+ glutes Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 The Boeing 787 has become a PR nightmare for Boeing, I also think a financial catastrophe at the end of the day. Having just announced another delay yesterday after saying it was going to make a maiden flight by the end of this month. The Paris Air Show crowd must have known that Boeing Execs were bullshitting them... NYCethan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsGuy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Karma. I recall more than a few smug comments coming out of Boeing when Airbus had its trainwreck with the super-jumbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Better a PR nightmare than having bodies strewn all over the world. Boeing has made plenty of mistakes over the years but generally has put out a superior product. And, it doesn't have the full force and faith of the US government backing it. At least, not yet. Best regards, KMEM Daverwr, NYCethan and 737MAX 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Lucky Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Plane Meets Train (Overpass?) Karma. I recall more than a few smug comments coming out of Boeing when Airbus had its trainwreck with the super-jumbo. Interesting how Ms guy links this thread to the ever popular discussion of trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I think I am just as guilty. I manage to (almost) link every thread to something the government is doing TO us. I am really worried about what is happening in this country. I am not sure what I can do about it but perhaps if I just learn Spanish, it would help? Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsGuy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 KMEM: No criticism of Boeing's final () product intended; just remembering all that bragging about how their superior design process would minimise any production delays on the 787. That was what 2 or 3 years ago now? Hahahahahaha! Lucky: Drag me into that God-awful train crossing thread & I will pluck out every single hair in your nose. S-L-O-W-L-Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 MsGuy- Boeing is a US corporation that has made a lot of products that have defended our national honor very well. William Boeing is someone who should be applauded vigorously, not only for his patriotism but for his business sense and his willingness to take a risk. Sound like an American businessman? However, they have made mistakes, not unlike any US corporation. One of those mistakes might have been to make fun of Airbus and their 380 fiasco. There is one US corporation that might make money with this aircraft and that is FEDEX. They will not have to put 500 passengers into this behemoth but only fill it with overnight letters or the like. The Memphis airport has already made improvements that will allow the 380 to operate here at the home of FEDEX. Only a few airports worldwide have done so and with good reason. I can only hope that Boeing will come to their senses, discontinue the foreign manufacture of parts to a very large degree and resume normal American production of superior aircraft. Best regards, KMEM Daverwr and bendable2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romann Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Thank you for the post! I have been fascinated by the Boeing Dreamliner since it's initial concept designs were released and it does look like a dream - very comfortable and something I hope to one day be able to take a ride on. I was a bit shocked that SO much of the aircraft was and is being produced outside of the country but then again, outsourcing production seems to be still very popular. With all things, I'm sure they will make the necessary adjustments and learn from this experience like most US Corporations have or will in the future. MsGuy- Boeing is a US corporation that has made a lot of products that have defended our national honor very well. William Boeing is someone who should be applauded vigorously, not only for his patriotism but for his business sense and his willingness to take a risk. Sound like an American businessman? However, they have made mistakes, not unlike any US corporation. One of those mistakes might have been to make fun of Airbus and their 380 fiasco. There is one US corporation that might make money with this aircraft and that is FEDEX. They will not have to put 500 passengers into this behemoth but only fill it with overnight letters or the like. The Memphis airport has already made improvements that will allow the 380 to operate here at the home of FEDEX. Only a few airports worldwide have done so and with good reason. I can only hope that Boeing will come to their senses, discontinue the foreign manufacture of parts to a very large degree and resume normal American production of superior aircraft. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsGuy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 One does wonder if Boeing is shopping its future when it allows potential competitors to acquire expertise in the design and manufacture of critical sub-assemblies. Aviation economics have never made much sense to me, so I won't ask how FEDEX plans to make money on the 380 if there's no place to land them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 You mean like Toyota, etc. who manufactures cars here now. Boeing was trying to be a world provider of togetherness, a silly thing to do. I agree that airline economics don't make sense. How can an extremely highly leveraged industry with billions of debt ever expect to make money without the "accounting" principles of using a snapshot today of how things are going. Without your asking, FEDEX will make money because they rescinded their contracts to buy the A 380 when it became obvious it could not and would not be delivered any where nearly on time. I think they will make money because they will snap up used ones for a pittance and convert them into freighters. As stated before, FEDEX doesn't need to carry 500 passengers from A to B. They only need to carry an enormous amount of freight from a few selected places to one of more of their hubs, of which MEM is the main. Best regards, KMEM bendable2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 and no takers for the first 3... The first Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is more than two years behind schedule, should fly by year's end, and the first of the largely composite jets will be delivered to All Nippon Airways by the end of 2010, the company announced Thursday. Boeing Co. also intends to take a pretax charge of $2.5 billion, or $2.21 a share, for the repeatedly delayed jet. The Chicago-based aerospace manufacturer is writing off the value of the first three Dreamliners it makes after determining there were no takers for planes that are tons overweight and that bear a patchwork of structural fixes. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing28-2009aug28,0,6756990.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Should Boeing have tried to shove those 3 down someone's throat? Sold them at a discount? I realize it is rare these days for a company to act responsibly but that is apparently exactly what Boeing is doing. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Should Boeing have tried to shove those 3 down someone's throat? Sold them at a discount? I realize it is rare these days for a company to act responsibly but that is apparently exactly what Boeing is doing. Best regards, KMEM No, those first 3 planes are like some 'well reviewed' escorts here, never to be flown after their failures become apparent... Right Baron KMEM? http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z113/poofengle/snoopy-red-baron.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I believe there is a slur intended but the words make no sense. But, not for the first time. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ g56whiz Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I believe there is a slur intended but the words make no sense. But, not for the first time. Best regards, KMEM I depends KMEM. Does a Viscount out rank a Baron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 g56- Not sure what you mean either. None of the "ranks" that you mentioned seem appropriate to any of the posters extant. If one has a high enough "rank", does that mean that nonsense from that person means something? Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Will Baron KMEM be the test pilot? From WSJ: " Boeing Co. said Thursday it had finished fixing the problem that had forced it to postpone the maiden flight of its long-delayed 787 Dreamliner. But in making the repair, the aerospace giant got a fresh reminder of the complexities involved in working with the high-tech materials used to build the aircraft. Damage to the area where the wings join the plane's body emerged during stress testing earlier this year. That prompted Boeing to delay flight testing of the aircraft and urgently search for a repair. As Boeing raced to find a remedy this summer, it discovered another issue with the composite material in the plane's wings, according to internal company documents and a person familiar with the matter. Metal bolts inside the wings of one of the six test airplanes were found to have slightly damaged the surrounding material—causing so-called delamination, or cracking—the documents show. The damage, which Boeing engineers cited as an additional reason to keep the plane grounded, was discovered as the original problem was being fixed. It isn't known whether the five other test-flight aircraft showed similar damage. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seattlebottom Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The reason for the large outsourcing of this particular airplane, according to Boeing, was that it would result in a faster, cheaper and better built airplane. The real reason was of course to circumvent union wages. Delicious irony that they now have to pay those union wages to get the job done correctly. In business, like in anything I suppose, you get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 The reason for the large outsourcing of this particular airplane, according to Boeing, was that it would result in a faster, cheaper and better built airplane. The real reason was of course to circumvent union wages. Delicious irony that they now have to pay those union wages to get the job done correctly. In business, like in anything I suppose, you get what you pay for. Penny wise and dollar foolish! Still won't fly for some time no matter what the Boeing spin doctors say, if ever... caliguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zipperzone Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Penny wise and dollar foolish! Still won't fly for some time no matter what the Boeing spin doctors say, if ever... And I sure as hell don't want to be on any of the first flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 As Boeing raced to find a remedy this summer, it discovered another issue with the composite material in the plane's wings, according to internal company documents and a person familiar with the matter. Metal bolts inside the wings of one of the six test airplanes were found to have slightly damaged the surrounding material—causing so-called delamination, or cracking—the documents show. What did I say about those composites? Further evidence that there is perilous engineering overconfidence, or maybe engineering-management hubris or at least insensitivity (again, can you say "O rings"?), about our engineering understanding of these critters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Boeing (and others) have certainly had their problems with composites (to say nothing of O rings), but there does seem to be "real" rewards for the use of lighter and stronger materials. I freely acknowledge that many times in the past that "improvements" have only meant more profit from making a part or a product cheaper, but a lighter, stronger airliner will burn less fuel and therefore be cheaper to operate, so long as there is no crazy increased maintentance cost. Naturally, there is no free lunch; we all have to find out what the cost vs. benefits truly might be and I don't think we know them presently. I, for one, am hoping that our American airline company, Boeing, will learn how to return their investment to American soil and also how to deal with technologies that are fairly new. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 No question they had to go to composites. Well worth the risks. Just expressing, yet again, my obsessive sense that the risks have probably not been characterized as fully as they think, or would have their customers believe. Acknowledging the financial strain this would have caused, I still would like to have seen a longer physical-prototype-test cycle. As I said before, I dread flying in what will necessarily be, in early deliveries, an airborne test lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 AS- There is always a risk/reward. That will NOT be news to you. I have to think that you are expressing what you believe is the public idea of "we must have safety or there will be no flight". Unfortunately, that has never been true in the absolute sense of the idea. There will always be risks with transportation, whether it be private automobile, horse drawn carriage, airliners, private aircraft or bicycles. We all have to, individually, decide what is worth the risk. Personally, going at a reasonably fast pace to my ultimate destination is worth SOME risk. No one can guarantee safety at no price. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted December 15, 2009 Author Share Posted December 15, 2009 Here we go aviation afficionados! http://www.787firstflight.newairplane.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now