John Leahy says 787 will be six months late?

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 14 Mar 2007, 03:49

John must be totally confused about the suppliers he talked to?

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/joh ... n-787.html

David747 · Post by **David747** » 14 Mar 2007, 04:20

Maybe Leahy was speaking of A380 suppliers

Anyway, if the dreamliner is indeed late, it would probably be because of weight problems, and not that of suppliers unless something happens. Either way you look at it, there is pressure on Boeing now. 787 assembly has already begun.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 14 Mar 2007, 12:05

6 months?

6 years yes!

Boeing's answer to the A330 should have come in 2002, not in 2008...

Now they have lost 6 long years and although they have gained some momentum with their new program, that will soon be lost when the A350 will be flying.

Looking at it on a time line scale, Boeing will have an advantage over the A330 for a few years only, whereas they could have had an advantage for over a decade! Needless to say there are many thousand sales this must have cost them...

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 14 Mar 2007, 12:32

from a recent Boeing Press release:
Boeing Executives to Provide Update About 787 Dreamliner Program
CHICAGO, March 13, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] will webcast its 787 Dreamliner quarterly media briefing on Monday, March 19, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.

Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Officer Scott Carson and Vice President/General Manager, 787 program, Mike Bair will discuss recent progress on the new commercial airplane.

We won't have to wait long to find out if Leahey has great wisdom, knowledge and foresight, or the opposite.

Ruscoe

CX · Post by CX » 14 Mar 2007, 13:08

It really wont' be surprising or anything unexpected if the 787 is a little late, ie 6 months... as mentioned before, so many parts of the 787 are outsourced to different companies, different 'competing' companies..

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 14 Mar 2007, 15:44

tolipanebas wrote:6 months?

6 years yes!

Boeing's answer to the A330 should have come in 2002, not in 2008...

Now they have lost 6 long years and although they have gained some momentum with their new program, that will soon be lost when the A350 will be flying.

The A350 will be flying 6 years after the 787. So I guess both sides aren't terribly clever.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 14 Mar 2007, 15:52

tolipanebas wrote:6 months?

6 years yes!

Boeing's answer to the A330 should have come in 2002, not in 2008...

Now they have lost 6 long years and although they have gained some momentum with their new program, that will soon be lost when the A350 will be flying.

Looking at it on a time line scale, Boeing will have an advantage over the A330 for a few years only, whereas they could have had an advantage for over a decade! Needless to say there are many thousand sales this must have cost them...

.."soon will be lost when the A350 is flying."

Since when is 2013 or 2014 or later "soon". The B787 is scheduled to be rolled out and fly this year and enter service next year (I call this soon).

And Boeing's Scott Carson has said today that it is on schedule; in the last 11 new programs, Boeing has been late only once (B747-400) and then by 3 months, not 2 years.

smacDC-10 · Post by **smacDC-10** » 14 Mar 2007, 16:47

tolipanebas wrote:6 months?

6 years yes!

Boeing's answer to the A330 should have come in 2002, not in 2008...

Now they have lost 6 long years and although they have gained some momentum with their new program, that will soon be lost when the A350 will be flying.

Looking at it on a time line scale, Boeing will have an advantage over the A330 for a few years only, whereas they could have had an advantage for over a decade! Needless to say there are many thousand sales this must have cost them...

Boeing hasn't gained just "some" momentum but almost 500 orders before construction officially started. Also the leap in technology just wasn't available in the 1990's to the degree it is today to develop this type of aircraft.
If you want to use your argument further wouldn't it be fair to suggest that Airbus is 35 years too late with it's aluminum A380?

Berova · Post by **Berova** » 15 Mar 2007, 06:50

Today Boeing (NYSE: BA - News) celebrated roll out of the first vertical fin for the company's all-new commercial airplane, the 787 Dreamliner. Manufactured and assembled at the Composite Manufacturing Center in Frederickson, Wash., the vertical fin is the largest primary structure of the 787 airframe built by an internal Boeing supplier. The delivery meets a key program milestone as the airplane begins final assembly in Everett, Wash., in preparation for its initial roll out in July.

From all news sources I've read thus far, save the "news" from Boeing's competitor, production of the 787 is proceeding apace for delivery as scheduled. That is, if it's not delivered earlier than scheduled as some posters here have noted (citing the IAG blog).

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070314/sfw093.html?.v=101

Rui1950 · Post by **Rui1950** » 15 Mar 2007, 12:33

What I find amazing - totally inconceivable - is that Leahy still has a job...finer things come out of my backside than out of that man's mouth

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 15 Mar 2007, 19:18

Aeroflot is "supposed" to get their A350s in 2015.

They could have been flying 787s in 2008 (Boeing really went over the top to accommodate them with slots and pricing-so much for being a good corporate citizen, it’s the Russian people that will suffer for Putins arrogance).

Boeing has sold over 1000 767s, so while not super hot, it held the line while they developed the 777.

It also held the line while they went 4 generations past Airbus (4 model changes to the A350 and not done yet).

So, sometimes taking your time is worth it. If Airbus did the same thing with the A350, they would be in better shape. Now, they are going with a half way design that gets them no where for the future.

Sort of like going with turbo props in fighters after the jet age was launched.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 20 Mar 2007, 01:01

On time and within 2% of target weight at ~ 220,000lbs empty, not sure how much to add for customer options.
Means contracted weight should be well within promises.
Mr Leahy seems to have got this one wrong.
Ruscoe

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 20 Mar 2007, 04:18

Boeing released an image of the 787-10 - making it ever more likely to be offered for sale. Emirates and a number of other influential customers have expressed lots of interest in it. The plane would take over the market slot currently occupied by the 777-200ER.
In the absence of a viable Airbus product (the A350XWB is still to be defined) has allowed Boeing to take its time bringing this program forward. This growth version might require boosted engine thrust and a 3-wheel main gear. But is does look sweet with the longer hull. Not unlike the graceful look of the 757-300.

source IAG

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 20 Mar 2007, 05:18

It’s a very nice looking aircraft for sure.

So far everything Airbus has done has played into Boeings hands, they are not even being challenged or pushed. All the programs can take place on Boeing timeline and workload, and still beat Airbus to the punch.

And if Boeing does something like the mini widebody, man oh man. There is a great deal of demand for that size as well, and Boeing is in a position to make it happen.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 20 Mar 2007, 13:18

787-10 is a nice aircraft. Now the question is, why would Boeing launch a direct competitor to one of its products? I understand that Emirates is interested in a larger 787, but would it be wise for Boeing to launch this airplane that could eat away at the 772 market?

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 20 Mar 2007, 13:26

It's better to eat your own lunch (777-200), than to let your competitor eat it! Once Airbus defines and offers a competitor to the 777-200, Boeing will lose the market for this product anyway. Better to check your opponent by building a better competitor first.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 20 Mar 2007, 20:33

smokejumper wrote:It's better to eat your own lunch (777-200), than to let your competitor eat it! Once Airbus defines and offers a competitor to the 777-200, Boeing will lose the market for this product anyway. Better to check your opponent by building a better competitor first.

Good point, but still... Its like devouring your own child

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 20 Mar 2007, 21:38

787-10 is a nice aircraft. Now the question is, why would Boeing launch a direct competitor to one of its products?

Think not of it as a competitor, but rather a replacement!

Boeing is listening to its customers, and they are telling them lighten up!

Weight is money!

I would think this is just the beginning!

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 21 Mar 2007, 00:52

bits44 wrote:

Boeing is listening to its customers, and they are telling them lighten up!

Wonder if Boeing is still working on a 6T reduction in 772LR weight, much of which I think could be carried over to the 773ER?

Ruscoe

achace · Post by **achace** » 21 Mar 2007, 10:00

Emirates have said the 787-10 lacks range, so a 6 tonne reduction on the 772 could make a lot more sense.

Perhaps Boeing could steal a bit of Airbus thinking and use composite panels on the 772.

Cheers
Achace

Aviation24.be

John Leahy says 787 will be six months late?

John Leahy says 787 will be six months late?

Boeing Rolls Out First 787 Vertical Fin