backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 81 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Apr 17 at 5:26 PM

ANA (All Nippon Airways) expressed its disappointment with the latest Dreamliner delays.
Boeing once again is faced with setbacks to its 787 Dreamliner program

It has been a difficult 2008 for Boeing with regards to its aircraft business. In mid-January, the company reported that its 787 Dreamliner would be delayed again due to supplier issues.

Boeing's decision to rely on various suppliers to construct components for the aircraft was found to be a more daunting task than originally envisioned. As a result, Boeing pushed the scheduled first flight of the prototype Dreamliner to the second quarter of 2008 and stated that the first deliveries would take place in early 2009.

Boeing was dealt another blow in early March by the U.S. Air Force when it selected the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 tanker over its competing offering based on the venerable 767. Boeing -- not content with letting a $35B USD contract go down the drain -- formally filed to have the Government Accountability Office (GAO) look into the matter and have the decision overturned in its favor.

Since Boeing's formal protest, the company has issued numerous press releases touting the superiority of its 767 tanker over the KC-45. This was all done despite the fact that the U.S. Air Force stated that Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 offered "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

Now, Boeing is suffering yet another setback -- this time, the focus is once again on the Dreamliner. The problem is with the aircraft's center wing box. On March 20, the company in a press release stated that "it is a normal part of the development of a new airplane to discover need for improvements, and that is what we are experiencing on the 787."

This past Thursday, Boeing stated that the problems that it has encountered with the wing box will result in yet more delays to the entire program. "We deeply regret the disruption and disappointment these changes will cause for our customers, and we will work closely with each of them to minimize the impact," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Scott Carson.

"We have taken significant action to improve supply chain and production system performance, such as our investment in Global Aeronautica, but based on our assessment, the prudent course is to proceed with a more gradual ramp up to full-rate production."

Boeing also said that it was hard at work resolving issues with its many global suppliers for the Dreamliner. The fact that so many suppliers are constructing components that are then shipped to Boeing for final assembly has been a big part of the problems plaguing the Dreamliner program.

"We have addressed the major challenges that slowed our progress while trying to complete the primary structure -- the parts shortages, engineering changes, and manufacturing changes -- and we are well into the systems installation that is the precursor to putting power on the airplane for the first time," continued Cason. "We have also worked closely with our partners to achieve higher levels of completion of their parts of subsequent airplanes, and we will continue to drive improvements in the supply chain and production system performance."

As a result of these newfound problems, the Dreamliner prototype's first flight has been pushed back -- again -- to the fourth quarter of 2008. First deliveries of production Dreamliner now will occur in late 2009 instead of early 2009.

"We are extremely disappointed," said Japan-based All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing's first customer for the Dreamliner. "We still have no details about the full delivery schedule. We would urge Boeing to provide us with a 120 percent definitive schedule as soon as possible."

Boeing will now have to financially compensate its customers, like ANA, for the further delays to the program. The additional financial outlay is in addition to the embarrassment of yet more problems for its famed program -- a similar fate was bestowed upon EADS's A380 superjumbo before it finally took the air for commercial flights.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A large enough project
By TheRodent on 4/12/2008 10:16:03 AM , Rating: 5
I think this just goes to show that any large enough project will encounter problems. People were too hasty to blame airbus for a year long delay in the A380.




RE: A large enough project
By shabby on 4/12/2008 10:27:52 AM , Rating: 5
I think the deadlines the bean counters set are too optimistic and based on developement times with absolutly no delays/problems found along the way. With a project this big thats simply impossible.


RE: A large enough project
By theaerokid on 4/12/2008 10:51:12 AM , Rating: 3
Along those same lines, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a general underestimation of how much internal R&D needs to happen to have a better chance at getting things right. These publicly traded corporations need to show as much profitability as possible and I don't think the industry as a whole is willing to change the percentages of profits re-directed to IR&D.

Add to that the airline industry struggling to make a profit and relying on old planes and there are not many new orders to make money on. Along with that the airlines' trend to try to make a profit seems to be to fly more flights with smaller airplanes (a la Southwest) to have a better chance at higher occupancy rates per flight.

That's why the airliner industry is betting more of their future on these superliners programs aimed at the premium airlines that are actually making a profit these days.


RE: A large enough project
By danrien on 4/12/2008 11:42:19 AM , Rating: 5
Hofstadter's Law:
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.


RE: A large enough project
By waltzendless on 4/12/2008 3:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
The Human Genome Project was an exception - that program finished ahead of schedule and underbudget in 2003.


RE: A large enough project
By BladeVenom on 4/12/2008 5:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the estimate was done based on the government doing the project. Once a private company got involved everything sped up for everyone.


RE: A large enough project
By hp540 on 4/12/2008 6:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite.

Venter's little private human genome sequencing endeavor used a more risky but ultimately faster (and more successful) 'shotgun' sequencing method.

However, his achievement and the speed at which it was accomplished would not have been possible without the use of then published sequence data which he used as the framework for shotgun sequencing.

So in conclusion, it had nothing to do with the HGP consortium being slow, but everything to do with Venter having the balls to use an uncertain method and having significant seed data to get it rolling.


RE: A large enough project
By ImSpartacus on 4/12/2008 7:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
No kidding. My favorite oxymoron: Government Efficiency.


RE: A large enough project
By ebakke on 4/12/2008 9:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Can't wait 'till they're running healthcare.


RE: A large enough project
By psychmike on 4/13/2008 10:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? Then please explain why time and time again research shows that public health programs spend a smaller proportion of costs on administration than private health programs? This holds even in countries with hybrid programs. I cite recent research performed at Harvard as well as reports by the Ontario Ministry of Health.

The private components always spend more to administer fewer services because such programs tend to try to deny benefits but must also offer a mechanism of appeal. Typically, insurers rely on examinations by 'independent' experts that are paid by the insurer and can produce biased reports in favor of the insurer. Private insurance may seem effective when looking only at premiums paid versus services offered or when looking at services offered versus health outcomes but NOT when looking at health outcomes alone BECAUSE such systems tend to drop people with serious, chronic health problems making the data look far better than it really is. The fact is the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada (public and private) but has worse health outcomes (life expectancy, birth weight, onset of chronic illness, etc.).

People often claim that public health insurance isn't fair because of the moral hazard of removing incentives for living a healthy life. I call BS. Health care is something that doesn't just affect individuals, it affects families as well. How fair is it for a whole family to lose their home and savings because one parent has health problems? What does that do for the economic productiveness of the children?

Also, people tend to 'know' what they should do but not act in a congruent way, simply because the most easily identified solution (e.g., McDonald's) often isn't the best long-term one (e.g., spending an hour cooking a healthy dinner). I hate to point it out but if the moral hazard argument held any weight, wouldn't you see a lower incidence of obesity in the US compared with Canada? In fact, we see the opposite. Simply put, people tend not to abuse their bodies just because someone else will pay for it. People simply make stupid choices and it makes sense to mitigate harm earlier. Also, health care isn't like welfare - there's very little incentive for people to ask for more services than they need.

I don't say any of this to be smug or insulting. There are certainly many things the US has done brilliantly well. Private health care tends to reward the development of expensive technology which in the long term really progresses health care (MRI, medication etc.). BUT a significant caveat is that this high level of technology tends to be less important in health outcomes than providing a broadly accessible good level of health care.

Mike


RE: A large enough project
By porkpie on 4/13/2008 10:41:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
People often claim that public health insurance isn't fair because of the moral hazard of removing incentives for living a healthy life.
No, we say it isn't fair because it makes one person pay someone else's bills. It's slavery in reverse.

quote:
How fair is it for a whole family to lose their home and savings because one parent has health problems?
How fair is it for a whole family to not be able to afford a home in the first place, because they're paying a monster tax bill because OTHER people refuse to buy health care?

And yes, I know there's a (very) few people that can't afford it regardless. Too bad. You should have stayed in school, instead of dropping out to play video games or listen to rap music.


RE: A large enough project
By psychmike on 4/13/2008 12:55:42 PM , Rating: 3
You have to pay for LOTS of things that you may not use. You may have to pay for others' kids public education. You may have to pay for fire services even though your house has never been on fire. The reason this is so is that because we have collectively agreed that these are the foundational requirements to have a society on top of which individual meritocracy can work. Shouldn't access to health care be considered one of those basic, foundational requirements? Adams said as much when he described the benefits of capitalism. What is the alternative? A growing disparity between rich and poor where it becomes increasingly difficult for the children of the poor to pull themselves up?

It's spurious to say that it will cost individuals more to have public health care because the cost of not having public health care likely higher but spread across so many domains: individual suffering, loss of economic productivity, costs of emergency services.

I've said it before but I'll offer it again. My family came to Canada when I was an infant. Both of my folks worked really hard. When I was in middle school, my mom suffered kidney failure and required a transplant. She got it with no cost to our family. Sure, other Canadians (well, Ontarians) had to bear the cost of that operation, but there were many benefits to society as well. Our family did not fall apart, we did not have to sell our house, we could afford to go to school. My sister and I both went on to complete graduate school. We both earn respectable incomes and pay a high percentage of income taxes.

Wouldn't people be happier if they could see a physician if they were sick instead of having to weigh that cost against buying groceries (something I saw often when I worked in NY)? Wouldn't it be cheaper to diagnose and treat diseases earlier rather than later? Wouldn't people miss less work if they were healthier? Wouldn't it feel more like a community, a country, a civil society?

You say that people who can't afford health care dropped out of school, played video games, and listened to rap music. To me, that is a deep seated prejudice that people who suffer deserve to suffer and that you have done well solely on your merits. It also has racial undertones. You didn't say "You shouldn't have sit on your porch shooting rabits" or "played chess in the park all day." I have a Ph.D.in my field, likely make more money than you do but do not for a moment pretend that I did it on my own. My parents worked incredibly hard, I lived in a society that easily allowed me to maximize my potential, AND I worked hard. It's easy for people to not have one of those ingredients in their lives.

You can blame people for the misfortune in their lives or you can look at your own successes with humility and offer a hand. I fail to see the benefit to anyone in doing the first.

Mike


RE: A large enough project
By porkpie on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: A large enough project
By mWMA on 4/13/2008 2:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Voting for the benefit of whole society is one thing but voting for benefit of a few is another. Also voting is won or lost based on rather majority yes/no votes. Ever wonder why the pork always gets packed into bills that show benefits for the majority of voters.

quote:
If you want it-- work for it. Slavery isn't the solution.

You attitude about if you want it, work for it leaves me with the impression that you prefer a society that gives you personal benefit rather than compassion & humility. I hope one day you will realize that greed is good as long you do not harm other in your quest for the golden goose.

Paying taxes is not slavery because you are given a right to control how your taxes are spent through voting rights. You have yourself to blame for failing to elect officials who cannot make hard decisions and keep on writing checks that you children will have to pay for.


RE: A large enough project
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 2:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want it-- work for it. Slavery isn't the solution.

You know anyone that doesn't want it??? I know several that can't afford it.
quote:
Wouldn't people be happier if they could have a mansion, a yacht, and a few sports cars, all without ever having to work?

Don't be obtuse. Provinding poeple with basic security allows them to work harder and more productively. If they don't have to worry about random chance plunging their whole family into poverty, they'll probably have more time to worry about usefull things.

Why, If healthcare is such a demon, are countries with healthcare outperforming the US??? dispite an ungodly expensive euro, they don't seem to be heading into recession. Dispite them paying abou 40-50% taxes, they usually dont live in hovels (unless they choose to)
Poeple here in the states seem to think that the govm't is some sort of black hole that makes money disappear... but if you look at what do they spend it on, it appears to be their citizens. Things like infrastructure, shooling, safety (police, not the collateral damage kind) and... in the rest the, Healthcare.

Also, if you think for one minute you could be sucessful on your own - please proof you point by moving to an small, deserted island and show me I'm wrong. I think you can opnly be sucessful because of the things other poeple give you. It may not be free - healthcare requires everyone to pich in, including the poeple that use it - but it is society that supports your wealth.
Give something back and stop whining about not beeing able to buy your waterski's.


RE: A large enough project
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2008 2:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why, If healthcare is such a demon, are countries with healthcare outperforming the US??? "

Stuff and nonsense. The US has the largest economy of any nation in the world. You have to add up all the economies of all 27 members of the EU to match the US, despite a 50% larger total opulation.

If you want to argue socialized medicine is some innate moral right, go ahead. But claiming it will help the economy is just plain silly. Suggesting the populace can't focus on work because everyone is "too busy worrying about healthcare costs" is even sillier.

Would socialized medicien wholly devastate the US economy? No of course not. But it would be a major burden. When food, housing, healthcare, and all other necessities are paid for by the government, many people are going to do no work at all...or the bare minimum needed to pay for a little extra. When you remove incentive, overall productivity declines...it doesn't rise.

Take a look at England, the most powerful nation in the world until it began experimenting with free healthcare and other forms of socialism. Within a few decades, it became no more than an afterthought, eclipsed by harder-working nations.

That fate is *already* in store for the US. In 40-45 years, it will be playing second fiddle to China, overtaken by a population that is harder working and more highly motivated. Should we decide to pass a massive socialized medicine program, we'll likely shave 10 years off that estimate.

There are nations with socialized medicine that, on a per-capita basis at least, have economies that perform roughly equal to the US. But if one examines them more closely, you find they either have less socialism / economic freedom much higher in other areas (such as Ireland) or massive natural resources (such as Norway).

TAANSTAFL. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Socialized medicine is a huge drag on an economy.


RE: A large enough project
By Merry on 4/13/2008 7:03:53 PM , Rating: 3
Take a look at England, the most powerful nation in the world until it began experimenting with free healthcare and other forms of socialism. Within a few decades, it became no more than an afterthought, eclipsed by harder-working nations.

I dont care about the rest of this whole nationalised health argument going on here but this is just simply wrong.

You'd think two World Wars mights have had somewhat of an effect? The UK was bankrupt in 1945, nationalisation, in a lot of cases was the only option, also bearing in mind the damage to which a number of industries incurred. The UKs relative decline in terms of world power and economic standing were products of its very rise to power in the first place, that being empire and its long term tenability and the lack of resources given the size of the country.

As for your 'eclipsed by harder working nations' statement, I find it borderline offensive at the most, and crude generalisation at the best, take your pick, but I suggest you go take a look at current average working hours in the UK v the rest of Europe

I cant believe someone of your standing on this website would post something so desperately wrong and to be quite honest borderline offensive


RE: A large enough project
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: A large enough project
By eldakka on 4/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: A large enough project
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 2:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the 'winners' of WW2 invested huge amounts of money into rebuilding Germany and Japan....while the 'losers' got 100's of billions of dollars invested into rebuilding them, the 'winners' did not receive the traditional reparations, and they had to rebuild themselves while also paying to rebuild the losers .
Oops, the U.K. didn't "pay to rebuild Germany and Japan". Just the opposite, in fact. Britain was the largest recipient of US aid in the Marshall Plan -- $3.5B worth. That's more than Germany and Japan received combined. And nations like the Soviet Union received nearly nothing compared to aid to Britain...yet within a year years of the war, they easily eclipsed British power.

You also ignore the most important fact of all -- the U.K.'s downward slide began well before WW2. It started just before WWI, in fact. The Britain of 1890 could have taken on Germany and Japan singlehandedly....the Britain of 1940 almost lost, even with the aid of two other superpowers.


RE: A large enough project
By CubicleDilbert on 4/14/2008 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I Think it is common wisdom now that the decline of England was caused by their own mentality which up to now has mainly remained in the imperialistic era of the 18th-19th century. This strangely common behavior of this society is still reflected with their endless TV soap operas about their great wars (insert Africans, Nazis, Chinese etc.)
Unfortunately the British in general have not realized that their status and empire is gone. What was worse after the war was that most of their infrastructure remained intact and the huge sums of the Marshall plan only were used to rebuild and fix their existing infrastructure. I have lived in England to see those impacts myself. Sometimes I had the impression of being in a time machine when I travelled across rural England. Germany and Japan on the other hand were utterly and completely destroyed, nothing left of their cities.
They had a fresh start from scratch and a vey strong mentaliy (which also caused the second world war due to the humiliation after the horrible Treaty of Versailles) to grab again a place on the sun's side.
In all irony, the allied "forced payments" in terms of taking away all infrastructure (machines, plants, industrial goods) that has survived the war, and their shipping to England as war repayments was the most stupid thing the Brits could ever do. They got all the old stuff and Germany could buy, build all the new stuff. Which led to the well-known effect of the German Economy Wonder in the 1960s.


RE: A large enough project
By andrinoaa on 4/14/2008 4:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
Masher masher masher, what the f***& are you on? (and the other ostriges). I see a total lack of empathy towards other humans. A total lack of sensitivity and a naive over estimation of what private enterprise WILL do. Are you guys christians or are you just pure shit? I read so many statements that a spoilt 15 yr old would espouse. Grow up!
The world is not the cosy environment you guys obviously live in. AND its made possible by the suffering of others. If you cannot see it, you have a problem. And then you have the gaul to chant mantras- parleese, leave it to the Krishna movement.
Private enterprise is fantastic BUT it will not do what we want governments to do or what are government resposibilities. Private enterprise is a social TOOL, NOT the end game. What's Cheney's business interst, Halyburton? The biggest tax rip off ever!! dickheads


RE: A large enough project
By Strunf on 4/14/2008 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do you imply that since the Chinese work far more than the Americans they'll eat you alive ?...

BTW the number of working hours has nothing to do with socialism but with human emancipation.


RE: A large enough project
By rcc on 4/14/2008 6:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW the number of working hours has nothing to do with socialism but with human emancipation.


Well let's see. If I need to work to pay for home, medical, food, etc., chances are I have to work more hours than if these these things are provided. To say it has nothing to do with socialism is a bit naive.


RE: A large enough project
By Strunf on 4/17/2008 5:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's you that is a bit naive... you even mix things, no "socialist" country will give you a house and feed you just like that. If you want a house, food, money for leisure you have to work and even if the state pays for your health you have to pay it with your taxes so in the end its EXACTLY the same thing, everyone wants more money and most get it by working and that's valid for all the countries on this earth.


RE: A large enough project
By LordanSS on 4/13/2008 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Following world History, it's a cycle, and it will continue to repeat itself.

England's cycle as the world's most powerful nation ended, as well as other nations that came before (Rome, Greece, etc). The US rose after that, and eventually, China will come. What will come afterwards, and when, we'll have to wait and see.

As for the healthcare... it all depends a lot on the culture of a nation's society. The US deemed basic education was a right to everyone, and so they have the public schools the majority of children go to. Other countries chose to add healthcare to the tab. I suppose there isn't a right and wrong, it all depends on the point of view, and the reality of the nation in question. The US is a very large, populous country, with different needs for different regions (desert regions like Arizona, frozen regions like Alaska, all have different needs), so it'd be a lot more complex to implement a unified and state-controlled healthcare system.

Here in Brazil, it's a mixed system, and even thought it's not perfect, I am glad it is this way. The shortcomings come from corruption and lousy politicians, but at least most of the population have coverage for their illnesses. I may have to pay extra taxes to cover for someone else's needs, but eventually, people will be paying taxes for my needs as well as I grow older, and if I end up acquiring chronic ilnesses, etc, so what goes around, comes around.


By HomelandInsecurity on 4/14/2008 4:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
Motivating people through fear never works long term.

I would prefer people had other reasons to work hard,
like enjoying their job and being highly educated.


RE: A large enough project
By Jellodyne on 4/14/2008 11:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
> TAANSTAFL... Socialized medicine is a huge drag on an economy.

Thanks, Heinlen. Guess what, lack of socialized medicine is a huge drag on the economy. If you think that your health premiums and medical bills are not already covering uninsured patients, you're deluded.


RE: A large enough project
By Ringold on 4/13/2008 5:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they don't seem to be heading into recession.


Completely wrong; many European countries are experiencing the same bursting bubble of housing prices as we are, and the EU's general economic indicators are starting to dim. They haven't escaped inflation problems despite the high interest rates. Everything points to a long established US-EU economic pattern being maintained; the US will enter a recession and the EU shall follow 6-12 months later. Given that their labor markets are far more rigid than our own, and that they never did achieve decent unemployment stats even at their peak, the recession will probably feel worse in Europe than it does in America.


RE: A large enough project
By psychmike on 4/14/2008 9:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the support!

The proof is in the pudding - if there was a significant moral hazard in providing health care, you'd expect Americans to have lower incidence rates of obesity, smoking, etc. compared with Canadians. Even when you look only at those Americans who pay for health care, you don't see better health behaviours so clearly providing health care does not dis-incentivize good behaviour.

If private health care provided more efficient services than public systems, you would expect that Americans would spend less per capita than Canadians but again this is not the case.

Where the private system really seems to excel is in promoting innovation - pharmacological research, imagining technology, etc. - that no doubt benefits our medical understanding. But again, these advances pale in comparison to providing basic medicine to address illness before it becomes acute.

People can argue the facts all they want but it seems to come down to an emotional argument, not a rational one. Some people see basic health services as a pre-requisite for a well-functioning civil society and economy. Other people seem really resentful of having to pay for someone else. It doesn't matter that they pay indirectly anyways - in more expensive emergency care, loss productivity, etc., they simply seem to feel that it's not fair.

Mike


RE: A large enough project
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2008 10:27:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "clearly providing health care does not dis-incentivize good behaviour..."

It disincentivizes the work ethic. Why spend years to get a good education, then spend your life working hard, when society will give you free food, housing, and healthcare on a silver platter?

Already in some states, one sixth of the population is on government assistance. The easier and more accepted that lifestyle becomes, the more people who will choose it. Simple human nature.


RE: A large enough project
By InsaneGain on 4/13/2008 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wouldn't people be happier if they could have a mansion, a yacht, and a few sports cars, all without ever having to work?


When a finger points at the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger.

You completely missed the point psychmike was making.


RE: A large enough project
By porkpie on 4/13/2008 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
I got the point-- people would be happier if they didn't have to pay for healthcare. People would also be happier if they didn't have to pay for a lot of things. So what?


RE: A large enough project
By andrinoaa on 4/14/2008 4:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
You, know he was right , you dickhead, you are looking at the finger!


RE: A large enough project
By Machinegear on 4/15/2008 4:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Name calling is a sure sign of the moral high ground you supposely support.

Good show.


RE: A large enough project
By Oakley516 on 4/12/2008 5:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't sound like the beancounters have screwed up, it sounds like an engineering screw up.

Did they design and test this plane correctly the first time, or not?


RE: A large enough project
By ebakke on 4/12/2008 9:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
If they designed and tested a plane correctly the first time, they all deserve some absurdly massive award.


RE: A large enough project
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Engineers don't screw up - they make fallacious assumptions, unconservative generalizations or optimistic predictions.
Off course the effects are the same

It isn't a beancounter screw-up either, I think... the problem is thaqt if you tell an engineer he has 2 years to finish a project. He'll need 3 years to complete it. So you tell him he has 1 year and hope there's not an actual delay beyond the usual...


RE: A large enough project
By Ringold on 4/13/2008 6:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
Engineers need to rewatch Star Trek The Original Series.

How does Scotty work 'miracles'? If it'll take him 2 hours to do fix the warp drive, he says it'll take 4, so even if he misses his internal deadline and it takes 3 hours he's still a hero!

For all the typical hate pointed at the fact Boeing is a profit-maximizing publically listed company, this concept is quite familiar with them; they always try to under promise and over deliver. They just didn't do it enough this time.


RE: A large enough project
By ikkeman on 4/14/2008 12:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, recent history has showed that both airbus and boeing, and most other technical engineering
quote:
profit-maximizing publically listed company
's continually over promise and under deliver...

Your trek analogy is a nice one - scotty actually gets to say how much time he'll need and the captain generally tells him he has only half that time, so scotty gets to be the hero he treuly is.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between the engineers and the managers on many of the programs I've worked on.


RE: A large enough project
By phxfreddy on 4/12/2008 4:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
As an engineer I can tell you that if you that if you give the team 10 monthes they'll take 15. You have to agressively budget time or the whole thing bloats. In order to justify high wages you have to press hard on the problem and accept that later you'll look dumb because you did not get done in 15 what you budgeted for 10 but really expected to take 20 after all the T-bone accidents you encounter at each juncture.


RE: A large enough project
By Bremen7000 on 4/12/2008 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're a terrible manager.


RE: A large enough project
By ebakke on 4/12/2008 9:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Or he has crappy employees.


RE: A large enough project
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, this guy know's what he's talking about. An engineer will allways need more time than you give him, and adding engineers to a project only serves to increase the total output - not the progress.
Actually, a small (well balanced) group of people with no deadline but a general incentive (bonus, a pick of the next project, a nicer office) usually finish faster than a large group with a deadline set in stone.


RE: A large enough project
By SoCalBoomer on 4/14/2008 2:59:19 PM , Rating: 1
Nice ad-hominem.

Obviously you aren't in management - this isn't true just for engineers but for just about everyone. We're doing several large building projects and we have to both provide extreme incentives to get the buildings done on time and provide extreme penalties to keep them from running over (built in to the actual projected cost of the building)

Until you can change human nature, that's the way things go. That's why we have project managers and why they all have grey (or no) hair! ROFL. Keeping up on people, making sure they are self-motivated (else you have to continually provide external motivation) and eliminating distractions are constant issues. I can only imagine what it would be like on something as massively complex as an airliner. . .


RE: A large enough project
By rcc on 4/14/2008 7:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you are dealing with software engineers. They'll quote you twice what they think it will take, and end up spending 3 times the time.


RE: A large enough project
By ira176 on 4/13/2008 12:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
Even though the project is over due, what other options do air carriers have, that can match the potential of the dreamliner, for fuel efficiency and long haul capability? Let Boeing iron out the problems, and everyone will be better for it in the end.


RE: A large enough project
By rebturtle on 4/13/2008 5:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Currently nothing can match it. So far, its vaporware!


RE: A large enough project
By Amiga500 on 4/13/2008 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 3
The Airbus A330 will make good sales on the back of this as an interim measure.

The replacement for it, the 350XWB, can also be expected to pick up orders as airlines move across to take advantage of earlier delivery slots.


RE: A large enough project
By InsaneGain on 4/14/2008 2:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The replacement for it, the 350XWB, can also be expected to pick up orders as airlines move across to take advantage of earlier delivery slots.


Amiga500, you always seem to be well informed about Airbus. I'm curious, do you directly or indirectly work for them?


RE: A large enough project
By bhieb on 4/14/2008 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
I think it goes to show you that outsourcing always looks better on paper than the results in real life. I have never been on an outsourced project that has been on schedule or budget. IMHO all of them would have been better done in house.


RE: A large enough project
By rcc on 4/14/2008 6:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, who else would you blame.

So, perhaps they were to quick to blow it out of proportion.

Same thing here. Ultimately Boeing is to blame, but it happens.


More LIES from Boeing.
By Amiga500 on 4/12/2008 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 3
They have to redesign the wingbox as it is not strong enough.

They say that this is not the critical pathway affecting the EIS delays. Basically, its another ruse to dump the blame on "Johnny Foreigner" and them not supplying parts.

An aircraft is essentially designed around the damn wingbox (from a structural point of view). Anyone that knows anything about Aeronautical Engineering will be aware that having to redo such a critical component when there are airframes already in construction is a serious problem, structurally, it is probably THE most serious problem an aircraft can have as everything else is an attachment to this 'component'.

The problems run even deeper, the 787-3 is already verging on cancellation due to poor take-up. But, more seriously, there is talk of the 787-10 going the same way. THIS (cancellation of the -10) will not please the airlines one little bit, as they made it a fundamental part of the A350XWB redesign.

[Boeing doesn't want to as it will take away 777 sales]

Boeing better get its sh!t together, and fast, or it will be in greater danger than Airbus ever was with the 380 program. I for one want them to succeed with the Dreamliner, it is revolutionary technology and a high risk venture - taking this kind of risk should be encouraged and rewarded with success and sales, not failure.




RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By Desslok on 4/12/2008 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any article that back up that statement?


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By Amiga500 on 4/13/2008 6:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
Which particular part?


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2008 9:42:34 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, the spar web on wingbox is being beefed up...but its not the huge problem you make it out to be. Engineering-wise, its a fairly simple operation....it could in fact be done without any changes to the base wingbox itself, though longterm that would be a more costly and less weight-efficient solution.

As for the 787-3, takeup has actually been pretty good on it, considering its still not due for several years. The cancellation rumors have come from Boeing delaying it, to focus more resources on getting the 787-8 out on time:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/22/22...


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By Amiga500 on 4/13/2008 10:55:15 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, the spar web on wingbox is being beefed up...but its not the huge problem you make it out to be.

Its weight growth in a central component, and as you may, or may not know, it snowballs.

For example, if this (central wingbox) weighs an extra tonne or 2, then the wing has to be able to handle that, which may mean the wing spars have to be strengthened = more weight, and that all feeds back resulting in a yet higher wingbox requirement.

Your right, in that it may turn out to be ok and reasonably simple (compared to what it could be) if they have a sufficient tolerance for added weight in the wing structures. Or, they are wiling to sacrifice payload and/or range to get the thing flying - which will mean performance penalties.

If not, it will become an absolute nightmare requiring a full wing and wingbox structure redesign - with possible knock on to the undercarriage and tailplanes.

Engineering-wise, its a fairly simple operation....it could in fact be done without any changes to the base wingbox itself, though longterm that would be a more costly and less weight-efficient solution.

The existing airframes are being strengthened with aluminum additions. But, they are only the test frames I believe, and some/all of them won't be delivered to actual customers.

Basically, Boeing can get away with substandard performance in these first few. But when it comes time to deliver to airlines, they have to deliver on the contracts or else they'll be in the same trouble McAir were with the MD-11.


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By Desslok on 4/13/2008 12:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Again Amiga500, I ask do you have any articles to back up your claim for the 787-3 being canceled? Or is it your typical doom and gloom posting?

I am curious, did you bash Airbus when the A380 was delayed several times? Remind me again how many airlines DID cancel their orders for the A380, because unlike you I have the articles to back up that statement.


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By Amiga500 on 4/13/2008 12:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
I did ask which particular part you wanted a link for :-|

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/22/22...

Talk about it briefly. There are also loads of rumours floating around within the industry.

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/04/10/bus...

"Boeing indefinitely delayed deliveries of the 787-3 model"

Note, I have not said at any stage that it IS cancelled, just that things are starting to point that direction.

I'm sure you'll point out where exactly I've bashed Boeing for the 787.

(Not the KC-767 - totally different kettle of fish)


RE: More LIES from Boeing.
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
I read (somewhere, no quote) that they'd need to add about 200kg in a few additional stiffners and a load of fastners to increase the buckling resistance of the center wing box spar webs... it's what happens when you design a part before you've finished testing the material. And as was pointed out, the rest of the a/c is bolted to the center wing box - so it's one of the parts that needs to get out first.
Adding local reinforcement to a structural part is not a really big problem. You don't need to redesign it immediately and it doesn't need to interfere with the schedule (like redisigning a wiring harness does (a380))
Just like Airbus beefed up their wing locally after their ultimate load test failed 2% to low, boeing adds some reinforcement after the definitive allowables are released. No biggie

BTW, the static and fatigue tests so far showed most of the structure to be much stronger than predicted... you win some, you lose some.


Do they still teach math in Japan?
By 91TTZ on 4/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By CubicleDilbert on 4/12/2008 12:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, they do!

But Japanese count in decimal systems, like the rest of the world. When you convert to inches, pounds, stones and miles some bizzare conversion errors occur.

That's why the Japanese carbon frame only just has fitted to the American parts. About 5mm off, and Seattle has to deal with those "minor annoyances". Maybe they just need to press the parts hard together to fit. That's what the car mechanics did to my car repair. :-(


RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By kmmatney on 4/12/2008 8:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess that Boeing would be all metric nowadays. The U.S. automakers have already gone metric.


RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By pauldovi on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
By ernhamDjinn on 4/14/2008 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
yeah and anyone who doesn't speak English is a worthless piece of garbage too, right ?


By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
boeing still designs imperial planes. It's inches, pounds and psi all over.

at least, the 747-8 project is.


RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By rcc on 4/14/2008 7:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what the car mechanics did to my car repair. :-(


lol. Force to fit, file to hide, paint to cover.


RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/12/2008 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
I think they are just expressing their frustrations with the delays.

If they were counting on the Dreamliner to replace existing, older planes, the delays may then force ANA to buy additional airframes that they didn't count on (let's say, Airbus A330s) to fill the gap caused by the Dreamliner delays.

According to Bloomberg, Continental Airlines had to order eight 777s and 19 737s after the SECOND delay was announced for the Dreamliner program.

Quantas has to lease planes to fill the gap, and other airlines are asking for $$$ for the delays.

Boeing is really screwing the pooch with this on the customer relations front. ANA just wants some answers and Boeing doesn't seem to be delivering.


RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By eye smite on 4/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Do they still teach math in Japan?
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
the 777 is a exception that proves the rule. It is stell beeing touted (after 10 years) as the proof that aircraft can be designed on time... offcourse no (large commercial) airplane since has been delivered according to the original schedule...


By eye smite on 4/15/2008 10:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's so very typical that I get rated down by the children on this site for stating facts. All you haters can just blow me.


By CubicleDilbert on 4/14/2008 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Give Boeing a break, will you?

I mean, the 787 is their very first new airplane in 13 years. They start from scratch again. I assume all the experienced staff from the Boeing 777 in 1990 has retired already.

Boeing is a rookie again in new airliners, to be honest.

There is a reason that USAF chose Airbus, although Boeing publicly hammered the news that they are the most experienced tanker designer.
Yeah, right, that was in the 1950s when they delivered the tankers!
That's 50 years ago.


Too many cooks spoiling the broth?
By qdemn7 on 4/12/2008 10:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Could Boeing's problem be that they tried to please too many other countries governments? By that I mean outsourcing the fabrication of too many components, rather than doing most of the fabrication and construction right there is Washington?

I don't know, I'm asking. Anyone more knowledgeable of aviation issues care to comment?




By drwho9437 on 4/12/2008 11:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
No. The "other countries" are mostly Japan, for composite manufacture. Boeing doesn't have the facilities to do that on a large scale. As all the 7x7 planes were Aluminum. The good news is they have sold a huge number of them. I think the A380 also suffered from the fact that well... That isn't what the market most needed. I think the 787 is more in line with the market.


By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's the other way around. Other coutries govs (japan and italy) tried to please boeing. They (the govs) invested huge sums so their industry could produce the parts boeing needed (composite fuselage barrels have some pretty unigue requirements, manufactoring wise...)

I'd also like to draw some attention to the fact that those countries that are manufactoring large parts of the 787 are also the only customers for the kc767... I'm not claiming anything, just noticing


Long Design Cycle
By flgt on 4/12/2008 6:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like one of the posts had the 777 development back in the mid-90's so that's 10-15 years between major new developments. I work for a vendor on the program and we basically followed the same cycle. Most of the previous new development was completed in the mid to late 90's, followed by the recession and 9/11. The taps weren't turned back on for new R&D until a few years ago. With layoffs/early retirements leading to experienced people leaving, you have new groups of people taking on the programs. Now you have the complex logistics to get this thing designed and manufactured. Add to that you have to incorporate a decade of technology improvements that have to be designed into an aircraft for the first time. In the end there is going to be struggles but I'm glad to see a new development happening on both the Airbus and Boeing sides. You just have to roll up your sleeves and get through it no matter what the naysayers believe.




RE: Long Design Cycle
By Dom on 4/12/2008 9:00:58 PM , Rating: 1
I was just looking at the cockpit of that plane. It's amazing. 777 came out in 94 so this one is way ahead in the technology curve. Heads up displays that are fully customizable. Even has a mouse pad. Once all the pieces come to Boeing it will take 3 days to fully assemble one. I think the 777 took 14 to 17 days. It's not really Boeings fault. Some companies are behind. Boeing will only put the plane together once it gets all the pieces.

It's very hard to make a plane. Can't just rush it out like the auto makers do. Never buy the first years model.


RE: Long Design Cycle
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but it is boeing's fault. The plane was designed maostly by other companies, but using boeing practices and under boeing supervision.
I do agree that's it is a huge challenge they set themselves. desining an almost all-composite plane after historically running behind on the composite content on their planes. Using an intercontinental supply chain, where they usually could rely on nationally produced parts. A huge challenge.
They basically attemp (and largly succeed) to take over airbus's lead position of the last few years.


Seriously?
By RjBass on 4/12/2008 1:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why the doom & gloom post? I heard all about this yesterday and it's really not that bad. Boeings stocks actually rose yesterday and financial outlooks are all still positive. This recent setback with the Dreamliner was predicted awhile ago and was just finally made official yesterday. Investors and shareholders all knew this was coming.




RE: Seriously?
By ikkeman on 4/13/2008 1:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but do they really realize the effects. I think shareholders and stockmarkets are generally a bad indicator of what's really going on (what with all the bubbles popping and overinflation of stocks)
Boing just announced to 50? customers of 800? planes they'll have to find a solution for their fleet expansion plans for 6 months.
It may not affect most, since they'd had to wait aq few years for their production slots anyway, but early customers are in quite a pickle.
They won't be getting their new super plane, but I'll bet you quite a few lease contracts run out. These leased aircraft already have new customers, so an extension is either not an option, or an expensive one.
Like airbus with their A380 delay, boeing will have to bear some of these additional costs.


By Strunf on 4/14/2008 6:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's time to create a new one...

This point would be given when in a news completely unrelated to Europe, a user ends up posting a comment about how bad socialism and free health care within the EU sucks.

I know on dailytech a lot of points would be given each day but it's time to start it.

In order to give most a chance to get it masher's comments wouldn't count.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki