Boeing announced another, the fifth, delay to the 787's first flight. It was to gave been later this month but Boeing says it will be several weeks before it can announce a new date.Boeing's share fell by more than 6% as a result. Boeing will update investors on the financial impact next month.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6565716.ece

This is what got Airbus in trouble with the A380, delays! With the economy the way it is, especially with the airlines, it won't take much more of a reason for the airlines to cancel orders.

That's something Boeing have already suffered where the 787 is concerned, with quite a few of the initial orders for it having been canceled following the debacle with the fasteners being the wrong size for the holes on the 787 a while back.In practice this recent delay might work out to both Boeing and its customer's advantage. Quite a few airlines have been looking to defer deliveries of aircraft on order from both Boeing and EADS whilst the current economic climate is how it is. Both EADS and Boeing have dropped their rates on several aircraft production lines, so you never know, a few customers might actually welcome the breathing space a delayed delivery will afford them, and Boeing certainly would, as when they fail to make deliveries, they end up with indemnity clauses forcing them to fund alternatives for the airlines. Boeing have already had to pay for some of their clients to procure Airbuses because of delay to the 787, just as EADS had to do with Boeings when the A380 delivery dates slipped. With airlines having an excuse to defer deliveries, and the 787 programe delayed, it might just suit everyone, except EADS that is.Al

Boeing announced another, the fifth, delay to the 787's first flight. It was to gave been later this month but Boeing says it will be several weeks before it can announce a new date.Boeing's share fell by more than 6% as a result. Boeing will update investors on the financial impact next month.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6565716.ece

The big deal with Boeing is they opted to outsource most of the project to other countries instead of building the whole plane at home in Washington State. It's bad enough parts are outsourced to various countries but to try and build major pieces in various locations is a recipe for disaster. So due to problems in the various countries with keeping up with the overall schedule Boeing has put themselves in a compromising position. It's true this could actually work out this time around do to the economic climate but under normal operations this is chaos. Outsourcing to this level doesn't pay off especially when you have no legal power to keep the various countries/manufactures on task with the overall project (contracts only go so far and if you did have a case how long would the litigation process go before satisfaction is handed down).

I don't think it is the outsourcing itself that is the problem with the 787, more a case of the project managers who failed to keep a tight leash on schedule slippages at those outsource locations, leaving them to be too autonomous on a project that is very innovative and new. That was one of the causes of that fastener fiasco on the 787.The 787 project management team was changed earlier this year because of all those mistakes, and it is now pretty much on track with a much more able hand on the tiller. The latest delay is to do with the discovery that the fuselage bracing is not as strong as they would prefer, based on the predictions they made, so they are toughening it up a bit, which is the sort of thing that is often revealed in the ground testing phase of a program. That is where the 787 is at right now.Outsourcing is nothing new for Boeing, even the Boeing B-17 was built by Lockheed and Vega during WW2. It's been a very long time since Boeing made everything themselves for their aircraft. By way of example, here's breakdown of the components on Boeing's most successful airliner - the 737 - and where they are made:wing fairings and tailcone - Chinadoors - Floridaoverwing exits - Chinavertical fin - Chinarudder - Northern Irelandhorizontal stabiliser - Koreaelevators - Japanailerons - Malaysiaflaps - Australiaspoilers - Californiawinglets - United Kingdom/Japanwing spars - Oklahomainboard flap - Vietnamtail section - Chinalanding gear doors - Taiwancockpit windows - AlabamaIn addition to that, the fuselage is built at Wichta and brought to Renton by train. Despite the global nature of how the 737 is built, it currently takes Boeing less than eleven days to put one together, and they eventually hope to get it down to just six days.Outsourcing is not all bad news for a country's economy. It is invariably part of the brokering of contradeals which come back in the form of sales to the country involved in parts production. An example of this is the new Sukhoi regional jet, which has been bought by Air France. Those sales are as a direct result of the fact that several parts for the Sukhoi SSJ-100 are made in France, and just shows how such outsourcing can end up beating what would normally have been a certain sale for a small Airbus to Air France. The success of the 737 of course, is another good example.Al

Outsourcing is nothing new for Boeing, even the Boeing B-17 was built by Lockheed and Vega during WW2.

That may be outsourcing, but there's a difference between outsourcing to another company in the same country, vs. outsourcing to a company in another country. Dillon touches on some of the differences in his post, above.

That may be outsourcing, but there's a difference between outsourcing to another company in the same country, vs. outsourcing to a company in another country. Dillon touches on some of the differences in his post, above.

I believe Al proved a very important point. If you research you'll come to the same conclusion.

I think the outsourcing is in consequence of getting foreign orders. But the current problem from what I can tell is a design issue, not a manufacturing or produceability one.scott s..

If you research you'll come to the same conclusion.

Research is what I do, in fact I have been doing it since 1987. And my conclusions are somewhat different than Al's on that little issue. But we digress...carry on