Is the latest delay of the Boeing 787 a sign of worse to come?

Question

Funny how when the A380 had problems everyone and their friend was climbing on here to predict the end. Now Boeing has problems not only with the outsourced manufacturing but also with the underlying design. Their subcontractors delivered incomplete sub-assemblies. Airbus at least designed an aircraft they could build.

I don't really think this is the end of Beoing, their silence (though they used the Seattle Times as a shill) at the time the A380 had issues showed they at least understood that it's very easy to drop the ball, and now they have. But I expect they will recover. Still, it slashes their lead over the A350 and the 787 hasn't even taken off yet. The A380 was at least flying when they discovered their issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040900942.html?nav=rss_nation

Discuss?

Answer 1

A sign of worse to come? Gee, I hope not.

But let's face it. The 787 is the first all new design Boeing has done since the 777, and that was 14 years ago. If they did not keep their technical staff busy and on top of things, they would have had an uphill battle to recover expertise. Moreover, the 787 includes a lot of new material, with their own special design requirements, while the 777 was a rather classic design.

The A380 was also special in that it was stretching the envelope and try new things; there is always some unexpected stories happening when dealing with a daring project. The problem is that technical management is sometimes driven by bankers and politicians who are only thinking with a 12 months horizon, and who are forcing overly optimistic schedules to please shareholders.

Outsourcing may have its virtues (I am not personally convinced myself, but that is another story), still there is an issue with getting an outside supplier on board and more or less expecting them to know all about the intricacies of how to design parts when they never really done it before.

If anything, it will be (yet another) learning experience.

When I started my career, the older folks used to have Xeroxed posters around reading  "The six phases of airplane design" that went like this

1- enthusiasm

2- disillusion

3- panic

4- search for the guilty

5- punishment of the innocents

6- praise and honor for the non-participants

As true now as it was in 1980, perhaps?

Answer 2

this isn't a sign of anything.  The 787 will launch and Boeing has orders for many 787's.  That will keep them busy for awhile.

Answer 3

As with anything in aviation, you can never tell.  

It seemed easy to predict the end of Airbus since they were having all kinds of problems with the A380 design and certification, the original A350 was rejected by Singapore Airlines, Emirates, GECAS, and ILFC, their stock plunged 25% and two of their top executives resigned.

Ahh, but never underestimate the power of socialism...  Remember, this is the company that posted its first profit nearly 30 years after it was formed.  Any private company would have gone bankrupt years before.

I'd say that it is remotely possible for the 787 delivery date to slip to the projected delivery date of the A350 (2013 from the current 2009).  But to have that happen AND for Airbus not to have any problems of its own with its A350 is extremely unlikely.

I don't expect Boeing's aircraft to fail the structural tests like several Airbuses have (the A330 and the A380) since Boeing traditionally over-builds its aircraft.

Also, Boeings tend to have simpler systems in their aircraft.  Just compare the design and certification of the A330 to the 777.  The 777 had very few bugs to work out and got ETOPS from day one after a one year certification effort while the A330 certification effort spent two years validating and fixing systems and flight control software and resulted in a crash of one A330 and no ETOPS.

Training, quality control, and supplier problems are nothing new and it is interesting that Boeing's stock went up as a result of the delay announcement.

One thing you didn't consider is the considerable cost savings Boeing incurred by having the parts manufacture outsourced.  No capital expenditures for facilities and tooling.  Minimal increase in labour force and training.  No shelling out for raw materials.  This alone saved billions of dollars.  Also, Boeing most likely will receive compensation from the offending contractors to offset the delay of delivery penalties paid to the airline customers.

Answer 4

Possibly

Boeing is already 18months late with the B787, remember it was supposed to enter service in May 07 when the first announced the project as the 7E7.

Boeing has had 2 or 3 production delays so far and it now due to enter service in late '09. The 787 hasn't even had its maiden flight yet and that's not till the end of the year - doesn't give Boeing alot of time for flight testing to till delivery.

If there is a problem it'll prob push the project back a further year.

Answer 5

perhaps, but the thing is,

y dont the planners always say the programme will take an extra 2 years to compensate for delays; then they wont look bad wen they 'finish on time'

Answer 6

My armchair guess is that the big problem with the 787 will be coordinating all the subcontractors, especially those abroad, and getting them to deliver parts on time, and in spec, with all the paperwork.  Boeing seems to have really spread things around this time, no doubt for political reasons in large part, and also as a (ill-advised?) attempt to save money, but having to deal with so many suppliers, some of which might not share the same rigor as Boeing itself, is inevitably going to cause delays and problems.

As for the fundamental airworthiness of the aircraft, that remains to be seen.  Boeing isn't stupid, and if they want to design a good airplane they can do so, but they are trying new things here, so we'll see.  And although the record of the company is generally excellent, the winds of management can change over time, and history is not always a good predictor of the future.

As for Airbus, the company is its own worst enemy.  Its problem is that it's a political agency, for all practical purposes, and not a for-profit corporation.  Everything it does is clouded by politics, unanswered questions, etc., which prevents it from concentrating on producing good aircraft at a good price.  It's a wonder it has produce anything useful at all, given the environment in which it operates.  I don't expect this to improve.

Answer 7

Production delays are always to be expected.  

They were expected, and are still expected.



It would be surprising if there weren't delays.

Answer 8

I never predicted anybody's end. And I'm not now. Your point in all this?

Answer 9

I think to a lot of people, the bigger surprise was the A380 because they announced big delays AFTER they actually got it flying.  Boeing got caught late with production issues, and as the airplane kept not getting finished, they told everyone about it.  Airbus flew the plane and seemed on track and THEN said 'no, we can't build them.'  

Also the 787 is a much more technologically advanced airplane, and the delays are probably partly due to the that- the A380, while very large, is conventional in its construction.

No one seriously thought Airbus would go out of business.  But, if you read the Harvard Business School case study on the A380, published in 2003, using Airbus numbers, at 4/month they can't pay back the investment in the airplane.  Note they delivered the first A380 last November, have over 30 airplanes in various stages of assembly, but have only delivered 3 airplanes so far 6 months after EIS.   This is very rough for them.  Boeing says they will deliver 25 airplanes next year after the first one finally enters service.  If they achieve that it will be a much stronger start.

There are over 850 orders for the 787 because it is a really compelling airplane.  The biggest issue with the A380 is that 8 years after launch they have less than 200 orders.