Posted on 11/29/2010 6:32:17 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing Dreamliner 'a failure', says Qatar Airways boss
The chief executive of Qatar Airways has criticised Boeing over delays to the 787 Dreamliner, reportedly saying that it has "clearly failed".
Akbar Al Baker said he had been "taken aback" by the problems that have plagued the delivery of the aircraft, the Reuters news agency reported.
Meanwhile, Boeing has announced it is revising its schedule after a fire on a test flight earlier this month.
It had hoped to begin delivering the plane at the start of next year.
'Foreign debris'
Production of 787s is about three years behind schedule, with delays mainly a result of the supply and fitting of parts.
A test flight had to be aborted on 9 November after a fire broke out on board. Boeing has blamed a piece of "foreign debris" in a power panel.
Qatar Airways has ordered a minimum of 30 Dreamliners, with the first due to be delivered in the last quarter of next year.
Speaking at a news conference in Paris, Mr Al Baker said he had not expected such delays from Boeing, because the US-based company had "pride in its quality".
"They have very clearly failed," he added.
He added that Qatar Airways was considering buying more Airbus A380s on top of the five already ordered from Boeing's arch-rival.
Mr Al Baker was also critical of Bombardier of Canada, which has been trying to break Boeing's and Airbus' stranglehold of the airliner production business.
He said Qatar Airways had been forced to cancel a planned order for the company's C-Series planes in July over concerns about their engines.
"If they do not roll up their sleeves pretty fast then the [new Airbus A320] NEO will eclipse
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
“Have you seen the commemorative stamps “Qatar, leader in aviation technology?”
....you never will.”
lol. So true, so true. They are the biggest babies.
Ah, I see the problem now.
You figure they’d all-around measure in feet and inches, not meters and centimeters.
Don’t like Airbuses. They sound like they’re having a structural failure when their gear retracts.
“The management fad known as outsourcing is responsible.”
LOL! It has taken down more than one big project without saving a penny.
Boeing was never, in this or any project,’in house’.
They have always brought into the ‘house’ the vast majority of what they assemble.
So they didn’t ‘farm out’ that which they never had.
Also, there is a reason there are only two major Aircraft assemblers in the world. No one else can afford it. Nor can Boeing or even Airbus afford to ‘bring in’ all the work, now do they want it. Others do it better, cheaper, faster. (Capitalism, it’s funny like that. Flexible, shifting, lose, fluid, changing, always.)
Considering that the 747 and many of our military fighter aircraft, among others, have had parts built around the world for decades, your claim doesn’t hold up.
Carbon fiber science and technology aren’t cutting edge anymore. It’s in cheap skis, guys in wood barns in Maine lay and cook their own for racing sailboats that go as fast as they can, as light as they can, in any kind of weather. You know that. It’s all over in light aviation.
It’s the process that is expensive. Setting up the sub contractors, ironing out all the problems. Who has the legs, the pockets, the management and technical labor force to see it though? And, who ever does, wins. Airbus is at least ten years behind with the 787 style, where as they once were in front of Boeing with composite integration.
Anyways, really, we are just down to the large fuselage problem. How long has Airbus been building full composite wings, rudders? 10 years? 15?
All this kvetching about compositting( sp? )a the last remaining part, the fuselage. You’d thing people would want to go back to spruce and dope fabric.
“Outsourcing has proven a failure at least in the airplane-making department.”
“Let’s see..... 1 millimeter = 25.4 inches......or.. wait... is that 1 inch = 25.4 millimeter?”. “What do you think Naching?” “You don’t know either?” “Ah, hell, it’s just a government contract and the state pays us the same regardless... just pick one and let some other fool figure it out down the line if we’re wrong!”
My old high school physics teacher, Mr. Bell, worked on, oddly, a nuclear powered bomber project. ( he had good stories of it ) He used to say ‘Good enough for government work all the time.’
I’ve never enjoyed the airport in Doha much... much prefer Dubai (much more to do in terms of stores, duty free, restaurants, bars etc), and Emirates (usually better service on the not-so-prime routes compared to Qatar).
And (historically) Qatar seemed to more in the Airbus camp than Emirates... based on dozens of flights with each, and the respective aircraft they have provided.
But when all is said and done, Singapore Airlines is still my all time favorite.
These excerpts are taken from the 787 wiki:
Instead of building the complete aircraft from the ground up in the traditional manner, final assembly would employ just 800 to 1,200 people to join completed subassemblies and to integrate systems.[28] Boeing assigned its global subcontractors to do more assembly themselves and deliver completed subassemblies to Boeing for final assembly. This approach was intended to result in a leaner and simpler assembly line and lower inventory,[29] with pre-installed systems reducing final assembly time by three-quarters to three days.And here:s some of the problems they've had:
Although intended to shorten the production process, 787 subcontractors initially had difficulty completing the extra work, because they could not procure the needed parts, perform the subassembly on schedule, or both, leaving remaining assembly work for Boeing to complete as "traveled work".[47][48][49] The 787 Dreamliner's first public appearance was webcast live on July 8, 2007.On September 5 Boeing announced a three-month delay, blaming a shortage of fasteners as well as incomplete software.[50] On October 10, 2007, a second three-month delay to the first flight and a six-month delay to first deliveries was announced due to problems with the foreign and domestic supply chain, including an ongoing fastener shortage, the lack of documentation from overseas suppliers, and continuing delays with the flight guidance software.[51][52][53] Less than a week later, Mike Bair, the 787 program manager was replaced.[54] On January 16, 2008, Boeing announced a third three-month delay to the first flight of the 787, citing insufficient progress on "traveled work".[55] On March 28, 2008, in an effort to gain more control over the supply chain, Boeing announced that it planned to buy Vought Aircraft Industries' interest in Global Aeronautica;[56] the company later agreed to also purchase Vought's North Charleston, S.C. factory.[57]
On April 9, 2008, Boeing officially announced a fourth delay, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and delaying initial deliveries by around 15 months to the third quarter of 2009. The 787-9 variant was postponed to 2012 and the 787-3 variant was to follow with no firm delivery date.[58] On November 4, 2008, the company announced a fifth delay due to incorrect fastener installation and the Boeing machinists strike, stating that the first test flight would not occur in the fourth quarter of 2008.[59][60] After assessing the 787 program schedule with its suppliers,[61] Boeing confirmed on December 11, 2008 that the first flight would be delayed until the second quarter of 2009.[62]
On June 15, 2009, during the Paris Air Show, Boeing said that the 787 would make its first flight within two weeks. However, on June 23, 2009, Boeing announced that the first flight is postponed "due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft".[63][64][65] Boeing provided an updated 787 schedule on August 27, 2009, with the first flight planned to occur by the end of 2009 and deliveries to begin at the end of 2010.[66] The company expects to write off US$2.5 billion because it considers the first three Dreamliners built are unsellable and suitable only for flight tests.[67]
Composite aircraft are going to have to aquire a lot of airtime before I get on one.
Mr. Lear built one with composite wings, the FAA wouldn’t cert it, so he had it out front on display. When he notice the sun had oxidized the paint he got some guys to help push it into the hanger for a waxing. Everywhere they pushed on the wings and nose cone, the carbon composite crumbled to dust, after one year in the sun.
Then there is that thing Raytheon built.
On second thought, I just don’t think I will ever take a ride on one.
The competition was between the A380 and the 787, but it was not a competition of aircraft capacity per se, but was a competition between two future airline strategies.
Would the hub-and-spoke model be continued, where a very large capacity aircraft flying between two large hubs would be advantageous, especially in the near future with landing slots becoming more scarce, or would the point-to-point model become more popular, where more aircraft operate directly between two smaller airports, bypassing the congested hub?
In general, the A350 is larger than the 787, and is meant to replace the A330, A340, and the smallest 777s.
BINGO!
I think with the travel issues and ecconomics this grandstanding is exactly discount manuvering.
Remember airliners are priced in US Dollars.
Gulfstream jets are aluminum, not carbon.
AFAIK, are all, unless you count the disappearing Raytheon Starship, and the soon to be Bombadier Learjet 85.
People forget if something goes wrong with an aircraft there’s nowhere to park it, so it must be better than your car or boat, as ooopsies tend to be game over.
Actually, the Hawker 4000 is carbon, as is the Premier 1a, (and the Hawker 9/8/7 line, I believe). Carbon hulls are not terribly flimsy, and don’t disintegrate on crashes like they were theorized to do once upon a time.
Full disclosure - I work in the aero industry, and have experience at both Hawker Beechcraft and Gulfstream.
My understanding is that an aluminum fuselage section has enough flexibility and give for bolting together parts that are slightly misaligned (on top of having the advantage of pre-fitting aluminum parts as they are riveted for a better fit. This is not possible with a carbon fiber section and you run into real problems when two fuselage sections are designed and built on two different continents and then you try and bolt them together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.