Does anyone know what the real reason or reasons for the delay to the 787 are, I can't believe that the two year delay of the first flight is because of a few holes not lining up?
__________________
Birds fly, people die, where's my money?
--the "few holes not lining up" were the joins for the fuselage barrels...
--the center wing box failed under stress so now its heavy again...
--then the barrels were damaged because they put in the wrong fasteners
--now the brakes are not working as planned "due to a sensor" but will have to be redesigned...
--both current engines by GE & RR overburn by almost 15%
Just wait, soon the electric compressors for the pressurization system are tested in flight; and the electric anti-ice system is run for the first time.
Right now the 787 is 6000# overweight and burns 15% more fuel than predicted.
That means it underperforms a 767-300ER and that's before factoring in the aquisition cost.
Boeing copied the same supply chain that gave Airbus fits with the A380.
and the A380 was just big, nothing really new.
The 787 will be a great plane 10 years from now.
It would be flying if it had been entirely built in Seattle and had Mullaley run the company instead of Condit and Stoncipher...
Two questions, first, can the 787 line fail to come to fruition? Is that possible?
Highly unlikely. There are about 1000 orders on the books, more than for any other airplane prior to first flight. There is a serious market niche for this airplane, and Boeing will be able to get the performance numbers where they need to be (or close enough) eventually. Airlines need this airplane, and the closest competitor, the A350XB, is still on the drawing board because EADS blew all of it's R&D capital on the great white elephant (380). With 1000 airplanes sold, Boeing can afford a lot of program fixes. The problems to date appear mostly to be logistics and production management, not catastrophic technical challenges (a few technical glitches is par-for-the-course on a project like this).
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Second, is it possible to smarten and lighten up a 763 and put the 787technology in it? I mean for sure you could lighten up the avionics bay.
No. It is metal, not composite, so the weight could not change that much. You could probably add some things like electric brakes, but I doubt you could easily redesign the bleeds and hydraulics.
Most of these problems are normal for any aircraft entering service for the first time. Why Boeing and Airbus didn't allow for that in their delievery schedules, I don't know. Did boeing improve on the first 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, etc.? Never be the launch customer (just ask the A380 airlines) and never buy the "A" model of any plane.
The 787 will be a great plane 10 years from now.
It would be flying if it had been entirely built in Seattle and had Mullaley run the company instead of Condit and Stoncipher...
The same Mullaley that wants a huge fuel tax so he can sell all the Ford POS hybrid's that nobody wants? Tax My Products, Please - WSJ.com
Position: Living out of a suitcase & stealing internet from the hotel bar
Posts: 1,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird
Does anyone know what the real reason or reasons for the delay to the 787 are, I can't believe that the two year delay of the first flight is because of a few holes not lining up?
I can't believe no one else on this board picked up on this.
Boeing hired a bunch of management consultants that told them outsourcing was the best way ever to run a business. They said (and I'm not making this up) Movie Production Studios use outsourced talent to make a movie, but they don't retain that talent when they are not in production. Hence, Boeing should outsource engineering talent when they need it and not keep it in between development cycles.
This is typical management consultant Dog Squeeze. They take one model they learned at Hah'vard and apply it where it has no logical application. Since the Hah'vard alums have never had a real job, they don't realize the outsourcing model that works for Dreamworks, sucks when applied to a Dreamliner.
So Boeing outsourced their engineering to companies which did not have engineers. Literally! Then they discovered that instead of being able to whipsaw a dozen unions, the unions began to whipsaw them. Now a strike at any one of a dozen independent manufacturing facilities any where on the planet shuts down production.
I bet when the dust settles, we will learn the management consultants' next client was AIG. Performance this bad requires a unique blend of education, arrogance, and lack of experience.
I can't believe no one else on this board picked up on this.
Boeing hired a bunch of management consultants that told them outsourcing was the best way ever to run a business. They said (and I'm not making this up) Movie Production Studios use outsourced talent to make a movie, but they don't retain that talent when they are not in production. Hence, Boeing should outsource engineering talent when they need it and not keep it in between development cycles.
This is typical management consultant Dog Squeeze. They take one model they learned at Hah'vard and apply it where it has no logical application. Since the Hah'vard alums have never had a real job, they don't realize the outsourcing model that works for Dreamworks, sucks when applied to a Dreamliner.
So Boeing outsourced their engineering to companies which did not have engineers. Literally! Then they discovered that instead of being able to whipsaw a dozen unions, the unions began to whipsaw them. Now a strike at any one of a dozen independent manufacturing facilities any where on the planet shuts down production.
I bet when the dust settles, we will learn the management consultants' next client was AIG. Performance this bad requires a unique blend of education, arrogance, and lack of experience.
You sir, are exactly, EXACTLY correct.
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
I can't believe no one else on this board picked up on this.
This is typical management consultant Dog Squeeze. They take one model they learned at Hah'vard and apply it where it has no logical application. Since the Hah'vard alums have never had a real job, they don't realize the outsourcing model that works for Dreamworks, sucks when applied to a Dreamliner.
This has been going on across the country. All across corporate America the trend is to outsource various aspects of a company. Slick folks come in and present powerpoints to management outlining how each portion of a companies business can be optimized.
IT support? Send it to a call center overseas where there are no labor unions and the government is good at suppressing any start of one.
Parts/supplies? Yeah, import from Asia.
Engineering talent? Oh, they've got firms of folks out in India just waiting to take your work on. They even got degrees...from some place.
Problem with your own domestic workforce? We've got great relationships with some temporary help companies. It's great, you don't have to pay them benefits.
Whats that? You are concerned about the quality? We'll work out a credit system, so if they don't deliver completely, you just get the same level of service at a lower discounted rate.
LinkBacks (?)
Delays to the 787
Linear Mode
