How Boeing Spent $1 Billion Building a Single 787
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 ноя 2020
- 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.com.np/wp-armour-...
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 
Авто/Мото
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 !
"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.
"Let me explain." Listening, Dad.
Go to your room ! :)
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
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.
Nice video. Clear, concise, and informative. Well done!
Much appreciated!
@@cobyexplanes hi
Interesting content, Coby! I enjoyed this very much. Well done.
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?
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.
Love this Channel. Keep up the good work.
LOVE your explaning.
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...
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.
Great one Coby, I've always followed aviation, but I've never heard of these. Thanks for telling me stuff I didn't know.
Don’t believe everything you hear …
Good video production Coby!
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
Hey! Saw one of those at Pima museum in Tucson!!! Got a photo of myself in front of the fan! Peiceless!
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...
Nicely explained!
Glad you think so!
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 had the privilege to see one of the first 787’s it’s at Pima air and space museum in Tuscan Arizona! It’s pretty cool.
i believe 4 test aircraft were donated and the 5th test plane sold to a VIP cust after refurb.
NO CAP THIS VIDEOSSS ARE AMAZING
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...
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.
Awesome video! Puts my spilled milk in perspective.
Really Good!
Nightmare Liner in the thumbnail bro 💀💀💀💀
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 saw one of those first ANA ones at Pima Air and Space museum in Tucson Arizona. You can get right up next to it it’s very cool.
Great video
Atleast they spent a lot on a great successful jet in commercial aviation today👌👌
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.
08:52 That Air Canada looks pretty nice 👌
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.
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.
A video about the development of the A380 would be interesting.
787s is wonderful aircraft, love to fly them.
Excellent
I really like these videos :D
:)
The algorithm shined on you this day. I subscribed. All hail the algorithm.
I’m going to sub I live aviation u explain a lot simply and I can understand but I just signed into RUclips so now I can sun u deserve more fame
“Mistakes” or trial-and-error? Innovation often yields errors; it’s part of the process.
What's the music playing during your intro? Love it!
BEAUTIFULL VIDIEO
Wow. I had no idea about this at all. Such a crazy program. How do you feel about flying on this jet?
Thanks 👍
Boeing needs to thank the MacDonnell-Douglas Merger for the 787 Costs!!!
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.
I flew on one. It was noticeable that it was different. I mean way better experience. Wow
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.
Thank you.
I like the 787 and hope to fly on it one day. But I love the 777 more.
Boeing went downhill after adopting the "McDonnell Douglas" way as a result of the merger.
1:05
The 3rd 787 sits in the museum of flight in Seattle.
ZA003
Tbh this is my favorite Aircraft 😍.
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.
Yoooo let me get some of that merch
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.
That one for private use, it’s very likely end up as Mexico’s “Air force one”.
a (international only) full service airline operating a fleet of 29 B787-10 LR, 33 B787-9 & 5 SAAB 2000 turbo prop can be profitable, from the 2nd quarter of 2022 onwards!!! especially on long haul routes both trans atlantic & those connecting South Asia with the Middle East & Western Europe, ofcourse Australia as well!!!
Wow and I thought car manufacturers - especially VW and Dieselgate - screwed up. Great and thought provoking video dude
YES and Mercedes Benz as well.....had Cheat devices, and the law suites are growing everyday.
And you were right. VW should not have fired Diess. He had a clue.
And I know one of the early 787 is in Nagoya airport for long term exhibition
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
Well done Boeing!
I must say flying on the787 are the most comfortable flights I've had. I love this plane. I'm just happy there are airlines out there willing to purschase them for me.
Will Rolls Royce be featured in your video about 787 supply chain issues?
Finnair photobombomg yet again. Torille!!🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮
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.
Does anyone know the LNs of the other 12 defective 787s? I know that 5 of the 17 are definitely LN1, LN2, LN3, LN4, & LN5
Plz do a new vid about the new 747-8 Air Force one
NightmareLiner is correct. The 787 NightmareLiner is probably the only truly dangerous plane Boeing has ever built. Many pilots refuse to fly it, and I have always gone out of my way to never be on one.
Give me a 767 or 777 any day, and I like flying the 717, 737, 747, and 757 too
Did not see anything to support his on the web. Sources?
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.
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.
“Find a temporary fix” looks like the Dreamliner has a little of the maxes blood running in its veins
Always remember Boeing does have the saving grace of the 777 !! :)
Probably the best plane in the world..
Hi Coby! Talk about if Boeing should do an ER/LR version of B787?
Why? Your standard 787 is in effect an ER/LR as it stands. It can fly from Perth to Heathrow non-stop. It's range can't get anymore extended than this, can it?
@@thecockerel86 It probably could be but the question is. Is it worth it and needed?
Coby you’re cool!
Thanks Erick :)
"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.
Wait, cars always are just a shell when revealed as the concept stage, this works differently with airplanes?
Me who designs planes in under an hour: well, how do planes take years
Who else is asking for Coby Explanes merch for xmas??
what's xmas?
who's Coby Explanes?
@@cobyexplanes omg you replied
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 can assure you that ANA did take at least 2 of the teens(lines 7-20) i believe JAL got 2 as well.
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.
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....
Despite its flaws and mishaps overall the plane is a beautiful piece of engineering. I hope Boeing sorts out it’s production issues and gets more of these into the sky!
And happily it has happened 😀
Alright Coby you got me, I will let you explain...
It becomes complex, especially if Boeing doesn’t learn from its mistakes, that said, the new B777 series should be fantastic.
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.
Why didn’t you compare the A-380 prototype costs vs. the 787?
Boeing should have just carved a 787 out of clay like car manufacturers do for auto shows. 🤣
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....