backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by hellokeith.. on Dec 19 at 3:53 PM

Boeing 787 Dreamliner first flight now slated for Q2 2009

Aviation giant Boeing has been talking about its 787 Dreamliner for a long time now. Delays have plagued the program and pushed the first flight and commercial launch over Boeings original deadlines.

Unfortunately, for Boeing, things aren't getting better for its timetable. CNET News reports that Boeing announced on Thursday the first flight and first delivery schedule was again going to be delayed. This delay has the first flight of the massive 787 happening in Q2 2009 and the delivery of the first aircraft in Q1 2010.

Before revising the dates again, Boeing had expected the first flight to be Q4 2008 and the first delivery of the aircraft in Q3 2009. The last time delays were announced; Boeing blamed issues with the 787's brakes. Boeing points the finger directly at a machinists’ strike this time that shut the program down from early September to November of 2008.

Boeing certainly needs to get the aircraft complete and if anyone doubts that the Dreamliner will happen, even Boeing rival Airbus believes in the project. CNET News cites a report by Airbus that was inadvertently released showing that Bowings biggest competitor understands the soundness of the 787 program.

The Dreamliner is one of the largest commercial aircraft projects to come from Boeing in a long time. Images of the very first Dreamliner sans paint hit the web in June of 2007. The first public unveiling was held on July 8, 2007 (7-8-7, get it?) to a crowd of 15,000 onlookers. Boeing maintained that the Dreamliner was on schedule in October of 2007, but mere days later the same month Boeing announced the first delay for the project.

In early 2008 reports began to circulate that the 787 had a network vulnerability with some claims that the aircraft's network could be compromised using the in-seat Internet access. Further delays were announced in January 2008 with the blame falling on suppliers that were behind schedule.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Mitch101 on 12/12/2008 1:31:16 PM , Rating: 5
I think this YouTube shows there would be demand.

AirTraffic Worldwide 24 hours
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBwjQsOEeg


By Moishe on 12/12/2008 2:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
Man, I don't know how they get that map or how accurate it is... but it's impressive.


By Spivonious on 12/12/2008 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is really neat! I never imagined there were so many planes crossing the Atlantic.


By PrinceGaz on 12/12/2008 8:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
So are there really more flights criss-crossing Europe than over the US and A? I thought everyone in the US and A used planes to get from one state to another as there is no high-speed rail-network except in a few coastal regions, whilst across most of mainland Europe there is a modern efficient high-speed rail-network (with speeds in the 160-190mph region) that is just as fast once check-in times etc are included as air-travel for most journeys of up to a thousand miles or so (and much faster than short-haul flights of just a few hundred miles).

In any case, air-travel pollution needs to be reduced if we are to have any hope of meeting future carbon-emission targets, and airliners which are more efficient are a step in the right direction (but a bigger and better step would be major investment in more long-distance high-speed rail links, and nuclear-power plants to power them along with all other base-load electricity demand).


By Cascaderanger on 12/13/2008 3:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
Theres nothing wrong with improving efficiency & reducing polution. The Dreamliner is going to do those things, but it wont save the planet. Leave that to the Goreacle. (shudder)

High speed or even moderate speed, electric rail transport= a good thing. Rail is the way to go. Cargo or passenger; rail wins over truck/bus or air every time. Air is just faster, more convenient. You pay for that convenience with fuel costs.


By grath on 12/14/2008 9:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Rail seems a natural and logical choice for a major jobs/infrastructure program by the incoming administration. Roads are good and they definetly need work, but even newly widened and properly maintained roads are relatively quickly outgrew again. A modern interstate rail system would provide a greater long term economic benefit to the country than would overhauling the interstate highway network.


By Spivonious on 12/15/2008 9:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I hope Obama realizes that a high-speed rail network between the major cities would be enormously successful.

Imagine going from Philadelphia to Boston in 3 hours, or L.A. to Seattle in 5. Sure it's still a bit slower than flying, but you don't have to get to the train station two hours before your flight.


By quiksilvr on 12/12/2008 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 5
The 787 is roughly 25% more efficient than the 777. So YES, there IS demand for this.


By Samus on 12/12/2008 6:45:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The 787 is roughly 25% more efficient than the 777. So YES, there IS demand for this.


Exactly. The additional efficiency and cargo space makes the 787 absolutely neccessary for logistics. FedEx/UPS/DHL will purchase hundreds of these planes.


By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 4:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
what extra cargo space - 787 is smaller than the 777, and the first 787 freighters are likely 10 years in the future


By Chernobyl68 on 12/15/2008 11:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
how does the 787 compare to a DC-10/MD-11 for size? FedEx planes are pretty good sized for the most part.


By ikkeman2 on 12/16/2008 3:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
787 is smaller

fedex/UPS go for bulk: 747-8F and 777F


By Amiga500 on 12/16/2008 4:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Errr.... at the moment its on track to undershoot that.

There has been significant weight growth in a number of areas that Boeing are struggling to bring back down.

But, in saying that, it will still be a substantial improvement over the 777 in seat-mile costs*.

*Excluding maintenance, I'm not sure how that is going to work out for them... and to be honest, I'm pretty sure Boeing aren't 100% either.


By Alexstarfire on 12/12/2008 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked there was a pretty big demand. The flight I was on was completely booked. With the vast increase in space and fuel savings I'm sure this may hopefully help them. It's not like the flights are cheap after all.


By fflintstone on 12/12/2008 5:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
Umm. You can't use fullness of flights to judge demand. The airlines, for obvious business reasons, juggle their schedules and booking policies in an attempt to always fly full flights. If demand goes down, they drop flights; if demand goes up, they add flights. They've gotten much better at this in recent years as margins have gotten tighter.


By Alexstarfire on 12/13/2008 5:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
That's true, but my point remains valid. They'd have to run less flights with a Dreamliner, which means that they would in turn not need as many pilots, which saves them money.


By cheetah2k on 12/14/2008 8:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of saving money, I really hope Qantas negotiated an AUD$ contract with Boeing, and prepaid the majority of costs prior to delivery. If they didnt, they will be making a considerable loss on earnings as the AUD vs USD rate has changed substantially (by around 30%), which would in turn increase the cost of each aircraft purchased.

At least the fuel price has fallen, so maybe we can start to see savings on the cost of international flights <fingers, legs and eyeballs crossed>


By timmiser on 12/15/2008 2:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
In any international business, most any terms and conditions will include a clause that protects the seller from currency flucuations so even if a contract was negotiated in AUD, a clause would be included to protect Boeing from currency flucuations. Boeing builds and sells airplanes, they are not in the business of taking currency risks.


By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 4:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
false, the 787 is aimed at incresing the number of flights, so you get 767 sized a/c flying 777 routes. This allows the operators more flexibility in dropping/adding flights (smaller increments) and in more usable (smaller) airfields.
They would need more pilots and burn more fuel per flight - Boeings promise is that their new engines and carbon airframe will produce sufficient fuel economy benefits to offset the higher number of flights


By bjacobson on 12/12/2008 2:00:45 PM , Rating: 3
1). Lots of airliners' planes reaching end of life, repairs getting expensive.
2). Fuel economy savings (not as important right now, but will be in the long run. It's something like 20% more fuel efficient.

They've got a list of buyers 3 years deep. They're just making sure they get it all right. Nobody has done what they're doing now with all these composites.


By Cuddlez on 12/12/2008 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 5
According to Boeing(1) the 767 consumes 17,220 gallons in 10 hours with a current price of ~$2 per gallon of fuel(2) that gives us $34,440 per 10 hr flight. Assuming the flight has 250 people that is $137.76 per person for fuel. The 787 then, at 20% more efficiency, would use 13,776 gallons in 10 hrs giving us $27,552 per flight. Passengers pay (again assuming 250): $110.21 for fuel. So we save $27 per ticket. (Of course as gas fuel costs increase that money savings we see will increase also)

Just for fun let's contrast that with the 747. Given that a 747 burns about 36,000 gallons of fuel in a 10 hr flight carrying 500 people(3). that is $72,000 in fuel costs alone. So each person is paying $144 for fuel for the flight. Not too bad considering the 787 would have to make the trip twice to get the same amount of people to the destination.

References:
1. http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/FuelC...
2. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monito...
3. http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm


By Cuddlez on 12/12/2008 3:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Woops, I meant for this to be under ralith's post


By lagomorpha on 12/12/2008 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Not too bad considering the 787 would have to make the trip twice to get the same amount of people to the destination."

To be fair the 747 is a 40 year old design, though there are some economies of scale that should benefit it.


By jevans64 on 12/14/2008 6:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
The 747-8 should be available by 2011 to compete with the Airbus A380. It will carry 467 passengers and use NX-2B ( a higher-thrust version of the ones in the 787 ) engines. The Boeing site says that it will have a 19% trip cost and 4% seat-mile cost advantage over the A380.

The Airbus A350 will compete with the Boeing 787.


By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 4:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
within countries and regions. So it's aimed at flights within USA and flights within Europe...


false, The 787 is targeted at moving those smaller number per flight intercontinentally. it's supposed to fly 777 routes with 767 pax, opening up smaller, lower demand aiports around the world.


By Solandri on 12/13/2008 11:06:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
is there such a demand for international flights that Boeing felt the urgency to create and produce the 787?

or are the delays simply their excuse for waiting for market demand again?
There is plenty of demand. The 787 has more pre-orders than any other plane in history. They've got 895 firm orders right now. The total production run on the 767 (the plane it's replacing) was only 967 in 26 years. The only Airbus aircraft model which has sold more planes in their entire history is the A320 family. Once they get production going, the 787 looks poised to become the best-selling commercial widebody plane in history, eclipsing the 747 (~1400 built).

Boeing is very anxious to begin commercial production so they can start filling those orders. These delays cause them to lose money on the first batch of pre-orders. The contracts for those planes stipulate Boeing will deliver by a certain date, with financial concessions for any delays. Every time the schedule slips, their initial customers have to pay less for the planes.


By ralith on 12/12/2008 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The carbon-composite aircraft, promising 20 percent fuel savings, has been a huge success with airlines which have ordered 896 planes worth nearly $150 billion at list prices.


source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUS...

I would think a 20% fuel savings would pay for the aircraft quite fast, but I have to admit I've not done the math. But I'm sure someone on this site probably will given enough time and interest.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/12/2008 2:50:55 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I would think at least 20% faster. Of course if they hold more people then more tickets can be sold, more shipping room for cargo and more booze carts - to sell more drinks during the flight. There are lots of reasons why these planes would pay for themselves faster then the older models....


By Raidin on 12/12/2008 1:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
The current fleet of aircrafts in service in the airline and air cargo industry are mostly quite old and inefficient compared to what can be built today.

Whether it's accurate or not, Wikipedia cites that 895 787s are currently on order.


By Moishe on 12/12/2008 2:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
I know you know that this plane was in design and build phase LONG before the economic crisis... Plus it is efficient and a good step forward.

This is like Boeing's "Volt" (maybe a little less important). They need it, air travel needs it.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 7:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
I bet it can go 40 miles without using fuel, too. 8 down, 32 over....


By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 5:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
sqrt(8^2+32^2)=33...


By foolsgambit11 on 12/16/2008 8:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm well aware that the plane would actually have to cover sqrt(40^2-8^2) = 39.19 miles over the ground for it's distance traveled to be 40 miles. But '8 down, 39 over' doesn't have the same comedic punch.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/2008 6:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...one has to wonder about the wisdom of putting out the ubermensch of airplanes right now.


You don't see THEM asking for a bailout, do you ?


By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 7:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
True. But they get plenty of government support, from Washington State laws, regulations, and tax breaks, to Washington, D.C. protectionism in Defense contracts, &c. Not to say Detroit hasn't gotten many of the same deals. But I fail to see the difference between a loan on (really) good terms and other methods of government intervention.


By d08 on 12/15/2008 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of orders for the 787 (910 firm orders according to WP), actually the ubermensch plane is the A380 (787 is midsized). Airlines have to think a few steps ahead, many won't be delivered until 2011. There's also the issue of the decommissioned aircraft so a renewal process is necessary. Fuel prices are low, people need to getaway specially when the times are hard, air travel is still globally growing despite the west having a rough patch. Recessions generally last 2-3 years, its not the end of the world.


Impressive
By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 7:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe the machinists at Boeing had the huevos to strike for the last couple months. They've got some Grade A Large Eggs.

And I'm not anti-union, fyi.




RE: Impressive
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2008 8:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
I am. Just another example of unions holding a company hostage. That union struck because an average of a 14% pay increase wasn't enough. Do you know who gets a 14% pay increase? No one. And they said it wasn't enough.


RE: Impressive
By foolsgambit11 on 12/12/2008 8:46:02 PM , Rating: 5
Senior executives?

But seriously, they got a 15% pay increase over 4 years. Which means they are getting a 3.56% increase annually. That's probably a little high, and not politically smart in these tough economic times, but it's not a ridiculous pay increase.

I mean, if I said my job got a 250% pay increase, you'd say that was ridiculous. If that was over a 35 year career, that would be an annual 2.65% pay increase. Not a big deal. Especially once inflation is added in (average annual inflation, for example, 1972-2007: 4.68%).


RE: Impressive
By Ringold on 12/13/2008 7:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(average annual inflation, for example, 1972-2007: 4.68%).


Nice way to cherry pick a range of data that includes Nixon and Carter's incompetence as well as Greenspans own follies. Deflation currently reigns; whether or not Volcker makes himself heard in the Obama administration will be a coin toss.

Regardless, to both you and the other poster, real income has been rising despite this inflation, as has savings rates (slowly, painfully). If anyone really thinks we've been flat in purchasing power since the 70s, then they don't know how the average individual lived in the 70s. And don't pull out household income stats, because what Democrats dont tell you is that households have been shrinking, thus making that data nearly useless without correcting for that.


RE: Impressive
By foolsgambit11 on 12/14/2008 6:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Um... cherry pick? I picked the most recent 35 years for which there was data. Are you naive enough to think that inflation rates are always going be under 3%? Even during the Clinton years, when inflation was consistently very low, we're looking at 2.54% average inflation.

What makes you say deflation currently reigns? The most recent numbers - October 2008 - show 3.7% inflation. That's higher than any point in Clinton's 8 years, save the March & June 2000 numbers, which were a tenth of a point higher and tied, respectively. Every other month - all 94 of them - annualized inflation was lower. But we never had deflation. There is a downward trend to the current numbers, true, and the faltering economy is definitely contributing to an overall slowdown, but given Obama's desire to pump large amounts of money into the system through government programs, I think we can be fairly confident that we won't see any prolonged period of deflation.

As for household worth, what you failed to mention is the increase in the number of hours worked per household, including the increase in households with two working parents. Not to mention the fact that, if you hold all things equal and just reduce the number of people in a household, then the household should be richer, since they would have fewer expenses from child rearing or taking care of elderly family members. The point being, of course the numbers are difficult to interpret, and I leave it to the professionals (hooray appeal to authority!).


RE: Impressive
By Ringold on 12/16/2008 3:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um... cherry pick? I picked the most recent 35 years for which there was data.


But why 35? Could've used 50. Data is available at FRED going back to 1913. If the Fed does its job, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume inflation under 3% as a long run average.

quote:
What makes you say deflation currently reigns? The most recent numbers - October 2008 - show 3.7% inflation.


Eh, what? October deflated, even core, and this mornings November data was flat on the core with deflation again in the headline number. bls.gov is your friend. :P

I think you were looking at year-over-year with that 3.7 number, I'm looking far more granular.


RE: Impressive
By foolsgambit11 on 12/16/2008 8:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
35 years because that's about how long the average working career is. As an added bonus, that puts us in the post-gold standard era, so we're comparing apples to apples when looking at inflation numbers. Even so, since 1913, the average inflation rate has been just over 3.6%. So the Boeing machinists negotiated 3.56% annual increase is still below historic inflation rates.

As for your granular look, explain why that's best. The annualized number removes the effect of the ridiculous price bubble over the summer. The annualized numbers are seasonally adjusted. bls.gov releases the year-on-year numbers, too, by the way, not just the monthly number. It was (+) 1.1% for November. Not only that, but they show that transportation and energy are the sectors that kept the numbers as low as they are. -9.8% and -17% month-on-month change for November. Other than those numbers (and a tenth of a point drop in housing), we were looking at a pretty stable economy.

The month-to-month numbers are a great help to the Fed and others responsible for monetary policy. As for actually judging things like the purchasing power of your salary... not as good. Additionally, to compare with the annual inflation numbers we were talking about to begin with... not so good. Let's compare numbers that are actually comparable, and stick to the annualized numbers.


RE: Impressive
By Cascaderanger on 12/13/2008 4:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that 14% figure was over three years. Even if it wasn't, The offer they had was poisoned on the 'backside' with higher medical benefit costs, much higher. Enough so to destroy the supposedly 'good' 14% pay increase.

14% divided over three years is 4.67%. Even if it was immediate; would you care to wager that their total pay raise schedule has kept pace with the true cost of living inflation of the past five years?

You're right, probably no one's pay has kept pace with whats happen to food, housing & energy costs in that time.

If true inflation is in the 6-9% range, and you get 2.5% annually; then over time you are getting wage devaluation, i.e. hosed. It's happening to a lot of Americans these days. That doesn't mean they should like it.

I know there's corruption and inefficiency in unions, but faced with no bargaining power or an imperfect system, I'll take the lesser of two evils every time. Just like our elections. :)

Unions are an imperfect collective bargaining lobby for the working class. Big corp. lobbyists have a lot more muscle (money) in most cases.


Hmmm....
By HercDriver on 12/12/2008 4:49:05 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder when Boeing will make its LAST airplane model. After all, they only have 797 left, and then they've used up their series. I guess they are done after that ;)




RE: Hmmm....
By Murloc on 12/12/2008 5:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
they will change the nomenclatur about 3 times before deciding oa decent one, and will relabel this plane 3 times.


RE: Hmmm....
By AlexWade on 12/13/2008 8:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Why not 7A7, then 7B7, 7C7, 7D7, 7E7, 7F7, then 808?


RE: Hmmm....
By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 5:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
they'll just restart. 707, 717, 727 and 757 are out of production now, so those numbers are available. 737 will be out in 15 years, 747 might be gone before that. 767 is gone depending on the tanker contract


RE: Hmmm....
By Jedi2155 on 12/15/2008 4:43:31 PM , Rating: 3
To quote a famous 1st Officer...
There are "plenty of letters left in the alphabet"


Bummer
By kelmon on 12/15/2008 3:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is not news that my company will like. Having cancelled its orders of AIrbus A380s and instead placed orders for 787s, it looks like we're going to have delays whether we like it or not. Perhaps now we'll go back to buying Airbus A310s while we wait for both companies to get their act together.




RE: Bummer
By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 5:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
fat chance, 310 went out of production.


RE: Bummer
By kelmon on 12/16/2008 4:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
My bad. I guess it'd be the A330 these days for something with comparable cargo space to the A310, which is what we've been buying previously. To be fair, I don't tend to follow these things much but it was interesting to hear about the number of abusive phone calls that the company received to our French offices when it cancelled its A380 orders. The whole reason why we cancelled them was due to the A380 delays and now it looks like we probably could have had them before Boeing gets its act together.


RE: Bummer
By Amiga500 on 12/16/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Eh?

Your running through the whole spectrum of planes.

An A380 does not really compete with a 787, and neither definitely do not compete with a A319!!!


well that's ironic
By yacoub on 12/12/2008 2:26:00 PM , Rating: 3
...that they went with a wired network because it weighs 150lbs LESS than a wireless one would.




RE: well that's ironic
By JoshuaBuss on 12/12/2008 7:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I really can't figure that one out. The only thing that makes sense is they figure the power requirements of the wireless APs would be higher enough to justify additional power equipment, which would be heavier than some cabling..

..but that still seems unlikely.


Whoops
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/12/2008 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CNET News cites a report by Airbus that was inadvertently released showing that Bowings biggest competitor understands the soundness of the 787 program.


I was reading through the article and had to go back and read that twice because I was like, wait that doesn't look right lol

It would be really nice to see Boeing get this airplane out into the field finally. I've flown on many airbus planes in the past few years and I have to say I am far more impressed with them right now then I am Boeing. This used to not be the case and I would like to see Boeing get back on track and hopefully they don't end up in a sitatuion like the auto industry.




RE: Whoops
By Solandri on 12/13/2008 11:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
Most of Airbus' plane designs are newer than Boeing's. In fact in the direct competitor lineup (737 -> A320, 767 -> A330, 747 -> A380), Airbus specifically targeted the existing Boeing models, so they got to fix some of the issues that came to light after the Boeing models went into service. The 777 is really the first Boeing plane designed from the ground up with an Airbus competitor in mind, and it's a really nice plane.

Bear in mind that seats, seating arrangements, and interior trim are determined entirely by the airline, not the manufacturer. Entertainment system is a mix of the two, with the newer planes having better systems simply because electronics and networking have advanced tremendously in the last 20 years.


I would take issue with this...
By Amiga500 on 12/12/2008 4:06:00 PM , Rating: 4
Boeing certainly needs to get the aircraft complete and if anyone doubts that the Dreamliner will happen, even Boeing rival Airbus believes in the project. CNET News cites a report by Airbus that was inadvertently released showing that Bowings biggest competitor understands the soundness of the 787 program.

Airbus are keeping their heads down because they are going through the exact same trouble in a couple of their own projects that have yet to fly.

(Note for the uninformed: Neither is the A380)

(Note 2: Boeings manufacturing problems are not limited to fasteners - indeed, that literally the smallest of their problems)

Every aircraft manufacturer is hitting the same problems, Bombardier are going through it with their C-Series as well. I'm not sure what Embraer are doing with regards composites in principal structural elements, but if they did, using current design practices, they'd be in the same canoe, up the same creek, without a paddle either.

Oh, and I (along with an awful lot of others in the area) are wondering just how maintenance is gonna be carried out on all these composite planes (787, A350 and C-Series - we're equal opportunities skeptics!). If the A350 and C-Series doesn't use fuselage barrels, but frame mounted panels instead, they might be somewhat easier to maintain - at a price of further localised fuselage warpage issues.




Name lives up to it's status
By chmilz on 12/12/2008 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 1
At this point in time, it sure is just a Dream.




RE: Name lives up to it's status
By ikkeman2 on 12/15/2008 5:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
that's why critics call it the nightmare liner


Im surprised
By rudolphna on 12/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Im surprised
By d08 on 12/15/2008 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
So it's actually the consumers fault not the lazy lets-use-our-stuff-from-the-80s GM/F execs? The US car manufacturers motto of building the same thing for 20 years and not spending on R&D is backfiring. GM/F cars don't have any "edge" in the car marketplace - Japanese and nowadays Korean cars are low maintenance and trustworthy, the Germans are luxurious and sporty, the Americans are ...?


Massive?
By timmiser on 12/15/2008 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
first flight of the massive 787


If a 787 is massive, then what is the word to describe an A380?




A350
By jpeyton on 12/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: A350
By hellokeith on 12/19/2008 3:53:57 PM , Rating: 1
oh dear, jpeyton has taken time away from DailyKos, MoveOn, and Anandtech P&N to grace DT with yet more of his asinine strategery.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki