First Plastic Pig (787) delivery now Q3 2011 (Merged)

Yep, pretty much what I was thinking. I can’t imagine you’ll get a real idea of what Japan is like for quite a while unfortunately. 🙁

To be honest I think that would be an extremely bad idea just to fly on a new plane. I don’t know whether you’re only interested in the plane and you’ll get a hotel at the airport and come straight back or not, but having been to Japan the state it’s in now is no way to appreciate the country if you intend on venturing away from the airport. 🙁

You’re right. Return to Japan is a long way to go just to try out an aircraft.
The intention would thus be to visit and experience Japan, but it might be difficult until things settle down there. And, also, it wouldn’t seem quite right.

Asia will be the only place to fly on an ANA 787 for quite a while – the JCAB have told ANA that irrespective of what Boeing achieve in certification they will not award ANA/787 ETOPS for at least a year after service entry.

Andy

I suppose I will need to book an ANA flight to Japan to try it out, though Japan must be a very sad place to be at the moment. It would be difficult not to think of all those poor people tied up in the earthquake aftermath.

To be honest I think that would be an extremely bad idea just to fly on a new plane. I don’t know whether you’re only interested in the plane and you’ll get a hotel at the airport and come straight back or not, but having been to Japan the state it’s in now is no way to appreciate the country if you intend on venturing away from the airport. 🙁

Totty, be a devil and book that flight! Try get on the inaugural flight. You can be the first to give us all feedback.

We must be just about there with the B787 now.
I suppose I will need to book an ANA flight to Japan to try it out, though Japan must be a very sad place to be at the moment. It would be difficult not to think of all those poor people tied up in the earthquake aftermath.

Spoken like the true Boeing fanboy we know and love! 😮

Spoken like the true curmudgeon you are.

……But it goes to illustrate the utter folly of Boeing’s decision to extend the supply chain for major sub assemblies over such distances…….

On that we agree.
I’d also bet that a lot of ex and current Boeing employees will be telling the decision makers “Told you so!”.
There has been a lot of bad blood in Boeing since the top folks decision to farm out so much of the work on the 787. A lot of people lost their jobs because of that decision and some of those that are left are still unhappy about it.

I think Boeing’s next project will be a little less, shall we say, Dreamy?

Moderator Message

Ahem…. keep it clean, gentlemen.

Discuss the subject of the thread, not individual members.

Thanks

GA

ps….. Seattle sits right across a fairly major fault line, part of the ‘Ring Of Fire’…………… which has surprisingly little to do with Chicken Tikka Phal. 😉

As for the missed payload range, this is true. But it appears the first 787s in service will still offer a 15% improvement on the A330 (and I think around 19%to 21% on the 767). After the first batch, there should be improvements

It’d be pretty bad if a new design was not more efficient than one that had been in production for over a decade despite the fact that the A330 continues to sell well. And as for “after the first batch”, SHOULD is not a particularly reassuring word when it comes to the 787 program.

Andy

Your cynicism is getting old and tiresome.
Are you completely ignorant of the events in Japan?
Or do you just not realise that several extremely important parts used to construct the 787 come from Japan? (Mid fuselage section, wing box, wings and fixed trailing edges)s

Spoken like the true Boeing fanboy we know and love! 😮

Of course I’m aware of what’s happened in Japan and that they build parts of the Plastic Pig there – clearly I wouldn’t have posted the comment otherwise! But it goes to illustrate the utter folly of Boeing’s decision to extend the supply chain for major sub assemblies over such distances as they now put up a justification for possible further delays on a natural disaster – clearly you profess to know far more about world geography than I, but last time I checked Seattle was less susceptible to earthquakes than Japan. :rolleyes:

Andy

Cheaper yes, but it would not have sold well.

Maybe Boeing should of just launched a Boeing 767NG would of been cheeper.

Your cynicism is getting old and tiresome.
Are you completely ignorant of the events in Japan?
Or do you just not realise that several extremely important parts used to construct the 787 come from Japan? (Mid fuselage section, wing box, wings and fixed trailing edges).
It’s not clear how the utter destruction visited upon Japan will effect the logistics chain or indeed the manufacture of these parts.

As for the missed payload range, this is true. But it appears the first 787s in service will still offer a 15% improvement on the A330 (and I think around 19%to 21% on the 767). After the first batch, there should be improvements

So now it seems:

* Boeing is admitting it won’t meet payload/range performance targets – although they say it will meet the mission requirements of it’s customers

* Boeing is saying the program might be affected by the disaster in Japan (is this the first time a natural disaster is used as a potential excuse for delays in an airliner program?

Andy

Current rumours at 787 European equipment suppliers are;-
1- 787 is to have two certification standards, the first 30 A/C delivered and then A/C delivery 30 onwards. Boeing will then replace all the first 30 deliveries with its second cert standard, and then re-market the original 30 airframes.

2 – At the end of Q3 787 commercial certification will only allow a 1hour max flight time regardless of take off location and route.

While at first blush that seems a little extreme, in light of the fire that they had, and after some reflection, that plan seems reasonable from a safety point of view. There was not a traditional development program for this airplane, and all the new systems not to mention the primary structure have caused me some anxiety for some time. It was just too much change too fast, IMHO, and I posted as such on this website several years ago.

A more reasonable program might have been to have a composite airframe with traditional systems, or an all electric airplane in a conventional aluminium airframe. I believe Airbus is intending to put more traditional systems in the A350, and that should serve Airbus well when their time comes.

I still can’t get over how far Boeing has fallen from the “model program” that the 777 was, virtually no difficulties and 180 ETOPS on day 1, to this monstrosity.

Current rumours at 787 European equipment suppliers are;-
1- 787 is to have two certification standards, the first 30 A/C delivered and then A/C delivery 30 onwards. Boeing will then replace all the first 30 deliveries with its second cert standard, and then re-market the original 30 airframes.

2 – At the end of Q3 787 commercial certification will only allow a 1hour max flight time regardless of take off location and route.

Here is the Airbus – WTO case summary on 14 Oct 2010

Here is the Airbus – WTO case summary on 14 Oct 2010

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm

Airbus appeals, Boeing appeals ………….yawn ……. appeals tending to infinity……………………..

The WTO hasn’t yet gone public with the findings against Boeing but here is a recent URL

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/wto-trade-dispute.8ex

They both make totally boring reading as the world market hasn’t got much choice apart from Boeing and Airbus.

Civil aircraft from Boeing and Airbus reach and surpass world safety certification standards so all the subsidies (whatever term used to qualify them) don’t matter – What is crucial is – are these subsidies accounted for ethically, and do customers wish to buy the aircraft ?

And more importantly in the current terrible global economic recession are essential and valuable jobs safeguarded?

My tongue was very much in my cheek …..

Hi GA and Sekant

My tongue was very much in my cheek with a 😮 beside my original sentence. “My point is unless the WTO plan to rapidly themselves build (free of any subsidies) an alternative to Boeing’s 787 PP then they are wasting enormous resources doing all this ‘digging'”.

I am well aware that the WTO cannot manufacture aircraft.:D

I really don’t have the time to go through international trade law 101, but I would suggest that you dig deeper into what the WTO is and what its prerogatives are.

To make it really simple, States commit in their sovereign capacity to specific trade rules. They empower a body (that is the WTO) system to settle disputes if one party to the rules believes that another party does not abide by its commtiments.

The WTO is empowered to adjudicate whether the charged party indeed violates the rule. It is empowered to judge that one of the party behaves illegaly. If it so judges, it gives a period of time to the condemned party to correct the situation. If the condemned party does not do so, it gives the plaintiff the go ahead to impose import tariffs on goods from the condemned party. The WTO ruling does not bind the national court system, but by granting the right to impose specific import tariffs, it has a mechanism to impose its decision.

I suggest that you go ahead and look at the different cases and how (and whether) decisions that found the conduct of a party illegal were enforced. I suggest you start with the US vs EU on the banana case or the US vs EU on hormone loaded meat.

Hi GA

Nationally (in UK) organisations like Trading Standards, OFTEL, OFCOM ,etc have jurisdiction in UK courts.

From my post above you will see that the WTO hasn’t got any automatic jurisdiction in national courts. The WTO may flag aspects and then it’s up to national law to decide if there is a case to answer (The WTO is often and can be completely ignored by national law or government).

I am well aware of that, thank you. I was using it as an analogy, which you do not seem to have understood.

It is a truly bizarre form of logic that leads one to expect an international arbitration body to start manufacturing airliners.

Perhaps a little less time spent cutting and pasting press releases from manufacturers and a little more time spent on formulating and refining one’s own reasoning might lead to more sensible and robust opinions?