Nothing really shocking though, apparantly it's over weight, according to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Alan Mulally.
He also added that they now will "focus on achieving a weight-effective structure"...whatever that means. 

A few 787 parts supliers are also behind schedule, but despite that Mulally promised that the 787 wont be delayed.

So the people who flamed the A380 for being over weight, just has to realize that it happens to everybody 

I'm not surprised, what you have on the paper is seldomly the exact  same thing ending up on the production line.

The 787 will be fine 

This is a good article.  It lists the advantages and disadvantages of each manufacture.  Based on the article, I believe Boeing holds a decided advantage over Airbus, unless they fall on their face with the 787.  What will tell is the big vs medium strategy.  So far, based on advanced sales, medium seems the way airlines are going.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2006-07-17-airbus-usat_x....

Quote:

LOL British aircraft are built like battleships compared with American types. It's a wonder some of them ever left the ground. With military aircraft it's all the equipment the brass hats constantly ask for that increases the weight. Many a good design has been rendered useless because of this.

Quote:

I read most of the artical. It was all about "the airbus is late and the 787 is going to wipe the floor with airbus and boeing is going to win".

No US publication is going to find in favour with Airbus. While few European publications will go out and out for Boeing. It's all nationalism.

Quote:

I know the F35 has it's problem because the MoD specified a vertical take off weight that Lockheed stuck to rigourously without realising that it was the operational take off weight. As it is the F35's VTOL capabilities are on the limit without fuel or weapons.

Quote:


Occasionally on this side of the pond we find the message from Seattle and the press rather repetative and boring...

On the subject of Boeing, in todays "Times" they took a full page advert advertising (!) one of their "Airplanes"...

It got me thinking - if the advert was in a French newspaper, I presume it would be in French, so why do they have to impose "American" English in a British publication...

"It's not a plane, it's an aeroplane..."*

Must have been expensive though, a full page spread in glorious color...

*10 pts for the film, the character, and a bonus for the actor...

Quote:

Reach for the Sky. Douglas Baders flying instructor. Havn't seen the film in at least ten years so I'm afraid I don't stand a chance on the bonus point.

Quote:

Quite right. I seriously don't have the time, commitment or energy to read more than a few paragraphs of Airbus bashing by an american publication. Same goes for the reverse. Civil aviation is really not much of an interest for me and I doubt, when the 787 comes out, that i'll be able to tell it apart from any of the other airliners.

Quote:


You probably don't have as much exposure to US media as we do on this side of the pond (assuming you're in Europe here).  There's nothing the US media likes more than beating up on US companies.  European companies are always automatically assumed superior to US companies, and Japanese companies are practically god-like.  If you were to listen to the US media, you'd think all US companies are crap, produce crap, treat people like crap, treat the environment like crap, etc.  Maybe they're right (of the three cars in my driveway, none of them are by a US based manufacturer). 

You gotta figure, all those "journalists" have all been turned down for real jobs by real american companies, so they've all got a pretty big chip on their shoulder. 

Quote:

I couldn't remember whether or not Bader repeated the phrase later on in the film. I get the feeling he did when he took over 242 squadron.