Skip ads and navigation
Advertising
Our network sites seattlepi.comHelp
Print thisE-mail this
Updated! 787 facing another delay - Steve Hazy

Steve Hazy of International Lease Finance Corp. told a JP Morgan investment conference that Boeing's 787 is facing another long delay. ILFC is Boeing's biggest customer for the 787. Hazy said Boeing must make structural design changes to the center wing box.

Critical "power on" won't come until June, Hazy said. That's when first flight had been planned.

Hazy is quoted as saying the state of the 787 program is "not pretty" and that he doesn't expect the first plane to be handed over until the third quarter of next year, Joseph B. Nadol, an analyst at the bank, wrote in a note to investors.

"The changes will require retrofits of the first several 787s produced," Nadol said in a note to clients.

Nadol cut his 2009 delivery forecast for the twin-aisle, long-haul jetliner to 30 planes from 60 and reduced his earnings estimate for the year by 30 cents to $6.85 a share.
"We are mainly concerned with two issues," Nadol wrote. "The certification timeline is still uncertain, as the first plane has yet to fly, and the large number of 787s sold at low prices, combined with rising recurring costs, are steadily eating away at program margins and long-term program profitability."

Boeing e-mailed me the following statement in response:

While we respect Hazy and he is a valued customer, he was sharing what is his opinion.

We are definitely focused on our near-term milestones of power on and first flight. And as you know we are working on completing our assessment so we can give our customers new delivery schedules. We will share the details of all of this when we are ready. That will likely be a program update call but we haven't made a decision on timing for that yet.

The assessment work is complex and very time-consuming. We want to get it right. So until then it isn't prudent for us to talk about specific issues (like the wingbox) or status on certain milestones.

UPDATE:

Boeing has added to its earlier statement:

It is normal during the development of a new airplane to discover the
need for design enhancements. We are working with our partners to
address the need for design changes in some areas. While these changes
are not good for final assembly because they are dealing with traveled
work at this time, the design changes are not the sole pacing item.

UPDATE 2:

My story below will be posted online soon.

By James Wallace
P-I aerospace reporter

The biggest customer for The Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner has a blunt assessment of the state of the troubled program – "not pretty.''

Steven Udvar-Hazy, chairman of International Lease Finance Corp., used those words at an investment conference in saying the 787 will be delayed by several more months.

He said the main reason for the delay – it would be the program's third – is that Boeing must make structural changes to the massive center wing box, which is where the plane's wings attach to the fuselage.

The center wing box also holds fuel.

If Hazy is right, the development means the 787 problems go beyond the production and supply chain issues that Boeing has said are mainly responsible for delays that now stretch about nine months.

"It does sound more serious, but we just don't know,'' said Scott Hamilton of the Leeham Co. consulting group.

He said the design changes may be fairly minor, or much more significant. But until Boeing explains publicly, outsiders can only speculate, Hamilton said.

Boeing declined Wednesday to specifically address what Hazy said about the wing box, which is made by Fuji Heavy Industries at a plant in Nagoya, Japan.

But Boeing did acknowledge some design changes are being made and these are complicating final assembly of the first two 787s at the Everett plant.

"It is normal during the development of a new airplane to discover the need for design enhancements,'' Boeing said in a statement. "We are working with our partners to address the need for design changes in some areas. While these changes are not good for final assembly because they are dealing with traveled work at this time, the design changes are not the sole pacing item.''

ILFC has ordered 74 Dreamliners and Hazy has said he is in talks with Boeing for 26 more, underscoring that he believes the super-efficient plane will be a huge success despite the on-going problems that have centered around the new global production system that Boeing is using.

Boeing has nearly 900 orders for the 787, which will be the first large commercial jetliner with a composite airframe.

Hazy's comments about a possible design problem with the center wing box were made Tuesday, when he spoke at JPMorgan's aviation and transportation conference in New York. He also said that first flight of the Dreamliner is likely to be delayed from June until the fall, and that he does not expect initial deliveries until the end of the third quarter of next year.

His luncheon address was not covered by media and reports of what Hazy said did not become widely known until Wednesday, when JPMorgan analyst Joseph Nadol sent a note to clients.

"Although we believe another delay is expected, Hazy's comments would seem to confirm investor concerns,'' he wrote.

Boeing's stock dropped $3.08 a share Wednesday, to close at $73.45.

Boeing is conducting a top-to-bottom review of the 787 program, including the test flight and delivery schedules. It expects to have the review finished around the end of March and will then hold a 787 program update with media and analysts before first-quarter financial results are released April 23.

People familiar with the company's thinking say Boeing Chairman and CEO Jim McNernery, along with 787 program executives, do not want to comment about the status of the program until they are certain that the schedule will not be changed after the next program update in early April.

Boeing has already announced two embarrassing delays for the 787. The much-expected third delay has to be the last or Boeing's credibility will be damaged far more than it already has been, these people said.

Yvonne Leach, Boeing's chief 787 spokesperson, said Wednesday that Boeing wants to get its on-going 787 assessment "right'' before it talks in detail about the status of the program.

"While we respect Hazy and he is a valued customer, he was sharing what is his opinion,'' she said in an e-mailed statement to the P-I when asked for comment.
"We are definitely focused on our near-term milestones of power on and first flight. And as you know we are working on completing our assessment so we can give our customers new delivery schedules. We will share the details of all of this when we are ready. That will likely be a program update call but we haven't made a decision on timing for that yet. The assessment work is complex and very time-consuming. We want to get it right. So until then it isn't prudent for us to talk about specific issues (like the wingbox) or status on certain milestones."

So-called "power on" is a key milestone, when the first 787 will have enough systems installed that it can operate under its on electrical power.

Boeing had said in January, when it announced a three month delay, that power on had been postponed form the end of January to early in the second quarter.

But Hazy told the JPMorgan conference that power on likely won't happen until June, with first flight pushed back from late June until September.

Since Boeing will need about a year to complete the 787 test flight program, initial deliveries won't be made until the end of the third quarter of next year, Hazy said.

Boeing had said in January that deliveries would start in early 2009.

Nadol said the design changes in the wing box, according to Hazy, means the first 787s will have to be "retrofitted'' with the changes after they are built.

Hazy also told the conference that the 787-10, a stretched version of the plane that

Boeing eventually plans to develop, will require a new center section, a redesigned wing and higher thrust engines as well as stronger landing gear.

Boeing has not yet started development of the 787-10.

"Because design changes are adding weight to the 787-8 and –9 models, Hazy believes that a much anticipated stretched –10 variant is increasingly challenging and not on the near-term agenda,'' Nadol wrote.

Boeing has acknowledged that the base plane, the 787-8, is overweight.
The center wing box was the first large part of the 787 to be assembled, in June 2006 at the Fuji 787 plant in Nagoya. It has a composite skin and is roughly 17.5 feet long and 19 feet wide.

As part of the 787 assembly process, the center wing box is attached to the main landing gear well made in a nearby plant in Nagoya by Kawasaki. The completed assembly is then flown from Nagoya to Charleston, S.C., the fuselage assembly hub for the 787.

The Japanese structures, including a section of the forward fuselage made by Kawasaki, are integrated in Charleston with two center fuselage sections made by Alenia of Italy. The entire fuselage section is then flown to Boeing's Everett plant for final assembly.

The first 787 was unveiled to the world at the Everett plant on July 8, 2007. But it was far from complete. The wiring and systems were missing. Thousands of temporary fasteners held the plane together. After the public ceremony, Boeing workers began the task of completing work that was supposed to have been done by Boeing's partners.
That "travel" work is continuing and the first plane remains in the factory. The second test-flight plane has since joined it in final assembly.

First flight of the Dreamliner was originally set for late August of 2007, with delivery of the first planes in May of this year.

In October 2007, Boeing announced what the industry had been expecting – a serious delay. First flight, Boeing said at the time, would likely be in March of 2008, with first deliveries not until late November or December 2008.

A week after that announcement, Boeing replaced 787 boss Mike Bair with Pat Shanahan, who has a reputation for fixing troubled programs at Boeing.

But that schedule did not hold. In January, Boeing announced the second delay, this one of three months. Boeing said at the time it would not deliver109 planes by the end of 2009 as it had forecast, but it would not update the actual number until its 787 assessment was finished at the end of the first quarter.

A number of industry analyst now expect Boeing to deliver fewer than 50 jets by the end of next year.

In his note about Hazy and the 787, Nadol said he is cutting his 2009 delivery forecast by half – to only 30 planes.

Posted by at March 19, 2008 9:38 a.m.
Comments
More comments: 1 2    Next>>
#109515

Posted by Hammtime at 3/19/08 10:31 a.m.

Geee, what a surprise. A company whose nickname is "The Lazy-B" having problems delivering a product on time.

#109519

Posted by sweetpea123 at 3/19/08 10:40 a.m.

Gee hamm...unless you walk the factory floor daily, I guess that's just your opinion.

I do work in the factory and while the 87 is still experiencing problems, it's not for lack of trying.

#109520

Posted by phinney77 at 3/19/08 10:41 a.m.

The Air Force took delivery timetables into their decision making also.

#109526

Posted by NCRGBL at 3/19/08 10:48 a.m.

This is same company that is crying about losing the business from the Air Force to Airbus, EADS and Northrop Grumman Corporation. It is no wonder, Boeing can't build what they claim.

#109532

Posted by ucsdstud at 3/19/08 11:02 a.m.

Hazy said Boeing must make structural design changes to the center wing box.

Oh no. It's going from BAD to WORSE.

I guess I'm not going to see the first flight this year after all.

The "rollout" ceremony was all "grand" but now it's becoming a JOKE.

First the loss of the tanker, and now the B787 program is "tanking" ... UGH!!!

#109538

Posted by rdking at 3/19/08 11:17 a.m.

It will be interesting to see if any of the people that flooded the SoundOff pages 2 years ago when Airbus was announcing their delays. Remember all the people chirping about how bad Airbus was, and how great Boeing is?

Will they show up now that we have heard of what? The 3rd delay? 4th delay?

Don't get me wrong.. I want Boeing to do GREAT! But I would also like their management to be honest about these delays....

#109541

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 11:26 a.m.

A380 - late by two years
A400M -late
NH90 - late
Galileo - Late
A350XWB - unfunded, design not finalized

#109546

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 11:36 a.m.

It's interesting to note that lately, the US seems to be lost in a haze of marketing hype and over-the-top, effectively meaningless product names, such as the "Dreamliner", which sadly, might turn out to be nothing but a dream.

Boeing does carry a lot of weight as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), and based on its past performance credentials, the company obviously has a lot of clout with their customers. However, times are a-changin' and past performance is not necessarily indicative on how a future program will perform. This is especially true when the OEM does not follow industrial best-practice recommendations that suggest new products should use existing processes and tools, the existing organization and demonstrated technologies. Boeing didn't follow any of these recommendations. Look where they are now. In fact, it looks like they were throwing a Hail Mary pass in 2004, when launching the program, and betting the company on a rushed, compromised, and outsourced design that incorporates a first generation composite fuselage for a civilian airliner.

#109547

Posted by halfshaft at 3/19/08 11:36 a.m.

"It is no wonder, Boeing can't build what they claim."

And therein lies the biggest problem......Boeing ain't building it, they let others design and build it.
I wonder how bad it has to get before Boeing mgmt. finally admits that this was a horrible decision.
Of course, those that made the decision; Mulally, Stonecipher, etc. are gone now, without suffering any consequences for their greed and ignorance.

#109550

Posted by rdking at 3/19/08 11:42 a.m.

So I am not going to research all the previous Boeing models and how long they were delayed... but I did notice the vaunted 747 experienced at least a couple of delays as well.. and as it is the "Dreamliner" will see at LEAST 1 year and not likely closer to 18 months_ plus in delays.

Just saying.. those in glass houses...

#109553

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 11:46 a.m.

"A380 - late by two years"

Actually, the first delivery A380 was scheduled for March 2006. Singapore Airlines took delivery of the first A380 on 15 October 2007. Two years it's not!

#109555

Posted by Vladina at 3/19/08 11:47 a.m.

Hey Air-BUST, your shills are hilarious. How much do they have to pay you to be their shills?

#109562

Posted by tomross at 3/19/08 11:55 a.m.

Good thing Boeing isn't trying to build tankers to refuel military aircraft. Or, are they? If they can't deliver these comercial planes on time, and all that means is tourists and business travelers have to make do with lesser planes, one wonders about why they're protesting the bid when they can't deliver what they already have under contract. Their performance, even when its only shareholder money (as opposed to national security) on the line is not encouraging.

#109565

Posted by Leelaw at 3/19/08 11:55 a.m.

Actually, the first delivery A380 was scheduled for March 2006. Singapore Airlines took delivery of the first A380 on 15 October 2007. Two years it's not

Most deliveries will be an average of 24 months late because of the prosaic production ramp-up.

#109573

Posted by captbob at 3/19/08 12:09 p.m.

"Actually, the first delivery A380 was scheduled for March 2006. Singapore Airlines took delivery of the first A380 on 15 October 2007. Two years it's not"

And on 11 March, Singapore Airlines took delivery of its third A380. That's three airplanes in five months.

So, this statement looks accurate:

"Most deliveries will be an average of 24 months late because of the prosaic production ramp-up."

#109575

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 12:10 p.m.

"Most deliveries will be an average of 24 months late because of the prosaic production ramp-up."

It's true that a considerable number of deliveries will be on average 24 months late, but not "most deliveries", (care to elaborate?). The fact of the matter is that EIS for the A380 occured 19 months later than originally planned, and that's how it will be recorded by history.

#109581

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 12:22 p.m.

What are you Boeing guys arguing over the two year delay on the A380 for, this looks as though it's going to be worse!!!! You guys complain about the Airbus guys coming on here but you guys leave yourselves so open for critizism.
As an Airbus guy I hope you guys sort things out, the 787 looks a good plane. Now's the time to get your heads down, take the crap ( not dish it out ) and come out fighting , not defending. Good luck, don't let the pree get you down..

#109585

Posted by rdking at 3/19/08 12:36 p.m.

Just in case Vladina you have counted me as one of the "Air-BUST Shills" understand that have lived in WA state my entire life.. My father used to work for Boeing.. my brother-in-law currently does work for Boeing... and generally speaking I think Boeing get jobbed on the tanker deal.

That however does not mean that I sign up to be a Boeing Fanboy....

ALL I am saying is that perhaps Boeing should get their house in order, and not criticize Airbus when they have delays.. as you never know what might be coming around the next corner.

#109593

Posted by Sir Hector at 3/19/08 12:49 p.m.

Interesting that with the B-2 Boeing built they have not used all those contractors as they shud have... One wonders where the smarts went as the B-2 is an extrodinary aircraft made with composits...

#109602

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:01 p.m.

These people are making airplanes, do you really want them to hurry? Be happy that they are seeing the problems through, there aren't too many industries that do that any more. RJ

#109610

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:16 p.m.

These people should not be building airplanes, they don't seem capable of designing them, let alone building them. What a complete shambles this plane is turning out to be, this programme is going to cost billions. No wonder Boeing didn't get the Tanker, the USAF would never have got it.
Surely this shows fundamental problems with Boeings capability for designing airplanes and the FAA need to seriously investigate Boeings capacity for doing so.

#109612

Posted by LDB at 3/19/08 1:19 p.m.

"These people should not be building airplanes, they don't seem capable of designing them, let alone building them."

So when you fly, do you specifically request that your flight is only on an Airbus? If not, you seem to be putting a lot of faith in a poorly built, poorly designed aircraft at 33,000ft and 380 knots.

You may need to seriously investigate your capacity for writing non-troll comments.

#109615

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:24 p.m.

The next Boeing conference call will be very interesting, bring on the comedy double act to spout more rubbish, I can't wait. Of course finding problems in the design at this stage is perfectly natural, if they're finding these sorts of things now what the hell are they going to find during flight testing. This is becoming embarrassing.

#109618

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:29 p.m.

LDG, I will seriously be thinking about what I fly on in the future, I always do. Boeing seem to have lost it.
And yes I do pay particular attention as a business traveller to what I'm flying on depending on where I'm going to. If it's across water I fly four engines, if it's across land I don't mind twins. My philosiphy and risk reduction.

#109627

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:35 p.m.

We in Detroit are now seeing how lucky we are to have
mulally at Ford

#109634

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:44 p.m.

American's are the biggest whinners out, they naturally think they should be number one all the time, they hate losing and unfortunately they don't even come a poor second.
From a Brit.

#109635

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:48 p.m.

I wonder how much weight has been added to the plane increasing it's already overweight design and reducing it's so called efficiency.

#109637

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 1:52 p.m.

Don't worry guys it should still work out to be better than the B767............. hey, it may even make a better Tanker?

#109650

Posted by geon at 3/19/08 2:19 p.m.

Plastic shortage?

#109656

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 2:30 p.m.

I work at Boeing, management lets get real, this is getting ridiculous

#109658

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 2:30 p.m.

Boeing is committed to making this airplane right regardless of short term damage to their image. They may be going through a learning process, but I know through my own experience that they will withstand the criticism to make the best airplanes in the world. Time and the dedicated employees will bear that out.

#109660

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 2:33 p.m.

Hazy makes the claim that the 787 is facing another long delay because Boeing must make structural design changes to the center wing box. I wonder how he knows that?

I know that ILFC is Boeing's biggest customer for the 787. Does Hazy have spy's within Boeing (or any of Boeing's suppliers) that are feeding him the un-sanitized truth?

Me wonders.

#109664

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 2:39 p.m.

#109660 Wasn't it you Boeing guys who say how this man is so important, and if he says he wants changes in design ( ref A350 ) he gets it? He seems to know!!!

#109676

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 3:06 p.m.

#109664

I'm not a Boeing guy. Read what I said. It sure seems like Hazy gets a lot of detailed information that only insiders could know about. This is not limited to Boeing.

Anybody that has followed the 787 and A350 saga's knows that Hazy has a tremendous amount of knowledge about both of these planes. He doesn't get that knowledge from reading the newspapers and listening to Airbus and Boeing conference calls.

I conclude from this that Hazy has insiders within each company that feed him what I call the un-sanitized truth. If I were Hazy, that's what I would do.

Who would you trust more, McNerney the ex-sandpaper salesman from 3M or the engineers that determined the center wing box needs structural design changes? I know who I would trust.

#109677

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 3:08 p.m.

Props to Boeing for going forward with this airplane. They knew it would be difficult. Let's get it right and put another incredible airplane in service.

Boeing management was always careful not to criticize Airbus when the A380 was being delayed. Two great companies making quieter, more efficient, lighter, stronger airplanes for the commercial sectors.

Both Boeing and Airbus engineers deserve credit for doing something new, investing millions, developing new technologies and business models.

There are many intelligent people on both sides of the Pacific looking after our safety, comfort, and ability to travel.

Boeing and Airbus, Keep UP the GREAT work!

Frequent Flyer.

#109680

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 3:17 p.m.

Your estimates are very realistic, total deliveries if any, will be below a total of ten for 2009. At Vought in Charleston, South Carolina, the effort has been to put novice personnel in the factory that have been trained by a fly-by-night, six week program at Trident Technical College. This is in fact a new program and after seeing some of it first hand, it really is a joke. Line units #3 and #4, (test planes articles are still in the facility and going n-where any time soon. Alenia has at least recently began making efforts to ramp back up as is required with experienced personnel. The Vought side is still falling and failing with their ridiculus program model that created the catastrophy.

#109681

Posted by Jacobin777 at 3/19/08 3:17 p.m.

#109677, best post of the day..

#109692

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 3:38 p.m.

I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Fluffdoc
Well, there isn't a literal connection.
Fluffdoc, face it, there isn't ANY connection.

#109696

Posted by Leelaw at 3/19/08 3:47 p.m.

Nineteen months rounds to two years.

How many A380s are wearing retrofitted "wing trusses?"

#109700

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 3:52 p.m.

boeing was only a contractor on the B-2 that's where they gaine the experience on composite airframes

#109702

Posted by You Big Weirdo at 3/19/08 3:55 p.m.

Well, I think this casts a very illustrative light on the whole mid-air re-fueling plane debacle for Boeing. Boeing is way over extended, and in no small part becaseu of the whole cost saving notion of out sourcing. Out sourcing always provides numerous additional complications. So the money is saved in the short term. Capitalisms main failing - over focus on short term maximization of profit. Now look where it's got them? I think this may be a good time for Boeing to begin the inevitable exit from the Northwest for cheaper nonunion labor overseas. No one but a lfack or Boeing's PR agents can say with any sort of a straight face that Boeing is a solid corner stone of this regions economy.

At this point in history, I would think reuse of the Renton Boeing land for growing veggies so we can eat next year!

#109726

Posted by seahag at 3/19/08 4:47 p.m.

Ive Worked at Boeing for over 20 years Does Everyone Realize that Boeing also STOPPED Making Mangers from the Shop floor because it was Costing them to much money And Started making them from Paper Pushers with No shop experience at all :-0 These are the People making Their production decisions. Thank God Boeings NOT in the Medical field :-)

#109746

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 5:10 p.m.

#109680

Excellent points. Boeing tried to open facilities in the south in the past to tap into the lower wages but the unskilled labor market killed the efforts every time. Kept having to bring in experienced help from Seattle to train and try to get back on track, but the higher wages, travel, lodging, etc. quickly ate up the savings. When the locals found out what the Seattle guys were making, that caused big problems also.

Nothing against the folks in the south, but there just isn't much manufacturing experience to draw from. Granted, it's a generalization (there's auto assembly work done there, etc.) but there isn't a big, experienced base to recruit employees from.

Hmmm, same thing happening at Vought and to Boeing in the past may bite EADS in the rear when it comes time to build some tankers in Mobile.

#109768

Posted by ucsdstud at 3/19/08 5:47 p.m.

I work at Boeing, management lets get real, this is getting ridiculous

Spoken like TRUE impartial employee ... thanks!

#109771

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 5:53 p.m.

I know what's really happening. Due to the marketing success of the 787 rollout, Boeing's sales department is having the first flight delayed so it will coincide with the company's 100th anniversary in 2016. Genius!

#109774

Posted by kc30tanker at 3/19/08 5:56 p.m.

Do any of you smart guys remember which company built the B-2??? A hint, one half of the company built; Hellcats, Bearcats, Panthers, oh yea and some fighter called the Tomcat, or the F-14! No idea..... try Northrop Grumman !!

#109818

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 7:37 p.m.

Boeing is doing the right thing and 'listening to the plane'. The 787 is a major technological advance in commercial aircraft and it just can't be rushed as some would like. The criticisms of some of you of Boeing are unfair. Do you really want to fly on a plane that is not ready for hard service.

All aircraft manufacturers, including NG have had their troubles with new aircraft. The F-14 listed above almost bankrupted Grumman - only an Iranian order bailed them out.

Boeing could have built a less technologically advanced aircraft but went with a game changing aircraft like the 707 and 747. Airbus has never built a game changing aircraft (the A380 is not a leap of anykind).

#109825

Posted by Leelaw at 3/19/08 8:17 p.m.

Boeing could have built a less technologically advanced aircraft but went with a game changing aircraft like the 707 and 747. Airbus has never built a game changing aircraft (the A380 is not a leap of anykind).

Oh boy, the doctinaire "Airbusiers" are going to jump on this. We know the 787 concept caused Airbus to radically change its game plan, the remaining question is whether the people responsible for the "Potemkin Dreamliner Hoax" preordained that Boeing ultimately loses the game it changed?

#109837

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 9:00 p.m.

Well 109818, very altruistic of you, but perhaps you have forgotten that we are all discussing a schedule set by Boeing, not their customers.
Maybe ANA will donate an instrument of "hari-kari" to be raffled at a senior management meeting, although to be fair, the wingbox was designed by Fuji because Boeing had no-one left on staff to design it!

#109877

Posted by unregistered user at 3/19/08 11:40 p.m.

First delivery for ILFC's 787 is planned in 2010.
WTF?

#109886

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 12:38 a.m.

#109515 ... Hammtime

You definitely know nothing about this program because if you did ... you'd know that this mess is not because of Boeing personnel, but the risk sharing idiots that have turned this program into a mess. The only Boeing people that should be hing out to dry for this are the hend in the sand managers and the like that have been lying to the public.

#109895

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 2:31 a.m.

Tanker LOST
787 LATE (barrels wouldnt fit, wiring nightmare)
737 Outdated Fossil
747 Ditto

A380 Soaring high and very popular
A330 Tanker WON
A320 Going Strong
A350 XWB apparently neck and neck with 787 (har har har)

"What a difference a year makes..."

#109897

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 2:37 a.m.

Structural design changes??? What a joke, no delivery until 2010 now, A380 had minor delays compared to this pile of xxxx!

Why not make it out of metal matrix alloy, if you ask Airbus nicely maybe they'll let you know how...

#109903

Posted by Leelaw at 3/20/08 3:15 a.m.

A380 Soaring high and very popular

I'd recharacterize the A380 as: "Financial Albatross which will give EADS shareholders heartburn for the next decade."

"What a difference a year makes..."

Yup, remember when EADS shares traded at Eu26.48 on January 2, 2007? After all the record setting "trumphs" in 2007, as well as the tanker win last month, EADS shares traded at a new 52-week low of Eu12.83 yesterday and closed at Eu13.46, at least 20 euros less than the price level at which Mr. Forgeard and his family members were able to sell their shares in the fall of 2006.

#109904

Posted by Leelaw at 3/20/08 3:17 a.m.

Correction, the Forgeards sold their shares in the Spring of 2006.

#109914

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 5:09 a.m.

The EADS share price right now has nothing to do with the A380 (the issues are behind them). And if you compare Forgeard and Mc Nerney (who last year was paid about 2 times more than Forgeard), you might finally find out that Forgeard was not a bad manager.

#109918

Posted by Leelaw at 3/20/08 5:26 a.m.

The EADS share price right now has nothing to do with the A380 (the issues are behind them).

The financial issues related to A380 program are not behind "them," share price is mostly based on estimates of future earnings and the A380 program will be a drag on EADS earnings for the foreseeable future.

As for the level of Mr. McNerney's compensation, here is what I had to say about it in the earlier blog thread on that specific topic:

Boeing's CEO made $14.7 million in 2007

Posted by Leelaw at 3/15/08 5:09 a.m.

Mr. McNerney's reputation will always be tainted by his complicity in the "Potemkin Dreamliner Hoax," which has also largely compromised any credibility and moral authority he may have possessed beforehand. He has proven to be completely ineffectual in achieving his self-proclaimed primary goals as CEO: carefully shepherding the 787 program through its development and industrialization phases, as well as restoring the reputation of the company following the Druyun/Sears Scandal and the Stonecipher Contretemp. Consequently, he ain't worth two-cents.

#109926

Posted by Leelaw at 3/20/08 6:03 a.m.

you might finally find out that Forgeard was not a bad manager.

No, I already know that Mr. Forgeard is a fatuous eurocrat who was more concerned with empire building than managing anything. He, in colaboration with Mr. Leahy, constructed a financial and organizational shambles upon the solid foundation they inherited from Mr. Pierson and his predecessors.

#109929

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 6:07 a.m.

Posted by fluffdoc at 3/19/08 2:29 p.m.

And we should not helped USA in their Independence against England. Then we should not be dealing with this stupid American arrogance.

#110054

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 12:00 p.m.

#109929 - you are right. You would be speaking in German today, if your parents survived the camps.

#110115

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 1:27 p.m.

To the poster of post #109818, take the rose coloured glasses off. Airbus has built many game changing aircraft. The A380 is maybe not radical but it is a game changer. The A320 was the first fly by wire commercial aircraft and if I am not mistaken the A300 was the first wide body twin, I would call them massive game changers. On top of that they pioneered the use of composite material in aircraft, the same stuff that boeing is now builting the complete 787 out.

As for Boeing the critism isn't that there are problems and delays but the manner in which they are handling them, especialy after the critisim of the A380 program and indeed their arrogance in the overly optomistic build and test program for what is with out doubt a radical developement in commercial aircraft technology.

#110132

Posted by captbob at 3/20/08 1:45 p.m.

To #110115. In defense of #109818. Sure you can say that Airbus produced the first commercial fly-by-wire aircraft. That was different. But the construction methods of the A330 and the A380 are no different then the B707 and DC-9. It is taking metal panels and riveting them to a metal framework. Same for all the Boeing aircraft. That, basically has been the way commerical airplanes have been built since the 60's.

And as been mentioned, Boeing never came out and gloated over Airbus's problems with the A380. And sure, both companies have at times overstated their ability to deliver the promised product on time. It is all part of the business.

#110247

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 5:15 p.m.

Fuffloc, your post is insulting all non-US who lost their lives during ww2, alone Russians lost 22 million lives, so go back to your history books if your "chicken-brains" allows you to read them...

#110253

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 5:24 p.m.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/20/08 12:00 p.m.

#109929 - you are right. You would be speaking in German today, if your parents survived the camps.

But at least I won't be reading stupid post from arrogants americans without history to talk. Why you don't talk about Vietnam or the invasion to Iraq????

#110416

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 9:10 a.m.

captbob, first learn to spell the word is defence not defense, opps forgot Americans for some reason think they know more about English than the English so changed the spelling of words, they have even changed some French words too, probably too silly to know what a quay is. Seems an insult to the history of the US.....

Not sure what your defence is though, the OP stated that Airbus had no game changes. I gave a few which were game changers, the A320 with FBW (in commercial a/c), the A300 being the FIRST wide body twin and Airbus being the pioneer in composite technology. Sure the production techniques are the same as on the DC-9 and 707 but who cares? It works.

No one doubts the 787 is a radical departure from the past and I wish Boeing all the best, same too with Airbus with the A350. The problem though is the arrogance of Boeing, and by gosh they were a tad vocal in their gloating over Airbus's problems. Maybe the US media didn't report it, but sure as I sit here today it was reported in my native Australia. As they say what goes around comes around, and it would seem the 787 problems are more to do with fundamental design flaws and not manufacture/integration issues that have delayed the A380.

PS. To those who think the yanks saved the Frog's sorry arses, opps mean asses this is an American blog, I suggest you read some non US versions of history. If I recall it was an allied response to the Germans, which included rather large numbers of US, Australian, UK, Russian and dozens of other countries. The main difference is the others were the others came to the aide of their allies well before their own countries got attacked. America sat on the sidelines until the Jap's attacked Pearl Harbour.

#110770

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 9:38 a.m.

To KC30 tanker: I flew the Grumman Cougar and this new A330 tanker is no cat and it's no Grumman, it is a European airliner knock off.

#110775

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 9:57 a.m.

To all the "others" who came to the aid of the French in WW2: all the Lichtenstinians and Aussies would not have been able to make a difference had it not been for the large numbers of US troops and material. Also, if the 22 million Russians had gone several hundred miles further west, Paris may not have been quite so gay for a long, long time. And as far as changing the spelling or pronunciation of english words-we've changed many english things for the better, try cars and aircraft for a few. By the way, I have much respect for europeans, I just get sick of their self rightous snobbery.

#110799

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 12:30 p.m.

The only reason the Americans had more people at D-day is because they sat on their bums opps mean butts whilst the rest of the then free world fought theirs off and were decimated. The hard work was done well before D-day. It is a bit like a team member who came at the 9th hour claiming all the work was theirs.

Don't start me on American car's, for anyone to say they are better than European car are smoking some really good stuff. As for commercial aircraft it is funny I consider the majors on either side, vis Airbus and Boeing to be on par. Both have many positive things, and each has a few negative too.

Thank god I am not European, guess I am not a snob then?

#110901

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 11:28 a.m.

The only reason so many non-yanks came to the aid of the UK was because they were not "allies" at all but dim subjects. A good many of the "downunders" were probably playing their diggeriedoos or drunk when they were shanghaid into service. I'm sure that your great-great grandfather would have had a little more reluctance to save the queen. Finally, what good cars have the brits, french, italians or spanish produced lately? Only, the germans make good cars. All this is kind of amazing isn't it-how is it that the french can produce a competitive airliner when they can't even build an automobile and they all work 30 hours a week and take 2 months off every summer and get paid twice as much as the average american worker? It really defies all laws of the universe!

#110902

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 11:34 a.m.

Spoken well and just what is expected form an insular ignorant yank.

#110987

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 2:15 a.m.

Actually the aussies didn't come to the aide of the Brits, they took care of themselves quite well. If I recall the Aussies (and the other allies) were fighting in France, we were also fighting the Jap's long before America entered the war.

As for European cars, the Germans it could be argued set the the benchmark, but there is plenty of good quality cars coming out other European countries including from France. Ever heard of companies like Renault, Citron and Pergot? Gee even Australia makes cars that are deemed good enough to be exported to the USA. Now I will ask how many US produced cars are exported to countries outside of the America's. The answer is very little indeed. US cars are made for the US market, simple as that. What the US does well though are engines, well petrol guzzling ones anyway.

#111000

Posted by Leelaw at 3/24/08 4:21 a.m.

If the US government hadn't taken a step away from more than twenty years of American isolationism by beginning to mobilize this country's industrial, agricultural, and natural resources on a wartime footing nine months before December 7, 1941 via the Lend-Lease Act, Britain and the Soviet Union would have gone down the drain by mid-1942 for lack of food and essential war materiel.

#111008

Posted by Leelaw at 3/24/08 5:59 a.m.

we were also fighting the Jap's long before America entered the war

Where?

#111042

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 9:24 a.m.

To: KC30 Tanker (post #109774)

Get the facts straight. The composite bomber was a joint collaborative effort by N-G/BoeCo/Vought. N/G had the design concept. The BoeCo had a lion portion of detail design and manufacturing as well as Vought. Flight Testing was done by both N/G & the Boe/Co companies at Edwards.

Before you bash any company get the facts straight at least.

#111055

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 10:07 a.m.

I really hate to bash the Ausies or Kiwis, so I am going to quit. We should really just concentrate on the French. Do you really know anyone that bought a French car? Outside of France, the only place I've seen them is Egypt-lots of old, beat up ones, pumping out smoke and held together with bailing wire. And actually you do see a lot of US cars in Saudi and Kuwait, because they are good kit for the money and the price of fuel is low there. But I will have to agree that the americans really are lunatics-no other country in the world would give one of the most lucrative defense contracts in history away to another, especially when the US economy is headed south-even if the competing bid was superior-and my friends this is highly debatable. I can guarantee you 100% that the french wouldn't do it. Additionally, I have flown both airbus and boeing and it doesn't make a ppot difference in the long run to the "warfighter" which one is chosen-6 of 1, half dozen of another. The airforce just wants a bigger AC with a geewiz side stick controller. I hear all this crap about the advantage of being able to carry more cargo and more people-this AC is being purchased as a TANKER, not a TRANSPORT.

More comments: 1 2    Next>>

! Login below to post a comment.

Registered users, log in here
E-mail 
Password 
Remember me
 HELP! I forget my password

Unregistered users, sign up now

Or post anonymously (About this feature)

Your comment (No HTML allowed, use these special codes instead)
Violating our Terms of Service may result in your post being removed.

Special codes
  • [b]selected text[/b] -- Display the selected text in bold.
  • [i]selected text[/i] -- Display the selected text in italics.
  • [link]www.seattlepi.com[/link] -- Creates a link to the url between the link tags.
  • [link title="Seattle Post-Intelligencer"]www.seattlepi.com[/link] -- Creates a link to the url between the link tags, uses title as link text.
  • [mail]newmedia@seattlepi.com[/mail] -- Creates a link to an email address.
Enter the code shown:
What is this?
BLOGGER BIO
ARCHIVES
Search this blog

Recent entries
· Boeing worried about a "strike zone"
· Updated: Will Boeing move its jetliner business?
· Boeing's McNerney on financial crisis
· Boeing strike delays Australian airline
· UPDATE: Fossett's plane found

Browse by month
Browse by category

RSS/Web feeds (help)
RSS 2.0RSS 1.0Atom
Headlines for your site

LINKS

Tankers
· Northrop - America's New Tanker
· Keep Our Tanker - pro Northrop
· Boeing tanker blog
· Boeing tanker site
· Northrop's tanker site

Boeing-IAM labor talks
· IAM negotiations/updates
· Boeing offer/updates

About Boeing
· Competitors
· Employment
· Executives
· Labor
· New airplanes
· Boeing jets: List prices
· Orders and deliveries
· Randy's Journal
· IDS online magazine

About Airbus
· Airbus North America
· Airbus main site
· EADS
· EADS North America
· EADS KC-30 tanker

Aerospace blogs
· Flight International blog
· Airline Business blog
· AvSoft blog
· Mike Boyd on Aerospace
· Mike Boyd on airports
· Connecting Flights
· Today in the Sky
· Flightblogger
· Fleetbuzz

Other links
· Richard Aboulafia
· Scott Hamilton
· Airliners.net
· AvWeb
· Flight International magazine
· AviationWeek
· Speednews
· Air Transport World online
· Aviation Law
· Breaking News - Boeing & Airbus
· Bloomberg on Boeing
· Runway Girl (Journalist Mary Kirby)

ADVERTISING
SPECIAL REPORTS

The Longest Flight
Ride along as Boeing's new 777-200LR sets a new world record for the longest commercial jetliner flight.

Landing the Tanker
Boeing vs. EADS for a key Air Force contract.

BUILDING THE DREAMLINER
In newly built factories in Japan, Italy and South Carolina, production is about to begin on The Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner. Boeing recently took a dozen journalists on a tour of the global factories where the composite wings and fuselage of the Dreamliner will be manufactured.
- The 787 World Tour becomes an adventure
- Boeing Dreamliner 'coming to life'
- Boeing dream begins at the home of Airbus
- New 787 plants a boon for economy
MORE BIG JET TOURS

Spotlight on the Boeing 747-8
- Photo gallery
- Take a sneak peek inside
- Building a bigger jumbo

Most recent posts
· Little Courtney, Big City: A titillating exhibit...
· Monsoon Masala: Palin-McCain: Ready to Move to Belize?
· Monsoon Masala: Creepy Guys Photographing Kids

*Would you like to blog for us?

Advertising

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
101 Elliott Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 448-8000

Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820
seattlepi.com serves about 1.7 million unique visitors
and 30 million page views each month.

Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com
©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Terms of Use/Privacy Policy

Hearst Newspapers