How Boeing Spent $1 Billion Building a Single 787
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Did someone say MERCH?! Follow me on Instagram for updates - it's coming real soon ;) / cobyexplanes
If you enjoy these videos and want to help me make more, please consider joining our Patreon:
/ cobyexplanes
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Vicky Bagwalla & Dnesscarkey. To learn more about Vicky's company Cloud Managed Networks - and Dnesscarkey's Anti Spam Wordpress Plugin - check out the links below:
Cloud Managed: cloudmanaged.ca/
WP Armour Anti Spam Wordpress Plugin: dineshkarki.co...
Big thanks to Photo Aleksi for that awesome 787 shot in the thumbnail. Check out his instagram for other great photos! / photoaleksi
Thanks so much to @FRAproductions, and @BrunoLevionnois for generously providing footage for this video. Go check out their channels for more A+ plane spotting content.
Also huge thanks to my friends over at @PlanesWeekly for providing great footage of their own. They're excellent plane spotters, and I recommend checking out some of their content below:
• Beautiful Ethiopian Bo...
• Incredible Overhead La...
Also does anyone ever read this stuff? If so let me know by telling me a joke in the comments section (airplane jokes preferred but not required)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Airplanes are ridiculously complex machines. They’re comprised of millions of highly specialized components that all must work in harmony, and they take years to design, develop, and test. It’s no surprise, then, that they end up being crazy expensive. Take the 787 Dreamliner, for instance. If you want to own one, you’ll have to shell out anywhere from $250 to $350 million dollars. While this sounds like a lot, it actually pales in comparison to the ridiculously high cost of some of the first 787’s that were ever built. Because while many know the 787 as the Dreamliner today, Boeing made a few key mistakes in the program’s infancy that turned it into an absolute nightmare. Let me explain...
#Boeing #787 #Dreamliner
Almost 10 years since its entry into service, 787 still looks and feels like a plane from tomorrow... The electrochromic windows, the bleedless engines, composite fuselage and wings, a nonconventional AC system, etc..
It’s still probably the most advanced airliner. The A350 came later, but since Airbus was playing catch-up, they stuck with some more tried and true technology with regard to the use of hydraulics instead of electric.
@@Shadowfax-1980 I still have yet to fly an A350. I am curious about how quiet the aircraft is. Since A380's quietness has truly shocked me, I wonder how quiet the A350's cabin would be.
On the flip side, 787 feels like a long term acquaintance to me already. I've been flying 787 four times a year for 5 years now (could still have been ongoing if weren't for covid since that flight has been paused). Since I have stuck with 787 for so long, 787's technology feels like norm to me, while other aircrafts feel "rudimentary" lol
I hate those windows, they get so hot when they are darkened whilst the sun is beating against them. Like a little hotplate next to my face. Not comfortable when the pilot has decides that AC is not a luxury we are allowed to enjoy. I was looking for those directional air vents but those have also been done away with. That's just my personal experience with the 787.
@@free_spirit1 Oh yeah the fixed AC outlets haha.
From my experience the window heat isn't that big of an issue even when facing the sunlight (green rather than purple). I don't know, I get cold easily on the plane, and I prefer to sleep warm. Maybe we are different. Big windows do make filming and photographing WAAAAY easier though.
My main complaints about the 787 is the air is too dry, and it's a bit loud.
Especially compared to it's direct competitor, A330 neo which is a re engined version of a plane derived from A300
Let Engineers lead and not the marketers & business driven cost savers.
Exactly. Save money, sacrifice lives. Same thing happened to NASA
Amen to that.
Sadly that won't happen in Boeing.
God this same comment is everywhere on boeing videos. You have to have some financial oversight, if only the engineers ran things they wouldn’t have a paycheck in the first place. Finding the right balance is the key
@@kingssuck06 Boeing was like that in the 90s tho and they were ridiculously profitable
"Boeing bashing" didn't become 'fashionable' in the way other internet trends do, Coby. It came about as a consequence of people finding out that their (and their loved ones') safety and lives were way down the list of Boeing's priorities when it came to building their latest planes. People were just not willing to shrug off a corporate ethos and culture that prioritised executives' bonuses and shareholders' profits over safety, which resulted in unsafe products, accidents and hundreds of deaths of unsuspecting, innocent people who put their trust with Boeing and paid for that misplaced trust with their lives.
True, that. When the whistleblowers came out, it really really wasn't a good day for Boeing. I'm hoping their culture doesn't rub off on Embraer.
@@lmlmd2714 Well, I'm sorry to say, it seems as if the FAA / Boeing culture has already rubbed off on the Brazilian Aviation Authority. Too eager to side with the FAA's decision to "unground" [sic] the MAX.
@@lmlmd2714 I thought the Embraer deal fell through?
@@the4fibs832 Indeed it did - I didn't know that it did - thanks for the heads up :) - Guess Embraer dodged a bullet there, but bad for Boeing
@@lmlmd2714 that deal is dead.
Boeing making critical mistakes seems to have become a common thing.
The last new Boeing airplane designed and built on time and on budget was probably the 777 in 1995. The 777 program director was Alan Mulally, who was subsequently repeatedly passed over for promotion, until he finally left to become CEO of Ford. Meanwhile Boeing has been run by a bunch of bean counters from McDonnell Douglas and outside. These people specialized in unrealistic schedules, bad technical decisions, and promoting managers who are willing to go along because they either didn't know better or didn't care. The result has been among others the 787, the 767 tanker, and the 737 MAX. The 787 is not really profitable, it only looks that way because Boeing wrote off the development costs. In truth Boeing will probably never make money on the 787. It is standard today to refurbish and sell the development aircraft after flight test and certification is complete. Boeing couldn't resell the first three 787's because they were overweight and Boeing, in the midst of numerous reworks, had lost track of their exact configuration. To sell them commercially would have required enough inspection and rework that Boeing instead gave them away to museums and took a tax deduction. In retrospect, the country lost a great aircraft manufacturer when McDonnell Douglas took over Boeing.
@@fafner1 Don’t forget the Starliner fiasco.
@@fafner1 The 777 is now starting to be phased out. Sad that the plane in service is better than the new one except for fuel efficiency.
I worked on the 787 since the early days of that program. They initially used the 777 as the baseline configuration and planned to incorporate all the ‘lessons learned’...
But things all went to hell as soon as they let the Sales & Marketing teams set the schedule for the Rollout date: 7-8-(200)7...
And it only got worse from there. Boeing chose to see itself in the role only as a ‘Large Scale Systems Integration’ - essentially relegating itself to overseeing the work of all the ‘Partner’ aerospace companies from all over the world. What a cluster-fuck of an idea! The 787 will NEVER make money - no matter how creatively they cook the books!!
@@beernpizzalover9035 bean counters and engineers may play with lots of numbers. But they are apples and oranges in their use.
History is littered with rushed engineering mishaps. Pretty sure an engineer cringes at the words quicker, better, faster...
Coby really explains aviation well gotta give you that
Yes why else would we be here
@@maximiIiaan for the plane porn. :-)
Why thank you :)
Explanes*
Indeed
"Let me explain." Listening, Dad.
Go to your room ! :)
great video again. I was just wondering... Considering that Airbus build the A380 at around the same time as the 787, but quickly realised that was a step in the wrong direction, could you do a video discussing how airbus was able to turn things around in an incredibly short time with the A350 considering it started development much later than the 787, but was ultimately only a few years behind comercial introduction thanks to it's incredibly fast development flights with almost no delays, which is today really uncommon for brand new airframes.
This is actually a really good idea, I'll add it to my list!
Essentially, Airbus played it safe with the A350. Everything the A350 used with the exception of the fuselage cross section and wing design were existing technology, unlike the 787, where almost every one of its technology was unproven or used en masse before. The A350 also had the advantage of its engines being built off of lessons learned from RR when it struggled with the Trents that powered the A380's and 787's. Having flown the A350, I found it to be very unremarkable as a "new" airliner.
Yes I will spend $20 million on Coby explanes merch. The value proposition is fantastic
Def a better buy than a 787 with duct-tape enhanced wingbox.
Boeing went downhill after adopting the "McDonnell Douglas" way as a result of the merger.
Someone in 787 flight testing told me that the missed release date was a creation of management, that the actually shipping date was close to what engineering had said it would be from the start. They didn't know what these problems would be, but they knew that there would be trouble with a tech this new.
2:12 that some Edward Bernays class advertising...best one ever.
There is a reason why the test fleet was given away to museums and the first 14 were called the troublesome teens. They sat around for years. The only upside is that with all the Max’s sat around we have forgotten this.
My first and only 787 flight was actually on a terrible teen, Air Austral's F-OLRB. No matter what, this plane is simply amazing.
787 - First plane of it's type. All new electric systems, bleedless engines, all new fuselage construction methods. The first few planes were how Boeing learned to make them.
That cost includes all the tooling, development, construction, testing, fixing and more testing.
Still, at least when the separate sections were delivered, they fit together! Ask Airbus about having bits of plane that don't fit ;)
Well said 55. Late , but thank you !
Also Coby's right, we should Applaud Boeing in making the 787 and yes, its the Future for Lightweight, Silent and Efficient Air travel, We all should Applaud Boeing, the Airplane that is been with Aviation for more then a Century!
Edit: Did I also mention guys that the 787 is the First Carbom Composite airliner? Thank you so much Coby for liking this Stay Safe!
Eli Abdul very good
At a low level, we're Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, ATR, Bombardier, or other fans... but at the high level, we're all aviation fans. I don't think any one of us _want_ to see any of the manufacturers fail; we all just enjoy the odd schadenfreude. Another great video!
When an air framer's / manufacturer's corporate ethos and attitude results in unsafe products, accidents and ultimately the death of hundreds of people, I'd put it to you that there is a little more than just schadenfreude involved in the case of at least one famous manufacturer.
@@cuttight You're right; I was a little too generous.
@@KanneRyo I am well aware of the incident at the airshow you refer to, all the way back in 1988, but not of what you describe as a "shady flight recorder scandal". The reasons for that incident are very well documented and a full and thorough investigation was carried out, and the reasons for that accident have nothing to do with what caused Boeing's two 737 MAXs to crash and kill passengers on commercial flights. Trying to throw mud on to others to show that Boeing's behaviour is not exceptional in this industry is inaccurate in this case and won't help your argument. Accidents will happen and in 9 out of 10 cases, they will be mostly down to human error. That was not what brought down the 2 Boeing 737 MAXs and killed so many people.
@@KanneRyo I am not willing to entertain youtube conspiracy theories on such matters and the investigation on that incident did not point to any problems or failure of the automation system in the A320, let alone any ulterior motive for not rectifying a problem. The systems in question were not changed or modified either. I have read the full report. Also, the fact that you try to obfuscate and equate two unrelated incidents (which only results in distortion of the truth when it comes down to the causes of the two accidents involving the Boeing 737 MAX) doesn't do any justice to your purported cause either. Concealing defects in a safety critical system in order to save / make more money is greed which is a character flaw; making a mistake in the operation of a new system is human error. The two are vastly different. Trying to put any kind of blame on the pilots of those two MAX flights is really low. I am sure they would have handled it differently if they had ever been told of the existence of that 'feature' (MCAS) on their planes by Boeing.
@@KanneRyo Conspiracy theories are not evidence. The ones who concealed defects in a safety critical system (and then tried to lie about it) were Boeing's top brass and that *has been* proven. It's not a 'theory' that someone came up with to discredit a superior product that threatened to steal other manufacturers' lunch. I am certainly not the only one who has read the official report but clearly you're not one of them - you're just happy to regurgitate youtube conspiracy theories without any proof or evidence for it at all. Your grip on reality sounds tenuous, at best.
I don't like your attempts to obfuscate the facts in these accidents either. You can believe and follow whatever theory that suits your disposition you like but the truth is the truth and it's not up to uninformed laymen's opinions and agendas to determine the facts of these matters.
Yes, let's end this here because there is no point in continuing at all, since we obviously disagree on the fundamentals of what constitutes reality, evidence and proof.
Nice video. Clear, concise, and informative. Well done!
Much appreciated!
@@cobyexplanes hi
So THAT'S why those 787s were there! I live near Paine Field btw. :P
Surprised you didn't know lol.
@@yoyoyoyoshua Well back then I didn't know too much about aviation and stuff lol.
I didn't know what they were and I was doing tons of flight instructing that took me up to Paine from Boeing Field. I've got pictures of them from three different days in 2013. (I made no effort to figure out what the story was with them). Also, hello neighbor! Do you think I should start an aviation channel?
lets be honest Boeing rush there aircraft and in the end make mistakes and they have to spend millions on fixing the problem as well as years. time = money so Boeing need to get themselves together
Boeing bashing? The 787 was disaster and still is depending where the assembly line is located, just because they outsourced nearly everything of this plane! And it is healthy to never trust a company with an management which ram two airplanes into the ground because of cheaping out in safety,
When Douglas Corp built the DC10, they did the same thing and had to go back and retrofit planes that were half built when they found problems. McDonald and Douglas came together, and then Boeing brought them, and obviously their staff, and as it seems that the persons from that side seem to have a lot of influence it seems they made the same mistake again.
Not how it happened but yes, they did make SOME similar mistakes. They however, were desperate to make a new profitable plane, since they were on the gbrink of collapse financially. They couldn't quite rescue themselves, but fortunately for AvGeeks, managed to do just enough to allow themselves the production of the MD-11. A stretched and improved DC-10. In Boeing's case, it has nothing to do with finances in regards to being anywhere near the brink of bankruptcy or collapse, but rather, just trying to force their planes out by dates they thought would be clever, while being ran by execs who have no engineering knowledge whatsoever, out for profits over quality, and thus, cost cuts galore, and ignoring their engineers who actually know what the hell they're doing.
It’s been said that McDonald-Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money.
Unfortunately your video is fake news.
It is obvious you have not been a team member of any development program. Your comments are sensational and overhyped.
I happened to be the defacto fake part manager at airplane roll-out.
Too much to say, and it is obvious that you do not know your non-recurring details.
Sorry buddy. You were not there. I was...
If I could know in advance whether I was flying on one made in Everett Washington or South Carolina, I'd fly on the one from Washington but never one from South Carolina : see documentary from Al Jazeera Broken Dream.
Boeing is shooting themselves in the foot hard here. They built the plant in South Carolina partially to crack the production unions. What ended up happening is they can't get the educated workforce down there that they can get in Washington. SC doesn't have the aviation education pipeline that WA curated over decades of Boeing presence. Getting C-suite out of WA because the new CEO's wife didn't want to leave Chicago was stupid. They need to move back to Seattle and get the MBA idiots out.
A plaque was suggested to be put over door two stating where the plane was built.
What's worrying is that going forward all dreamliners will be manufactured in South Carolina ONLY.
Al Jazeera? Who pays Al Jazeera? Find out
@@dattaxpony920 Boeing choose Chicago in part because they could fly their fly their executive jets out of Meigs field on Lake Michigan, only blocks from their headquarters. Shortly after Boeing moved to Chicago, the city of Chicago announced it was closing Meigs Field. Boeing lobbied the city to keep the airfield, but they discovered that although they had had lots of clout in Seattle and Washington State, in Chicago they were just another big corporation. So Boeing went to D.C. and got the FAA to issue an order to Chicago to not close the airport. Mayor Daley's response was the say "watch this", where upon he plowed up the runway. Today Boeing executives have to take the tollway to Indiana to catch their executive jets.
I was bashing Boeing long before it became trendy haha. And as a Pacific Northwesterner, I am proud to continue to do so. And I agree with cuttight and his point he made on the "trend" of bashing Boeing. Boeing Bashing only became "trendy" because of their willful negligence, incompetency, and intentional withholding of crucial information to airlines and their pilots. On top of that, their illegal action with the Tariffs Boeing convinced the FAA to implement literally just to cripple Bombardier out of pure spite in one of their signature temper-tantrums, really does not help their reputation at all with anybody. Bombardier should still be here and thriving behind their C-Series program, but the US Government with the FAA and Boeing instead violated international law to literally kill a indirect competitor. Boeing constantly shoots themselves in the dick, then complains and acts confused as to how they have a gunshot wound in the first place. Just ask Engineers that worked for Boeing before quitting due to them refusing to listen to and be lead by their engineers. Hell, even ask some current Boeing Engineers about that, they'll echo the same thing.
With or without my own bias, it's true that I desire Boeing to effectively finish killing itself off. I'd rather them go completely defunct than to have to continue to be stuck with their damn status quo of not a giving a damn, committing illegal acts, pathologically lying, withholding crucial information, and aggressively cutting corners. With Bias, I am a strong advocate and fan of AirBus. Without the bias, setting it aside completely, my stance on Boeing doesn't shift or change at all, and that's because they're terrible, and they violate just about all codes and conduct that any self-respecting and truly dedicated mass transit fanatic and geek holds.
The sad thing beside everything you explained so well, is the extremely tight configuration of 3-3-3 most airlines use. Making the dreamliner a nightmareliner for passengers in eco on long-haul. If only the cabin would be a few inches wider...
“Mistakes” or trial-and-error? Innovation often yields errors; it’s part of the process.
Hopefully this aggressive deadline approach will be a lesson not to repeat. Goals must be met, but not at their own expenses. It’s almost the opposite story how the triple seven was designed; I can’t remember the cost overruns details, the all computerized environment was impressive at the time. Thank you for the video.
Sadly but clearly Boeing did NOT learn the 787 lesson and did the same rushed low cost solution with the 737MAX. That turned out tragically far worse than a few billion dollars on a spreadsheet.
I've said it once before and I will sat it again. The 747 is probably the most reliable Boeing aircraft of all time, despite it being costly to run and it being inefficient by today's standards...
Minor note, the 787 is not profitable for Boeing yet. It's estimated that even when they've built all ordered jets they might not make a profit on a single one of them.
Just like the A380 for Airbus.
Actually most estimate the break even is at 1200, which Boeing is almost at.
There is this thing called project accounting which Boeing and wallstreet (sic) uses. It spreads development costs out over time instead of eating it all up front. By this standard the 787 is doing OK.
"Boeing finally found its footing with 787 production", again, no Boeing bashing, but the House of Representatives report on the 737 MAX crashes begs to differ. And the most recent scandals of quality issues as denounced by Lufthansa are also showing that, yes, Boeing might produce cheaper 787, but at a cost for quality.
Nightmare Liner in the thumbnail bro 💀💀💀💀
Atleast they spent a lot on a great successful jet in commercial aviation today👌👌
if its a boeing i am NOT going (:
A big cost not mentioned was Boeing offloaded design and manufacturing to companies that were incapable of the job so Boeing acquired the companies and technologies and built it themselves. This costed billions. The frame was new technology so Boeing was a first mover. This costed money too. Airbus was able to capitalize on it for the A350. It’s time for Boeing to use the 787 technology for a new combined 737-Mid-Market replacement.
Boeing needs to thank the MacDonnell-Douglas Merger for the 787 Costs!!!
I never understood the hype. Took B787 on two separate airlines and both times didn't like it. Wasn't up to the hype at all. I especially hated how the pilot on United just disabled the window dimming controls and I couldn't see Tokyo during sunset. What a stupid treat for a "window" seat when you have a window and you cannot see through it. Anyways, 3-3-3 layout is stupid too. I love 2-4-2 and I do believe it is more functional too. Anyways, so called dreamliner wasn't much better than B767, B777 or A321. Actually it was not better at all 😅
I wonder if the 8 787's that came off the line in SC with bulkhead issues are going to have to undergo a similar process. Seems like that would drive up costs
you better believe that the refurb won't be cheap.
So...people who were paid six figure salaries, have years of experience in the industry...and these were the best decisions they could come up with?
It's the decisions of those people that have seven figure salaries that have caused lots of grief for Boeing...
@@brentboswell1294 Its when the 6 and 7 figure salaried people have to get along and make decisions where problems arise
@@KanneRyo how is marketing a problem? Their job is to sell a cool, revolutionary product right off the drawing board, and to determine what features the product has at a price point. Once the feature set for the launch product is determined, the design is locked so that the first examples can be built. The reason designs are locked is to prevent "feature creep" from causing project delays...
Fucking up their production line just to make a lousy pun in a date format that’s already objectively silly.. was Elon Musk secretly making decisions at Boeing?
You glossed over the consequences to the launch date from Boeing's attempt to offload work to subcontractors as an attempted cost savings measure. Subcontractors that didn't have the experience needed to do what Boeing was offloading. Boeing ended up having to take back some of that design and production work in house.
One was so bad Boeing stuck the brand new plane in the Museum of Flight. It may never fly again.
I haven't flown any 787 that didn't have any problems. Not like the 737max crashes, but broken seats, broken windows, condensation water dripping on me, broken toilets, broken screens, broken entertainment systems - simply: bad quality.
Sounds more like an operator problem than something wrong with the aircraft itself.
Thats why DDMMYYYY is better, they would have one more month to finish it 😝
Hey! Saw one of those at Pima museum in Tucson!!! Got a photo of myself in front of the fan! Peiceless!
Aviators:Airbus or Boeing
Me: Douglas DC-8
Boeing
@@DogGamingYT yes that's what i'm talking about
DC-10. Have the scars to prove it lol.
I'll raise you a Lockheed L-1011.
@@derbagger22 I love that as a passenger, but I've been told its a bear to work on. So many things to test...Although No2 is lower to the ground...because that No2 was the death of me. Its a love hate thing with me and the DC-10 and a certain other airframe that wont be named lol. Oddly, I have models of them on my desk...funny this nostalgia thing huh.
Will Rolls Royce be featured in your video about 787 supply chain issues?
When I was younger I used to like the 787 but I reallly love the 777 now since it was the first plane that I flew in
My first ever plane I flew in was a 767 300ER from TUI in 2014 :)
On the other end of the scale if you ever get the chance to fly in a prop driven airliner go for it.
Not the way I prefer to fly but it is quite an experience. Flew an old Convair prop plane from Colorado Springs to Denver about 30 years ago. Seems that Alaska is the only one left flying prop planes. So not so easy to do.
Boeing is Boeing just for the namesake. People from McDowell Douglas has made it empty shell and ghost of its own.
Q : Did Airbus make the same mistakes with the A350? Doubt it.
Definitely NO!
That’s because Boeing invested in new technology first. Airbus learned from Boeing’s mistakes.
@@finned958 Oh dearie me here we go. Same old 'they copied us' crap.
No the A350 did not copy the 787 at all. In fact in many ways it is ahead in innovation and technology.
Why do people write this crap?
@@1chish I didn’t say Airbus copied you dummy. I said they used similar technology and learned from Boeing. There’s a difference if you learn to read. If they actually copied Boeing, Airbus would make the same mistakes because they never learned anything.
Interestingly, Ethiopian found a use for those "terrible teens" 787-8's on many of their longer routes. Before COVID-19 hit, they were common sights in eastern Asia.
The 787 program cost somewhere between 35 and 50 BILLION dollars. It will probably be the most expensive commercial airplane every built. It will never make a dime in profit.
That includes the cost of purchasing so many suppliers like Vought in South Carolina (now a Boeing commercial factory) that simply could not provide the parts they claimed they would for the program. Fundamentally, 787 was extremely outsourced under the theory that the suppliers would bear a lot of the costs and Boeing would maximize their profit.
Interesting content, Coby! I enjoyed this very much. Well done.
I am sorry but @ 08:56 you state that the 787 is 'profitable'. I guess it depends how you define that term and I guess sale price vs build cost could be termed a 'profit'. However according to Boeing numbers it isn't. Let me explane (Sorry):
1. In 2015 the total cost of the 787 R & D and early production costs hit Boeing for over $32 Bn (it has risen but lets keep to this number).
2. Boeing uses the accounting method of spreading costs across a forecast number of sales.
So:
Build Cost
+ % R &D cost
= cost of aircraft
+ Sale Price
= Profit.
The theory is this gives short term profitability which increases share price. Something they seem to be better at doing than building aircraft. The problem with this is they in actual fact make a loss. $20 million plus loss in fact. Per aircraft.
3. Boeing projected an order book of 1,300 aircraft.So:
$32,000,000,000
/ 1,300
= $24,615,384 per aircraft % R & D Cost (see above)
To be blunt there simply is not that margin in each unit sale price.
4. The International Institute for Strategic Leadership (IISL) has taken the maths a step further and calculated that even if delivering 2,000 Dreamliners the jet-maker will still have a total program loss of approximately $5 billion.
5. Analysts are projecting that Boeing is actually losing over $20 Million per 787 delivered even now.
As one analyst said:
"“They need to recover far too much money per airplane. They will never do that.”
Especially as the A330neo put downward pressure on price of the 787-9 and the A350 is hitting the 787-10. To put the above numbers into reality Boeing has a 787 order book of 1,507 orders. Do the maths.
FunFact: What you didn't show on the rollout of the first airframe was it had wooden doors.
As someone that worked on the 787 since the early days, I don’t believe the 787 will EVER recoup its development costs!
Boeing: Who wants a super cheap new 787? Steep discount, please don't ask why.
Ethiopian Airlines: Steep discount, you say? Go on, I'm listening....
Boeing: Cool.... Hey, talking of steep discounts... have you heard about our new 737 MAX?
Sheesh too soon?
@@cobyexplanes Not for Boeing, apparently, they want it back in the air :/ Braver person than me....
Well done Boeing!
Compared to its Original competitor, the A-380, that 3 Billion Tab is all worth it. Proving Boeing correct that Point to point is the future compared to Hub and spoke for A-380 is so much more beneficial than building planes costing billion each. The New Technology regarding Composite materials for the 787 that is now being used in the777x extends the value of the cost. 787 open new markets and opportunities till Airbus was able to counter with the A-350. How many years have the 787 flown without competition by that time? Where is the A-380 now and where is the 787 today? 251 orders compared to 1500 787 and are still active and operational and demand is still up. Dreamliner was made from revolutionary technology, to begin with, and this revolutionary technology will benefit Boeing in the long run with the 777x as an example. 3 billion for 3 planes is worth it.
That one for private use, it’s very likely end up as Mexico’s “Air force one”.
i can assure you that ANA did take at least 2 of the teens(lines 7-20) i believe JAL got 2 as well.
And what about the issues relating the Charleston production issues? Are we supposed to applaud them for that too?
9:35 fortunately there is boeing military to pay all the tabs...
Errrr ... well apparently not. While the P-8 Poseidon is doing OK the KC-46 has been yet another example of how Boeing simply cannot engineer new aircraft or even re-engineer old aircraft. It is $4.3 Bn over budget, 3 years late, FOD in wings and fuel tanks, grounded at one point, unlicensed for passengers and cannot refuel other aircraft through its Boom. The sole reason for which it was built! Its so bad the USAF are only paying Boeing 80% of the agreed price until it is fully operational. In 2023.
And the KC-46 was beaten by the A330MRTT in the contract competition but was turned over by Boeing paid Senators. The A330 MRTT has been ordered by and delivered in full working order to 7 Air Forces.
Hey Coby , why don ‘t you go and look at Airbus real cost of the 380 program and the bill left for the European taxpayer ? Boeing bashing can only go so far ....
All this exeptional costs is directly atributable to the change in sourcing strategy, to switch from Internally designed products to be built by Boeing employees to a new sourcing strategy to outsource the design and production of the 50 core sub assemblies. Boeing is reported to having to buy one failed supplier to recover the design and production. The original launch budget was intended to to reduce the development cost from $12B to $6B. In the end, the cost of the product launch was reported to be closer to $20B on top of the time delay.
Have you heard Sandy Monro talk about outsourcing? Good stuff.
I was one of the team leaders for those planes in storage around PAE.
The teenagers.. NOBODY called them the terrible teens. I think that was a media invention.
29th
To say it don´t include R&D is sort of a misnomer. While it certainly don´t include research... development is a other thing. One thing that make early aircraft very expensive is tooling. Specially so for composite air frames that are very large. The tooling can of cause be reused for later aircraft's....
But in some cases they have to be scraped due to minor changes. And that is pretty much where the money run away.
I would say, this is really a part of development.
That there are changes made on the prototype jet is typical. The A380 first 3 aircraft was considerably heavier than the later. But usually they stop the production line after the prototype, then start it up again when the prototyping is finished
Boeing seems to be bad for the environment, and their CEO seems to not be healthy. He keeps giving in for peer pressure and wanting news coverage over keeping things safe
Boeing should have just carved a 787 out of clay like car manufacturers do for auto shows. 🤣
You missed the MASSIVE mistake of integrating multiple new overseas vendors on a design that was not validated yet 🤯😱🤭 Talk about GREED and IDIOCY 🤔🤔🤔 oh yeah too big to fail and my favorite CORPORATE WELFARE 😡😡😡😡
9:17 “..and let’s not forget that the 787 was a groundbreaking aircraft..”
That would be the 737 Max, my good sir. The ground owned it money, sort of groundbreaking.
The business of breaking ground was going out of style, kind of breaking.
If groundbreaking was to become a new dance, the Max would be the lovechild of Fred Astaire and Michael Jackson, kind of breaking.
Visited the prototype at Nagoya Flight of dreams eleven months ago, they didn't tell this embarrassing parts of story.
Stop standing diagonally
Star: Why do you think that's a bad look?
The most unfair competition. Airbus could give away the planes. But it will never outperform Boeing. Boeing is Boeing. You cannot compare one product with another. It's the stupidest thing. Competition must be fair and fair. For being ambitious and for wanting to compete, it was until today, December 16, that Airbus delivers its Last A380. Because that happened. By greedy. And not to mention the problems that A350s have today with their dollar store paint. Why doesn't that happen with the Boeings? It only happens with the Airbus. That is called incompetent competition.
Plz do a new vid about the new 747-8 Air Force one
More like "wet dreams liner"
lol
clay liner
@@cobyexplanes do you have info if airbus had similar problems with the a350
@@theplanespotterguy no
@@theplanespotterguy I know that their fuselage frames are cracking.
I’ve actually never travelled the aircraft.I was supposed to,on air Canada
That trip got cancelled,because the pandemic was getting worse,the flight happened but my family and I had to cancel.
Unfortunately for Boeing, the original break even quantity assumed a level of margin which the 787 has never been able to achieve. The current consensus is that even as successful the 787 has been, too much of that success has been as a result of heavy discounting, so much so, that there is now a doubt as to whether the current 787 will ever make an overall profit unless the market for it can be expanded, as it may be quite some time before significant numbers of the 787s flying today are due for replacement - by which time, presumably significant additional development costs will have been incurred, just to keep the model competitive.
Seems Boeing is going the same way as US car manufacturers, shortsighted decision making to please the shareholders.
Don't get me wrong, I think Boeing was a great company until McDonnell Douglas took over.
One important note: the 787 is not yet "profitable". Despite the 787s that are currently being produced are sold for a higher price than their production cost plus their individual share of development costs (that is spread, in Boeing accounting over 1500 units), the overall program balance is still negative. This is because, for the first few hundreds of planes that came out of their production lines, Boeing has lost a significant amount of money that has not yet been compensated. This is normal to a certain extent in this business. They still hope that by the time they deliver their 1500th aeroplane, they should have made overall more revenues than the total costs, but it's not yet totally guaranteed. Till then, it is technically wrong to declare the 787 as "profitable".
Boeing should look for sympathy in the dictionary ... between shit and syphilis. They deserve every bad consequence they've earned.
To a degree they had never done before, they outsourced component design and fabrication 'to reduce cost and risk'. It had the opposite effect big time. Boeing management's hatred of unions causes them to cut off their nose to spite their face.The addition of the Carolina assembly plant is another example. The plant's poor quality leads to another reputation hit..The extra capacity is no longer needed due to COVID and the market's move away from wide bodies. So naturally they consolidate production in the plant with poor quality.
Don’t shit boeing too much, they are one create that some of the most iconic aircraft like 747 and 777, so forgive boeing for their mistake in 737 max accident, so forget 737 max accident and move on. So 787 is a boeing most ambitious project, gave them respect to make this iconic or groundbreaking widebody possible.
The Dreamliner has the stupidest name given how horrible its development program and teething problems were. The original wing to wing box attachment issue was mind blowing and was only one of many. The 787 was the true Potemkin airplane. The 787 is a great airplane now and its use of composites were a huge advancement, but compared to the 777 development program, which resulted in a truly game changer airplane, the 787 looks like a fiasco. To this day the 787 still has manufacturing issues and grounding that the 777 never had.
The 787 is still suffering from production issues. Boeing needs to shutter their Chicago HQ and meld management with production.
Watching this in June 2024. The the line “it’s become trendy to bash Boeing” takes on a whole new meaning…
Yet, in July 2022, Boeing still lose money on the 787 and the 737 Max.
It's the best way to go into the wall my friend.
Boeing never delivered the first TEN 787’s due to production issues. One of them is on static display at the Museum of Flight.
What's the point in carrying the loads on the pylons at 4:38? Thanks for any insight
It might be used to test the wings to see if It could hold the weight of the engines without putting them on
I understand that the Boeing corporate is not loyal to its workers in the greater Seattle area, but what I don't understand is why the workers have not gone looking for other places to sell their skills. If I worked at Boeing in Seattle or Everett I would like other workers to jon together and go looking as a group where those valuable skills are needed. Queretero Mexico is a place where Airbus does part of its production and this s a wonderful place where those skills could be sold. Why are the Everett and Seattle workers more loyal than Boeing corporate in Chicago?
Come on a new 787 costs to costumer way below 200m! Let's say 120-160
The 787 is a beautiful plane and a technical marvel. I'm glad Boeing stuck with it and that it matured into the aircraft we have today.
check your dates again, i was there that day on roll out. but i wasn't hired til jan 2008. somebody is wrong.
This shows how terrible concurrent production is, why is it acceptable for US defence spending?
Pride? There's only talks of dividends at Booing... There's no pride...lol
20,000 bucks on coby explanes mercy? I like but not 20,000 bucks kinda like it
Wait, cars always are just a shell when revealed as the concept stage, this works differently with airplanes?
It's interesting to me that the 787 is better from an engineer's point of view but not actually better for the customer. Did they miss something?
3:35 Hold on, anyone noticed anything wrong with the front gear's wheel?
haha yeah i thought it was a frame rate drop
3:25 "American date format".... thanks for specifying that....
Probably good that he did, given most viewers do not use that format.
@@shebbs1 i've lived in the US for 7+ years now, and it's corrupted that part of my head so much that now whenever i see the **correct** way of writing the date (or even the metric units of anything) i become confused....
Hopefully this and the 737 Frankenstein composite planes go the way of the a380. That is what they deserve.
Frankenstein like the A350? Same sort of blending of the old fuselage tech with a new wing and engines.
Why didn’t you compare the A-380 prototype costs vs. the 787?