Covering the Call
On Wednesday, September 5 Scott Carson and Mike Bair will be providing a comprehensive 787 program update. The conference call will begin at 10am EST.
I have been invited, along with other members of the media and industry analysts, to join in on the call.
Similar to the July 8th roll out, Flightblogger will the live blog the conference call as it happens to bring the developments on the program to you as they are announced.
Also, there's this little news item worth mentioning:
Boeing mechanics asked to transfer to Wash. plant
Wichita Eagle
Boeing has a need for extra mechanics at its facility in Everett. The 787 Dreamliner program needs an additional 40 mechanics, according to an e-mail to Wichita mechanics.
28 comments:
I hope IAD787 blog us the whole wording of the press conference.
IAD787 you are making a very good job!
Jon - check you grammar.
jon, are you allowed questions and must they be submitted in advance?
If so, we could collect some, perhaps here. Actually, a list of questions might be good for Boeing to see, whether they want to respond or not.
Such as: when was it known that the 7/8/7 event would be with an empty shell? [A May 21 News Release (official) used the present tense in talking about six items coming together for a simple join. Shortly thereafter, the noise about the roll out event started to increase substantially.]
Have there been efforts to really use engineering input in the planning? [That is, let those who are involved with the detail establish what is real versus not in this game which seems to be more marketing in focus than functional engineering.]
Hopefully, mostly for the sake of Boeing shareholders, Messrs Carson and Bair will offer a much more "poised" public performance at next Wednesday's "comprehensive update" than what they turned-in at the 7/8/7 "rollout" of the "Potemkin Plane."
One wonders whether something akin to...1,000 Fasteners, My Kingdom for 1,000 Fasteners...will be the main rationalization offered for possible news of disappointing performance/results in terms of the "industrialisation" of the Dreamliner program? :-)
Leelaw
Sept 5th - "Let the finger pointing begin!"
Boeing has grossly underestimated the risks involved in pursuing this new aircraft. They not only went down a radical unproven design route, they outsourced almost the entire plane to partners who have already proven they can't do the work. Multiple incompatible computers, software, processes, procedures, languages, and documentation systems are turning this program into a nightmare. Throw on top of that a compressed schedule and you have all the ingredients for total failure.
Hey if I were a Boeing mechanic I'd go. I'd love to work on the new plane! :-)
Anonymous wrote
Hey if I were a Boeing mechanic I'd go. I'd love to work on the new plane! :-)
No you wouldn't. Using the Velocity (paperless system)to extract the information you need is madding. Waiting for parts is frustrating and morale sucks!
Velocity? Isn't it funny how system names are picked to illustrate a 'dream' (or is it vapor?) rather than the actual reality?
is morale low because of the 'velocity' system? I'd be interested to hear why this is being said. When it comes down to it, your project can only do as well as your front line employees. If they can't do the job well, don't want to, or don't care, then you will have problems. Its something every company struggles with, I am just wondering why its being said about boeing for the 787 program. IS it the 787 specifically, other issues, unskilled workers, or what?
On May 21, 2007 in a News Release titled (Final Assembly Begins on First Boeing 787 Dreamliner), Boeing used the present tense ("is assembled") to refer to "six major items coming together" as if the thing would be done in 7 weeks, versus the hoped-for 3 days which would happen eventually.
If one reads these types of messages over the past few years, it's easy to get a feel that things have been going rosy. But, what did (or do) we know otherwise to form any doubt? Nice, isn't it?
Yet, a lot of that type of text was erroneous. By design? Or by stupidity? Or both?
In terms of the final assembly, we now know that the pieces were not stuffed. We have heard about other problems. How does one get a true picture?
jon, you have your work cut out for you.
"No you wouldn't. Using the Velocity (paperless system)to extract the information you need is madding. Waiting for parts is frustrating and morale sucks!"
You must be on an Out of Sequence crew... LMAO! Sucks to be you. We at baseline don't have those problems. :)
As a Boeing fan this is all beginning to suck, and I am actually beginning to think that Airbus' nightmare will turn out to be insignificant compared to the Boeing looming catastrophe...
For Boeing fans, it's not so bad. The professionals will pull it off, eventually. How long it takes is really immaterial.
If the plane is allowed to evolve, it'll meet the expectations.
For all, this will be an all-around learning experience of more than a short duration.
Jon how do I email you?
flightblogger (at) gmail (dot) com
I agree with the comment that the professionals will pull it off.
In the history of jet airliners, market timing takes a back seat to getting the products right.
Look at the competition between MD-11, A340, and 777. They reached the market in that order, but eventually 777 dominated the market. In a smaller scale, A340-600 and 777-300ER, the same result.
Boeing should focus on getting the 787 right. Don't take shortcuts.
I would like to announce a site to, initially, allow technical discussion of the 'oops that the 787 must pass (or even has passed) as the time line moves toward delivery.
http://7-oops-7.blogspot.com/
The overarching framework is Truth Engineering.
http://truthengineering.blogspot.com/
There is no intent to limit the discussion to one product, vendor or even just to aviation.
Boeing says the drop test happened successfully on Thursday, and that the "test confirmed their modeling predictions" and do not see any perturbations to schedule or changes due to results of drop test. Couldn't get anyone to say "passed test" just that test confirmed expectations of how the drop of real carbon piece would transpire. With some persistence, seems that they agree that it is fair to conclude that nothing wrong or unexpected happened during test, but clearly under strict marching orders in way they can describe drop test. Anyway it did happen and apparently without problems.
Hard to tell what's happening on call, but Boeing expects that whatever they say will be news. This one is mixed media and wall st analysts alternating rather than first investors then news, a somewhat different method from previous calls.
if they are going to say anything of real news worthiness or material things that are certain to affect stock market, they are likely to put something out from Chicago at 7 am well before opening of stock market--would be unlike them to surprise market with a statement during trading hours.
Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times reports this morning (09/01/07) that (fair use excerpt):
"Boeing is expected to announce Wednesday a further delay in the first flight of its 787 Dreamliner jet — one that could push that milestone into late October or beyond, according to a person close to the program...
...One veteran Boeing engineer said Friday that Boeing may now be paying for a hurried assembly job resulting from the rush to roll out the first jet in a ceremony tied to an artificial, marketing-inspired deadline.
"The 7/8/7 date was for show," he said. "The showmen at Boeing had the upper hand" over the engineers..."
Leelaw
Marketing drove this from the beginning. Too, a gaming mindset seems to have been predominant. Engineers, and issues of reality, were many times secondary - that is, design from aesthetics may be inductive whereas this type of process ought to be abductive (experience as a driver, not wishes).
'passed' on the drop would imply functionally sound, whereas meeting analytic expectations still leaves open the issue of performance (as various interpretative games need to be played, no doubt) of the structure. Flying and time will tell.
It does not sound very good.
Airbus collides with coach at Bangkok airport
[SNIP]
One wing of the plane was slightly damaged. However, the engineers said the engines were not affected and the wing could be repaired in several hours
[/SNIP]
I wonder if this is this an Airbus marketing ploy to prove that alloy is easier to fix than composite?
"[SNIP]
One wing of the plane was slightly damaged. However, the engineers said the engines were not affected and the wing could be repaired in several hours
[/SNIP]
I wonder if this is this an Airbus marketing ploy to prove that alloy is easier to fix than composite?"
that's the silliest damn thing i've ever heard of.
just the wingtip was damaged and then removed, nothing else!
"I wonder if this is this an Airbus marketing ploy to prove that alloy is easier to fix than composite?"
How would it prove that? All this proves is that it takes a couple hours to fix the problem that occured. Nowhere does it mention anything of composites or the relative amounts of time to fix alloys vs. composites. Stretching for something there i guess.
"I wonder if this is this an Airbus marketing ploy to prove that alloy is easier to fix than composite?"
Don't be stupid! Nobody in their right mind would damage a multi million dollar airplane as part of some elaborate publicity stunt.
Airbus already recongnize that composites are the future and the whole industry is going to have to address any ramp rash issues as and when they occur.
I have also been invited to listen in on the call, as have anyone who has the ability to click on a link :)
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=85482&eventID=1634026
Live blogging..no thank you.
Post a Comment