Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): The first customer 787-8 was delivered on 26 September 2011, 1542 days after the rollout of ZA001. The first customer A350-900 will be delivered 580 days after the rollout of MSN001. |
Quoting moo (Reply 1): If we are going to include the original A350 program... |
Quoting par13del (Reply 2): I think this is metric that will get the most traction, the rest will draw the ire of those folks who talk about numbers and statistics. |
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): 2710 days passed between the Industrial Launch of the 7E7 program on 26 April 2004 to the delivery of the first customer airframe to All Nippon Airways on 26 September 2011. 2935 days will have passed between the Industrial Launch of the A350 program on 01 December 2006 to the delivery of the first customer airframe to Qatar Airways on 13 December 2014. If we count from the Program Announcement on 14 July 2006, the period will be 3105 days. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): Though in the end, it's interesting to see that whether you executed the program effectively perfectly (Airbus) or made an absolute shambles of it (Boeing), you still took about the same amount of time to get the first frame to the customer from the time you booked the first order. |
Quoting Part147 (Reply 5): So to summarise, a well run test program and a NOT well run test program.. got it |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 6): At the end of the day, the people here (and elsewhere) that were very skeptical about the very aggressive original 787 timeline were proven right. |
Quoting tistpaa727 (Reply 7): to me these numbers compare an over ambitious program led by marketing instead of engineering versus a program that a) learned from its own past troubles and b) learned from the troubles of its rival. |
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): 890 days passed between the rollout of ZA001 and her first flight on 12 December 2009 |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 6): The main difference being that while Airbus managed to, more or less, adhere to its initial schedule for the A350, |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 9): Well, Boeing did not repeat Airbus's A380 mistakes, they invented their own. |
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): we can now compare the timelines for the two latest "clean sheet" widebody programs from Airbus and Boeing. |
Quoting larshjort (Reply 14): They are howeveer very busy trying to replicate the cable issues on the 767-2C at the moment. |
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): 2710 days passed between the Industrial Launch of the 7E7 program on 26 April 2004 to the delivery of the first customer airframe to All Nippon Airways on 26 September 2011. 2935 days will have passed between the Industrial Launch of the A350 program on 01 December 2006 to the delivery of the first customer airframe to Qatar Airways on 13 December 2014. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): Though in the end, it's interesting to see that whether you executed the program effectively perfectly (Airbus) or made an absolute shambles of it (Boeing), you still took about the same amount of time to get the first frame to the customer from the time you booked the first order. |
Quoting astuteman (Reply 18): Despite the A350 taking slightly longer to develop, I believe the smoothness of the latter part of the programme, based on the "stop-call-wait" principle being applied in the early part, will pay large dividends in the smoothness of the ramp up and entry into service. |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 20): How do they compare using these milestones? |
Quoting astuteman (Reply 18): Despite the A350 taking slightly longer to develop |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21): Boeing has been at 10 frames a month since late January of 2014. Airbus is not expecting to reach that rate until 2018 (as of their 2013 Year End Review). |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21): Airbus is not expecting to reach that rate until 2018 (as of their 2013 Year End Review). |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 23): The production ramp-up for A350 takes quite a lot of time based on the current planning. |
Quoting astuteman (Reply 18): Despite the A350 taking slightly longer to develop, I believe the smoothness of the latter part of the programme, based on the "stop-call-wait" principle being applied in the early part, will pay large dividends in the smoothness of the ramp up and entry into service. |
Quoting scbriml (Reply 28): You're very unlikely to find such figures and given the different accounting methods used by Airbus and Boeing, the figures are unlikely to be comparable anyway. |
Quoting tomcat (Reply 27): Another interesting metric would be the total cost of each program until first delivery. |
Quoting par13del (Reply 30): I think it would be more interesting for them to compare the current production cost of a 787 - with the new production methods even though not 100% as planned - with that of the 777 or 737 to see if the method is viable as a cheaper alternative. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 29): Suffice to say, they both spent a shed-load of Dollars/Euros. |
Quoting planesmart (Reply 12): Should the number of days grounded, and then re-work required, also be added to the Boeing figures, as effectively even when deliveries started, they weren't really ready? |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): whether you executed the program effectively perfectly (Airbus) or made an absolute shambles of it (Boeing), you still took about the same amount of time to get the first frame to the customer from the time you booked the first order. |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 9): Boeing did not repeat Airbus's A380 mistakes, they invented their own. |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 31): As the deferred production cost of the 787 program is still increasing, |
Quoting par13del (Reply 35): I'm willing to bet that if we could see all the financials, the new production methods and materials used on the 787 are a financial disaster and should be abandoned for a return to mostly ali like the 777, whether the a/c itself is superior becomes irrelevant. |
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 32): one aspect that is missing here is that there are indirect costs, which become much much higher as you get into later stages of development. |
Quoting scbriml (Reply 28): given the different accounting methods used by Airbus and Boeing, the figures are unlikely to be comparable anyway |
Quoting par13del (Reply 30): Even if they can be found, what value would they be |
Quoting par13del (Reply 30): I think it would be more interesting for them to compare the current production cost of a 787 - with the new production methods even though not 100% as planned - with that of the 777 or 737 to see if the method is viable as a cheaper alternative. |
Quoting par13del (Reply 35): I'm willing to bet that if we could see all the financials, the new production methods and materials used on the 787 are a financial disaster and should be abandoned for a return to mostly ali like the 777, whether the a/c itself is superior becomes irrelevant. |
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39): I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, frames 2 to 5 might be allocated to existing orders, like QR. |
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 38): I don't think the materials (or, for that matter, the new technologies) are the problem. The methods... now you're getting somewhere. |