September 05, 2007
787 Slipping Behind Schedule
The P-I adds today to the Times's report over the weekend on the 787 falling behind schedule. The question becomes whether the delay in the first flight eventually results in delayed deliveries to the first customers. Minor, temporary delays are livable. Massive, Airbus 380 style postponements are not.
Note both papers discuss the slowdown is in part due to the "industrywide fastener shortage," a non-Boeing problem which has thrown a wrinkle into completing the plane properly. An instructive view into the challenges of a complex, globalized supply chain.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 05, 2007
06:39 AM | Email This
1. I guess that everbody now knows why Boeing executives were dumping shares a year ago.
Look for more delays and then the cancellations will start.
2. If the delays are caused by non-Boeing related issue like the fasteners, it is only a short term problem. It's not like there is a major problem with the 787 program, unlike the Airbus 380.
A number of months ago, maybe as long as a year ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on Boeing's (at that time) impending fastener shortage. The article highlighted that the fastener shortage was caused by Airbus intentionally purchasing massive amounts of fasteners to specifically thwart Boeing's building efforts.
I'd call that hardball international business.
First Vista...now this!
The much vaunted "Seattle Engineering Community" looks like a bunch of cut and run travelers.
5. J. Dunn has just died. )-:
I agree with Don, it's not like they have to fix the weight of the plane or something. The Airbus behemoth requires twice as much distance between planes in the sky while being too big for most conventional airports. Boeing still has the leading edge in terms of new technology.
Even if the 787 is delayed a month or two Boeing is still way ahead of Airbus.
The Airbus behemoth requires twice as much distance between planes in the sky.
FAA requires all aircraft to have one mile seperation. Not sure what your trying to say?
8. The huge airbus will create by far more turbulance than coventional sized aircraft such as the 747/757, etc. So it would stand to reason that there will be at least a two mile, if not more seperation between aircraft. It is also uneconomical to spend billions to upgrade US airports to accomodate this EADS behemoth.....not worth it at all. Boeing will still rule the industry....provided old europe governments halts subsidies to EADS. Buy American....and only American....keep our economy strong.
9. The Boeing 787 is the first airplane completely made from plastics and composites...by the same manufactures that make airline food!!!
10. Thanks Allen, but as apilot myself I'm not to worried. Not like your going to see hunderds of them in the sky.
What maybe 2 or 3 coming into LAX every day
11. Yep, I used to buy fasteners for an aerospace company, and the fastener shortage is real, and ugly. No substitutes for mil-spec fasteners, and the most common sizes are "solid unobtainium" these days. Everyone laid off staff in 2001, and they are not re-hiring to cope with the increase in aerospace business, so lead times just go way up.
The working group concluded that an aircraft trailing an A380 during approach needs to maintain a separation of 6 nmi, 8 nmi and 10 nmi respectively for ICAO "Heavy", "Medium", and "Light" aircraft categories, instead of the traditional 4 nmi, 5 nmi and 6 nmi spacing.
This means that airports that support the Super Jumbo can support fewer flights per hour when this mighty behemoth of an airplane lands or takes off.
On departure behind an A380, the working group concluded that "Heavy" aircraft are required to wait two minutes, and "Medium"/"Light" aircraft three minutes for time based operations.