787 – 1 Month Delay

Moderator Message

We don’t need two live threads at once on this subject.

GA

I’ll try to find a link but SpI is reporting through anonymous sources of 1 month delay on first flight (now october) due to complexity of integration . EIS is still claimed to be the same .

Here we stand, 15 month later, and can say: another month delay to first flight.
Delivery 2nd half of 2010.
Average delay of first 250(!) aircraft can be estimated somewhere between 2 and 3 years.

Looks like the B787 is now at eye level with the A380.

Remember that originally Boeing forecasted 120 new Dreamliners in 2010.

I now bet a box of beer on a second assembly line, however, it looks like the partners are not really in the mood of additional investment.

As following aircraft will be late, too, due to resources being focussed on LN001 (and Boeing generally does not have so many resources in Seattle), the flight test program will need 10 to 12 month if everything procedes rather well. First deliveries are to be expected in second quarter ’09. I guess Boeing will not deliver more than 50 aircraft in ’09, in general 100 delivery slots or ~12-14 billion USD are lost.

I would expect consequences for B747-8 program, too.

Hey, I was right.

On what do you base these comments?
Boeing actually offered Airbus their best regards when the delays on the whalejet were announced. (I do believe they also offered words of encouragement?) The only people “happy” were uber Boeing fan boys.

Besides, its well known Airbus used questionable judgement when announcing delays, like letting their premiere customers learn from “the grape vine”. And it was only when it was all too obvious that there was something not quite right that they came clean and spilled the beans, but not before Mr Forgeard cut and run!

Boeing’s made a mess of the 787, thats for sure, but they’re announcing delays as they become apparent. They have to, by law. They can’t just hold them all back for one media extravaganza.

I think at current point we can split the award for the most embarrassing program management on equal terms between Airbus an Boeing. It shows that the problems seem to be system inherent – independent of the company. As previous programs sometimes worked quite well we must ask what novelties are actually not that great though they might have looked good. In case of Boeing the senior management blamed the subcontracting to some extent, somehow strange as they praised not long ago.
In case of Airbus the limited integration into one company can be held accountable for a good part of the delays. For me both programs are a clear message that future complex aircraft must come out of one office building at best, or at least have the major item closely tied to the leadership.

Boeing has moved the static test airframe into its hangar and due to the fact that the facility has only one door needed to move LN001 for that. Nice weather in Everett and nice pictures.
See them at Flightblogger:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

Note that LN001 is still in a very miserable condition without engines and APU and lots of fairings being disassembled. However, one should not overrate the provisional look of the aircraft.

Saw them over at a.net , Jon does such a good job of keeping in touch with the 787 program it is amazing . We must have a european flight blogger for the A350 because it is so entertaining to follow a program from a Enthusiast/Reporter type of setup which Jon’s blog provides.

The assembly line is looking good many aircraft in semi-state of readiness , the LM1 is looking a bit bare but stil more READY then it was AT ROLLOUT. boeing should power on soon (less then 50 days?) and flight would follow in few months . Seems as if they are getting to grips with the situation and LM3 should have stareted assembly by now .

Well it appears that Airbus choosed back then to announce A380 delays at once and that Boeing does prefer to postpone 6 month at a time.
I’m not sure which strategy is the best. Maybe Boeing shouldn’t have been that happy of Airbus problems…..:cool:

On what do you base these comments?
Boeing actually offered Airbus their best regards when the delays on the whalejet were announced. (I do believe they also offered words of encouragement?) The only people “happy” were uber Boeing fan boys.

Besides, its well known Airbus used questionable judgement when announcing delays, like letting their premiere customers learn from “the grape vine”. And it was only when it was all too obvious that there was something not quite right that they came clean and spilled the beans, but not before Mr Forgeard cut and run!

Boeing’s made a mess of the 787, thats for sure, but they’re announcing delays as they become apparent. They have to, by law. They can’t just hold them all back for one media extravaganza.

Boeing has moved the static test airframe into its hangar and due to the fact that the facility has only one door needed to move LN001 for that. Nice weather in Everett and nice pictures.
See them at Flightblogger:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

Note that LN001 is still in a very miserable condition without engines and APU and lots of fairings being disassembled. However, one should not overrate the provisional look of the aircraft.

Time to deliver on the 787
Jim McNerney
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
April 21, 2008

This past week, I visited the 787 final assembly line to check in with the team again and
see the progress being made as the first 787s come together. I walked away
encouraged by the significant strides that the team has made in completing traveled
work and unexpected rework on Airplane #1 and the two structural test airplanes.
Airplane #2, and the sections of Airplane #3 that recently arrived, demonstrate that the
condition of the assemblies built by our structural partners is improving noticeably with
each successive unit. And that is vitally important for getting us back to where we are
doing only the work we originally planned to do in our own factory.
During the visit, I could feel the energy and enthusiasm of the Boeing people working on
the airplanes–and there were a lot more of them compared to my visit just a few weeks
ago. That’s a key indicator that the bottlenecks that stalled our progress are beginning
to be removed. As 787 program leader Pat Shanahan has said, it is now a matter of
burning through the work that will get us to the key milestones we have set for the
remainder of the year–starting with “power on” in June.
To me, two themes have emerged from the 787 at this early stage in its life. One centers
around innovation, the other around execution. We have gotten the innovation piece of
it right (notwithstanding the ever-present potential for unknowns). The execution piece–
with specific regard to the business model and our oversight of the supply chain–has
been much more of a challenge, and has produced a series of lessons-learned which
we will collect and apply across the enterprise.
Fundamental, game-changing innovation like that we’re pursuing on the 787 usually has
a “bleeding-edge” quality to it–meaning it goes beyond “leading edge” into a realm
where both the risks and the potential returns are high. In the case of the 787, our
delivering on the innovation has given us a roughly five-year lead on the competition.
And because of that gap, we have a little more time than we otherwise would to get it
right. However, our struggle to execute has come at a price, not the least of which is the
impact to our customer relationships.
The global-partnership model of the 787 remains a fundamentally sound strategy. It
makes sense to utilize technology and technical talent from around the world. It makes
sense to be involved with the industrial bases of countries that also support big
customers of ours. But we may have gone a little too far, too fast in a couple of areas. I
expect weʼll modify our approach somewhat on future programs—possibly drawing the
lines in different places with regard to what we ask our partners to do, but also
sharpening our tools for overseeing overall supply chain activities.
That brings us back to where we are today. The simple reality is that it’s time to get it
done–and done right. The revised 787 plan–which Scott Carson and Pat Shanahan

outlined April 9–significantly reduces schedule risk and lays out a more gradual ramp up
to full-rate production. It is an achievable, high-confidence plan. We’ve taken a more
conservative approach to setting our milestones, based on our experience to date and
the idea that being wrong yet again would be more of a burden to our customers than
taking a little more time to get it right.
The 787 is going to be a great airplane. The fundamentals on the program are
improving steadily, and the right team is in place to do the job. I expect them to deliver,
and I believe they will.
And speaking of delivering, we all need to deliver–to keep executing well and
consistently on our own work, and improving our collective productivity. We have a huge
backlog and more than 200 programs in the company; the 787 is simply one of the most
visible. In addressing the 787 program’s needs, we cannot let any of our other programs
suffer or slip. We all have a job to do, and I’m asking you to keep doing yours to the best
of your ability; keep finding ways to improve; and help keep Boeing on the right track.
Thank you.

Jim

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/McNerney787.pdf

From a member over at a.net

Interesting. Looks like they are testing some structural components beyond ULTIMATE separately. That is good to know because it proves a conservative approach unusual for the rather “revolutionary” stingy approach of the B787.

I am quite convinced that there will be no issues in the components that make the “revolution”, so primarily the structure (not 100% sure about the systems though). I trust Boeing Engineering that they know exactly what they can use at which time. However, this Boeing contains much less Boeing than any Boeing before. And if I was in charge I would hang they guy who had the “revolutionary” idea of doing the whole thing in 85% of the time it actually needs. If Boeing had planned to deliver the first B787 1st Q ’09 from the start I guess they would have met it (with some minor delays of course).

What is a partial wing? A half wing or more like a part of the wing? Anyways, at least a major achievement that maybe helps Boeing to get around some tests on the static frame and preflight tests.

From a member over at a.net

AFAIK the test wing box (only ONE existing AFAIK) which has been announced to be tested to destruction well BEYOND ulitmate load is a full-scale, 2/3-span section 12, i.e. the ‘visible wing’, not the one buried in the fuselage.

Jon has a synopsis on his website –

Update Call Synopsis – Courtesy of NYC777

* First flight moved to 4th Quarter 2008
* First Delivery moved to 3rd Quarter 2009
* First flight will take place approximately 4 months after power on
* Planned deliveries in 2009 will be about 25 airplanes
* Continued challenges on LN 1
* Included added margin to reduce the schedule risk due to discoveries made during flight testing
* Climb to full rate production will be more conservative than planned
* 787-9 first delivery will be in early 2012
* 787-3 will be 2nd derivative…no schedule provided
* Have made significant strides in finishing airplane 1 but not fast enough
* Supply base is healthier and reduced traveled work
* Fundamental technologies are sound
* Airplane #3 will have a full interior installed in the airplane this summer
* Powered on date moved to June 2008
* Not enough progress on traveled work on LN 1
* Needed to make engineering changes and reinforce the center wing box
* Both of these issues led to a two month delay in power on.
* Great progress in working through the build of airplane 1
* Well into systems installation on airplane 1
* Schedule also impacted by rework (wing box)
* Rework fell into the critical path for wiring and systems installation
* Confident in the amount of work to be done and the schedule leading up to power on of LN 1.
* Systems Installation – Wings are almost ready. Clear progress in the forward body. Installing systems in the aft body empennage and making their way to installing the mid body systems.
* Will check out and test every system in the airplane prior to first flight and after power on.
* The conservative testing approach will extend the testing period by 2 months.
* New schedule does not infer that the anticipate a major glitch but is planning in case they crop up.
* If they don’t need the additional time, they won’t use it…i.e. move the schedule up if there are no issues.
* Integration labs allows to simultaneously test over 90% of the systems functionality.
* 95% of systems functionality has been delivered except for brake controls, inflight entertainment, some elements of the power system, and the maintenance functionality of the flight control system.
* 98% of systems code has been written, tested, and delivered to Boeing.
* 100% Complete with the integration testing needed for power on
* 96% complete for testing needed for first flight
* Balance of testing and any needed corrective action needed will support first flight
* Majority 787 systems will be service ready at power on, other systems will ready by first flight.
* Risk mitigation and issues anticipation have been take into account
* Planning a gradual production ramp up beyond 2009
* Assuming a production rate of 10/month in 2012
* Will study how to improve on the 10/month during this year
* Improve completeness of parts and structures coming from suppliers
* 50% reduction in the amount of incomplete work on airplane 2 from airplane 1.
* Comparison of airplane 3 with airplane 1 shows a 75% reduction in the amount of incomplete work.
* Continue to make good progress in structural testing in Japan, Italy, Russia and the US
* Taken a fuselage section and the horizontal stab to ultimate load and beyond
* Composite test barrel testing went beyond the ultimate test load and had to stop for fear of destroying the fixture before the barrel
* Taken the partial wing span to limit loads, tested the wing to 5 of the 10 ultimate load conditions, remaining 5 test will be completed by the end of the 2nd quarter, 2008
* Have found some issues that are characterized and normal and minor, moved quickly to implement required changes.
* 15% of overall component testing yet to be done.
* Testing on full scale static and fatigue frames to start in the next couple of months.
* Will use the test results to incorporate weight reduction improvements to the actual airplanes.
* Certification activity continues, only have a handful of open issues
* GE has certified its engine on March 31st
* Week over week improvement in final assembly ops.
* Static airplane will move out of the factory at the end of April to make room for the third flying airplane. Parts for airplane 3 will arrive in Everett by the end of April
* Fatigue airplane will move to its test stand in June shortly followed by parts for airplane #4 to enter final assembly in June
* By June 30th will have static and fatigue frames out at their test sites, final assembly begun on airplanes 3 and 4 in Everett, completing systems hardware airworthiness qualifications, finishing safety of flight testing for system hardware and software integration, and receiving flight test systems hardware.
* R & D will likely increase from these changes but will not change 2008 earnings guidance
* 2009 earnings guidance will see impact of these changes

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/04/boeing-787-update-coverage-ope-1.html#more

I am not challenging your opinion

That post has no opinion 🙂 , I was merely trying to type as fast as i could 🙂

No one can tell me, that a delay of 9 month is just due to some traveled work.

Well in all honesty , the travelled work has been real Pain in the A$$ for boeing . Mainly because it was too much (volume wise) but also beacuse the entire system was planned around a synergy and when that was broken all hell broke loose . Their were communications gap between foreign partners , boeing folks had to do things they werent supposed to – Werent expecting to and werent preparing to do . When parts were comming in unfinished from the folks that were supposed to finish them they were boeing’s headache , boeing had to create a EMERGENCY THEATER to deal with those issues . Both of us dont like the way in which they dealt with that (were slow in my opinion) but we have hind sight 😉 to look at .

There seems to be severe flaws in the primary systems

The production system didnt prepare them for contingecies in which they had to do the sort of work that the partners were supposed to ie filling out barrels , quality control etc etc . That was further compounded by late design changes which lead to Alcoa and others not being able to match fastner shipments . When operating in such a PARTNERSHIP one is only as FAST as the SLOWEST partner and boeing should have RED flagged the ones that were lagging behind much earlier on and provided them resources both technical and financial to deal with the situation .

Though I do not expect severe flaws (that does normally not happen with civil aircraft), rather lots of unscheduled work during the first month of the flight test.

They have given 2 months (by n large) of buffer so lets see if that is enough . Testing delays would be minimal and for the larger Industrial process wont be that significant (unless cold weather cert. becomes an issue) because production will still continue during testing.

How can systems be ready when they not even have powered up the aircraft?

That struck me as being odd aswell . I bet some reporters would ask for explaination from pat about that.. How long was the time b/w power on and first flight for the 777 ? I think we have nearly 4 months for the 787 .

Sounds rather conservative and achievable

That is why Scot carson was being insistant that if Pat felt that he could see an opp. to bump up the rate further earlier he would do so. 10/month is very acheivable by 2012 .

Can someone help me? What is a partial wing?

Could have been a typo while i was typing fast 🙂 . My mind was totally switched off

BIO,
this is a response to your summary of Boeing’s conference call, I am not challenging your opinion.

* Power on now to JUNE 08
* Delay in power on due to travelled work and engineering changes , installing new parts in the wing box . Combination of these two items have added 2 months.

TRAVELED WORK – Good progress being made albeit too slowly to previous schedule . Well into systems installation for Airplane 1 .

Impact of rework – stiffining of elements in the wing box , which is relatively simple however this work fell in the middle of wiring and installation and has caused 1 month delay .

Honestly, we have read this several times. The PowerOn is now 9 month late. One expects all systems to be tested before they are installed. One has a test rig for that. The story with the wing box sounds like reasoning one known problem with another known problem so that the unknown deeper flaws are not discovered. No one can tell me, that a delay of 9 month is just due to some traveled work. There seems to be severe flaws in the primary systems (they are not fighting versus IFE installation).

Not anticipating any testing problems however they have accounted for that .

Nobody does that. It still happens. Though I do not expect severe flaws (that does normally not happen with civil aircraft), rather lots of unscheduled work during the first month of the flight test.

After full power – Check out and testing before flying.

We can be confident on progress when we see first rejected take-off tests.

COMPARING TO 777 –

777 was system ready 5 months after first flight . Majority of 787 systems would be ready four months before first flight and others will be ready by First flight . Still risk remains .

This comparison is odd: The B787 will have system readiness far after the B777 using the original schedule. The rest is just talking. How can systems be ready when they not even have powered up the aircraft?

Current assesment includes 10/month by 2012 .

Sounds rather conservative and achievable.

1) CONTINUE TO MAKE GOOD PROGRESS IN STRUCTURAL TESTING

How is that? Both test airframes are waiting in the assembly hall.

4) FULL SIZE PARTIAL WING SPAN TO FULL LOAD

Can someone help me? What is a partial wing? A half wing or more like a part of the wing? Anyways, at least a major achievement that maybe helps Boeing to get around some tests on the static frame and preflight tests.

6) OVER 95% OF THE TESTS THEY HAVE RUN HAVE YEILDED RESULTS AS EXPECTED OR BETTER

Sounds good but is normal.

Despite the rather optimistic outlook we should consider that the B787 is due for certification in 4 weeks – using the original plan. A380 was about 6 month late on certification, B777 about 1 or 2. Just go give a yardstick.
(both had a preliminary certificate, means there were some tests outstanding that you normally don’t do in the flight test program).

Synopsis of the Confrence –

*

Scott – First flight of Aircraft 1 has been moved to 4Q 08 , Delivery 3Q 2009
– Added margin included for discoveries of new issues during testing
– Delivery outlook includes same conservatism

– 25 deliveries for 09

– More gradual full rate ramp up , engaging with customer on a per customer basis

– 787 derivatives – 787-9 early 2012 787-3 – after the -9

– Carson visits the aircrafts once every week and is very encouraged of progress on aircraft no 1 . Situation is better then many months ago bla bla

– Renewed confidence in revised schedule

Patt Shan.

– HIGHTLIGHTS –

* fundamental advances sound
*composite materials performing exactly as predicted
* Integrated systems performing as planned , meeting expectations , customer response is good

* Interior will be installed this summer , Engineering progress is reassuring

* Power on now to JUNE 08
* Delay in power on due to travelled work and engineering changes , installing new parts in the wing box . Combination of these two items have added 2 months

TRAVELED WORK – Good progress being made albeit too slowly to previous schedule . Well into systems instalation for Airplane 1 .

Impact of rework – stiffining of elements in the wing box , which is relativly simple however this work fell in the middle of wiring and instalation and has caused 1 month delay .

System installation going good .

After full power – Check out and testing before flying.

Conservative approach will extend the testing period by 2 months

Not antisipating any testing problems however they have accounted for that .

Confident in perparation undertaken in integrating systems

COMPARING TO 777 –

777 was system ready 5 months after first flight . Majority of 787 systems would be ready four months before first flight and others will be ready by First flight . Still risk remains .

Pace of deliveries are determined by speed of partners and assembly .. Reschedule is based on – Studies , visits , etc etc .

Current assesment includes 10/month by 2012 .

Airplane no.2 – 50% reduction in INCOMPLETE WORK

Airplane no 3 – 75% reduction in incomplete work as compared to airplane no 1

CONFIDENT in ability to execute the plan

ACHEIVMENTS/MILESTONES

1) CONTINUE TO MAKE GOOD PROGRESS IN STRUCTURAL TESTING

2) FUESALAGE AND HOR. STAB LOAD TESTING

3) COMPOSITE BARRELL WENT PAST THE ULTIMATE LOAD

4) FULL SIZE PARTIAL WING SPAN TO FULL LOAD

5) SUCCESFULLY TESTED THE WING TO 5 OF THE 10 TESTS , OTHERS WILL BE FINISHED BY QUARTER END

6) OVER 95% OF THE TESTS THEY HAVE RUN HAVE YEILDED RESULTS AS EXPECTED OR BETTER

SOME ISSUES ARE THEIR , BUT WERE MINOR AND NORMAL .

15% OF OVERALL COMPONENT TESTING IS AHEAD OF THEM

7) WEIGHT – TEST RESULTS WILL BE USED TO INCORP. WEIGHT IMPROVMENTS

8) CERT. ACTIVITY IS PROGRESSING – WORKING WITH FAA , only a handful of open issues EG , final phases of closing out details of lighting safety

9) GE CERTIFY ITS ENGINES

10) CHEIF PILOT COMPLETED HIS ACCEPTANCE FLIGHT

11) FULL SCALE TESTS RUN ON SIMULATORS

MILESTONES –

1) STATIC AIRPLANE WILL CYCLE OUT OF FACTORY TO MAKE ROOM FOR NO.3
2) AIRPLANE THREE SECTIONS WILL COME BY END OF MONTH
3) COMPLETING SYSTEM HARDWARE AIRWORTHINESS
4) RECEIVING ALL FLIGHT SYS HARDWARE AT BOEING
5) POWER ON

Note that a few weeks ago, the same people who made this announcement were stating that there would be no more delays. It’s now clear that they were lying. Hmmm. Not good.

Opinions please – will this schedule be adhered to, or will it slip more?

I may quote Boeing:

Forward-Looking Information Is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty

Certain statements in this report may constitute “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “believes,” “estimates,” and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, among others, statements regarding future results as a result of our growth and productivity initiatives, our 2008 financial outlook and the benefits of the IDS structure. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions as to future events that may not prove to be accurate. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak only as of the date they were made and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Our actual results and future trends may differ materially depending on a variety of factors, including the continued operation, viability and growth of major airline customers and non-airline customers (such as the U.S. Government); adverse developments in the value of collateral securing customer and other financings; the occurrence of any significant collective bargaining labor dispute; our successful execution of internal performance plans including our company-wide growth and productivity initiatives, production rate increases and decreases (including any reduction in or termination of an aircraft product), availability of raw materials, acquisition and divestiture plans, and other cost-reduction and productivity efforts; charges from any future SFAS No. 142 review; ability to meet development, production and certification schedules for the 787 program and the ability to meet scheduled deliveries of the 787 airplane; technical or quality issues in development programs (affecting schedule and cost estimates) or in the satellite industry; an adverse development in rating agency credit ratings or assessments; the actual outcomes of certain pending sales campaigns and U.S. and foreign government procurement activities, including the uncertainty associated with the procurement of tankers by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and funding of the C-17 program; the cyclical nature of some of our businesses; unanticipated financial market changes which may impact pension plan assumptions; domestic and international competition in the defense, space and commercial areas; continued integration of acquired businesses; performance issues with key suppliers, subcontractors and customers; significant disruption to air travel worldwide (including future terrorist attacks); global trade policies; worldwide political stability; domestic and international economic conditions; price escalation; the outcome of political and legal processes, changing priorities or reductions in the U.S. Government or foreign government defense and space budgets; termination of government or commercial contracts due to unilateral government or customer action or failure to perform; legal, financial and governmental risks related to international transactions; legal and investigatory proceedings; tax settlements with the IRS and various states; U.S. Air Force review of previously awarded contracts; costs associated with the exit of the Connexion by Boeing business; and other economic, political and technological risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in our SEC filings, including, without limitation, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Correct is in my eyes that the optimism portrayed after the roll out was simply a lie. Also announcements that EIS would happen in time. Nobody however could foresee a one year delay in first flight in July ’07.

The question of interest is if the management knew that the neither the 1st quarter plan nor the 2nd quarter plan were achievable.

Boeing seems to have made some things better than Airbus as customers are not publically making negative statements about Boeing.

What makes this so strange is that not production delays are the reason but that obviously Boeing is unable to bring its aircraft into the air. They don’t achieve the Power On, which indicates that the whole system design has severe flaws. If the Power On is achieved and they say they take a bit more time to iron out all bugs and not rushing to first flight I would think different.

it must have been known that further delay was inevitable, though probably not how much.

And their in lies the problem . When something is slipping , alarm bells start to ring , managers stay up late , top end brass start to make phone calls etc etc . Announcing a delay then is counter productive as no one knows fully the * Nature of the delay * Scope of the problems * estimated answers to the problems * time that will take to solve those problems etc etc . Only when the fog clears some preliminary numbers are crunched up that they have to sit down and oficially re charter the course and make changes , come up with sollutions etc . It is wiser for a company to then announce to its share holders (after first announcing to its customers) what has happened and how they plan to deal with it . If they announce “DELAY DELAY DELAY” we will be hear slamming them for not having a credible BACK UP SOLLUTION etc etc . The sort of updates you are talking about are given to customers (airlines) and partners for obvious reasons but for share holders usually they would wait until the fog has lifted because simply their are legalities involved .

They are smart to not mention 787-3 dates yet beacuse right now they would only be guesses as they still have to come up with a comprehensive ramp up plan , and that wont happen until 3-4Q 08 when the aircraft is turned on and they look back at the supply chain. If they make a tentitive timeline for hte -3 it would be talking out of their back side because too many uncertainty exists right now . Now is not the time to come up with timeline , they are rightly working with the 2 most selling models and getting them on the market ASAP .

Agreed, completely. From what I’ve read, customers have been asking for the 787-9, so it makes sense to move it ahead of the 787-3, & the rest is unarguable.

Are you reffering to Carson and Shan. ? Or company spokesman and women ? Because spokesman are supposed to say what is officially known , and that has been the previously disclosed timeline . The company direction comes from above . I would like to see statements made by carson or shan. in the last few weeks about no more delays other then we “are currently working out a timetable etc etc” not beacause i doubt you (which i dont) but because i own stock 🙂

I’ll try to find the references.

IIRC, nobody has said anything in the last two-three weeks, but recently enough that the statements were clearly not supportable, i.e. it must have been known that further delay was inevitable, though probably not how much.

787-3 postponed – with no date. 787-9 to be the first variant, scheduled for 2012.

They are smart to not mention 787-3 dates yet beacuse right now they would only be guesses as they still have to come up with a comprehensive ramp up plan , and that wont happen until 3-4Q 08 when the aircraft is turned on and they look back at the supply chain. If they make a tentitive timeline for hte -3 it would be talking out of their back side because too many uncertainty exists right now . Now is not the time to come up with timeline , they are rightly working with the 2 most selling models and getting them on the market ASAP .

the same people who made this announcement were stating that there would be no more delays.

Are you reffering to Carson and Shan. ? Or company spokesman and women ? Because spokesman are supposed to say what is officially known , and that has been the previously disclosed timeline . The company direction comes from above . I would like to see statements made by carson or shan. in the last few weeks about no more delays other then we “are currently working out a timetable etc etc” not beacause i doubt you (which i dont) but because i own stock 🙂