787 Faces New Setback

[Saj_A]

Originally Posted by Shameel Kumar

Another problem was letting Alan Mullaly go.

To a degree, I share that view, however, having met Scott Carson numerous times, he is certainly Mulallys equal. He was credited with the huge order surge in 2005 that continued through to 2007.

[Johannes C]

That is normal in a pioneering technology project. Boeing 787 is revolutionary in its design, and could have incompatibilities here and there due to numerous sciences and technologies used to develop them.

In the past, where sciences are not as well developed as now and technology could not assist us further, we never know those "small but important details," and proceed to the next step easily only to realise that disasters awaits. Sure, this guys knows their priority best on either to delay or push on into trouble.

On the notion at Airbus & Boeing. Well, what did Boeing do? They used the Airbus method, no? Sending Dreamlifters everywhere to bring the parts together to be assembled in final assembly line.

[Saj_A]

Originally Posted by Johannes C

On the notion at Airbus & Boeing. Well, what did Boeing do? They used the Airbus method, no? Sending Dreamlifters everywhere to bring the parts together to be assembled in final assembly line.

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.

On the 787, the subassemblies are arriving from different companies not owned by Boeing (aside from the 50% stake in Global Aeronautica, the joint venture with Alenia).

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Saj_A

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.
...

Not true at all. Indeed even Boeing is a supplier to Airbus.

[Saj_A]

I never said they were not.

EADS is also a supplier on the 787 too.

The major subassemblies do come from EADS/Airbus plants. Various other components arrive from other suppliers (like landing gear doors, cargo doors etc), but nowhere near the same magnitude as how the 787 is built.

There's a huge world of difference.

Example: 787 - wings by MHI, centre section by Alenia, rear fuselage from Vought etc.

On current Airbus jets, those similar parts are built by Airbus not outside vendors.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Saj_A

I never said they were not.
...

Really, then what does the quote below mean? It says the supply chain, to me that says everything not just major sub-assemblies. Even then though some major sub-asemblies come from suppliers not owned by EADS.

Originally Posted by Saj_A

Only difference being is that Airbus' supply chain are all EADS/Airbus plants.

Originally Posted by Saj_A

EADS is also a supplier on the 787 too.

The major subassemblies do come from EADS/Airbus plants. Various other components arrive from other suppliers (like landing gear doors, cargo doors etc), but nowhere near the same magnitude as how the 787 is built.

There's a huge world of difference.

The difference is subtle not huge. The suppliers you mention in regards to Airbus aircraft may well be owned by EADS now but that is only something new, ie the last few years. Before that and indeed from day 1 Airbus have built aircraft with major assemblies supplied from different suppliers who were spread around Europe (and the globe) and suppliers who had national interests at heart. In many ways Boeing with their supplier problems could well learn a thing or 3 about supply chains from Airbus/EADS.

Originally Posted by Saj_A

Example: 787 - wings by MHI, centre section by Alenia, rear fuselage from Vought etc.

On current Airbus jets, those similar parts are built by Airbus not outside vendors.

Again only a recent thing.

[Ash W]

Delete

[Saj_A]

^

Bad phraseology - that refers to the plants from which the major subassemblies come from. Apologies for not making that point clearer in the post earlier.

Before that and indeed from day 1 Airbus have built aircraft with major assemblies supplied from different suppliers who were spread around Europe (and the globe) and suppliers who had national interests at heart.

Under the old Airbus Industrie consortium, the partners of CASA, Aerospatiale, Daimler(Chrysler) Aerospace and BAE all pooled resources together which then went on to form EADS.

Thats a 30+ year evolution. On the 787 distribution/supply chain for major subassemblies, that is quite different since all the players involved are separate entities not looking to converge as EADS did.

Either way, Boeing's "vision" of drawing paralells from the auto-industry to jet making has not worked out as it had hoped.

I think its a given that on the next new model they produce, it'll be a majority "in-house" effort.