just emphasizes that some report or emphasis was wrong and the finish line has been moved…and how far and for what reason we do not know.

  But some of the above posts assure us it is a wise choice despite its appearance of ineptitude. It is probably a bit of both

• 42. Sick as a parrot  |  October 7th, 2009 at 21:29

  

  Vero Venia, you miss my point completely. I agree, the delay is almost irrelevant.

  But, the current market conditions have not changed since the 748 program manager claimed only recently that 3 (count them) 748s would be flying by the end of the year. Is he incompetent or a liar?

  Then there’s the small matter of the profit destroying $1bn charge.

• 43. Mike M  |  October 7th, 2009 at 21:33

  

  **** me, has ANYONE read the link from Randy’s ******* Journal?

  90% COMPLETED ASSEMBLY

  Who gives a flying **** about 50% or whatever other percentage you can pull out of your rectal orifice!

  Damn.

• 44. Falcon  |  October 7th, 2009 at 21:43

  

  The 50% is supposedly the level of completed tasks required for first flight. Looking just at the description and the number my gut is telling me that is very high when they don’t even have a completed plane. Skipping the gut and using only brainpower I think it means nothing unless you know what is on that list.

  The 90% introduced here is just as bad. As NH said we have no idea how the 90% is measured so how can we use it to judge anything. Then you need to consider the source. Apparently this came from the same source that just a few weeks ago said they would not only have three complete frames ready this year but they would be flying too. We have in writing that the second part isn’t happening so why should we trust the first? Not that it matters.

  What matters is that there has been another delay and because it pushes it outside these magical timeline walls we create it was decided the world needed to know. The comment that Boeing will save some money by not using overtime would be the best possible option, some unannounced issue the worst.

  The bad news is the 1 BUSD extra charge. I think they announced the program was in forward loss in a earlier conference call so….

  Either way the situation is the same as with the A380 – Decide if it is cheaper to continue or to shut it down. As with the A380 I doubt anyone here have the data required to give a definitive answer but my guess is that continuing is cheaper than scrapping.

  I also like to state that I don’t think current airplane programs are in trouble because people wear ties.

• 45. Chris Wallace  |  October 8th, 2009 at 00:56

  

  Unless Boeing expects they won’t sell any more 747s and lose most (if not all) the current backlog, I can’t see how it would be better to scrap the program.

  A negative return on an investment is better than no return on an investment. Either way you are going to lose money, but better to lose only some of your money (negative return) instead of all your money (no return).

• 46. chaser  |  October 8th, 2009 at 03:24

  

  Many people regard the 748 as a derivative, whereas, in many respects it is an almost completely new aircraft that has a resemblance to the 744.
  Under the circumstances, I would have thought it prudent to get at least the first aircraft into flight test, and perhaps conduct the test at a more leisurely pace.
  New wing, engines, systems and avionics can certainly lend themselves to unforeseen issues, and even if customers are not falling over themselves to take delivery, at least have it ready for when they do.
  There is also then the possibility of a “windfall” order coming up, which could be fulfilled by judicious juggling of production. One never knows!

• 47. ikkeman  |  October 8th, 2009 at 07:27

  

  37. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | October 7th, 2009 at 18:37 & 38. No name fandango! | October 7th, 2009 at 19:02
  see 39. NH | October 7th, 2009 at 19:45
  90% complete how - 90% of the partnumbers are connected to each other, 90% of fasteners are installed, 90% by weight is assambled, is 90% assembled in Seattle or is 50% still at suppliers. Like in most projects, the last 10% of the work may take up to 90% of the effort - at least more that 10% of the effort that is suggested. How far along structurally was the 787 at rollout? how far along as it claimed to be during rollout?
  I’m not challengeing your specific 90% number - remember, I didn’t claim it was in the “lies” category and neither am I defending the 50% - I believe neither. It’s statistics used by management and therefore has nothing to do with reality or fact.
  and noname - didn’t the smily tip you off???

  41. Boeing Investor | October 7th, 2009 at 21:19
  I think it’s futile to try and proof how close the finish line is till after you crossed it - look at 787 and 380. Both were rolled out (or even flying) when the big delays came.
  only thing that’s clear is how far away the starting point is, and how much is supposed to be needed to reach the finish line.

  42. Sick as a parrot | October 7th, 2009 at 21:29
  could we name him an optimist faced with reality?

  45. Chris Wallace | October 8th, 2009 at 00:56
  agree - plus, you get to keep a toe in the VLA market - keep 380 residual value down, get to still be the builder of the most iconic ailiner in history… if nothing else, it’s the fringe benefits that’ll kepp this program alive.

  46. chaser | October 8th, 2009 at 03:24
  You’re right - the only derivative part on that bird is hte nose and tail - all the working parts in between are new. that and the certification basis.

• 48. Vero Venia  |  October 8th, 2009 at 08:42

  

  42. Sick as a parrot | October 7th, 2009 at 21:29 “But, the current market conditions have not changed since the 748 program manager claimed only recently that 3 (count them) 748s would be flying by the end of the year. Is he incompetent or a liar?

  Then there’s the small matter of the profit destroying $1bn charge.”

  The market conditions have not changed since Mr Mo Yahyavi said that it could fly by the end of the year. Correct.

  But I can imagine that the management decided that it is not worth the effort to fly the aircraft too soon since the market is still more than bad. However, I agree with you that there has been a clumsy PR action.

  Another point is what I would call the “smoothing” of workload between different programs in BCA. Why would you press to certify an aircraft when the market does not need it? Maybe I didn’t mention enough that 2009 air cargo market is really crappy. I don’t think it would recover before 2011. Perhaps Boeing’s management has decided, pragmatically, that the focus should be put on the 787, for which the demand is still very high. They’d better allocate every available resource, financial and human, on this program.

  In the third quarter last year, the strike hit hard Boeing 3rd quarter earnings results. The opportunity to put a heavy charge on the 3rd Quarter 2009 is fantastic! Without those charges, Boeing would have to announce an immense increase of revenue and profits between 3Q08 and 3Q09. Now, with those charges the figures are more consistent.

  We “know” that 2010 will be another tough year because there are indications that production output must be lowered, and thus aerospace manufacturers’ turnover will go down.

  In my opinion, Boeing is right to forward-spread the financial trouble from 2010 to 2009.

  Another interesting point I read in Boeing’s press release is the sentence concerning tax.
  Quote: “The third-quarter tax benefit related to the 747 charge and the previously announced 787 charge is expected to be approximately 31 percent. The full-year tax benefit for both charges is expected to be approximately 37 percent. Boeing will update its 2009 financial guidance on October 21 when it reports third-quarter results.” (emphasis added)
  http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=865
  Knowing that 2010 won’t be a good year, (thus much lower tax), it is much much better to announce heavy charges today in order to cut the “accounting” income such that the tax level is as low as possible. They can gain around 1 billion dollars using the charges taken in 2009.

• 49. Vero Venia  |  October 8th, 2009 at 12:01

  

  This is relative to my own message:
  28. Vero Venia | October 7th, 2009 at 16:19
  Quote: “So yes, I think delaying the 747-8 is an excellent good move. It is better than parking those VLAs on the tarmac or in the desert.”

  A reader who does not want to be named sent me an email with the link below. He pointed that the aircraft number 47 and 50 are in storage.
  He thinks Boeing’s move is to avoid such situation with the 747-8.
  http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list

• 50. Erik Bloodaxe  |  October 8th, 2009 at 14:45

  

  VV, yep those are the Qantas birds. They were supposed to deliver next year.

  The interesting thing about A380 deliveries is that even today, just 3 months from the end of the year, Bregier was being awfully non-committal about his delivery target of 13 this year. He said that it is still the target and they HOPE to meet it. Now, this year is as far as aircraft manufacture goes… near about over. Airbus should know exactly, to the airframe, what is to deliver this year and what isn’t. It just boggles my mind that Airbus is still being this caggey about an unachievable number of deliveries. They SHOULD just man up, and admit that they won’t even hit 13. I guess this shows a primary example of the difference between European reporting requirements and US law. SOx comes to mind here.

• 51. Leelaw  |  October 8th, 2009 at 16:29

  

  Eric:

  I thought the most recent “guidance” from Airbus (which seems to jive with the “production list” linked by Vero Venia) was for 14 deliveries in 2009 (including refurbished former flight-test aircraft MSN 007), with 7 so far this year, and “more than 20,” I assume this means 21-24, in 2010 (including refurbished former flight-test aircraft MSN 002 & 009)?

  It will be interesting to see whether projected deliveries for 2010 will indeed hold.

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