How long for Boeing to recover?

2. This is 5 1/2 years old, my apologies, but I only spent 30 seconds on google:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_ca1.html

Pls note that B took the A340 info from the AI quarterly service report. To my knowledge, it is generally accepted within the industry that a quad diverts more often than a twin.

I understand the logic behind the fact that a quad is more likely to divert than a twin. I would however be interested to see sound statistics on the issue, ie statistics coming from the NTSB or the DGAC (if anyone has them).

The statistics provided in your link are, in my view, not satisfactory. You need to have statistics that differentiate diversions because someone is sick on board and SDIF (this is far from clear in the chart you provided).

By the way, for basically the same period, Airbus comes apparently to opposite conclusions http://avitop.com/cs/forums/thread/1850.aspx, but this does not seem any more conclusive.

1) Will you be willing to accept information from Airbus that shows that their product is better than Boeing??
2) Could you post the information that demonstrates that the 777 diverts half as often as the A340 ? When I see the number of times Air France 777s only have diverted over the past few months, I am somehow sceptical but willing to be proven otherwise if you can post verifiable data.

1. Yes, provided it was not leahy-type sales jargon, in other words, real data. Also, I think some of their products are “better.” The A320 was not only earlier than the NG, it also had the above quoted FBW. It’s proven to be a formidable competitor, arguably “better” than the NG in many important categories. The A380 has no competitor.

2. This is 5 1/2 years old, my apologies, but I only spent 30 seconds on google:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_ca1.html

Pls note that B took the A340 info from the AI quarterly service report. To my knowledge, it is generally accepted within the industry that a quad diverts more often than a twin.

Sorry, I didn’t intend to be cheap or senseless.

I would buy your argument if you could show me a performance benefit to the FBW. Is the A320 clearly superior in terms of fuel burn per seat/operating cost? .

FBW has several advantages, not necessarily in terms of fuel burn per seat, but in terms of maintenance and in terms of training/commonality with other aircraft from the same manufacturer.

That said, I am entirely willing to admit that I have not really proven that point (I dont have the total operating costs of both airframe at hand). Yet, I will repeat what I said first: both manufacturers make decent products, and the choice depends in large part on other factors than the simple intrinsic value of the plane. It can make more sense for some companies to operate the B-737 (because they already operate the older generation and there is a degree of economic inertia that will lead you to keep operating the same plane) while for others the A320 can make more sense as they also operate 330s and 340s (thereby saving on maintenance, training…).

Several companies operate both the 777 and the 330 because each plane has specific characteristics that make them most efficient for specific segment of the market. Whether they chose one or the other or both depends more on their market need than the intrinsic value of the plane.

I will grant you, however, that with the progress in terms of ETOPS, the A340 makes less and less sense, and is doomed in the fairly short term.

I believe the performance of the airplanes are very similar, almost the same, nothing like the efficiency advantage that the twin 777 has over the quad A340 (before you even count that the 777 diverts almost exactly half as often as the A340, according to Boeing figures). I’m a believer that technology has to pay its way onto the airplane.

1) Will you be willing to accept information from Airbus that shows that their product is better than Boeing??
2) Could you post the information that demonstrates that the 777 diverts half as often as the A340 ? When I see the number of times Air France 777s only have diverted over the past few months, I am somehow sceptical but willing to be proven otherwise if you can post verifiable data.

Did Boeing design its recent new aircraft (B777, B787) with conventional controls or FBW? What might that tell us?

I’m not sure what it tells us. I would think that any weight savings on FBW would be greater for a bigger airplane and operational savings would be greater over longer ranges.

I don’t think you have shown that the A320 has an efficiency gain over the NG because B chose FBW on 777/787.

Sorry, I didn’t intend to be cheap or senseless.

I would buy your argument if you could show me a performance benefit to the FBW. Is the A320 clearly superior in terms of fuel burn per seat/operating cost? I believe the performance of the airplanes are very similar, almost the same, nothing like the efficiency advantage that the twin 777 has over the quad A340 (before you even count that the 777 diverts almost exactly half as often as the A340, according to Boeing figures). I’m a believer that technology has to pay its way onto the airplane.

Did Boeing design its recent new aircraft (B777, B787) with conventional controls or FBW? What might that tell us?

That is a very cheap and senseless dig, mate. Could as well argue that the americans are economically minded, and that one would think that they would use the clearly superior A320 family over the B737, the NG not even being FBW .

Sorry, I didn’t intend to be cheap or senseless.

I would buy your argument if you could show me a performance benefit to the FBW. Is the A320 clearly superior in terms of fuel burn per seat/operating cost? I believe the performance of the airplanes are very similar, almost the same, nothing like the efficiency advantage that the twin 777 has over the quad A340 (before you even count that the 777 diverts almost exactly half as often as the A340, according to Boeing figures). I’m a believer that technology has to pay its way onto the airplane.

I was not and would not directly compare the 767 with the A340/777. I would compare the 767 to the A300/310, which I believe it soundly trounced. Compared to the larger airplanes, the smaller 767 is very useful in the fragmented market that now exists.

Once again, those comparisons do not make any sense and are borderline ludicrous. Both boeing and airbus make decent products that can best meet the specific market need of specific airlines.

You cannot compare the B767 and the A300 or estimate their real worth on the basis of how many units were sold. They were released several years apart, they did not concern the same market (not same range). Not to mention that this was the first Airbus product that had to break into the market and fight the incumbents that were Boeing and McDonald.

The efficiency piece is huge for the obvious cost reasons, but also for environmental reasons. One would think the Europeans, who claim to be so environmentally conscious, would want to use the most efficient airplanes (767/777).

That is a very cheap and senseless dig, mate. Could as well argue that the americans are economically minded, and that one would think that they would use the clearly superior A320 family over the B737, the NG not even being FBW .

Boeing have been through far worse than this minor blip.

Older members may remember that the B747 damn near bankrupted the company, for instance.

And Boeing didn’t bet the shop on the B787. Remember the “risk share” partners? Before Boeing gets into trouble, Vought or SpiritAerosystems gets into troubles.

For Boeing the B787 “issue”* will cost Boeing revenue of several billion USD, will serve Airbus to regain some market share simply because the whole B787 line gets shifted backwards, and will make Boeing more cautious in the future. Airbus also gains because its damaged reputation doesn’t hurt so much when your competitor ruins his own, too.

We aready saw the practical cancellation of the -3 in its current version and the -10 got shifted to infinity. So, the vision people had that Boeing will rule the world with the B787 got a sobering reality check. But the aircraft will fly, will get certified and will earn money. If there is one thing Boeing always did right, than that its aircraft were always [at least reasonably] successful (maybe except the lame B767-400ER and B757-300).

*: current news stand allows not to call it a disaster yet

Boeing have been through far worse than this minor blip.

Older members may remember that the B747 damn near bankrupted the company, for instance.

A340 offers great expereince , one of the most quitest cabins and very modern interior . The 767 cannot be compared to it really . The 777 is more comparable to the 340 and is also very comfortable . Comfort depends on a lot of factors like airline , class of seating and age of aircraft. The A380 ( flew SQ buisness class) is amazing in that respect.

I was not and would not directly compare the 767 with the A340/777. I would compare the 767 to the A300/310, which I believe it soundly trounced. Compared to the larger airplanes, the smaller 767 is very useful in the fragmented market that now exists.

Everyone has their definition of “better.” I try not to compare comfort because that is largely dependent upon airline decisions (interior config, vendors, etc.) I believe that the 777 carries more payload further, more reliably, on less fuel, than the 330/340, and the same can be said for the 767 versus the A300/310.

The efficiency piece is huge for the obvious cost reasons, but also for environmental reasons. One would think the Europeans, who claim to be so environmentally conscious, would want to use the most efficient airplanes (767/777).

My Freind it doesnt mean that their would be ” NUMEROUS production lines” , It would be what is an “ASSEMBLY LINE” the way assembly lines work normally , this would be a moving one , Aircraft would enter and move along the line as it nears completion , as it leaves one station to another another aircraft would fill its place . This is how it is to function . One line would be making the desired no. of aircraft per month (ONE LINE NOT MULTIPLE LINES) . One production floors on a moving line does not mean ONE AIRCRAFT WOULD BE MADE IN 3 DAYS AND THEN THEY WOULD MOVE ON TO ANOTHER. 1 in every 3 days is just an average , ofcourse they wont work on one aircraft alone for 3 days if that is what you meant .

Boeing has only one Production line , maybe if they introduce new vairents and boost production they may need another line but so far only one production assembly line has been committed .

I see your point , you thought that i didnt “GET” the production process when infact i do , infact my work with boeing (on behalf of my company) has been in the feild of assembly lines and production . You can say that i played a very minor role in helping boeing come up with this in the first place 🙂 .

However point is that the ROLLING Assembly line is just ONE line not multiple as you are suggesting . It is one Line that is moving like an assembly plant . Multiple lines would mean multiplication of tools , machines , mechanics , an entire duplication of work force etc which is very expensive .

Here you can see a virtual rollout on how the aircraft will progress on the line –

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/109472.asp

Wow!!! 787 for them would be the worst investment ever if that is true :rolleyes:

Boeing are aiming for 14 a month, more likely hit 10. That’s 1 jet off the line every 3 days.
It does not mean ONE production line making a jet every 3 days, it means several lines knocking one out every 3 days, each line taking 30 days or, a continous moving flowline (Like a car plant) where the jets are 3 days apart, but the line is so long it takes 30 days from initial In-jig to roll off. It then goes for the final equipping and engine fit. The cost of setting such a line up are galactic.

Its funny how some peg the dreamliner delays to CFRP and latest technology when infact that aspect of the aircraft is doing better then expected ( Boeing recently started testing integrity and tolerence and their no.s are comming out better then expected ( you will see safety margins trimmed and future versions to be more optimised ) ) . The 787 is probably overbuilt structurally cuz of it being the first time so much CFRP is being used . Even the engines are doing ok other then some SFC issues , but those are expected and eff. lost on them is being made up elsewhere .

Where the delays are comming from is MANAGMENT , an optimistic schedule and well soaring demand for airliners of all shapes and sizes . Fastners were a concern early on , well no cutting edge new tech their . Now it is the traveled work and redoing it in house etc etc – Again a managment issue having nothing to do with technology of CFRP etc .

But there will be several lines, each knocking out one every 30.

Wow!!! 787 for them would be the worst investment ever if that is true :rolleyes:

The tanker scandal was truly a pathetic testament

The tanker deal STINKS from the go , but to all credit to boeing , it was they who themself blew the lid on the dealings and came clean .

A380 has really knocked the 747 developments into a cocked hat.

Flew the A380 , was the best expereince of my Life . However How many A380’s have been sold as compared to 747’s sold in the timeframe from the launch of the A380 till date . A comparison to see market share would be nice .

There has been a disconnect between the executive office and the factory floor. When I see a program delayed this long, it tells me that management doesn’t have a clue.

Boeing should have done something when the huge delay on the wedgetail occured . I know it was a ID job however it was related to ” Multi – teams , partners and integration ” Things which are key component to the 787 . A major cause of concern and should have been prepared for .

Having said that boeing is in the best possible position to face this task , they are making huge profits , sales are through the roof for almost every varient . Production is at a high , buisness is booming and they have a great product portfolio . Airbus and boeing will go through this patch but it is thier own doing . Both manuf. showed poor managment skills and must learn from these mistakes and move on .

I’ve travelled on the A340 and B767 and have to say I preferred the 340

A340 offers great expereince , one of the most quitest cabins and very modern interior . The 767 cannot be compared to it really . The 777 is more comparable to the 340 and is also very comfortable . Comfort depends on a lot of factors like airline , class of seating and age of aircraft. The A380 ( flew SQ buisness class) is amazing in that respect.

I need to see this fabled 3 engined 767!

That would be a neat thing to fly !!!!:D

For the record, HM government supplied cash for the development of the
A320 and the A330/340…That loan has been repayed, and now for each A320/330/340 sold, The government gets back a % of the sale for each A320/330/340 delivered. …

Now before the Pro Boeing lobby gets warmed up and asking for proof…..

Airbus operates in a different enviroment as opposed to boeing , both receive subsidies but in different ways . Airbus is more centrally controled While boeing is more capitalistic , however nothing wrong in both styles . This subsidy dispute has to (and will be ) settled when all parties concerned will shut up and sit down and deside to work something out amicably and that will happen when fools will understand that the best is the Equilibrium where both manuf. are producing at high capacity and the market is split 50:50 .

…

For the record, HM government supplied cash for the development of the
A320 and the A330/340…That loan has been repayed, and now for each A320/330/340 sold, The government gets back a % of the sale for each A320/330/340 delivered. …

Now before the Pro Boeing lobby gets warmed up and asking for proof…..

The funding model for the A300 to A380 is a matter of public record, and always has been. It’s not something anyone has to rely on your word for.

It’s a risk-sharing deal. If a particular model doesn’t sell more than a certain number, the governments which lent money for its development lose their money. If it hits its target, they get their money back, plus interest, plus a share of the sales revenue forever, in the form of a royalty on each one sold. Overall, the lenders have done very well, getting back much more than they would have done for straight commercial loans, & it’s odd that anyone thinks that’s a subsidy. I think that so far, the A380 is the only model not to have paid back, & even if it never does, the governments will still be ahead on the deal, because they’ve made so much profit on the other models to date.

As regards the Airbus v Boeing argument, I’ve travelled on the A340 and B767 and have to say I preferred the 340. There again I think a lot of it depends on the age of the aircraft and how it’s looked after. The 340 I flew on was newer than the 767 so how the 340 would hold up in later life I can’t say. I just found the 340 nicer to fly in and although it has 4 engines against the 767’s 3 I found it quieter.

I need to see this fabled 3 engined 767!

I realize there is a lot of A vs. B smack on the board, and in general, I suppose I could be characterized as a Boeing supporter. My reason for this is that, with the exception of the A320 beating the NG into service, I think their products have been better. The 777 is, to my mind a much better product than either the 330 or 340. Likewise I would argue that the 757/767 are “better” products than the 300/310. (Yes I know the 300 was first with EIS by ten years).

However, Boeing really seems to be struggling lately. The tanker scandal was truly a pathetic testament. People went to jail. One wonders about the ethics of the entire corporation after a deal like that. Then, to add insult to injury, they lose the open competition.

Meanwhile, the 787 drags on and on. Those in charge could be forgiven for a delay of a few months, but the continually lengthening delays cast doubt upon their overall understanding of the technology and control of the program. There has been a disconnect between the executive office and the factory floor. When I see a program delayed this long, it tells me that management doesn’t have a clue.

The 748 seems to be languishing and there hasn’t been anything firm stated with regard to the 737 replacement….its all very fluid. Even the military side seems to struggling little bit, with Australia re-evaluating the SH buy, though Japan could decide to build upgraded F-15s.

How long do you see Boeing continuing to flounder and how do you see their revival playing out? What products at what time? Will they really ever be able to assemble a 787 in three days?

Of course Boeing will recover..without starting a A vs B thread, Boeing has those nice big juicy contracts from the Pentagon to survive on..it may have lost the tanker contract and the 787 is suffering from more delays than British Rail on a good day. But it still has all those upgrade contracts for the
B52 Bomber, more orders for McD/BoeingC17, Upgrades for the McD/Boeing F18 hornets..and the Space programme in single use Rockets….

Boeing is a bigger company than Commerical airliners. The Pro boeing lobby may not like this disclosed, but Boeing recieves more money for research than Airbus recieves in subsidies from European countries to build new airplanes.

For the record, HM government supplied cash for the development of the
A320 and the A330/340…That loan has been repayed, and now for each A320/330/340 sold, The government gets back a % of the sale for each A320/330/340 delivered. Which is more than Boeing can say for its “research”

Now before the Pro Boeing lobby gets warmed up and asking for proof….i was told this by a former member of the British Aerospace board of directors…and i dont think they would appreciate his/her name being mentioned!!!

I realize there is a lot of A vs. B smack on the board, and in general, I suppose I could be characterized as a Boeing supporter. My reason for this is that, with the exception of the A320 beating the NG into service, I think their products have been better. The 777 is, to my mind a much better product than either the 330 or 340. Likewise I would argue that the 757/767 are “better” products than the 300/310. (Yes I know the 300 was first with EIS by ten years).

However, Boeing really seems to be struggling lately. The tanker scandal was truly a pathetic testament. People went to jail. One wonders about the ethics of the entire corporation after a deal like that. Then, to add insult to injury, they lose the open competition.

Meanwhile, the 787 drags on and on. Those in charge could be forgiven for a delay of a few months, but the continually lengthening delays cast doubt upon their overall understanding of the technology and control of the program. There has been a disconnect between the executive office and the factory floor. When I see a program delayed this long, it tells me that management doesn’t have a clue.

The 748 seems to be languishing and there hasn’t been anything firm stated with regard to the 737 replacement….its all very fluid. Even the military side seems to struggling little bit, with Australia re-evaluating the SH buy, though Japan could decide to build upgraded F-15s.

How long do you see Boeing continuing to flounder and how do you see their revival playing out? What products at what time? Will they really ever be able to assemble a 787 in three days?

As regards the Airbus v Boeing argument, I’ve travelled on the A340 and B767 and have to say I preferred the 340. There again I think a lot of it depends on the age of the aircraft and how it’s looked after. The 340 I flew on was newer than the 767 so how the 340 would hold up in later life I can’t say. I just found the 340 nicer to fly in and although it has 4 engines against the 767’s 3 I found it quieter.

“3 days” !!!
ITYM rolls of the line every 3 days. The build time will be more like 30 days. But there will be several lines, each knocking out one every 30.
Tanker scandal aside, the 787 is bound to have delays because Boeing are now discovering that having main stuctural components on a large A/c, made from CFRP is no joke. It’s OK on tiddly little fighters like Hornet or JSF etc, but once you start making wing spars and main Wing skins out of it, major problems occur in the manufacturing of it. The same of course goes for the fuse barrels. CFRP does not assemble as well or as fast or accurate as metal. The latter point can be overcome by machining every interface…which on a wingskin is very difficult – The holes are drilled c/sunk from the mould side (The outer surface) then the whole skin needs turning over, setting on a massive tool (Already had a massive tool to hold it for drilling) and then all the interfaces for the ribs/spars etc. need machining. And you cannot cut into the structural plies of the skin, so an amount of sacrificial plies are added, just to be 90% machined off.
The A350 is 6 years behind the 787, and the way the design keeps chopping and changing it is already a nightmare liner. At least, having that 6 years delay will have the 787 and the A400 in the sky. The A400 being the first A/c to have the carbon Spars and Skins (Unless 787 beats it into the air). That will give us some truths about these components in the true environments, not just on the CAD/CAM & FEMs, and A350 may be able to capitalise on the findings.
A380 has really knocked the 747 developments into a cocked hat. However, the 747 concept has been flying for nearly 40 years, certain airlines prefer that experience.