747-8 problems

[underfire]

Everett residents may have noticed massive Russian Antonov An-124 cargo planes landing at Paine Field more often than usual this year.

The unique giants have been needed because of a serious run of quality issues with large 747-8 fuselage panels and tail pieces produced at a Triumph Group manufacturing plant in Texas.

Of the 37 Antonov flights into Paine Field tallied by flight-tracking company FlightAware this year, 17 have come in from Dallas-Fort Worth.

The reason was revealed earlier this month in a frank investor teleconference by Triumph Chief Executive Jeffry Frisby .

He told analysts the company’s costs this year at its Grand Prairie, Texas, facility would be $68 million higher than expected because it’s been replacing “a very significant number” of structural 747-8 pieces that failed inspection, then “renting Antonovs to ship (those) parts” to Boeing instead of sending them by rail and truck.

Triumph’s leadership first mentioned quality issues with 747-8 parts in January and brought in new top managers at the plant to turn it around.

Frisby said he’d thought they were “on the road to recovery,” but “sadly, on balance ... it’s really gone the other way at this point.”

The news caught financial analysts off-guard. Triumph’s share price took an 8 percent dive after the news and is since down a total of 12.9 percent to $68.41 .

Boeing suppliers regularly use an Antonov to make last-minute deliveries if something has gone wrong in the supply chain and a part is needed urgently to keep a production line moving.

That’s because you can’t deliver a 777 engine or a 747 fuselage panel on a regular FedEx jet. You need something big — and the An-124 is the largest commercial cargo jet ever mass produced, though only 56 were built.

To load plus-size cargo items, the massive jet can “kneel” on the tarmac. Its nose swings up to reveal a cavernous 21-foot-wide, 14.5-foot-high opening into which a truck can drive.

Boeing spokesman Larry Wilson called the use of Antonovs “just a regular course of business.”

He said Boeing has provided support personnel to Triumph’s Grand Prairie plant — formerly owned by Vought, which was acquired by Triumph in 2010 — and has been closely monitoring the quality of the parts and the delivery schedule.

With the Antonov deliveries, he said, Boeing has maintained its 747-8 production rate of 1.75 jets per month, or 21 per year.

Speaking at a Morgan Stanley conference in California this month, Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney said the company expects to maintain that rate through 2014.

Analysts are nevertheless skeptical Boeing will be able to do so. The 747-8 has few orders, with just 53 left to build as of the end of August.

In addition, there are some half dozen 747-8 freighters that are complete but have sat undelivered for months.

The customers deferred these deliveries because of the sharp and sustained downtown in airfreight demand globally, which shows few signs of easing.

There is even an ownerless 747-8 “whitetail” parked forlornly at Paine Field, one of the earliest built, that was dumped by cargo company Atlas Air and hasn’t found a new buyer.

Another white-painted 747-8 being used for flight tests also has no buyer as yet.

A market analysis this month by industry group AirInsight concluded that the four-engine jet market is “moribund, if not dead. ”

At least, in part, because sales will be cannibalized by the forthcoming 407-seat twin-engine 777X, further 747-8 orders “will fall well short” of Boeing’s expectations, AirInsight wrote.

Supply-chain problems are the last thing this jet program needs.

[stilton]

'However, the 777 cannot stretch any further'


How do you explain the new -8 and -9 models then, over 30 of which were just ordered by Lufthansa :confused:

[DaveReidUK]

How do you explain the new -8 and -9 models then, over 30 of which were just ordered by LufthansaI would interpret the OP's post

the 777 cannot stretch any furtheras referring to the infeasibility of stretching the 777 beyond the -9X (which only has 3 more seat rows than the -300 - that should tell us all we need to know).

[tdracer]

My understanding (I'm not working 777X so this may not be 100% accurate) is that the -9 is the same length as the -300. They are getting the extra seats by re-contouring the sidewalls in a manner that allows one more seat per row in coach.

[underfire]

The 777-X program has 2 passenger models, the 777-8 and 777-9, seating 350 and 407 in typical three class configurations. The -8 will be roughly the same capacity as the existing -300ER, while the -9 will include a stretch that brings the aircraft over the 400 seat capacity market, the highest for any twin.

http://i2.wp.com/airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/777-X-Graphic.jpg?resize=309%2C163

looks like it is 10 across

http://boardingarea.com/thewanderingaramean/files/2012/05/image9.png

[DaveReidUK]

My understanding (I'm not working 777X so this may not be 100% accurate) is that the -9 is the same length as the -300.Facts seem to be in short supply, but my understanding is that the -9X fuselage is around 7'-8' longer than the -300/300ER.

[DozyWannabe]

The ride quality [of the A380] does matter.

Slightly off-topic, but there are other benefits too - the fact that the A380 cabin is pressurised to a lower altitude than previous jets (as is the B787) meant that a musician friend of mine who suffers from severe sleep apnoea was able to tour in Australia for the first time, as to do so on older types would have resulted in health problems.

I won't bore everyone with my rants on management incompetence again, save to say that Boeing have been having this kind of problem going back at least to the 737NG, and it will take more than a simple change in management to resolve it. EEngr's post on one of the 787 threads sums it up pretty well:

When I was there (before the 787 program) there were two schools of thought: Give the shop floor people access to any and all information, tools and whatever it takes to sort problems out. Or give them what they need and only what they need to do the planned work. Anything outside of the scheduled work flow (i.e. troubleshooting problems) was, in theory, to be designed out of the process. And Boeing management was in love with their firm grip on 'the process'.

I worked on a system that gave shop floor technicians access to QA procedures including requirements for 'out of sequence' work and systems check out. The sorts of things that one has to do in the event systems need to be taken apart, debugged and reassembled. Our group was a great supporter of the 'give then everything they need' philosophy. However, we butted heads with management that didn't want anything that allowed deviation from 'the plan'. Needless to say, we got a lot of support from the shop floor, but not from management. When it came time to retire our system and repace it with management's 'preferred process', some of the techs proposed a race between our system and the incoming one. With ours, test procedures could be located and printed within a few seconds. The new system required shop floor personnel to locate one of the few managers in possession of the proper login authority to access out of sequence procedures. It took them about 40 minutes to locate such a person.

I'm not sure how things were finally settled, as I didn't hang around for much longer.

In the interests of balance, I should also say that I'm sure brand A have been afflicted with similar issues too.

[Mr Optimistic]

I suspect it is now universal in aerospace/defence. It has the purely unintended consequence that management dont need detailled knowledge so, for example, havent hsd to come through the ranks. Happy days!

[DozyWannabe]

I suspect it is now universal in aerospace/defence.

I'd go further and say it's in every industry and sector you care to name - though I'd also downgrade "universal" to "worryingly widespread". MBA philosophy has managers see themselves as executives in training rather than organisers and facilitators of shop-floor activity.

[underfire]

According to Boeing:

777-200ER is 209ft 1in (63.7 m)
777-300ER is 242ft 4in (73.9 m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)

interestingly, the 747-8i is 250ft 3in (76.25m)

Edit: the 777-8 is shorter at 228ft 2in (69.55m)

[tdracer]

777-300ER is 242ft 4in (73.9 m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)

Yea, after I got called on my prior post I did a Boeing internal web search and found pretty much the same thing - but it was labeled proprietary. I couldn't find the same info on the external web search so I figured I shouldn't post a correction.:uhoh:

[DaveReidUK]

777-300ER is 242ft 4in (73.9 m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)Worth bearing in mind also that the 8'7" increase in length isn't wholly attributable to the fuselage stretch. The -9X also has an increased horizontal stabilizer span which itself will contribute (slightly) to the overall length increase.

[underfire]

I want to see the folding winglet design...

Edit: oh yes, and a twin longer than the 748! appears a bit foolish to make one of your flagship aircraft obsolete...

[tdracer]

Edit: oh yes, and a twin longer than the 748! appears a bit foolish to make one of your flagship aircraft obsolete...

The 747-8 still carries ~65 more paying passengers than the 777-9X, ~465 vs. ~400 - and can go a bit further fully loaded to boot.

Things are not quite as bleak for the 747-8 as that article suggests. Yes, there are 747-8s sitting on Paine Field that the customers don't want to take. What it doesn't say is, the customers don't want their airplanes until they can get the GEnx-2B PIP engines (Product Improvement Package). The PIP provides a significant improvement in fuel burn (I don't know if I can state how much, but we exceeded expectations). Those airplanes will deliver as soon as practical after we get the PIP certified. Of course, that's sort of on hold since the FAA is on furlough due to the budget impasse :rolleyes:

While air-freight is soft right now, that'll eventually recover, and if you want a freighter that can carry more than ~100 tons, the 747 is the only game in town (~140 tons for the -8). Further, the 747-8 has a substantial ton-mile operating cost advantage over older 747s.

Boeing and GE are not ready to give up on the 747-8, in addition to the tens (hundreds?) of millions that when into the PIP engine, Boeing is continuing to work on future package of weight and drag improvements.

Given "typical" 3 class arrangements (I wonder just exactly what that means, but bear with me), we have:
777-9 ~ 400 seats
747-8 ~ 465 seats
A380 ~ 520 seats
It would seem the 747 still fills a hole between the 777 and the A380.

The business case for the 747-8 never expected it to be as big a seller as the 747-400 (roughly half of all 747s built were -400 models - a success that I don't think Boeing expected). The question is, will the -8 be successful enough to make that investment worthwhile.

Jury is still out on that part.

[Pugilistic Animus]

As far as looks the -8 wins hands down, when compared to the 380...the new 747 is a pretty lady indeed:ok:
It's a real shame that Boeing hires the best engineers then chokes them...I suppose management has been that way since forever and a day

[donpizmeov]

I see that LH who operate both the 748 and 380 can squease 520 into the 380 but only 362 into the boeing.

[swh]

seating 350 and 407 in typical three class configurations.

No typical airline will have that configuration, those numbers are based upon a 60" pitch in first, and 38" pitch in business. Many typical airlines have more than 70" in business, and call 38" premium economy.

Slightly off-topic, but there are other benefits too - the fact that the A380 cabin is pressurised to a lower altitude than previous jets (as is the B787) meant that a musician friend of mine who suffers from severe sleep apnoea was able to tour in Australia for the first time, as to do so on older types would have resulted in health problems.

The A330/A340 has always had around a 6000' cabin altitude on long haul flights. They could have gone with VS on the A340-600 to SYD at 6000' for years.

[Ian W]

520 into the A380 is not a squeeze, not even "closely spaced". A squeeze would be more like 800, and no one is flying that configuration. To "justify" the 777-8/9 Boeing are seemingly adding another seat to each row; that's not going to be more comfortable, just slightly bigger. So if bigger matters, perhaps some other airlines will bet bigger.

In a saturated market the 777 8/9 works only if it is 80% of the operating costs of the A380, and 60% of the A380-900 (it has 650 seats). 60% sounds difficult to achieve. And even if they do achieve that an airline on the A380 would be far more profitable because it would be carrying far more passengers. And with an economic recovery seemingly taking place we might see a pick up in the passenger carrying business.

That is a little simplistic. A lot depends on route scheduling and load factors. Having two flights a day with a 400 seat aircraft at 95% load factor is a lot more efficient than two flights a day with an 550+ seat aircraft at 70% load factor. One flight a day of the 500+ seat aircraft at 99% load factor might be profitable but leave an unfulfilled demand for a different departure time.

The business SLF will be looking at the ideal departure times for their personal schedule and a once a day take-it-or-leave-it will lose that traffic, which is the real 'bread and butter' traffic the airlines want. The bucket-and-spade tourist traffic will fly whenever its cheapest but is far less dependable business.

[DaveReidUK]

Which, in turn, is another way of saying that the only straightforward comparison is between the seat-mile costs of same-sized aircraft (and even that doesn't take into account factors like range, comfort and passenger appeal).

As soon as you try to make comparisons between differently-sized aircraft, you usually end up with the larger aircraft having lower SMCs, but higher aircraft-mile costs.

Which is great provided you can fill your aircraft, but not so good if half your potential passengers want to travel at a different time of day.

[donpizmeov]

Sorry MSB. I was just trying to point out that the seat numbers quoted by one manufacturer seem to be realistic, where as the numbers quoted for the 74-8 seem to be optimistic. It would appear, at least in the LH case, that the 74-8 is more 773 replacement than a 380 alternative.
Could this be holding its sales back?

[Gove N.T.]

The Qatar airways & BA 787 overfly my house at perhaps 1000ft ish and they are significantly quieter than the whine of a 777. The 380 is so much quieter than the 777 and the 747/a340
This is a personal experience

[joy ride]

I agree with Gove N.T. incoming LHR traffic flies over my workshop east of Heathrow at about 4,000ft, and 380 and 787 are noticeably quieter than other planes. Furthermore their tone is more "centered" with less bassy roar and trebly whine, and the volume seems more consistent. The 380 sounds more like an average twin engine plane, very impressive. When they take of Eastwards they are further south and I cannot form an opinion of their noise.

[No Fly Zone]

I think a good part of Boeing's reason for building the 747-8i and -F is that they simply refused concede that business to the other major airframer. The freighters are starting to pick up and, as you note, a bunch of customers who can stall delivery as waiting for the improved spec engine. With four burning and such heavy loads, even 1% or 2% fuel reduction makes a huge difference in operating costs. I don't know, but I'd suspect that it is not possible to retro fit the PIP into existing engines.
As for the -8i PAX model, my guess it was just a convenient add-on to the -F program, with 95% of the engineering already done. The capacity differences between the stretched 777s and the A380 are just not all that great. Othe than a handfull of VIP airplanes, I think LH is the only 8i customer on the books. Ha-ha, maybe Boeing is just holding out for the Air Force One order - as if they don't already have it in the bag! Can't you just see the U.S. President noodling around the world on a French made jet? That just won't happen, so the modified 747-8i is the only game in town that meets the basic specs, one of which is four engines. The 747-8 series will sell in time...

[DaveReidUK]

I think LH is the only 8i customer on the books.Boeing has booked orders for the 747-8i from 4 airlines, one of which is Lufthansa, the others being Air China, Arik Air and Korean, plus an MoU from Transaero (Russia) for four aircraft.

[Una Due Tfc]

DLH have their fingers in virtually every pie it seems, A333s,A343s,A346s,744s,748s,A380s and MD-11s for the cargo. Does it look like the 748 will get enough buyers to justify the expense in development?

[tdracer]

I don't know, but I'd suspect that it is not possible to retro fit the PIP into existing engines.

It's possible to retrofit the PIP, but it would be hugely expensive - most of the HP Compressor and LP turbine is new. Once we're over the hump of certifying the PIP, I suspect GE will look at a 'PIP Light', where they retrofit the easier PIP upgrades into the baseline engine. There are already over 200 engines in-service so there will be demand to be able to upgrade those.

I noted before it's hard to do apples to apples comparisons of 'seating' because there is no such thing as a 'typical' seating layout. The bottom line is that the 747-8I still has quite a bit more 'floor space' relative to the 777-300ER and even the -9X. They also did something rather cool with the Intercontinental upper deck - aft of the 'hump', they cleared out the main deck attic space and provisioned for sleeping quarters. Some of the VIP customers have taken advantage of that to install some ritzy bedroom setups. So far I don't think any of the regular airline operators have elected to take advantage of that, but it would be relatively easy to do - the upper deck is typically business or first class anyway - wouldn't it be nice - on a 12 or 14 hour flight - after reaching cruise to head to your private bedroom in the back?:ok:

[Una Due Tfc]

I've seen them on the unmentionable middle east airline's A346s, I assume they have them on the 77ws too? Also Emirates definately have them on some of their A380s, as well as showers! I hope the 748 works out, even as just a freighter. Anybody know how many hulls they need to sell to break even?

[parabellum]

One also hears all sorts of rumours of high passenger satisfaction beginning to mean that passengers are choosing it over other types. The ride quality does matter.


Frequently passengers have no idea what aircraft they are on! Recently I did MEL-LHR-MEL on a QANTAS A380, in Business and was unimpressed either by comfort or noise.

Talking to A380 pilots I was told one drawback is that when carrying a high pax load it is unable to carry the high value cargo, like Swiftrider, that normally goes on pax aircraft at premium fright rates.

[tdracer]

I've seen them on the unmentionable middle east airline's A346s, I assume they have them on the 77ws too? Also Emirates definately have them on some of their A380s, as well as showers! I hope the 748 works out, even as just a freighter. Anybody know how many hulls they need to sell to break even?


The advantage for the 747-8 is that those bedrooms can go in space that is currently unused (and can't be used for seats since it can't be occupied for takeoff/landing). All those other aircraft are using potential seating areas for their bedroom suites.

I know what the business case number was for the 747-8 but it's considered proprietary. It's probably garbage anyway since we went significantly over budget (though not nearly as bad as the 787).

BTW, the 747-8 has a much lower noise level during takeoff and landing than the 747-400 - similar noise levels to the 787. Not only are the new engines quieter, but the -8 got a new (quieter) flap system (a surprising amount of the noise during landing is aero noise from the flaps and gear).

[kenneth house]

... The unique giants have been needed because of a serious run of quality issues with large 747-8 fuselage panels and tail pieces produced at a Triumph Group manufacturing plant in Texas.

.... this year, 17 have come in from Dallas-Fort Worth.

The reason was revealed earlier this month in a frank investor teleconference by Triumph Chief Executive Jeffry Frisby ... replacing “a very significant number” of structural 747-8 pieces that failed inspection, then “renting Antonovs to ship (those) parts” to Boeing

Triumph’s leadership first mentioned quality issues with 747-8 parts in January and brought in new top managers at the plant to turn it around.

Boeing spokesman Larry Wilson...said Boeing has provided support personnel to Triumph’s Grand Prairie plant — formerly owned by Vought, which was acquired by Triumph in 2010 ... the Antonov deliveries has maintained its 747-8 production rate of 1.75 jets per month, or 21 per year.



This looks like an interesting case study for an MBA program. You have to wonder if any changes were made with the 2010 change in ownership that affected the manufacturing and assembly process? (e.g. downsizing workforce or other cost-cutting measures) And is the build-time for the panels quite long such that the pre-2013 deliveries were of the remaining 'Vought' variety already in the production pipeline before the acquisition?

[underfire]

original 777 folding wing?

http://johnwright.smugmug.com/Aviation/Air-Museums/Midway-Magic/IMG533-3324-20D/341312696_SFPQE-L.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

original 777 folding wing?You're kidding, of course.

[underfire]

Actually no. This is directly from the Seattle Times article on the folding wingstips. They were originally offered on the 777-200, and were 21 feet long.

The 777-x proposed folding wingtip is only 10 feet long.

"In fact, it isn't a new idea. In 1995, Boeing obtained a patent for a folding wingtip design on the original 777, which had a 200-foot wingspan.

That mechanism was even built and tested — the full-scale model used then is on display at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field in Everett. But no airline ever bought this option."

[tdracer]

Actually no. This is directly from the Seattle Times article on the folding wingstips. They were originally offered on the 777-200, and were 21 feet long.

The 777-x proposed folding wingtip is only 10 feet long.


The folding wingtips on the 777X are far removed from those proposed for the original 777. Unlike the original folding wing tips, these are outboard of any flight controls or other moveable surfaces aside from the folding wingtips themselves.
The new wing on the 777X is wider span than current 777-300ER - the folding portion is intended to get the 777X into the same gate footprint as the -300ER. The designers believe they can get the associated weight penalty small enough that drag improvement from the greater span overwhelms the weight penalty. Further, the folding section is small enough that even if it should fail, the aircraft would still be airworthy.

No first hand knowledge, but I'm hearing that on the 777X, the folding wingtip will be basic, not an option.

[DaveReidUK]

Actually no. This is directly from the Seattle Times article on the folding wingstips. They were originally offered on the 777-200, and were 21 feet long.

Yes, I'm aware of that of course.

Just amused at the choice of photo to illustrate the point.

[SMOC]

That picture is the folding wing of a Lockheed S-3 Viking.

This is the original 777 folding wing test rig which I believe has been vastly improved for the 777X ie the weight has been cut considerably.

http://theplaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/777-folding-wing1.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

That picture is the folding wing of a Lockheed S-3 Viking.Indeed it is.

I guess what that has in common with the 777 is that both are/were folding wings built by companies that didn't know how to design one (Lockheed subcontracted theirs to LTV, who came up with a very neat offset-hinge design so that the folded wings would overlap).

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/9/5/1997598.jpg

[underfire]

no worries...would not be the first time the news didnt get the picture correct...