The remarkable airplane that failed.

[Ripsnort]

Boeing's grand vision of making a better A330-200?

The 787 filled a Pax seat gap between that of an A330-200 and a 747-400 with longer legs (less fuel, go farther)

Airbus took a different approach with the A380.

The two did not compete directly with each other but the visions of what airlines really wanted did compete and Boeing had a better vision of future needs.

The 787 used completely new materials in areas that were not used in past airframes in order to reduce fuel consumption at a time when fuel costs were approaching their highest costs for airliners at the time.

Is the 787 a successful program? There are many articles that will show both pro and cons.
Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.

[PR3D4TOR]

Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.

So, kinda like A380?

[DaveBB]

Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.

Please give us a few examples.  I know very little about the 787.  What does it do so well?

[Zimme83]

787 cut fuel cost significantly, up to 20%, so its a very successful design. Problems lies in the fact that Boeing outsourced the quality- and assembly control. the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.

[Rich46yo]

No, it's an illustration of an A330NEO. Delta Airlines became the first buyer of this updated A330 in November last year.

Yeah I know what it is. The 787 is no ones answer to the A330 but a completely new design with revolutionary features that was meant to replace other Boeing airplanes. Not a A330Neo that wasnt even a pipe dream when Boeing sat down and designed the DreamLiner. The reason for that is its the 330 Neo thats the "stop gap" to keep Ab in the game until they can get their own new design, the A350, off the ground.

Even then AB had proposed the 330Neo as the alternative to the 787 but the airlines would have none of it.

The Boeing 787 when it was announced was purported to be a direct threat to the Airbus A330, with lower operating costs through new innovative technology. Airbus initially rejected these claims by Boeing, stating that the Boeing 787 was itself a reaction to the popular A330, no further reaction was necessary. Boeings aim was to achieve a 20 per cent fuel saving against its aging Boeing 767 offering. A new age in aviation was dawning and potential Airbus customers applied pressure for airbus to come up with a new design to counter the 787 threat.

Bending to pressure Airbus proposed a modified version of the A330, the A330 Lite. The modifications consisted of upgraded aerodynamics, and engines similar to those used on the Boeing 787. They intended to announce this new offering at the Farnborough Airshow in 2004, but never did.

http://modernairliners.com/Airbus_A350_files/History.html

16 September 2004: Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and CEO, intimated that a new project was under consideration but failed to give a name to it. No clarity was given to whether this was to be a derivative design or a clean slate new concept design. Airbus customers were clearly not satisfied, so Airbus committed EUR4 Billion to the new A350 project. Still resembling the A330, particularly the fuselage, the new design incorporated a new wings and horizontal stabilisers, as well as new composite materials and manufacturing methodology. Essentially it was new aircraft design now.

This is my last post in this thread. Its tiring enough to discuss something with someone who is so consistently wrong but when they are both to pig headed to admit it, and are also one of those "have to have the last word" types? They become insufferable.

[Patches1]

the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.

No, sir, the problem with the 787 program is that from it's inception, 787 Management did not want to hear the word, "no",  from any of it's engineers, or mechanics. As a result of this philosophy, the 787 program has been a huge loss to the Boeing Company financially. During this time, The Boeing Company also adopted a theory that a manager, at any level, does not have to know how to perform the jobs of the people he/she manages, just that he/she can convince a higher level manager that he/she knows how to manage people. The result of this management philosophy has produced a problem plagued 787 that was 5 years behind in delivery dates, and influenced other programs, as well, and they, also, fell well behind their delivery dates.

The 787 Program is not an example of how to build a modern aircraft, but rather, it is the epitome of how NOT to build a modern aircraft, especially at the management level.

[Ripsnort]

787 cut fuel cost significantly, up to 20%, so its a very successful design. Problems lies in the fact that Boeing outsourced the quality- and assembly control. the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.

Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!

And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.

Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)

Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. 

[PR3D4TOR]

Yeah I know what it is. The 787 is no ones answer to the A330 but a completely new design with revolutionary features that was meant to replace other Boeing airplanes. Not a A330Neo that wasnt even a pipe dream when Boeing sat down and designed the DreamLiner.

What older Boeing aircraft do you think the 787 is designed to replace? The 777 is still in production and is considerably larger. The 767 and 757 are both considerably smaller with shorter range. You'll note that I said the A330-200 from the mid-1990s. The NEO is the upgrade to meet the competition from the B787. Let's take a look at the specifications of the 20 year old A330-200 and the B787-8 and -9

Specs from wikipedia           A330-200 / B787-8 / B787-9 (stretched)

Seating     253-406 / 242-381 / 280-420

Length      193 ft / 186 ft / 206 ft

Wingspan      197 ft 10 in / 197 ft 3 in / 197 ft 3 in

Fuselage width   18 ft 6 in / 18 ft 11 in / 18 ft 11 in

Maximum takeoff weight     534,000 lb / 502,500 lb / 557,000 lb

Empty weight     263,700 lb / 259,500 lb / 304,000 lb

Maximum range, fully loaded     7,200 nmi / 7,850 nmi / 8,300 nmi

Maximum fuel capacity   36,740 US gal / 33,340 US gal / 36,641 US gal


For a 20 year old plane the A330-200 is remarkably similar to the "completely new design with revolutionary features" B787. No wonder the A330 is still selling. The B787 is lighter and uses less fuel, but that's to be expected from a plane two decades younger with newer engines and construction. The A330neo will narrow the gap considerably with its newer engines and up to 440 seats giving it more range and better fuel economy, even if that is no longer as critical since the oil price is but a fraction of what it was only a couple of years ago.

[Toad]

In the end, any Airbus is still an Airbus.

Their computerized flight management system programming laws suck. Their side sticks with no feedback to the other stick suck. Their power levers that don't move when the computer is adding or subtracting power suck.

Friends don't let friends fly Airbus.

It's not that the plane isn't any good. It's that the French idea of how that plane should operate in relation to its pilots sucks. Falcon has some of the same problems because…..it's French.

[PR3D4TOR]

Pilots who have flown both tend to disagree with you on that Toad. Like these gentlemen over at airliners.net:

As a pilot, who has flown A320's I can add this. I transitioned from Boeings, albeit not fly by wire. Getting used to the Airbus sidestick took me 15 mins in the simulator. After that, everything was intuitive. The Airbus is really easy to fly. That is the Airbus philosophy. Everything that TangoWhiskey says about both manufacturers philosophy is completely true. Given that, I think the Airbus way is safer and better.

I transitioned from flying Boeings for several years (757/767 then 737) onto the Airbus and like Aviator27 was comfortable with flying using the sidestick in 10-15 minutes during the first simulator session.

The Airbus has many advantages from a pilot perspective. I am now flying the Boeing again (744) but do miss the Airbus - by far it was the best aircraft I ever flew and I look forward to hopefully flying it again one day.

YMMV of course and I'm sure there are pilots who prefer the Boeings.

[Karnak]

Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!

And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.

Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)

Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. 

Welcome to the MBAification of American industry.  Putting people in charge of companies who have no knowledge of said company's products, be they aircraft, banking services or pickles, but just generic business knowledge.  After all, making an airplane is the same as making a washing machine, right?  What could go wrong....

[PR3D4TOR]

They sound absolutely distraught that this bumbling monster is coming to ruin their airport.

[Toad]

Well, they may like that independent side stick but it was clearly a factor in AF 447 going into the drink.

It's simply bad engineering. An OK idea that was stupidly implemented.

Note that the new Gulfstream 500s and 600s do have side sticks BUT…they feedback to the other.

Proper implementation; that's the difference between Boeing and Airbus. (Gulfstream pretty much mimics Boeing engineering.)

[PR3D4TOR]

Both pilots should never have their hands on the stick at the same time. One pilot has command, or the other, not both. That crew made so many insane mistakes it boggles the mind.

Btw. That was an A330-200 flying non-stop from Rio to Paris with 228 pax on board. A trip worthy of Boeing's all new revolutionary design...



It was also the A330's second accident, and the first fatal accident with pax aboard after 15 years of service (the first was a test flight). In 2010 there was another fatal accident, the third and so far the last for the A330, after 20 years of service and 1,174 aircraft produced. You'd be hard pressed to find any airliner with a similar service length that has a better safety record.

[zack1234]

Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!

And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.

Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)

Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. 

You work for Boeing?