Back to Squawk list
  • 40

Boeing Halts 787 Production Line For 1 Month

提交時間:
 
While the company will not comment on any impact to downstream deliveries, Boeing plans to update to its 2011 delivery guidance on during its July 27 second quarter earnings call. The hold leaves unaffected the August or September first 787 delivery to All Nippon Airways and the company maintains its short and long-term plans to ramp the 787 production line remain unchanged, with plans to advance from two to 2.5 aircraft per month later this summer and 10 per month by the end of 2013. (www.flightglobal.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


ellifrittjoshua
That new Boeing plant down in South Carolina can't get finished soon enough!
mduell
Mark Duell 0
It sounds like the suppliers are the cause of the hold up, so the SC FAL won't help with this problem.
conmanflyer
The boeing plant finished last month
danishnelson
There already delayed, and their doing in AGAIN
preacher1
preacher1 0
I am a Boeing man, never flown an Airbus, but Boeing is gonna have to get their act together, regardless of where the problem is, whether in their supply chain or mfg. operation. Airbus is coming on strong and I really don't think Boeing acknowledged them as serious competition until they got such a scare on the tanker deal.Regardless of the government involvement on both sides, Airbus has a quality product and is able to put them out there at a competitive price. That and a reliable delivery time is what sells airplanes.
Jfueler
Jfueler 0
Come on Boeing get with it.
Bogush
Bogush 0
the ides of August 2nd are upon us - mark this date in your calenders
upchucked
The CEO acknowledged last month that they had not fully understood the problems of supply logistics when they decided to build the plant in SC. They were so intent on beating the union and reducing their labor costs that they completely overlooked the problems and costs associated with getting materials into the plant and getting planes out. Any savings they received from getting away from the unions is dwarfed by the added costs the are encountering, and that doesn't include the construction costs. And, the ALJ hasn't ruled on the NLRB case as of yet and that might add a big number to the bottom line. And,, as Boguslaw says, when August 2nd rolls around and there is no debt limit increase, interest rates are going up, up and away. Can you say a quick return to the early 1980s, when mortgages were at 18%, car loans at 25%..... expect it. Moody's has already put out an alert .... if the US misses the August 2nd date, they are going to drop the credit rating of the US from AAA to D, and that will put us on level with Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy. Then starts the runaway inflation....... The 435 members of the House had better start thinking of their duty to the country and not to their political parties. Insisting upon having their own way like a bunch of 4 year olds isn't going to fix this problem, and once we go down that road, there is no coming back.
Bogush
Bogush 0
this is an inside job - that can and most probably will return not only the USA to recession levels but depression, like the world has not ever seen in the past, the impact will be tremendous for the rest of the world to say the least. The world has suffered many natural calamities this year but the worst (man made) is just around the corner, we will all feel it, even if the 2nd of August does allow for an increase ceiling of debt, levels; this will be short lived - bankruptcy for many of us will be the only way out, 'cause the interest rates will rise in a nano second, we won't know what hit us...........or will we ?
Av8nut
Hey grady/wysocki, I thought this was a forum about aviation...whatever...

I've always admired the products Boeing has to offer. But really, should we be surprised? I think I'd be more surprised if ANA got a delivery before the end of the year. Poor Boeing...they'll never live this one down.
sheka
mark tufts 0
mark duell i think u r right about the suppliers
skylloyd
skylloyd 0
I think your reading too much into this...there is no more space available to park them, they bought-out the ATF hanger, the old verizon building, etc
The 747-8 is making parking another headache, until the already made airplanes are certified and delivered, parking will be one of main issues.
upchucked
From Seattle Business, July, 2011

"...With the 787, the development approach was troubled from the start. Major suppliers say Boeing forced them to sign supply contracts before Boeing itself had made final design decisions about the parts Boeing wanted them to supply. After forcing those contracts on suppliers in an effort to hurry things along, Boeing has now left many of them high and dry. With the 787 program stalled, suppliers who spent much of their own money designing parts and building production capacity, are now losing money as production systems across the supply chain have come to a virtual halt. Japanese suppliers and customers, who have long been loyal buyers of Boeing, are expressing frustration with the company, as are customers around the world...."
chalet
chalet 0
This whole mess is spelt in one single word: A R R O G A N C E.
Bogush
Bogush 0
this is a forum for aviation but the possible impact of this calamity will forever change this. We talk about all types of subjects everyday, this one in particular will change all of us and cetainly Boeing
preacher1
preacher1 0
Chalet: that may very well figure into this equation. It is a big part of the attitude that Boeing has right now, and while sad, is true. I have said many times, they have been the big kid on the block, even buying out the competition(MD)to pretty much totally control everything and do it their way, and there is still a whole lot of loyalty out there both from pilots, maintenance, and customers but they are going to have to realize that there is a new kid on the block and that loyalty will only go so far. You would have thought that when one of their longtime customers, USAF, almost went across the water, that it would have woke somebody up but they went crying to uncle sam. Truth is, Airbus put a pretty good plane out there for the tanker market and it was probably a superior aircraft in a lot of ways. They are just as grateful(or should be) to the government for bailing them out as Airbus is for their subsidies. What they don't seem to realize is that privately ran airlines are in business to make a profit and will look at the competition on a level playing field.
chalet
chalet 0
This whole mess is spelt in one single word: A R R O G A N C E. Since Boeing starged making big bomber jets in the early 50s the B-47 and B-52 plus the K-135 and the glorious 707, they never missed a beat, perfect produts at the right time and the right place, and on time and within budget. Their competition was no competition i.e. Douglas, Lockheed and even less so De Havilland. Then they came up with the also glorious 727, 747, and 737 and they thought they owned the world (the airframe manufacturing world that is) and to some extent that was true. But this success begot a terrible sense of arrogance, that they could never make mistake and treated suppliers like crap and even the airlines and USAF got some of this when Boeing told them what they needed, not viceversa. The rest as they say, is history, problem is for each year of mismanagement three or more years of perfect management are required, so they still have quite sometime to go.
preacher1
preacher1 0
It will be interesting
Drag0nflamez
@chalet: plus, the only reason why the USAF went with the KC-767 was since they had to support the US economy (they called the Airbus proposal crap as its fly-by-wire and it has a flight envelope etc etc etc while the boeing doesn't have that and its better.. the airbus is safer, boeing)
preacher1
preacher1 0
You know, everybody is scared of the fly by wire, but unless I am mistaken, Boeing has adopted it on the 787 which would indicate it is going to be there in the future. For familiarity, there is still stick/yoke but it is still the same basic tecnology so I guess we all will get used to it or retire, one or the other.Personally, I still like flying the plane though.
chalet
chalet 0
I have friends who are captains flying 747s now and used to fly 707s before that and they swear by Boeing like you won't believe. I also have friends who flew 707s and now fly Airbus 340s and they think that the latter are the best in the world. Funny thing, both groups fly for the very same airline Singapore Airlines, one of the finest in the business. Go figure.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well Chalet, it's like I said, Airbus is putting a good product out there and as did Boeing over the years, it is still evolving, and a big part of that evolution is to be even more pilot friendly. I just got typed a few weeks ago in a brand spankin' new 767-200ER and though I am semi retired now, I wouldn't take anything for it, but from what I have seen about the Bus and your're talking about the pilots, you have to remember that there is more than one generation of pilots out there that have not known anything but Boeing and there is a certain amount of apprehension on their part to make the change, as with anything new. Some will like it, some won't. Those that are still flying commercial for a living will be forced to it in order to keep their job.
siriusloon
siriusloon 0
There's an interesting article on Slate.com about the differences between Boeing and Airbus aircraft from the pilots' perspective: http://www.slate.com/id/2298931/?wpisrc=newsletter_slatest
Drag0nflamez
@Wayne: Airbus flight decks are fairly simple compared to the previous competition :')
preacher1
preacher1 0
You are very correct and that is a major selling point for them. Putting it all aside, I think there are 2 major things that cause apprehension and once put in position of having to fly one, a person can get over it. The fly by wire is not that big of a deal but the actual feel and having that joystick rather than a yoke in front of you is pause for concern at first, even the younger pilots, cause everybody learned to fly with a yoke in front of them. The other problem. and one of the biggest ones although we rarely get there, is the flight envelope itself and the fact that the computer may override a pilot's command if it exceeds it. It can be reprogrammed but when you get in a crunch that brings you that close, you ain't got time to fool with it with an extra step. Reaction is instantaneous and the pilot wants control of the plane no questions asked. That being said, most any product, in a pinch, will exceed any rating given momentarily and pilot may want to utilize that in order to get out of a situation. Flights envelopes are an engineering arbitrary and as I said, can be exceeded momentarily. All Aircraft have that flight envelope but Airbus is the only one where it is mandatory or automated that it can't be exceeded and that does cause concern for a senior pilot, that he may not have the control he needs. Most of us have "BEEN THERE,DONE THAT" in some form or other and it is a big concern not to have it. You make the comment above about the simple cockpit and I agree but that is because so much is automated, where it may be manual on others. It is simply a matter of whether YOU fly the plane and have that feel or just be a button pusher and do what the computer says.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Yes Wayne I agree. If the airlines could hire chimpanzees to fly the line they would believe me.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
I think the problem this time is Japan. A 30 day shut down would be in line with other companies facing shortages with supplies from Japan.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Noted toolguy YES. I would rather wait another year than have a situation as suffered by Qantas in Changi with thier A380. What's the big deal about delays..some folks are like kids..they want it NOW! I blame it on computer games myself...instant results.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Roland you are correct in what you say and how you feel, but in the same vein of your other comment about the airlines and chimps, the airlines and the Airbus competition is where all the hurry up is coming from. The problem with the Quantas A380 is old news and forgotten by most now, especially the fact that there just happend to be 5 senior captains on that flight that had their hand totally full, 3 or 4 doing nothing but handling alarms and Emergency checklists. The odds of that happening were staggering and had they not been there, the outcome would have been totally different because a normal crew would have been overwhelmed, just as the crew of AF447 was. Airbus wants everybody to forget about that but Airlines better keep an eye on proven technolgy, rather than unproven new stuff that cost lives when it don't work in practical application. There are a lot of things that happen in the air on a daily basis that never come up in a simulator or are never forseen on a drawing board.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Yes Wayne I have read the contract that JetBlue struck with Airbus for thier fleet of A320s. Whatever happens to a JetBlue engine they pay nothing, even bird strikes are covered. Of course this deal is effectively underwritten by taxpayers in the EUR. JetBlue cannot loose! Oh yes I can remember the scenario that day on the Qantas, I throughly researched that event. That aircraft was unfit for the purpose it was sold. It was a "rush job" from beginning to end. Not all airbus products are inherently flawed and the best of the bunch is the excellent A340. Airbus is the product of a political decision, an intervention, and never will be a Boeing. Of course we have an ongoing problem of bad fuselage builds with the NG73's due to an incompetent sub contractor and slip shod floor management. Hopefully in 8 years time all these will be replaced or rebuilt.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Just about anybody will take something for free and as you say, there are a whole lot of subsidies over there. Boeing gets some too but primarily for dealing in the international market, not for the US market and that is where it's going to get sticky on future orders. What gets me on Airbus is just the little things that a non pilot doesn't think about. Remember when Sully ditched in the Hudson? The Emergency Checklist for a water landing prep? Closing all vent and exterior things to help keep water out? It was all at the very back of the book and they never had the time to get to it.It should have been at the very front as one of the first things to do. Those are his words(paraphrased), not mine. It probably has since been corrected but it didn't do him any good then as that is where most of their waterfill came from. Yes the A340 is good and the 320 ain't slouchy either but as you say, the subsidies will always be a factor.
What's getting me is that Boeing is attempting to get back in the market stronger and bring about some changes with their South Carolina plant. It took a pretty good while to announce, design and build that plant and get it to the point of production and just now, even after this administration has been in office for 2 years or so, the NLRB comes up against them in a filing. Where they been?
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Hell yes, Sully. Airbus should sub contract out all documentation both operational and maintenance. In my view they are incompetent at written communication in English, then again most English instructional stuff published in Europe is poor in my experience. I was not aware Boeing had problems with the NLRB though. What is exactly is thier issue?
honzanl
honza nl 0
@ Roland: "Airbus is the product of a political decision"; well, what's wrong with that ?? To go to the moon by JFK was also a polical decision...

@ Wayne: "the 320 ain't slouchy either but as you say, the subsidies will always be a factor"; well, you forget that Boeing is subsidised in another way, by development and military contracts... and the A320 is just superior to the 737; there is just 2 decades between them! And we haven't seen 320's flying vertical into the ground as 2 737's did...
By the way, the A380 was an engine problem, not an airplane one...; that last category is for example when parts of your hull blow off, remember 737 again?
You doubt unproven new stuff and want proven technology, sounds like communistic Russia...! Innovation drives aviation, and at Airbus they have understood that way before Boeing: widebody twins, fly-by-wire, it all came from Europe, not from Boeing...

and those doubting fly-by-wire: if it is so bad or dangerous or whatever, why Boeing then uses it on their 777 ??
upchucked
Boeing gets about $5 Billion a year in State and Federal subsidies, mostly connected to the development of the 787. And, that is not including the incentives that South Carolina has given to get Boeing to build the plant in North Charleston. Last spring, the World Trade Organization ruled against the US, and found the subsidies to be impermissible. The US claims victory, since more than that amount was given by the European Union to Airbus and also deemed impermissible.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Honza nl: You are telling me that the A380 had only an "engine problem"? Maybe you think that NASA did not go to the moon and there were no explosives in Building 7 at the WTC on Sep 11th. You are watching way too much TV. As far as the NG737's are concerned they have a proven problem of shoddy shop floor build that we all thought that the Soviets' were ONCE famous for. Cutting corners and painting over patches. Thats why Boeing KNOWS it has to REDESIGN the 737. In 8 years time the repair costs will cause a serious problem. As far as fly by wire goes, and who invented it: ever thought why Boeings have YOKE and Airbus uses a broom handle? Maybe the Airbus people think thier products are kinda like BIG computer games..maybe. Who knows? Then again they complain that line pilots "should revisit basic flying skills". Yeah? Maybe they should make sure there pitot tubes work and the engines on the A380 can be shut down after an emergency landing. I have zero time for engineering incompetance that Airbus so often demonstrate. Next time you are around an A320 ask the ground crew about the comical latches on the engine cowls, moreover, ask them to show you the documentation issued over 7 years. If you can actually understand this stuff let us know. Five billion US dollars is chicken feed to the grants Airbus got.
honzanl
honza nl 0
Roland:
the problems of that A380 started with an exploding engine, you can blame the engine maker for that, but not Airbus...
If you would know more about the USSR you would not connect them shoddy floor build, their airplanes were OK, and believe me, I have been there..; the only reason they now crash is that they are old, and are flown by small airlines and less-standard pilots
Better a pitot tube that fails than an electric 787 fire...and what you think of typical FAA practise of putting commerce before safety ?? giving the 787 from the start basicly unlimted ETOPS ?? with a new hull, new engines, new cockpit, huge number of electronics and relatively unproven plastics...
and the A320 is so bad that it sold 1000+ at Paris recently?
5 billion USD ?? ask the WTO how much Boeing got....not just from the government but also from states...ask them about tax incentives they get, you will then see what all experts already know: Boeing gets about the same as Airbus gets.
Boeing in itself is great, but they are sure not the only great ones...and they are lagging behind Airbus in knowledge of producing airplanes coming into the plants from all kind of places, and they learn it now the hard way
and no, I hardly watch TV, I'm not that addicted as most in the US, I have better things to do...
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Honza: The FAA should be disbanded and reformed with a completely new set of beliefs and values. If you read the Australian equivalent reports and watch how they go about thier work it is very clear that the FAA has more on thier minds than safety. Yes I know about Rolls Royce failings but the airframe maker, Airbus, is not blameless when these engines are fitted at Toulouse on the shop floor. Sloppy practises under timid inspectors. There is a big difference between the Russian Federation of today and the Soviet era, Yes I agree. Your acceptance of failing pitot tubes is the reason why accidents happen. The 787 fire happened during flight testing BEFORE it was ridden by the public. Personally I don't ride ETOPS machines, that's my choice as a customer. The biggest customer for Boeing is the US military, and military budgets are notoriously inaccurate. As far as EUR production is concerned be aware that there are 25 states in the union and about 30 different languages. Not easy when the parts are dilivered with segueways that are different too. Often akin to mating a Spaniel K9 with Great Dane. They have a problem with units of measure too. Boeing are certainly not lagging behind airbus in operational preference, they at least are fixable with parts that are coherent, and the literature is understandable without needing a masters degree in English.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Honza: The reason Airbus sold 1000+ at the airshow is because of the guarantees they give to the customers by way of contractual promises. In the case of the Qantas A380 the engine that failed was paid on a "fly by the hour" basis. Rolls Royce have a "real time" monitoring system with only ONE sensor for vibration. So back in the control room at Rolls Royce they only knew that the 80kg middle rotor had failed AFTER it was ejected. The reason they had only ONE sensor on the engine is because Rolls Royce were not prepared to PAY for the communication bandwidth for the satellite telemetry. They skimped on that. The problem with Rolls Royce is they only have three qualified engineers on the board of directors. Only two of these engineers are voactional shop floor products. So basically a bunch of chimpanzees would have stood a better chance of preventing that accident on that RR972 engine at Changi on that day. The Qantas crew saved the day and the lives 0f 463 people.
honzanl
honza nl 0
Roland:
* seems that we have the same position on ETOP's...:)
* I don't accept failing pitot tubes, but pilots should be able to continue to fly the plane, which the 2 737's could not when flying straight into the ground (UA 585 at Colorado Springs and US Air 427 at Pittsburgh). In that case the 737 proved to be fundamental unsafe as one single failure caused both planes to crash. In such case a plane should be grounded, but commercial reasons (big fleet) prevailed. Remember that the basic philosophy of commercial aviation is that no single item that fails should let a plane crash...
ps: remember also the 737 crash here in Holland: although the pilots failed in an unbelievable way, everything started with a failing item Boeing installed, and it caused a string of events which even Boeing didn't know could happen...
* yes, Airbus has to deal with different states, languages. But it also has a big advantage: they know they have to cope with that, they have to design a way to operate alongside that. And so after 40 years they know how to handle it. Boeing on the other hand only was used to do it their own way, and now with the 787 they discover that outside the US there are indeed other countries, other languages, other business practises. So that is exactly why Boeing now has all these 787 problems...
* Airbus not only sold because of guarantees (Boeing also could give it if they are sure of their products...); they mostly sold because the 737neo is a far better plane, for sure with the latest engines. The 737 cann't take these engines simply as they are too low to the ground... Boeing simply has no product to match for the next 8 years....and to be honest: they should be worried too about the Chinese C919, the fact that Ryanair is actively talking to the Chinese says it all...
* RR maybe has 3 qualified engineers on the board, but look at the recent history at Boeing....: managers, not engineers ! and as you will be all too aware: managers are like Wall Street bankers: they grab the money and are gone when things go wrong...
* I agree with you also on FAA and Australia: the smaller a country or the population, the more independent any organisation. There I distrust the FAA just as much as the French DGA: their national interests just are too big, hence also the political influences. Better then have the Aussies, or even the British...
Derg
Roland Dent 0
honza i don't know about the two incidences you describe with the two 73s in the USA, I am Europe based by the way, but I do know that Air France was already concerned before they lost all over the S Atlantic. Again we are looking at a national carrier with political ties that over rule engineers. I have a personal way of dealing with business managers who seek to put life and limb at risk which involves their own personal limbs. God was good to me in that way, I sand 6ft 5 tall and I love small closets. If Boeing has lost focus I am sad. You are incorrect in thinging that Airbus know how "to handle" culture differences. Good managers leave Airbus. The manager of the A380 line at Toulouse left within a month of being told he had to roll back his schedule as Rolls Royce scavenged every engine T900 he had on the line to replace the T972s. Well there are other reasons why the current 737NGs are not suitable beyond an 8 years life. This involves shy fits on the chords on the fuselage from a certain sub contarctor. Inherently a bunch of NG737s are weak, and no one knows which bunch. No. Boeing knows that the C checks WILL throw up liabilities on these airframes, and it will have to face in the next 8 years a lot of remedial repairs. I remember the accident in Holland and at that time I believe there were three on the flight deck.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
The Chinese certainly are a big factor YES. I would rather walk than ride on Ryanair. I am getting on in age a little, and I don't like narrow exit steps that fold out onto an acre of tarmac in the middle of nowhere. People often fall off these steps, and I hate heights with no guard rails. There are much better airlines, better value too. Lets just see how Ryanair get along with their business in the next 5 years.
honzanl
honza nl 0
Roland: google wikipedia + 737 + crash + 585 + Colorado; plus the same with USAirways 427 + Pittsburgh....and shiver: a design flaw of a single part and next....shiver
I agree on the French political side, I dislike that too
Ryanair I also never fly when in Europe, Easy Jet and Wizz Air are discounts as well but there I at least feel treated as a valuable customer still...(don't know if it is coïncidence but both fly airbus....:) )
Derg
Roland Dent 0
honza: thanks for that. Yes I see your point very well. Communications between operators, both formal and informal communications, is better than 20 years ago by way of the internet and sites like this and others. Ryan air sold its first batch of 73s for more than they had paid brand new. Try Air Berlin next time you are in Europe.
chalet
chalet 0
@ Roland Dent you said in a previous entry that yo have read the contract between JetBlue and Airbus and that the latter would replace engines at not cost, inferring that they gave away the store. This is a little different from what I was told: first of all there are always two separate contracts, one with the airframe manufacturer and another one with the engine maker in this case International Aero Engines covering the V2527-A5 jet engines for the JetBlue 30s, furthermore IAE is the one which out of desperation as they can not cause even a dent to CFM whose Mod. 56 engines outsell them like 200 to 1 or even worse propelling 737s and 320s, etc. all over the map, had no choice but "selling" the engines at cut throat prices and guaranteeing anything and everything. Therefore Airbus did not guarantee anything related to the engines other than if the engines run, the planes will fly.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Yes chalet the contract covered the propulsion units only. For the life of the airframe the engines will cost JetBlue zero only normal wear and and top up oil air funded by JetBlue. If an engine fails and an aircraft is out os service the JeBlue also gets a "down time payment" for loss of revenue. And of course all air strikes are covered. This contract applies the the A320s only. Do JetBlue have few A330s? The contract I saw was specifically for the A320s. Yes I see your point with the airframes. The A320 engine cowl latches, the Airbus part, has proved difficult to secure in service and no less than seven design revisions have been issued for this fault. While there is not a contract per se regarding the airframe please remember that in law, the airframe must be fit for the purpose. The planes cannot fly if the engine cowls cannot be made fast, which is the Airbus responsibility.

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出