The Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner could be up to six months late, a well-regarded industry analyst warned Friday in a report that sent the company's shares down sharply on Wall Street.
Boeing also may be unable to meet its projected 787 production rates, Lehman Brothers analyst Joseph Campbell said in the research note to clients.
"In our view, acknowledged challenges make it more appropriate for Boeing to say while they hope to stay close to schedule, it is more likely that the program could slip by four to six months," Campbell said in the report. "Boeing might also say that the production ramp-up currently planned may not be achievable."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ers06.html
6-month delay seen for 787 delivery
Moderator: Latest news team
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I obviously don't know what Boeing is saying privately to customer airlines, but publicly (at least for now) they are stiicking to the story that an ambitious flight test program (if all goes OK) will let them deliver on time. I think it is time to reconsider their public statements and be honest with themselves and their stockholders (investors).
The reasons for the delay are multi-issued; fasterers, flight worthy software, etc. are all contributors. While most of the publicly acknowleded reasons for the delays may not be Boeing's fault (there are certainly internal issues as well), they are at fault by not recognizing and tracking them.
Or, maybe they have been tracking them, but have either deluded themselves that they could be overcome (by magic or wishful thinking?). However, they do owe the public an honest assessement!
The reasons for the delay are multi-issued; fasterers, flight worthy software, etc. are all contributors. While most of the publicly acknowleded reasons for the delays may not be Boeing's fault (there are certainly internal issues as well), they are at fault by not recognizing and tracking them.
Or, maybe they have been tracking them, but have either deluded themselves that they could be overcome (by magic or wishful thinking?). However, they do owe the public an honest assessement!
I whole heatedly agree this is a screw up. And frankly, I do think its fully Boeings fault. They set up this whole system and said it would work and they could track it. Seems like there is some hubris slipping into the works. Well, that and a lot of management has chosen to retire, it makes you wonder if it was really their time, or they could and decided to get out while things looked clean.
Frankly, this is plain stupid. I can understand the flight software not being under their control (having worked with programmers and programs, they can be slipier than a snake oil salesmen). Incredibly hard to pin them down as to what the problem is, how long it will take to fix. That would delay first flight, but not the rest of the program. And a lot of testing can be done using beta software. A red herring, being used to divert attention from the main issue.
However, the fastener issues is a really major screw up. They claim their software was capable of tracking all the myriad parts, pieces, and coordination for the project.
How can you miss that you need 1,000 of fastener X, they only got 600? That’s so basic its ridiculous. If their vendors are lying, then their tracking system is still at fault (and the vendor relationship is questionable).
Boeing apparently did not contest the consolidation of the fastener industry under (ALCOA I think). It looks like they are lame in ramp up, but Boeing should have been tracking that and dealing with it.
The great out sourcing may not work any better in this field than the others I have seen it fail in.
This may also be the bumps in the road you expect to see, but I would expect those bumps to have been other more technical and not this basic as simple as a number of fasteners (once you have the machines and process, making those should not be an issue.
The major serious question is, are they handling the other and more complex issues as well. Getting the first bird powered up and in flight will tell a lot.
I do not question that the program will be successful, I think they made all the right technical moves and decisions (some incredibly bold).
What I missed was that if something very fundamental went wrong like the fasteners, then they would not get the airframes together they planned. The 4 month delay would not be serious if not for that. That delay and them not putting airframes together is serious (costly in all sorts of terms).
That may lead to other costs as well, like a second production line just to stay up with what they said they could deliver.
I do see some good news in this, in that the supplier can take a deep breath, get caught up on the nagging issues they surely have experienced, and position themselves correctly to move into full production.
Also a chance to get the traveling work under control.
This also is a great wakeup call to Airbus. Once they finally settle on a design, to ensure that they have the source and quantity of fasteners ready. Nice of Boeing to give them that present. That also means A330 production will continue longer, which is a nice bonus to Airbus.
Frankly, this is plain stupid. I can understand the flight software not being under their control (having worked with programmers and programs, they can be slipier than a snake oil salesmen). Incredibly hard to pin them down as to what the problem is, how long it will take to fix. That would delay first flight, but not the rest of the program. And a lot of testing can be done using beta software. A red herring, being used to divert attention from the main issue.
However, the fastener issues is a really major screw up. They claim their software was capable of tracking all the myriad parts, pieces, and coordination for the project.
How can you miss that you need 1,000 of fastener X, they only got 600? That’s so basic its ridiculous. If their vendors are lying, then their tracking system is still at fault (and the vendor relationship is questionable).
Boeing apparently did not contest the consolidation of the fastener industry under (ALCOA I think). It looks like they are lame in ramp up, but Boeing should have been tracking that and dealing with it.
The great out sourcing may not work any better in this field than the others I have seen it fail in.
This may also be the bumps in the road you expect to see, but I would expect those bumps to have been other more technical and not this basic as simple as a number of fasteners (once you have the machines and process, making those should not be an issue.
The major serious question is, are they handling the other and more complex issues as well. Getting the first bird powered up and in flight will tell a lot.
I do not question that the program will be successful, I think they made all the right technical moves and decisions (some incredibly bold).
What I missed was that if something very fundamental went wrong like the fasteners, then they would not get the airframes together they planned. The 4 month delay would not be serious if not for that. That delay and them not putting airframes together is serious (costly in all sorts of terms).
That may lead to other costs as well, like a second production line just to stay up with what they said they could deliver.
I do see some good news in this, in that the supplier can take a deep breath, get caught up on the nagging issues they surely have experienced, and position themselves correctly to move into full production.
Also a chance to get the traveling work under control.
This also is a great wakeup call to Airbus. Once they finally settle on a design, to ensure that they have the source and quantity of fasteners ready. Nice of Boeing to give them that present. That also means A330 production will continue longer, which is a nice bonus to Airbus.
The flight software, which Boeing are glibly saying is late from Honeywell ignores the fact that the basic data around which the software is written was not completed by Boeing until just before the roll out.
I know 6 million lines is not written manually, but it is an enormous task, particularly as glitches arise and have to be solved.
Cheers
Achace
I know 6 million lines is not written manually, but it is an enormous task, particularly as glitches arise and have to be solved.
Cheers
Achace
A bit of a huh? I don't think Boeing is "glib" about it, but I do know that while its absolutely a critical issue, its not a hold up issue like the fasteners (they can continue to build airframes with out software, but not fasteners).
I do think its being used to divert attention from the fastener debacle. It’s a convenient way to spread out the blame. I have seen that used more than once. Through enough chaff in the air and your culpability can be minimized.
And I know 6 million lines of code is huge, and a lot automated, cut and paste used that has to be tested and then fixed manually when you find it does not work as well (or holes found).
However, a lot of it is the same principles (and in some cases identical controls like the tail feathers) that the 777 uses, so it is not all new. Enough so to be an issue, but not a show stopper, they certainly have done a lot of that both civilian and military (and they occasionally find holes in it as they did with the 777 recently).
There’s obviously new systems and controls added, and or work somewhat differently , as they really have made some changes (all electric breaks will be totally different.)
You can still load a beta version and start your testing of a whole lot of items and get them out of the way.
I do think its being used to divert attention from the fastener debacle. It’s a convenient way to spread out the blame. I have seen that used more than once. Through enough chaff in the air and your culpability can be minimized.
And I know 6 million lines of code is huge, and a lot automated, cut and paste used that has to be tested and then fixed manually when you find it does not work as well (or holes found).
However, a lot of it is the same principles (and in some cases identical controls like the tail feathers) that the 777 uses, so it is not all new. Enough so to be an issue, but not a show stopper, they certainly have done a lot of that both civilian and military (and they occasionally find holes in it as they did with the 777 recently).
There’s obviously new systems and controls added, and or work somewhat differently , as they really have made some changes (all electric breaks will be totally different.)
You can still load a beta version and start your testing of a whole lot of items and get them out of the way.
Pretty funny stuff I reckon.
The Boeing fans cheer squad was in overdrive when Airbus made basically the same mistake with the A380 (letting the little things get out of control then not coming clean about it).
Now let them walk around with egg dripping from their childish faces as their beloved Seattle Company has a little stumbe.
The 787 will still be a great and sucessful aircraft but this gives Airbus a little breathing space to get their A350 sorted.
The Boeing fans cheer squad was in overdrive when Airbus made basically the same mistake with the A380 (letting the little things get out of control then not coming clean about it).
Now let them walk around with egg dripping from their childish faces as their beloved Seattle Company has a little stumbe.
The 787 will still be a great and sucessful aircraft but this gives Airbus a little breathing space to get their A350 sorted.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
My Boeing 2008 topic suggested a bit of a blood letting over the 787, but failed to attract much attention.
Back to delivery issues.
Just read a blog in Seattle Post by someone who seems to know what its all about.
The window for cold soak trials in the Arctic ends at the end of February, and every airliner has to spend two days successfully proving the systems under -30 deg.C conditions. The plane cannot be certified without this test.
If the 787 misses that window, there are no Antarctic facilities available, so winter of 2008 would be the first opportunity for these tests, and 2009 starts to loom as EIS.
Looking a bit bleak?
Cheers
Achace
Back to delivery issues.
Just read a blog in Seattle Post by someone who seems to know what its all about.
The window for cold soak trials in the Arctic ends at the end of February, and every airliner has to spend two days successfully proving the systems under -30 deg.C conditions. The plane cannot be certified without this test.
If the 787 misses that window, there are no Antarctic facilities available, so winter of 2008 would be the first opportunity for these tests, and 2009 starts to loom as EIS.
Looking a bit bleak?
Cheers
Achace
Perhaps they will have to create some Antartic facilitiesachace wrote:
If the 787 misses that window, there are no Antarctic facilities available, so winter of 2008 would be the first opportunity for these tests, and 2009 starts to loom as EIS.
Looking a bit bleak?
Cheers
Achace
What this does is reduce the credibility differential between A & B. A lost a lot of credibility over the A380 stuffups. Personally I had a bit of sympathy for them because bringing such a new and complex product to the market is not easy, no matter who you are. I know they're paid to get these things right but they're also human.
Anyway if B stumbles with the 787, which is looking increasingly likely, then it levels the playing field again.
Boeing says 787 on track for May 2008 delivery
"It is still our object to meet that May 2008 delivery. We have a challenging test flight programme," Randy Tinseth, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Vice President for Marketing told reporters.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071008/ ... 18940.html
"It is still our object to meet that May 2008 delivery. We have a challenging test flight programme," Randy Tinseth, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Vice President for Marketing told reporters.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071008/ ... 18940.html
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
The US Air Force has the Climatic Laboratory Building (a cold soak facility) at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that can be rented for testing. B-52's and B-2's have been tested at -65 degrees F (-54C). It is pretty amazing - testing an entire plane at this low temperature when the outside temperature is 100 degrees F (38 degrees C)! I've seen photographs of B-52's draped in ice in this hanger during summer months.tsv wrote:Perhaps they will have to create some Antartic facilitiesachace wrote:
If the 787 misses that window, there are no Antarctic facilities available, so winter of 2008 would be the first opportunity for these tests, and 2009 starts to loom as EIS.
Looking a bit bleak?
Cheers
Achace
What this does is reduce the credibility differential between A & B. A lost a lot of credibility over the A380 stuffups. Personally I had a bit of sympathy for them because bringing such a new and complex product to the market is not easy, no matter who you are. I know they're paid to get these things right but they're also human.
Anyway if B stumbles with the 787, which is looking increasingly likely, then it levels the playing field again.
Good information Smokejumper.
Has any civil aircraft been certified using this facility?
Tinseth of Boeing sated yesterday that they needed 3700 hours of ground testing plus 1300 hours of flight testing for certification.
He fails to mention time for analysis of data and routine maintenance, only that they cannot afford any glitches.
Does anyone in the forum know the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours on a civil airliner.(maybe cageyjames could enlighten us. Welcome back by the way)
I only know the figure for military aircraft, and that is pretty substantial.
Cheers
Achace
Has any civil aircraft been certified using this facility?
Tinseth of Boeing sated yesterday that they needed 3700 hours of ground testing plus 1300 hours of flight testing for certification.
He fails to mention time for analysis of data and routine maintenance, only that they cannot afford any glitches.
Does anyone in the forum know the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours on a civil airliner.(maybe cageyjames could enlighten us. Welcome back by the way)
I only know the figure for military aircraft, and that is pretty substantial.
Cheers
Achace
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
The following web site will link you to a description of the climatic facility:
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communiti ... s/5590.pdf
and: http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/mck.htm
I do not know whether any full scale commercial aircraft have been teste there, but the facility is available for hire (to help defray expenses).
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communiti ... s/5590.pdf
and: http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/mck.htm
I do not know whether any full scale commercial aircraft have been teste there, but the facility is available for hire (to help defray expenses).
Boeing Reschedules Initial 787 Deliveries and First Flight
The company said the financial impact of the delay would not be material to earnings and that its earnings guidance for 2007 and 2008 remained unchanged.
"We are disappointed over the schedule changes that we are announcing today," said Boeing Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney. "Notwithstanding the challenges that we are experiencing in bringing forward this game-changing product, we remain confident in the design of the 787, and in the fundamental innovation and technologies that underpin it."
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0d_nr.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/642 ... Delay.html
"We are disappointed over the schedule changes that we are announcing today," said Boeing Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney. "Notwithstanding the challenges that we are experiencing in bringing forward this game-changing product, we remain confident in the design of the 787, and in the fundamental innovation and technologies that underpin it."
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0d_nr.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/642 ... Delay.html