So this is a total and absolute hit piece. As far as commercial airliners are concerned, there are two companies that supply the world: Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is a publicly-traded American company. Airbus is a heavily subsidized European governmental consortium that includes British Aerospace like three different ways. Back in the '90s Airbus got severely jealous of all the money Boeing was still making on 747s. They started running around pitching giant airliners to see who was interested. They spooked McDonnell-Douglas into trying some concepts. Boeing, for their part, had decided that people weren't really buying 747s any more and saw a future full of smaller, regional routes. ...but they didn't want Airbus to know that. I had a friend who was a part of the NLA Group. Boeing spent about $100m on a project they knew would never come to light because they wanted to goad Airbus into thinking the A380 had a market. As soon as Airbus had orders for the 380, they canned the project and made public the fact that they were never really serious in the first place. And it has cost them dearly. Wanna talk about "outsourcing?" The A380 is so scattered and disorganized that when they first started putting them together they discovered that the wiring harness was 10 feet too short. Wanna talk about "program costs?" The thing is so huge you have to redesign airports to accomodate it. Wanna talk production overruns? The 380 went from 8 billion go 11 billion before they'd even finished a plane. How 'bout delays? The TL;DR of this is "2 years late, 45% attrition of orders due to slipped contracts." Which, by the way, had the effect Boeing desired - it pounded Airbus' stock price. So they finally get the things in the sky and lo and behold, the wings crack. I live near LAX. I see a Qantas A380 sitting at the end of the runway every time I go running. It sat there for six months. Meanwhile, pretty much everyone who wanted 380s has 380s. Those that do have them aren't using them as people-haulers - they're using them for $15k-per-seat "pimp class travel." Airbus' stock is struggling while Boeing is filling orders from frustrated A380 buyers who had their contracts cancelled with a stretch 747. What's Airbus' solution? A 787 competitor. Airbus got played, which means the EU got played, which means Boeing can have a run of bum batteries and it's "the costs of outsourcing" but when Airbus loses its lunch building a plane that nobody really wants, it's because of a "fickle market." "Nightmare waiting to happen." You'd think it was an article in The Mirror. No, guys, you fucking lost. Sorry.
Thanks for your comment, I find the whole situation just fascinating, so I appreciate the extra reading!
That’s how I read it, but it seems like a pointless argument. It is not an article about ‘them’ and ‘us’. There are no sour grapes. It’s just a piece of journalism that raises questions about the cause of the current issues. I agree with kleinbl00 that the A380 has had significant problems and it is likely not the right type of aircraft to meet future demands. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the outsourced manufacturing model and the political importance of the Boeing 787 may have had a role to play in the current technical problems, which should have been resolved before a single plane took off. Everyone loses when entire fleets of planes are grounded – the passengers who are inconvenienced and lose confidence – the airlines that lose revenue and are forced to rearrange operations and finances – the suppliers who lose revenue when the manufacturing line grinds to a halt.
That is not the case. Large, durable goods such as airliners are a substantial portion of any industrialized nation's economy. In the case of the United States, sales by Boeing and Lockheed are a non-insignificant portion of GDP. In the case of Europe, Airbus is the direct recipient of substantial state subsidy. There has never been a case of a single airliner not experiencing technical difficulties. The 787 is no different, neither is the A380. The Seattle press always makes much of Airbus' mis-steps - Boeing, at least until eclipsed by Microsoft in 2004, was the largest employer in the region. The Guardian piece is a flagrant attempt to destroy confidence in a rival nation's durable goods. Is the 787 completely safe? Nothing is completely safe. Trying to pretend that there's something revolutionary and scary about the 787 in order to damage a competitor is "fair play" but for fuck's sake, put your back into it.It’s just a piece of journalism that raises questions about the cause of the current issues.
I agree with your comments regarding the aviation market, and I am sure the current issue with lithium ion batteries will be addressed quickly with little long term impact on Boeing. I disagree that The Guardian is trying to push a political or economic agenda with the intention of discrediting a US product. The adoption of new technology on the 787 is revolutionary for the airline industry - it is why the 787 will be successful - and should not cause concern. However, when passengers hear that an entire fleet of aircraft has been grounded due to safety concerns, they naturally lose confidence and want answers. Writing an article that examines some of the macro-economic/political drivers should not be off limits.
The 787 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Composites for commercial aircraft were pioneered by the 777 more than 15 years ago. Fly-by-wire first came out in commercial aviation with the A320 in 1988. Glass cockpit? 777 again. Once more, with feeling: The entire A380 fleet was grounded. The DC-10 fleet was grounded. Considering every argument about the 787 deals with composite materials, having battery problems is a long damn way from warranting "a nightmare waiting to happen."