It's offifial: 787 is delayed again...

[JF Mezei]

On thursday, Boeing confirmed yet another delay for the 787. (this was
expected on the heels of the strike and news of more rivet problems).

First flight during second quarter of 2009 (original 3rd 2007)
First delivery first quarter of 2010 (original 2nd 2008).

Many of the articles I read mentioned that airlines don't have much
credibility with those new schedules.

So now the 787 is close to 2 years late.

If Airbus was further ahead with its 350 (more metal than vapourware),
it might be able to start stealing sales now.


Orders stand at:

787-3 43
787-8 644
787-9 290

Anyone know if the 787-3 orders are still "real" since Boeing postponed
indefinitely its development ?



The chronology of the 787
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=INN1126548020081211



.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Post by JF Mezei
On thursday, Boeing confirmed yet another delay for the 787. (this was
expected on the heels of the strike and news of more rivet problems).
First flight during second quarter of 2009 (original 3rd 2007)
First delivery first quarter of 2010  (original 2nd 2008).

The last dates I have seen this morning are:
2009/06 First Flight
2010/06 ANA first plane delivered.

Post by JF Mezei
Many of the articles I read mentioned that airlines don't have much
credibility with those new schedules.
So now the 787 is close to 2 years late.
If Airbus was further ahead with its 350 (more metal than vapourware),
it might be able to start stealing sales now.

Airbus made an announcement offering an A330-200 with
increased (5t) MTOW for 2010 onward to match the stunted
initial B787 batch. ( note the reduced range due to being overweight )

Post by JF Mezei
 787-3    43
 787-8   644
 787-9   290

more interesting is the fact that Boeing usually matches delays with
announcements for new customers/sales. ( 15 : type not published
customer : anonymous )

wid
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Airbus made an announcement offering an A330-200 with
increased (5t) MTOW for 2010 onward to match the stunted
initial B787 batch. ( note the reduced range due to being overweight )

I have to wonder the usefulness of this. An airline that doesn't have
330s yet isn't about to get a couple of those just to tie them over
until the 787 deliveries.

It does depend on how generous Boeing is with its compensation deals.
Airbus might present an offer to give some 330s in 2010 and 350s a few
years later. Can this beat sticking with Boeing and accepting whatever
compensation Boeing gives ?

I could see two senarios here:

Small orders quietly defecting to Airbus. Not much bragging rights, and
the freed slots helps Boeing reduce delivery delays to the more
important customers.

The real "coup" would be if Airbus could win back Air Canada and/or
Northwest (Delta) and/or Qantas. Those already operate 330s, but have
chosen to go with 787. Those are high profile customers with high
visibility. Whether this is even remotely possible, I have no idea.

And since they still operate 330s, the "get a better 330 by 2010" deal
would work nicely within their fleet and provide for easy transition to
the 350 when the later materialises.


Anyone have any progostic on whether Airbus will be able to ramp up
production of 350s with less than 9 months of delay ?
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Rain keeps falling on my Head, de dum da da ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/12/whats-up-with-this-wing-delami.html

Notice that the underperformers seem to be the US native partners.
They are unwilling/unable to provide for production ramp up.

Fuji Heavy Ind. is not willing to spend further money for Boeing
without compensation.
( They could do 10 wings a month but will only do 7 )

The MTOW++ A330 is cheap to do and a bit of the thunb at Boeing.

wid
had a reply written to your post but botched sending it, sorry.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Rain keeps falling on my Head, de dum da da ...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/12/whats-up-with-this-wing-delami.html

Just reading the "delami" in the URL sent shivers down my spine. If all
of the 787 composite parts are knitted/laid/whatever with computer
controlled robots, it would mean that if one wing delaminated, all
would. (unless the robot had problems with one wing and they have to
patch up the mess and restart it where it had gotten stuck or some other
type of problem).

BTW, I assume that Boeing will set out precise aircraft maintenance
guidelines and required equipment to detect delamination in critical parts ?

I wonder if Airbus has done the same with the 380 considering it has
some critical composite parts, especially the whole tail section.
(Especially after the AA A300-600 that crashed).

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Notice that the underperformers seem to be the US native partners.
They are unwilling/unable to provide for production ramp up.

I don't think we know the full story on this.

Until someone explains to me why contractor X is unable to install all
the gear it is supposed to install( forcing boeing to partially
disassemble that component to install the missing pieces), I remain very
very curious as to the real extent of the problems of the 787.

What worries me is that despite throwing everything it has at the 787,
Boeing seems unable to get one working aircraft. The fact that they are
still working on patching #1 (instead of ordering a new
fuselage/assembly from the supply chain) tells me that there are some
design issues that need to be fixed before they ask for a new aircraft
with all the fixes built in and which could then be assembled "normally"
and flown soon.

Remember that prior to starting assembly of #1, Boeing had already said
that some suppliers would not be shipping fully outfitted aircraft
barrels to Boeing. (I think that was march/april 2007 time frame,
assembly began in may 2007).

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Fuji Heavy Ind. is not willing to spend further money for Boeing
without compensation.

Consider that suppliers had invested heavily into machinery and training
with expectations that by may 2008, they would start to get paid and
with that money, hire more people and buy more machinery to ramp up
production.

Consider the story that the tape layup machines don't seem to be
performing anywhere near as fast as they have been told. If your
financial plans worked with X tape layout machines able to produce 10
<part name> per month, but you are now faced with a situation where
you need to double that number of machines/investments to meet the
production quota, the financials may no longer work for that contract
and they would want more money, especially since you're not yet getting
paid since Boeing isn't delivery any aircraft.

Also, it is pointless for contractor A to invest to increase production
rate to 10 when it knows that contrator B isn't investing and can't even
match 7 per month.

And remember that at the moment, we are not talking about how many
aircraft per month are produced, we are talking about months/years per
aircraft.


When this project started, there were many comments that because Boeing
was a publically traded company, that it was forced to divulge problems
and be honest. Looks to me like we are far from getting the full story here.

.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Rain keeps falling on my Head, de dum da da ...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/12/whats-up-with...

Just reading the "delami" in the URL sent shivers down my spine.  If all

If that is even partly true Boeing _does_ have a problem.

But it fits in very well.
All the hassle Boeing has can be routed back to very bad QA:
The current "herd leaders" at Boeing seem to not even have an
idea what is happening to their plans and planes. ( you see the same
think in the other production lines growing up through the flooring )

BTW, I assume that Boeing will set out precise aircraft maintenance
guidelines and required equipment to detect delamination in critical parts ?

They better do.
But:
finding burried faults in composites seems to be harder than doing the
same
for metallic parts.
Repairing ? I don't know.
I wonder who did the cost estimates for "cheaper due to less
maintainance
and easier repair" that sold so many on the B787?

With a build hull you can at least replace single panels and do
qualified
repairs on the separated part. Try to shove a whole dreamline in an
autoclave!

I wonder if Airbus has done the same with the 380 considering it has
some critical composite parts, especially the whole tail section.

I think they have. And the majority of composite parts are detachable
and you can return them to the factory for repairs under "same as new"
conditions.

(Especially after the AA A300-600 that crashed).

Well, the AA crash was due to unqualified pilot behaviour.
( excessive force applied http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf
)
The FAA report says as much ( contrary to some US made
TV documentaries that have made it over the great pond
to german N24 tv)

Post by w***@googlemail.com
Notice that the underperformers seem to be the US native partners.
They are unwilling/unable to provide for production ramp up.

I don't think we know the full story on this.

Right it just developes into bullshit bingo at a moment in time
where some "Hic Rhodos, Hic Salta" performance (First Flight)
is called for..

Until someone explains to me why contractor X is unable to install all
the gear it is supposed to install( forcing boeing to partially
disassemble that component to install the missing pieces), I remain very
very curious as to the real extent of the problems of the 787.
What worries me is that despite throwing everything it has at the 787,

Well the last lifesaver is thought to be taking management personel
from the
missile shield stuff ( mired unitl recently ) over to the 787.
Unfortunately throwing manpower or management changes at late projects
make them later still.

When this project started, there were many comments that because Boeing
was a publically traded company, that it was forced to divulge problems
and be honest. Looks to me like we are far from getting the full story here.

I don't see the connection between "publicly traded" and "forced to
divulge
problems and be honest" , especially not the latter. Corporate
entities
have laws that govern them but no ethics. ( And you cope with laws by
applying
exessively bright laywers )

Which may actually be the problem why Boeing falters. laws you apply
lawyers
to and laws of physics (actually the regularness of physics) are too
completely
different animals. ( Who sits or advises in managerial toplevels ? )

Could Mr. Udvard-Hazy have been paid to badger airbus into changing
over to
the XWB just for Boeing to not fold 3/4 years ago?

wid.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by w***@googlemail.com

Post by JF Mezei
Just reading the "delami" in the URL sent shivers down my spine. If all

If that is even partly true Boeing _does_ have a problem.

What bugs me in that is that prior to the "Sonic Cruiser", Boeing had
been given a subsidyˆHˆHˆHˆHˆHˆHˆH research contract to develop all
composite commercial aircraft.

When the AA A300 crash happened, while the reason for that crash were
due to rudder use that was outside FAA requirements, they did discover
some delamination issues with the tailfins on "many" A300s. And in
working on the Sonic Cruiser and 787, Boeing would have already been
aware of those incidents.

With intense pressure to shave every gram off aircraft, perhaps they
compromised a bit on the thickness or way the fibres are weaved/laid and
this increased risks of delamiation ?

Does Boeing have any way to do quality assurance on a piece of composite
to ensure that the fibers were laid in the exact same way/amount that
the design called for ?

Post by w***@googlemail.com
The current "herd leaders" at Boeing seem to not even have an
idea what is happening to their plans and planes. ( you see the same
think in the other production lines growing up through the flooring )

interesting comment considering that Pat Shanahan has just been
"promoted" to have wider responsabilities (as opposed to just 787
programme manager).


When Shanahan was put up as program manager, it was after one of the
delay announcements with a goal of putting the 787 back on track. I
have to assume that at that point, he would have sat down with
everyone/anyone and heard about all the problems with the aircraft.

It is understandable that new problems (such as delamination rumour)
would prop up. But the "fastener" problem has dated since early 2007.

Perhaps we are making too much of this.

Is it possible that Boeing has completely done the fuselage section,
fixed all problems there, powered it on and is happy with it, and is now
focusing on wings where there are still fastener problems ?

Or is there still work being done to the fuselage ?



In 2007, I can only assume that Boeing top management, having already
booked the halls and caterers for the 787 unveiling celebrations on
8-7-2007 told the lower ranks "do whatever it takes to have an 787 on
display on that date, even if it held up with duct tape".

This would have been the undoing of the #1 aircraft which had to be
taken apart and back together at least once (but I get the feeling it
was more than once in some sections).

Are there still sequels from that premature assembly of #1 ?


I can understand that for the unveiling parties, Boeing would have tried
to put a positive spin and despite delay in first flight would have
pretended all work would be done and first delivery on time.

By september/october 2007, when Boeing announced the first real delays
in deliveries, wouldn't it already have had a good grasp on the scale of
all problems still confronting the #1 aircraft ?

Post by w***@googlemail.com
repairs on the separated part. Try to shove a whole dreamline in an
autoclave!

This was debunked some time ago. They have tools/kits to do in situ
repairs of the fuselage skins, and place a hot blanket over it to let it
cure. (or somethimg like that).

But for critical surfaces like wings, I do not know.

.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by w***@googlemail.com

Just reading the "delami" in the URL sent shivers down my spine.  If all

If that is even partly true Boeing _does_ have a problem.

What bugs me in that is that prior to the "Sonic Cruiser", Boeing had
been given a subsidyˆHˆHˆHˆHˆHˆHˆH research contract to develop all
composite commercial aircraft.

Did they realy do the indepth work required by that contract?
The real work done may have been limited to fluffing up what is
know about the subject from the mil projects. ( But that is on a
completely
different scale, compare the price and workflow for a B2 versus a
commercial airliner.
The margins on producing a B2 should allow for "touching" everything
twice or
even more often for rework.)

Post by JF Mezei
When the AA A300 crash happened, while the reason for that crash were
due to rudder use that was outside FAA requirements, they did discover
some delamination issues with the tailfins on "many" A300s.

that would be referenced in these images:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm
and Chapter 2.2 of the NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf : p134ff

"separation was at 2 times limit load". (the design target was 1.5
times limit load).
"all faults were consistent with excessive stress and not fatique"

Post by JF Mezei
And in
working on the Sonic Cruiser and 787, Boeing would have already been
aware of those incidents.
With intense pressure to shave every gram off aircraft, perhaps they
compromised a bit on the thickness or way the fibres are weaved/laid and
this increased risks of delamiation ?

That would not make a First Flight impossible.
( The A380 got some late changes on the wing after the 148% failure in
testing )

Post by JF Mezei
Does Boeing have any way to do quality assurance on a piece of composite
to ensure that the fibers were laid in the exact same way/amount that
the design called for ?

In a nondestructive way? I'd hold my breath.

Post by JF Mezei

Post by w***@googlemail.com
The current "herd leaders" at Boeing seem to not even have an
idea what is happening to their plans and planes. ( you see the same
think in the other production lines growing up through the flooring )

interesting comment considering that Pat Shanahan has just been
"promoted" to  have wider responsabilities (as opposed to just 787
programme manager).
When Shanahan was put up as program manager, it was after one of the
delay announcements with a goal of  putting the 787 back on track. I
have to assume that at that point, he would have sat down with
everyone/anyone and heard about all the problems with the aircraft.

You know more if you know what you don't know ;-)
Let us assume that some were not knowledgeable enough about
their portfolio to be able to "see" problems ahead of being actually
bitten by them.

One thing that irks me is the large number of software problems they
have. If you have to fix bugs galore your design process is broken
in a big way.
This could actually be the underying reason for not being able to
fly the plane.

wid
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Miles Bader]

Post by JF Mezei
Just reading the "delami" in the URL sent shivers down my spine.

This doesn't seem worth much consideration until it comes from a better
source -- the PI blogs in question are chock-full of nutcases....

[In the computer industry, such stories are usually know as "FUD"...]

-miles

[JF Mezei]

Post by Miles Bader
This doesn't seem worth much consideration until it comes from a better
source -- the PI blogs in question are chock-full of nutcases....

That blog page had an interesting "dare" for boeing: either confirm ,
deny it, or let the rumours flow until it get public enough that you
have to confirm or deny it anyways.

The problem here is one of credibility. As time progresses, Boeing
"excuses" for delays are getting a bit long on credibility.

Had Boeing fessed up that back in early 2007, that it needed different
fasteners because of lightning and as a result, would need to postpone
the unveiling and work to change specs for fasteners and wait for them
to be built and update procedures for installing them, then the news
might have been a big shock, but it would have been credible.

But with the constant stories of fasteners being in shortage, having to
be replaced, having poorly installed or whatever other excuse Boeing
comes up with paints a picture of ever changing excuses for the same
thing: fasteners.


When Airbus kept postponing deliveries because of "wiring problems",
there were not enough details to make this credible, especially since
they already had 4 or 5 planes flying with tons of wiring in them. This
lead to speculation that there were other problems.

But when Airbus fessed up to the fact that it was software
incompatibility in germany that caused the germans to build cable runs
of the wrong lenghts and that all wiring plans had to be reprocessed
through the new software and adjusting the various tooling to make those
cables, then the delay became credible.


So, the fastener issue needs more credibility to explain this whole
delay and kill rumours that it is something else that is terribly wrong.

.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Question:

in all the talk and rumours, is there still fairly firm belief that the
787 will have performance within Beoing's promises to customers ?

Would that include the first 20 units too ?


Anyone heard anything to confirm or deny the delamination rumour ?
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Post by JF Mezei
in all the talk and rumours, is there still fairly firm belief that the
787 will have performance within Beoing's promises to customers ?

I don't think so. After everything fixable is fixed there are still
5tonnes
to sheave of the plane.

Post by JF Mezei
Would that include the first 20 units too ?

More so ;-)

Post by JF Mezei
Anyone heard anything to confirm or deny the delamination rumour ?

It is supposed to be an unfounded rumour.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2008/12/16/boeing-avoids-the-d-word/
But the words are squishy.

My translation would be:
Though we think that design of plane and manufacturing
process is sound we do have problems with achieving
consistent quality.

The FAA will have to decide if the current state of affairs
is "good enough".

I have heard some ( Flightblogger, others ) speculate that
the -9 will be gifted with all the best improvements
Boeing can find in its coffers.

The place for reworking the initial set of planes is said
to be on lease for 7 years.

I still wander if lots of Titanium will be cheaper to work
than the Al-Li stuff Airbus targets to use.
When I was a student they told us Titanium has two redeeming
properties : light and strong over a wide temperature range.
All other property makes it a PITA to work with.

Wid
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I don't think so. After everything fixable is fixed there are still
5tonnes
to sheave of the plane.

But this does not mean that the extra 5 tonnes make the 787's
performance below what Boeing promised customers.

In the end, if Boeing promised a certain level of performance, and
despite all problems and extra weight, the 787 is still better than
originally promised, then airlines have less of a reason to cancel order
and switch to the 350.

Remember that "promised" != "bragged about on TV".

Boeing has made many many claims of the 787 being 20% or whatever better
than other aircraft. (20% better than 767 or 330 or 350 ?). But when it
comes to signing contracts with airline there would be certain
performnce numbers that are not the same as public bragging.

Post by w***@googlemail.com
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2008/12/16/boeing-avoids-the-d-word/
Though we think that design of plane and manufacturing
process is sound we do have problems with achieving
consistent quality.

Or: testing inflicted stresss to wings that was in excess of FAA
mandated testing and so the FAA can overlook this incident of delamination.

It is interesting that Boeing did not deny delamination, which leads
credence to the rumour.

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I have heard some ( Flightblogger, others ) speculate that
the -9 will be gifted with all the best improvements
Boeing can find in its coffers.

The Airbus leaked document on the 787 mentioned that Boeing will
implement the planned -9 imporvements to the -8 starting at aircraft 100.

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I still wander if lots of Titanium will be cheaper to work
than the Al-Li stuff Airbus targets to use.

Doesn't Airbus already use al-li on portions of the a380 fuselage ?

And for the 350, isn't the fuselage skin going to be all cmposite panels
? Or will there be leftover li-al from previous version of the 350 ?

.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[w***@googlemail.com]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I don't think so. After everything fixable is fixed there are still
5tonnes
to sheave of the plane.

But this does not mean that the extra 5 tonnes make the 787's
performance below what Boeing promised customers.
In the end, if Boeing promised a certain level of performance, and
despite all problems and extra weight, the 787 is still better than
originally promised, then airlines have less of a reason to cancel order
and switch to the 350.

Well the A380 seems to be a bit chubby (<1%MTOW) but reportedly
overperforming nonetheless. Customers seem happy.

In respect to the B787 this could well be true too but we won't know
that
before actual data from customers is available. i.e. not before 2011?
( 5t Dreamliner padding would compare to 16t padding on the A380 )

Post by JF Mezei

Post by w***@googlemail.com
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2008/12/16/boeing-avoids-the-d-word/
Though we think that design of plane and manufacturing
process is sound we do have problems with achieving
consistent quality.

Or: testing inflicted stresss to wings that was in excess of FAA
mandated testing and so the FAA can overlook this incident of delamination.
It is interesting that Boeing did not deny delamination, which leads
credence to the rumour.

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I have heard some ( Flightblogger, others ) speculate that
the -9 will be gifted with all the best improvements
Boeing can find in its coffers.

The Airbus leaked document on the 787 mentioned that Boeing will
implement the planned -9 imporvements to the -8 starting at aircraft 100.

That would be after 2012 then?
For how many craft from the first batch will "backporting" be done?
( They won't be available to customers in that timeframe )

Post by JF Mezei

Post by w***@googlemail.com
I still wonder if lots of Titanium will be cheaper to work
than the Al-Li stuff Airbus targets to use.

Doesn't Airbus already use al-li on portions of the a380 fuselage ?
And for the 350, isn't the fuselage skin going to be all cmposite panels
? Or will there be leftover li-al from previous version of the 350 ?

GLARE will be used extensively. ( there were little french voices
saying
the fraction should be higher ).

The thing to do will be to lean back and watch the show.
It _will_ stay interesting, for sure.

Wid
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

An article in Reuters mentions that Air New Zealand won't get its first
787-9 until first quarter of 2013. First delivery was originally end of
2010.

Wasn't Air NZ the first to order the 787-9 ?


Note that the 350 is (still) scheduled for first delivery in 2013. I
think that Airbus is probably very conservative and isn't about to start
braggin because it knows its 350 will likely experience some delay too.

The Airbus "pissing contest" department is probably now secretly hoping
for a miracle that would allow Airbus to make its first 350 test flight
before first 787-9 test flight. That was originally something Airbus
couldn't even dream of.

Airbus seems to have been conspicuously silent on the progress of the
350 in 2008. There have been a few annoucements of selection of various
suppliers, but not much in terms of progress on the design/fabrication
of the aircraft. Perhaps Airbus really doesn't want to raise expectations.


Question: When Boeing starts to assemble the firsrt 787-9 aircraft,
won't this take up a 787-8 production slot for a while ? Or will Boeing
use a different building to muck about with the test aircraft so it
won't disrupt production of the 787-8 which Boeing will still be working
hard to ramp up ?

I assume that the goal is to have the 787-8 and 787-9 assembled in the
same production line interchangeably ?
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.