Well, it's a good thing they've got all that cheap barely skilled labor in South Carolina.

That should speed things right up.

GIS for "scope creep"



/am so working this in to my next requirements review

[airbus-scarebus copypasta]

six 787s = $1,000,000,000?

The economics of building and running these things must be like cruise ships.

Remember it's the airplane of the future.

SwiftFox: six 787s = $1,000,000,000?

The one this airline is getting costs about $160 million each. So for six it works out to about a billion.

Oh and for comparison, somewhat silly comparison I admit, an A380 goes for about $317 to $338 million per plane.

I just had this happen to me last month. It wasn't a billion dollars, but it was some fraction of that.

Boeing makes customers pay a large percentage of the price when the order is placed. That should make for an interesting refund request.

I work for a company that makes parts for boeing.

/not getting a kick

Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing to companies around the globe where they don't have central control on the manufacturing and integration. Serves them right, and I feel somewhat sad for the employees who had no say over this management decision.

Yeah, for big jobs like this, I'd expect Boeing to take a significant deposit upfront, and do some kind of billing-by-percentage-completed. Going to be a big problem when they have to give that deposit back.

Seems like Boeing had a shiatty model for getting its stuff together and built. Maybe the next company will do better.

Maybe so, but this is the way everybody does it now, it is expected that you farm out the pieces among many nations where you want the airlines or governments as a customer. Agreed that's no excuse for poor central oversight though.

mrmopar5287: Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing to companies around the globe where they don't have central control on the manufacturing and integration. Serves them right, and I feel somewhat sad for the employees who had no say over this management decision.

Singing to the choir, my fellow Farker.
/works for a major worldwide manufacturing company that cannot seem to get enough of outsourcing, then wonders why the quality suffers

mrmopar5287: Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing

It's not just that, but for completely screwing the pooch all around. I mean they couldn't work on the planes for a while because of a lack of fasteners. If you can't even order up enough fasteners ahead of time, you're going to have problems.

Any Pie Left: it is expected that you farm out the pieces among many nations where you want the airlines or governments as a customer.

The airlines could give a shiat where the parts come from. They however get really pissy about the plane being late by years.

Interesting. I wonder if the dreamliner is going to go the way of the American SST.

Yea, that's the idea. Entice Boeing to cut corners to make the deadline. That should go over well.

I'm perfectly happy to have Boeing take the time to make the plane safe. Use of composites on this scale is new enough that they're having to learn as they go. Of course, they're learning their lesson about outsourcing as well.

That said, I assume they'll fill the order.

On top of that, I think their philosophy of making a usable vehicle rather than a behemoth requiring modifications to airports is sound, as well as not being reliant upon a hub/spoke travel system.

SwiftFox: six 787s = $1,000,000,000?

The economics of building and running these things must be like cruise ships.

Cruise ships rarely have their composite tail section fall off at 35,000 feet above sea level, although that would be an interesting disaster.

This is prime example of what happens when non-tech people are in charge of a tech based industry. The CEOs will get a raise and a bonus either way.

Harry_Seldon: Cruise ships rarely have their composite tail section fall off at 35,000 feet above sea level, although that would be an interesting disaster.

But what if the front fell off?

thirdful: This is prime example of what happens when non-tech people are in charge of a tech based industry. The CEOs will get a raise and a bonus either way.

Only because they deserve it, because they, you know... officered... stuff.

I still want the Sonic Cruiser, dammit. Looked like it was designed by Gerry Anderson.

These planes cost over $9000 each.

Geezus.

SuperCatBarf: I'm perfectly happy to have Boeing take the time to make the plane safe

That's not what's delaying things.

thirdful: This is prime example of what happens when non-tech people are in charge of a tech based industry. The CEOs will get a raise and a bonus either way.

WhyteRaven74: SuperCatBarf: I'm perfectly happy to have Boeing take the time to make the plane safe

That's not what's delaying things.

Okay, so what's delaying things? Give me your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested.

WhyteRaven74: mrmopar5287: Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing

It's not just that, but for completely screwing the pooch all around. I mean they couldn't work on the planes for a while because of a lack of fasteners. If you can't even order up enough fasteners ahead of time, you're going to have problems.

Any Pie Left: it is expected that you farm out the pieces among many nations where you want the airlines or governments as a customer.

The airlines could give a shiat where the parts come from. They however get really pissy about the plane being late by years.

The fasteners were custom made to secure comopsites, and the company making them really screwed the pooch, completely failing to deliver on what they had told boeing they were capable of production wise. That one is not Boeing's fault, and it's been a huge (I believe even primary) reason for the delay.

SuperCatBarf: Okay, so what's delaying things? Give me your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested.

It's a combination of things. Part of it is a lack of parts, like the lack of fasteners. Also they've had some issues getting stuff finished, like avionics software. Why they couldn't get that done on time, I don't know. Then they also discovered a flaw in their design which they had to fix. And this flaw was something that should've never gotten by to end up being an issue when they're assembling planes for flight test. On top of all that, you have the issues with suppliers making sub-assemblies. Which is separate from the parts issue.

SwiftFox: six 787s = $1,000,000,000?

The economics of building and running these things must be like cruise ships.

That reminds me. When the 707 came out, each one cost $10 million iirc (or was it $1 million)?

Anyway, a 707 could fly as many people across the atlantic in a year as a cruise liner which cost $100 million. The 707 took 8 hour as opposed to a week, and the tickets cost one tenth the price.

The 707 made crusie ships redundant overnight.

mrmopar5287: Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing to companies around the globe where they don't have central control on the manufacturing and integration. Serves them right, and I feel somewhat sad for the employees who had no say over this management decision.

It isn't so much outsourcing that is the problem. Modern airliners are extremely complicated aircraft. Their design and construction pushes the limits of our ability to manage them. Slipping schedules are a near certainty.

Boeing is pretty much getting their karma for farming out all the parts manufacturing to companies around the globe where they don't have central control on the manufacturing and integration.

The case history of this design project is going to be scathing -- if it ever makes it outside of Boeing. The company chose suppliers which had incompatible or NO CAD systems, so it was no surprise that a massively subcontracted program would return fuselage sections and parts that were incompatible. No surprise, except to Boeing management.

Now Boeing wants to complicate things even further by manufacturing the 787 in two different locations. Even an idiot can see potential delays and complications in running a program with two different factories.

As for Mr. Logo's apologies that slipping schedules is excusable, Boeing managers committed to the SHORTEST flight test schedule for this plane in the history of the company. Even with a radically new design and massive outsourcing.

The Dreamliner has been a disaster from start to finish and will continue to plague the company for years. It has caused competent engineers on the program to quit.

In the new Star Trek movie, when Kirk visits the spaceyard, you can see a 787 still being assembled in the background.

The seats will STILL have ashtrays in them.

KarmicDisaster: In the new Star Trek movie, when Kirk visits the spaceyard, you can see a 787 still being assembled in the background.

Maybe they're just waiting for the lemon soaked paper napkins to be delivered?

Fengen: Yeah, for big jobs like this, I'd expect Boeing to take a significant deposit upfront, and do some kind of billing-by-percentage-completed. Going to be a big problem when they have to give that deposit back.

Seems like Boeing had a shiatty model for getting its stuff together and built. Maybe the next company will do better.

They couldn't have predicted the strike, though.

This may end with Boeing taking some lessons from Airbus about how to distribute manufacturing and assembly responsibilities, and Airbus may take some lessons about the headaches of advanced composite airliner design that they didn't run into while developing the A380.

Whatever -- as long as my odds of falling out of the air on any given flight due to production farkups are somewhere south of trivial, the given process used to develop the plane works, with varying degrees of efficiency. Just get me there in one piece with a minimum of near-death experiences.

I'd laugh my arse off if it turned out that the PMs or one of the major corporate officers involved with this farkup happened to have cut their teeth on the defense side of Boeing's house.

The quality and leadership one runs into with a "Cost plus" mentality does not lend itself to the commercial world. Save that stuff for the govt.

PlatinumDragon: This may end with Boeing taking some lessons from Airbus about how to distribute manufacturing and assembly responsibilities, and Airbus may take some lessons about the headaches of advanced composite airliner design that they didn't run into while developing the A380.

Whatever -- as long as my odds of falling out of the air on any given flight due to production farkups are somewhere south of trivial, the given process used to develop the plane works, with varying degrees of efficiency. Just get me there in one piece with a minimum of near-death experiences.

this? i simply want an efficient (sorry, i mean cheap) plane that gets me safely from point A to point B repeatedly safely. please take the time you need to make sure this happens.

fark 787. fark composites. reengineer the 747, and keep the ashtrays. those planes are the shiat.

nice read on 380 from jeremy clarkson...Link (new window)

try fect taa daa: fark 787. fark composites. reengineer the 747, and keep the ashtrays. those planes are the shiat.

nice read on 380 from jeremy clarkson...Link (new window)

In other words, you know nothing about planes.

Meh...it's just another tube with wings...nothing really innovative. This is what happens when you pretty much have a monopoly of passenger aircraft manufacturing. Bold, new ideas out the window, cheap outsourcing, boring concepts in. Too bad they didn't go with this...




Remember the 60's when we had radical, cool-ass experimental designs?

/SR-71 was built with a farkin' SLIDERULER!!!!

cptjeff: try fect taa daa: fark 787. fark composites. reengineer the 747, and keep the ashtrays. those planes are the shiat.

nice read on 380 from jeremy clarkson...Link (new window)

In other words, you know nothing about planes.

shove your snark in yer ass.