747-8 problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-8 problems
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.
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.
How do you explain the new -8 and -9 models then, over 30 of which were just ordered by Lufthansa
the 777 cannot stretch any further
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
looks like it is 10 across
looks like it is 10 across
Last edited by underfire; 1st Oct 2013 at 15:48.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
In the interests of balance, I should also say that I'm sure brand A have been afflicted with similar issues too.
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.
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.
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!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Last edited by underfire; 1st Oct 2013 at 22:14.
777-300ER is 242ft 4in (73.9 m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)
777-300ER is 242ft 4in (73.9 m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)
777-9 is proposed at 250ft 11in (76.5m)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Edit: oh yes, and a twin longer than the 748! appears a bit foolish to make one of your flagship aircraft obsolete...
Last edited by underfire; 2nd Oct 2013 at 15:21.
Edit: oh yes, and a twin longer than the 748! appears a bit foolish to make one of your flagship aircraft obsolete...
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
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.
As far as looks the -8 wins hands down, when compared to the 380...the new 747 is a pretty lady indeed
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
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
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 3rd Oct 2013 at 04:48.
I see that LH who operate both the 748 and 380 can squease 520 into the 380 but only 362 into the boeing.
Originally Posted by underfire
seating 350 and 407 in typical three class configurations.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Could this be holding its sales back?