Boeing Delays 787 First Flight.... AGAIN
06-23-2009 | 05:47 PM
#21
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
So, a company that's used to doing business with over 15,000 vendors is losing control of............... their vendors? 
I defend outsourcing because I know how Oligopolistic industries work. I also understand that without "effectively managed" outsourcing, Boeing is finished!
Same goes for Airbus. Ineffective outsourcing = NO Airbus!
Apparently Boeing and Airbus are aware of this fact. Are you?
BTW, I fully expect the B787 to be a success. Eventually!
Al
I defend outsourcing because I know how Oligopolistic industries work. I also understand that without "effectively managed" outsourcing, Boeing is finished!
Same goes for Airbus. Ineffective outsourcing = NO Airbus!
Apparently Boeing and Airbus are aware of this fact. Are you?
BTW, I fully expect the B787 to be a success. Eventually!
Al
Carl
06-23-2009 | 06:02 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Sorry to "disappoint" you. Wasn't my spelling was it?
Seems like I agree with the policy at Boeing, Airbus, and countless other firms while you don't.
What would you have Boeing do with the B787 program?
Al
Last edited by alvrb211; 06-23-2009 at 06:19 PM.
06-23-2009 | 06:35 PM
#23
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Check a dictionary dude.
If you don't think Boeing currently regrets the outsourcing and the management thereof for the 787, then you know nothing about this subject.
Return to more in-house work. A more managable level of outside vendors as was done with previous programs. A level that Boeing engineers and technicians were pleading for, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.
Carl
Return to more in-house work. A more managable level of outside vendors as was done with previous programs. A level that Boeing engineers and technicians were pleading for, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.
Carl
06-23-2009 | 07:44 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
If you don't think Boeing currently regrets the outsourcing and the management thereof for the 787, then you know nothing about this subject.Return to more in-house work. A more managable level of outside vendors as was done with previous programs. A level that Boeing engineers and technicians were pleading for, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.Carl
I won't change your views. Old school guys have a hard time with globalization.
I'm sure Boeing has regrets about "their" handling of the program.
BTW, I haven't seen much change lately in Boeing's approved vendor list. Speaks volumes doesn't it. Whoever is screwing up isn't getting the boot. Wait............can Boeing give Boeing the boot?
Your idea of building more in-house would only serve to increase competitive advantage at Airbus.
Funny how they just rolled out an A320 produced in China. Why not just make them all in Toulouse?
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Oligopolistic firms are heavily influenced by each other. And, for good reason!
You don't have to like outsourcing to survive. But, you do have to be good at it!
Peace.
Al
Last edited by alvrb211; 06-23-2009 at 08:15 PM.
06-23-2009 | 07:53 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: 777 Left
Really? The most complex part of the B787 that wasn't made in Seattle came from England. It was delivered on time and on budget. It also made sfc target. It's called the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 and, unlike the 787, it was ready to fly a very, very long time ago.
Boeing normally uses in excess of 15,000 vendors (as does Airbus). All of a sudden, Boeing want to shift blame out of Seattle to their vendors? This is Boeing's mess! I'm familiar with many of Boeing's vendors. Feel free to correct me and tell me which ones are holding up the Dreamliner. Are you trying to tell me Boeing doesn't know how to manage outsourcing and Foreign Direct Investment?
Boeing normally uses in excess of 15,000 vendors (as does Airbus). All of a sudden, Boeing want to shift blame out of Seattle to their vendors? This is Boeing's mess! I'm familiar with many of Boeing's vendors. Feel free to correct me and tell me which ones are holding up the Dreamliner. Are you trying to tell me Boeing doesn't know how to manage outsourcing and Foreign Direct Investment?
Not the number of vendors - The work scope of the vendors has been the issue.
Period.
06-23-2009 | 08:08 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: 777 Left
Airbus will not make money on the A380. It is unfortunate but the economics just aren't there for it. The 380 is really a hub-spoke aircraft in a fast developing point-to-point world. Add to that the huge cost overages and the economic problems and the 380 is going to be a huge draw on their books.
Further, the current operators are discovering that the 380 is a turd for belly fr8. The 380 doesn't provide enough lift in the belly because it has to house the bags of 500+ passengers. Now Airbus is saying that the -900 will have better lift for fr8 and the economics will be improved because of that fact. So again, Airbus has to spend further to make the 380 provide the right economics for the operators.
If you look at the Emirates 380's they are running about 60% capacity and they still are down on the belly space available for boxes. Not good.
I am not an Airbus basher. I make my living driving one and I really like the 340-600 for a large airliner. But the 380 is a turd and it is FUGLY to boot.
Further, the current operators are discovering that the 380 is a turd for belly fr8. The 380 doesn't provide enough lift in the belly because it has to house the bags of 500+ passengers. Now Airbus is saying that the -900 will have better lift for fr8 and the economics will be improved because of that fact. So again, Airbus has to spend further to make the 380 provide the right economics for the operators.
If you look at the Emirates 380's they are running about 60% capacity and they still are down on the belly space available for boxes. Not good.
I am not an Airbus basher. I make my living driving one and I really like the 340-600 for a large airliner. But the 380 is a turd and it is FUGLY to boot.
06-23-2009 | 08:33 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Airbus will not make money on the A380. It is unfortunate but the economics just aren't there for it. The 380 is really a hub-spoke aircraft in a fast developing point-to-point world. Add to that the huge cost overages and the economic problems and the 380 is going to be a huge draw on their books.
Further, the current operators are discovering that the 380 is a turd for belly fr8. The 380 doesn't provide enough lift in the belly because it has to house the bags of 500+ passengers. Now Airbus is saying that the -900 will have better lift for fr8 and the economics will be improved because of that fact. So again, Airbus has to spend further to make the 380 provide the right economics for the operators.
If you look at the Emirates 380's they are running about 60% capacity and they still are down on the belly space available for boxes. Not good.
I am not an Airbus basher. I make my living driving one and I really like the 340-600 for a large airliner. But the 380 is a turd and it is FUGLY to boot.
Further, the current operators are discovering that the 380 is a turd for belly fr8. The 380 doesn't provide enough lift in the belly because it has to house the bags of 500+ passengers. Now Airbus is saying that the -900 will have better lift for fr8 and the economics will be improved because of that fact. So again, Airbus has to spend further to make the 380 provide the right economics for the operators.
If you look at the Emirates 380's they are running about 60% capacity and they still are down on the belly space available for boxes. Not good.
I am not an Airbus basher. I make my living driving one and I really like the 340-600 for a large airliner. But the 380 is a turd and it is FUGLY to boot.
Boeing and Airbus projections tell a different story with respect to large freighters and overall cargo growth. Most airlines use causal forecasting and that is unreliable at present so who knows what the short term holds.
If you can get a return on a new airframe within 2 decades you are doing well. Fortunately, Airbus' future isn't dependant on the A380.
Al
06-24-2009 | 10:09 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: Right...CL65
Airbus' future is however dependant on what they find out with the AF 447 crash. If they do have a serious design flaw with the vertical stab, this is going to be tough for airbus to recover from.
06-24-2009 | 01:06 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
06-24-2009 | 04:48 PM
#30
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
The issue isn't the number of vendors. This time around Boeing tried to have the vendors take on a larger work scope. Instead of supplying parts to Boeing that are then put into large assemblies at the Boeing plant, this time around Boeing tried to have the vendors deliver complete assemblies. The idea was to transfer the work load to the vendors and reduce complexity at the Boeing plant. This was supposed to allow Boeing to only perform FINAL assembly of the major components thereby reducing line time for Boeing. The idea has failed though. Only for expample purposes - In previous projects the barrels or wing sections would be plumbed at Boeing. Now Boeing asked the vendors to do that job. What is happening is Boeing is either having to take the responsibility back or they are in many cases training the vendors to accomplish what they said they could do in the first place. This is the same type of thing that caught Airbus short and then Boeing somehow thought they could do it only make it work. Guess what, it hasn't yet.
Not the number of vendors - The work scope of the vendors has been the issue.
Period.
Not the number of vendors - The work scope of the vendors has been the issue.
Period.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
