Boeing announces B787 delivery delays
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly worry for the future of J*.
Unfortunately for Dixon et al, cost is only one side of the equation, growing revenues takes talent.
So it certainly isnt over until the fat lady sings......
- very little provision of financial information
- low yield business-dependant on continued volume
- gifted assets from parent
- divisive and aggressive management(Q have that too)
- poor terms and conditions
- AWA's around the corner with DEC a likely outcome
Unfortunately for Dixon et al, cost is only one side of the equation, growing revenues takes talent.
So it certainly isnt over until the fat lady sings......
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A downturn would not be that bad for Jetstar.
During ecominc downturns the LCC's usually pick passengers up from full service carriers as business' will no longer pay the $$$ for full service, so there exec's go to a LCC. This is what happened in the EU & USA after 911, so why wouldnt a similar thing happen here with JQ?
Surely it would be QF that would hurt with their higher costs and higher fares
During ecominc downturns the LCC's usually pick passengers up from full service carriers as business' will no longer pay the $$$ for full service, so there exec's go to a LCC. This is what happened in the EU & USA after 911, so why wouldnt a similar thing happen here with JQ?
Surely it would be QF that would hurt with their higher costs and higher fares
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overhead
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
economic downtown and LCCs
In an economic downtown discretionary and leisure travel dries up, that happens to be Jetstar's market - sure business travel may reduce but business people still like their full service and regular services - I reckon Virgin would do best out of it
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Steerage
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing update on the Dreamliner nightmare
Lynn Lunsford
Boeing will give Wall Street a progress report on its 787 Dreamliner as it scrambles to overcome a six-month delay in producing the new jet.
A look inside the project reveals that the mess stems from one of its main selling points - global outsourcing.
When the Chicago aerospace giant set out four years ago to build the fuel-sipping jet, it figured the chief risk lay in perfecting a process to build much of the plane from carbon fibre plastic instead of aluminium.
Boeing focused so hard on getting the science right that it didn't grasp the significance of another big change: the 787 is the first jet in Boeing's 91-year history designed by other companies.
To lower the $10 billion or so it would cost to develop the plane solo, Boeing authorised a team of suppliers to design and build major sections of the craft, which it planned to snap together in the Seattle-area factory.
But outsourcing so much responsibility has turned out to be far more difficult than anticipated.
The suppler problems ranged from language barriers to problems that erupted when some contractors themselves outsourced chunks of the work. An Italian company struggled for months to gain approval to build a fuselage factory on the site of an ancient olive grove. The first Dreamliner to show up at Boeing's factory was missing tens of thousand of parts, Boeing said.
Today, the Dreamliner is at least six months late, and the goal of delivering at least 109 planes by the end of 2009 is threatened.
Boeing has said the delays have affected 19 of the 52 airlines that have ordered the 787, some of which were counting on using their planes during the 2008 Summer Olympics.
If delays mount, the company could face millions of dollars in penalty payments to customers, as well as pressure from suppliers, many of which have agreed not to be paid until planes get delivered.
The missteps underscore the hazards and limits of outsourcing - especially with a brand-new airplane, the most complex machine in mass production.
Lessons that Boeing is learning the hard way could end up helping rival Airbus, which has said it plans to use a similar model of global suppliers to build a competing plane that should be ready in about five years
Boeing overestimated the ability of suppliers to handle tasks that its own designers and engineers know how to do almost intuitively after decades of building jets.
"You need insight into what's actually going on in those factories," said Scott Carson, the president of Boeing's commercial planes unit. "Had we had adequate insight, we could have helped our suppliers understand the challenges."
The 787 is a hit with airlines. Boeing has 762 orders from 52 carriers for the planes which will carry between 225 and 300 passengers.
The combination of lightweight materials and fuel-efficient engines is expected to make it 20 per cent cheaper to fly and a third less costly to maintain than older jets.
Boeing says it has sold out of delivery slots until almost 2014, making it critical to get the jet into production without further setbacks.
Boeing set out to bring the plane to market in just over four years, two less time than such projects have taken in the past. It has responded to bottlenecks by throwing both money and people at them, parachuting in dozens or hundreds of its own employees to attack the problems at plants in Italy, Japan and South Carolina.
Boeing said in September that it had set aside nearly $US2 billion in additional research and development costs associated with the delays.
Rejecting the idea that Boeing might be better off increasing production more slowly, Mr Carson said "I couldn't stand the pain of telling a customer its going to be worse for them , just to make my life easier."
Boeing will give Wall Street a progress report on its 787 Dreamliner as it scrambles to overcome a six-month delay in producing the new jet.
A look inside the project reveals that the mess stems from one of its main selling points - global outsourcing.
When the Chicago aerospace giant set out four years ago to build the fuel-sipping jet, it figured the chief risk lay in perfecting a process to build much of the plane from carbon fibre plastic instead of aluminium.
Boeing focused so hard on getting the science right that it didn't grasp the significance of another big change: the 787 is the first jet in Boeing's 91-year history designed by other companies.
To lower the $10 billion or so it would cost to develop the plane solo, Boeing authorised a team of suppliers to design and build major sections of the craft, which it planned to snap together in the Seattle-area factory.
But outsourcing so much responsibility has turned out to be far more difficult than anticipated.
The suppler problems ranged from language barriers to problems that erupted when some contractors themselves outsourced chunks of the work. An Italian company struggled for months to gain approval to build a fuselage factory on the site of an ancient olive grove. The first Dreamliner to show up at Boeing's factory was missing tens of thousand of parts, Boeing said.
Today, the Dreamliner is at least six months late, and the goal of delivering at least 109 planes by the end of 2009 is threatened.
Boeing has said the delays have affected 19 of the 52 airlines that have ordered the 787, some of which were counting on using their planes during the 2008 Summer Olympics.
If delays mount, the company could face millions of dollars in penalty payments to customers, as well as pressure from suppliers, many of which have agreed not to be paid until planes get delivered.
The missteps underscore the hazards and limits of outsourcing - especially with a brand-new airplane, the most complex machine in mass production.
Lessons that Boeing is learning the hard way could end up helping rival Airbus, which has said it plans to use a similar model of global suppliers to build a competing plane that should be ready in about five years
Boeing overestimated the ability of suppliers to handle tasks that its own designers and engineers know how to do almost intuitively after decades of building jets.
"You need insight into what's actually going on in those factories," said Scott Carson, the president of Boeing's commercial planes unit. "Had we had adequate insight, we could have helped our suppliers understand the challenges."
The 787 is a hit with airlines. Boeing has 762 orders from 52 carriers for the planes which will carry between 225 and 300 passengers.
The combination of lightweight materials and fuel-efficient engines is expected to make it 20 per cent cheaper to fly and a third less costly to maintain than older jets.
Boeing says it has sold out of delivery slots until almost 2014, making it critical to get the jet into production without further setbacks.
Boeing set out to bring the plane to market in just over four years, two less time than such projects have taken in the past. It has responded to bottlenecks by throwing both money and people at them, parachuting in dozens or hundreds of its own employees to attack the problems at plants in Italy, Japan and South Carolina.
Boeing said in September that it had set aside nearly $US2 billion in additional research and development costs associated with the delays.
Rejecting the idea that Boeing might be better off increasing production more slowly, Mr Carson said "I couldn't stand the pain of telling a customer its going to be worse for them , just to make my life easier."
Boeing's briefing will be released early tomorrow morning (au time), see this LINK for further details.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANstar wrote:
"During ecominc downturns the LCC's usually pick passengers up from full service carriers as business' will no longer pay the $$$ for full service, so there exec's go to a LCC. This is what happened in the EU & USA after 911, so why wouldnt a similar thing happen here with JQ?
Surely it would be QF that would hurt with their higher costs and higher fares"
Yes I've heard that theory as well.
However what exactly would the cost difference be for the "Qantas Group" to retrench great numbers of Qantas pilots VS JetStar pilots.
What if any protections does each pilots' respective contract provide.
Sections 12.9 and 13.4.1 of the Qantas pilot's Certified Agreement VS Section 35 of the JetStar Pilot's agreement might just distort the bean counters ideology a tad in favour of keeping Qantas pilots on ,due to the huge cost involved with the wholesale retrenching of Qantas pilots.
Just a thought.
"During ecominc downturns the LCC's usually pick passengers up from full service carriers as business' will no longer pay the $$$ for full service, so there exec's go to a LCC. This is what happened in the EU & USA after 911, so why wouldnt a similar thing happen here with JQ?
Surely it would be QF that would hurt with their higher costs and higher fares"
Yes I've heard that theory as well.
However what exactly would the cost difference be for the "Qantas Group" to retrench great numbers of Qantas pilots VS JetStar pilots.
What if any protections does each pilots' respective contract provide.
Sections 12.9 and 13.4.1 of the Qantas pilot's Certified Agreement VS Section 35 of the JetStar Pilot's agreement might just distort the bean counters ideology a tad in favour of keeping Qantas pilots on ,due to the huge cost involved with the wholesale retrenching of Qantas pilots.
Just a thought.
Last edited by max autobrakes; 15th Dec 2007 at 09:34.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Dreamliners until 2009
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...8-1702,00.html
Dreamliner deliveries are now expected to begin in early 2009, rather than late 2008.
