A new history, just published, of Alaska Airlines and sister company Horizon Air is worthy of adding to any aviation book collection.
Written by aviation historian Robert J. Serling, now all of 90 years old, the book was commissioned by Alaska for its 75th anniversary, which was last year. The book was delayed in part because of Serling’s health. Although the book was commissioned, this is no powder-puff piece; it’s an honest reporting job that is probably one of Serling’s best among six or so airline histories written over the years.
Serling is one of our favorite aviation authors; we recommend buying the book. It’s available through Amazon.com.
We had the opportunity last week to tour the 787 production line.
There is optimism that the program is back on track, though there appears to be an emerging hiccup. We toured the line before information began emerging over the weekend that there may be a problem with airplane #4. We know that a major trade writer is also pursuing this event, including detail that is not in the initial report involving Section 44. Although there were elements of airplane 4 on the production floor during our tour, the fuselage barrels weren’t among them. We’re told the information did not begin to emerge from Charleston until after our tour, which was Thursday.
Be that as it may, Boeing tells us that traveled work continues to decline. The company pointed us to information released by Vought recently that Sections 47/48 traveled work was as follows, with the percentages representing the amount of completed work at the time of shipment to Everett:
AP1: 16% structures
AP2: 93% structures
AP3: 98% structures, 37% systems
AP4: 98% structures, 87% systems
Boeing reports that Alenia shipped Section 44 for airplane 5 with 100% of the work completed, “the first partner to ship an assembly with no open jobs.”
Boeing says that Power On airplane 1, which was two weeks earlier than anticipated under the current, revised schedule that had a June 30 target date, had fewer issues than anticipated. With that, Boeing is still planning a fourth quarter first flight with airplane 1. Although Boeing won’t give a more precise target date, word has more-or-less widely circulated that it’s supposed to be in October. This may or may not be correct.
The flight test program is planned for seven months, and with first delivery set for September 2009 (a date that slipped during the Investors Day last month), this suggests that the flight testing won’t begin until February (September, the ninth month, minus seven brings us to February–even we don’t need Excel to do this math). If this schedule seems aggressive, it is, and it’s something Boeing previously acknowledged. As the company also previously acknowledged, flight testing is planned to run 24/7 with six airplanes.
Some analysts have compared the aggressive 787 program with the flight testing of the 777, which ran 11 months. The 777 had nine test airplanes–a bit of a surprise, since it was thought there were fewer planes in that testing than planned for the 787. The 777 also had three engines offered on the airplane, vs. two for the 787, and was pioneering some ETOPS that won’t be necessary for the 787. Accordingly, Boeing believes, the compressed 787 testing is feasible.
There are some within Boeing, and outside of Boeing, who are concerned that the current 787 schedule now conflicts with the flight test program for the 747-8F, stretching resources. This isn’t the first time this concern emerged; originally an earlier 787 delay would have conflicted with the flight test schedule for the 777F. With the 777F due to take off any day now, this conflict is gone but the potential conflict now may overlap the 747-8.
There may be an easy answer, though, if painfully arrived at: with massive layoffs in the US airline industry, Boeing may find a ready pool of pilots available to supplement its own test pilot group of some 40.
Boeing has also created a new flight test center organization, as outlined in this story by Aviation Week magazine.
Update, 500 PM PDT: Here they are–the details of the Section 44 issue.
Update, Tuesday, July 1, 345 PDT: Bloomberg News has this extensive story about this development.
Update, Wednesday, July 2, 700 AM PDT: The Seattle Times writes that production was halted at Charleston after an FAA audit found irregularities. Although it was just for 24 hours, the news is a disturbing indication that all is not well even after Boeing assumed control of the plant.
This story in The Seattle Times outlines plans by Washington State legislators to pony up new tax breaks for Boeing for the 737 replacement.
The information came out of the new Aerospace Futures Alliance, which media revealed previously is about 50% funded by Boeing.
Our regular readers know that Washington State tax breaks are one of the key objections in the EU complaint filed with the World Trade Organization over Boeing’s “illegal” subsidies for the 787 program. Our regular readers also know that we don’t like tax breaks of any kind to any corporation, and we especially don’t like Washington State tax breaks because we live in this State and residents have to assume the tax burdens of tax breaks granted to corporations.
If this were Christmas, we’d say, “Bah humbug.”
In some non-tanker news, the aerospace sector tanked on the New York markets today.
BE Aerospace, down 12.13%, $3.69 to $26.74
Spirit AeroSystems, down 8.63%, $2.04 to $21.60
Boeing: down 6.9%, $5.15 to $69.64.
and so on….
Interestingly, Northrop Grumman was up 1.62%, $1.12, to $70.37 despite the GAO report detailing the rationale and findings of the decision to uphold the Boeing protest.
We haven’t read it, but here is it, all 67 pages in PDF form. b-311344__boeing__redacted_decision.
Update, 1215 PM PDT: We’ve completed a quick read of the GAO decision. In it, the GAO found–as previously reported–for Boeing on a number of key elements. The GAO also rejected Boeing’s protests on far more complaints than were sustained, but only a small number of these are discussed in the report. Some of these were key elements in Boeing’s public relations campaign. But that’s neither here nor there–the elements detailed by the GAO in sustaining the protest are enough.
The GAO report also makes it clear that in defending the decision, on occasion neither the Air Force nor Northrop Grumman provided information for the record that refuted Boeing’s complaints–thus leading the GAO to side with Boeing.
It is clear from our reading of the report that a rebid, correcting deficiencies outlined in the GAO report, is indeed warranted. The news report we posted earlier today suggesting that the Air Force may proceed with the award as issued without a rebid is an unwise course of action.
Among the key points in the GAO report is the conclusion that Boeing’s KC-767 did indeed score better than the KC-30 in the more important criteria identified in the USAF RFP, while the KC-30 outscored the KC-767 in criteria that was less important to the requirements of the aircraft. While the GAO sides with the Air Force that the KC-30 does offer “more” as the Air Force stated when announcing the award, the GAO concludes that the RFP doesn’t allow for the extra credit that was awarded for this extra capability–yet this was the key to the USAF’s decision announced on February 29.
The GAO also sides with Boeing about the “survivability” assertion that the KC-767 scored better. Furthermore, the GAO says the record calls into question the KC-30′s ability to maneuver safely in emergency break-away situations, largely because neither the Air Force nor Northrop provided adequate documentation or analysis for the record to enable the GAO to conclude otherwise.
A fair reading of the GAO decision leaves room for no other conclusion: the USAF process was fatally flawed. A recompete is necessary.
We will be re-reading the report in greater detail and may update our report here in the coming days.
Update, 230 PM PDT: Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia opines on the tanker mess in his monthly newsletter. Catch it here: Our long national nightmare.