Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 Prod. Rate, Extra Investments Required  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Boeing is considering ramping up production. The rate question is complicated by the amount of extra investment required by the partners and suppliers.

Probably the last orders (such as todays delayed China Southern order ) have pushed Boeing to reconsider their current offerts.

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ers+ramping-up+787+production.html



76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Quote:
Orders and commitments for the new twinjet are now said to have exceeded 850.
Details of the growing firm order list, comprising 256 aircraft for 21 customers, emerged as the first all-composite nose test section was rolled out...


WHOA!!! Can't wait to see this list!!

Boeing really has to be careful about the supply chain... Since they have so many partners in the 787 project, one little problem in one of the suppliers could spell a big problem for 787 once it's into full production.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6782 times:

Another interesting blurb from the article: "Boeing is considering ramping-up 787 production from 2009 as it struggles to find available slots for prospective customers. Orders and commitments for the new twinjet are now said to have exceeded 850."

850? Who are these mystery customers? I would assume that FI is a reliable aviation information source, but I don't know. If this number is true there is no doubt that they should ramp up production.

EDIT: FH said the same thing as me at about the same time, sorry for the double post

[Edited 2005-08-30 17:11:36]

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6734 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 2):
850? Who are these mystery customers?

I guess they included all options, MOU's, LOI's etc. in that number. Mostly those are not mentioned by A and B.


User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Could the Long Beach facility be turned into a secondary assembly line? I know that that would make a whole lot of former MD people happy.

Are there space or technological issues that would keep this from being a viable way to increase production? Or are the slow down issues further back in the supply chain, and no extra assembly space would make a difference?


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6706 times:

It only takes Boeing 3 days to put the planes together...the problem lies in getting all the partners to deliver parts faster. That said, a second assembly line may not really provide any benefit depending on how fast parts are made.

User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6689 times:

Does anyone have a list of most current 787 customers, and indicate who has signed the contract (firm orders), who has committed, and who only signed LOIs, including options?

Thanks


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

www.boeing.com

You can find all the firm orders there, as well as announced orders (look in the 787 news section for the latter).


User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4627 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

MOU and LOIs are not released to the public as a general rule.

Let's hope they do ramp up the planned production rate. It would be mad of them if they didn't... it looks like the 787 is going to be a moneyspinner both for the company that creates it, and the airlines that buy it.

Trent.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 5):
It only takes Boeing 3 days to put the planes together

3 days to assemble? Are you sure you're not confusing the assembly time of one aircraft with the ammount of time between assembled aircraft coming of the production line?

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6628 times:

OK, superficially outrageous suggestion coming up.

Boeing seem literally to be overwhelmed by orders and commitments - my guess is that they simply cannot contract with later prospective buyers because the likely delivery dates are too remote. Meanwhile Airbus are racking in much fewer orders and facing a long period of adjustment and high costs while they design and produce the A350.

The sensible thing, from a 'whole industry' viewpoint, would be for Airbus to drop the A350 project and instead offer to build 787s on licence.

[Edited 2005-08-30 17:30:13]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6603 times:

Maybe I am...but seeing that most of the sections are coming "stuffed" and ready to be snapped together by Boeing, I might not be that far off...

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
I guess they included all options, MOU's, LOI's etc. in that number. Mostly those are not mentioned by A and B.

What are MOU's and LOI's and what are the chances that those become commitments or firm orders?


User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 7):
www.boeing.com

You can find all the firm orders there, as well as announced orders (look in the 787 news section for the latter).

Thanks, FriendlySkies.

But Boeing's website only has firmed orders which contracts are already signed. I'm trying to figure out what airline has signed LOIs but haven't signed the contracts yet, plus all the options.

Thanks


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6483 times:

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
Could the Long Beach facility be turned into a secondary assembly line? I know that that would make a whole lot of former MD people happy.

In theory yes, but, Boeing is going to start tearing apart the building and tooling as soon as the last 717 rolls off the line.....



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlinePaddy From Taiwan, joined Jul 2003, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6455 times:

The sensible thing, from a 'whole industry' viewpoint, would be for Airbus to drop the A350 project and instead offer to build 787s on licence.

The sensible thing would be for Airbus to use those resources to gain/maintain marketshare wherever they can. Just like the proposed 747Adv may capture some of the lower capacity end of the A380 market, the A350 should get some of the higher capacity end of the 787 mkt, as well as providing a more viable competitor to the 777. Their eggs are primarily in the VLA basket however, and I think that after its teething problems are sorted out, the A380 will eventually prove to be a moderate success. This is great news about the 787 though, it seems to have reset the balance between the two manufacturers. The next thing to look for is who can put out the best next generation narrowbody the fastest.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
The sensible thing, from a 'whole industry' viewpoint, would be for Airbus to drop the A350 project and instead offer to build 787s on licence.

Were it not the a359 is mainly brought out to help 'whole industry' not having to buy / get rid of the 772  stirthepot 

Quoting NorCal (Reply 12):
What are MOU's and LOI's and what are the chances that those become commitments or firm orders?

Memorandum of understanding, letter of intent. the kind of pieces of papers A&B make operators sign at conferences etc. Usually so many disclaimers / side conditions they aren't very valuable..


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6445 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 12):
What are MOU's and LOI's and what are the chances that those become commitments or firm orders?

LOI is a Letter of Intent, basically the airline saying we want to order it. MOU is something of Understanding, which is the same thing I believe. These aren't published anywhere, so you won't know who they are unless the airline says it.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6404 times:

If one considers why supply curves slope upward as quantity increases, I think you get a fairly straightforward picture of what is happening with the 787 program.

User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2630 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
OK, superficially outrageous suggestion coming up.

Boeing seem literally to be overwhelmed by orders and commitments - my guess is that they simply cannot contract with later prospective buyers because the likely delivery dates are too remote. Meanwhile Airbus are racking in much fewer orders and facing a long period of adjustment and high costs while they design and produce the A350.

The sensible thing, from a 'whole industry' viewpoint, would be for Airbus to drop the A350 project and instead offer to build 787s on licence.

HA HA! Too funny.

Even if by some remote chance they did this, Leahy would still insist the Airbus made 787 would be more efficient than Boeings. LOL.

[Edited 2005-08-30 18:04:34]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

I say make sure you can "bake and snap" these birds as originally planned, before being tempted to shift to Plan B to chase nascent orders.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6334 times:

Quoting Paddy (Reply 15):
The sensible thing would be for Airbus to use those resources to gain/maintain marketshare wherever they can.

I'd agree, Paddy, except for the matter of 'lead-time' on new models. The shorter-ranged 787s will clearly snuff out Airbus' nearest competitor, the A330; and the A350 is years off (even if the A350 project gets the go-ahead next month). The A340 may still sell a few, but the 772LR will soon be competing with it in the ULH market, and that market is a small one anyway. The A380 is irrelevant in this context since Airbus won't make a dollar out of it for yonks; in fact, given the discounts offered to early customers, it will cost Airbus extra money to build and deliver it for several years.

That leaves the A320, which will likely still sell in numbers, but only on a 50/50 basis with the 737 at best. I don't think that is enough to keep Airbus going full blast, and maintain a positive cash flow, for the four years minimum it will take to get any sort of A350 into production.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 13):
But Boeing's website only has firmed orders which contracts are already signed. I'm trying to figure out what airline has signed LOIs but haven't signed the contracts yet, plus all the options.

This webpage has done a great job of keeping track of signed orders, MoU's, LoI's and options (and powerplant selections as well):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Orders_and_options

Hope this gets you a little closer to what you are seeking.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 17):
LOI is a Letter of Intent, basically the airline saying we want to order it. MOU is something of Understanding, which is the same thing I believe.

MoU is a memorandum of understanding. I'm assuming that an LoI is rather more serious than an MoU? Or is the other way around? I never could remember...

Rich


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6207 times:

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 4):
Could the Long Beach facility be turned into a secondary assembly line? I know that that would make a whole lot of former MD people happy.

Are there space or technological issues that would keep this from being a viable way to increase production? Or are the slow down issues further back in the supply chain, and no extra assembly space would make a difference?

A large portion of the MD property was sold off years ago and a good portion of the buildings that were there were removed or replaced. Pretty much the only things left are the C-17 and 717 lines and a few other buildings, not enough for a large production line.



My Country can beat up your Country....
25 AirFrnt : Of course, you also omit that Boeing says that it is doing so because of the high numbers of orders that they have in their sales pipeline. Tell that
26 NAV20 : Great site, N60659, thanks. Funny thing though - the one fact you can't find anywhere (not even on that site) is the 787's fuel load. Months back, a '
27 AirFrnt : Boeing/Douglas has gone to work with Airbus three times. Everytime that they have, Airbus has crippled or outright killed the program, and then used
28 DAYflyer : That 850 number sounds a bit off to me. Are we SURE it is not a misprint or something??????????? I would hope not...... but it sounds too high to me.
29 Post contains links NAV20 : I'm sure that's true, Airfrnt. In addition, I think it is highly unlikely that Airbus would seek any such arrangement, because EADS would never take
30 AirFrnt : As clarification to my point, being a American company and trying to do a joint product with basically a European instutution has proved somewhat dic
31 WINGS : Yeah right, keeping telling your self that. MD had its destination due to low productivity and the inability to modernize its airplanes. Regards, Win
32 Post contains images Keesje : BTW, what a new innovative A vs B approach, nobody came up with that b.ll yet. We all know what happened after the cooperation of McD with Boeing wai
33 Post contains images Lightsaber : That's true of any integration program. Nothing special here. Ok, while a rumor, but if true... Boeing will have no trouble convincing vendors to pon
34 Lumberton : NAV20, your observation is exactly what the marketing department of Boeing wants the competition to think. Isn't the A350 "go/no go" decision pending
35 GARPD : What co operation? Boeing bought them, period. I have always considered it very strange than the A380 and A330 both look like carbon copies of defunc
36 WINGS : Sadly that is very true. Just wonder what would have been if Airbus had bought MD. Regards, Wings
37 GARPD : What is true? As I said, Boeing bought McD. Period.
38 WINGS : Oh no. Not another conspiracy theory. Regards, Wings
39 GARPD : Just thinking out loud. Care to answer my question.
40 Keesje : Looks to me like people who (I think) know better are starting to make things up to make (any) point.
41 GARPD : You are in no position to critisize anyone or accuse anyone of making things up.
42 AirFrnt : MD worked with Airbus on a joint plane that eventually became the A330. As for the A380 I think it's because both MD and Airbus wanted a double decke
43 WINGS : That's right they did buy MD. Just look of what became of the MD division and all its product family. Do you need more explanation? Hi Keeje, If you
44 Keesje : Sorry Wings, my fault.. Other people believe the A330 is a natural progression of the A300, A320 and A300-600. Looking at the airframes, systems, cock
45 B2707SST : Boeing bought Douglas because Douglas' commercial line was dying, not the other way around. The MD-11 was trounced by the 777 and the MD-80s were suc
46 AirFrnt : Believe what you like, doesn't change the fact that Airbus had long technical discussions with MD about doing a joint plane, and even talking about t
47 PHXinterrupted : So Keesje, why do you even post in the forum? I mean seriously, all you do is try to start crap with your biased airbus slant on everything. You sure
48 FriendlySkies : Kind of ironic, Douglas said goodbye to Sud when the US-built, GE-powered Caravelle was being planned, and then went on to make the DC-9...hmm...
49 Post contains images GARPD : Which you can't deny was a damn good aircraft
50 N328KF : No, Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas for two reasons: For the McDonnell defense division. To keep Airbus' paws off of Douglas Aircraft.
51 NAV20 : Keesje, any particular reason why you included my comment about the EADS Board setup - "...effectively, if the French side and Daimler-Chrysler can't
52 Galapagapop : Wonder where all those comitments are from. AA? SQ? Interesting indeed, but I'm sure this has to do with the rising costs of fuel and the fact the A35
53 Post contains images QFA001 : The -8/9 will have about 97t fuel capacity compared to the A350, which will have about 110t capacity. (Although the wings are quite similar in size,
54 GQfluffy : Keesje, every time I see a thread by you, I prepare myself to deal with a bunch of manure. But this time you may be on to something. Quoting from the
55 Thorny : Well, that was nearly four years ago now, and there really hasn't been a big new military aircraft acquisition program since then. Boeing is still pi
56 Post contains images F9Widebody : You're pretty far off. Boeing planes take months to assemble, not days.
57 PlaneDane : You're both wrong. IDS (Boeing Military) has a lot going on. As for large, lucrative military contracts, they don't get any bigger, better or more de
58 707lvr : The 850 orders/commitments/LOI/MOU/wishes/hopes have to include a large number from the Big 5 U.S. carriers in whatever form they may be by 2009 or so
59 Post contains links B2707SST : Which would not have been necessary had McDD's commercial division been strong and profitable. Its failure to keep up with Boeing and especially Doug
60 Iwok : and it will have four enginer. the 787 is designed to snap together; literally. All the sections will come in pre-assembled and the a/c will go toget
61 NAV20 : Many thanks for that, QFA001; another piece for the jigsaw! Say about 35,000 US gallons. Funny how things work out - my unofficial 'leaked' figure fr
62 Post contains links and images Keesje : Is what I think. In ten years the US sky will probably be filled by 787's. Who owns them, flies them etc is unclear at this stage, but they probably
63 GARPD : And your far behind the times. Boeing has been modernising its production lines. Most notably its 737NG line. No longer static. Its creeps along at a
64 Revelation : I think the "designed to be unable to take decisions" part is what he's getting at. I think one could look at the same information and say it was des
65 NAV20 : Fair enough, Revelation. But given that ten out of the eleven members are directly nominated by the two power blocks, it does seem to be a recipe for
66 PlaneDane : Well, Revelation, if that is what you think, you are wrong yet again. By the way, the Apache didn't come out of Iraq as you claim -- it's still there
67 NAV20 : It's off-topic, PlaneDane, but I have to come back on that. What on earth are they doing using weapons like that over areas almost exclusively occupi
68 DAYflyer : Airbus would have been forced to sell off the defense part of the business to Boeing since foriegn ownership of defense corporations is prohibited un
69 Post contains images GARPD : Just what I thought
70 N328KF : Then explain BAe.
71 GARPD : He was on about US law. UK laws are much different. BAe is a British company governed by British law. US law does not affect its ownership.
72 N328KF : Uhhh, no. My point is that BAe is one of the top contractors to the Department of Defense. They own United Defense (think M2 Bradley), TRACOR, former
73 Halibut : I have a big time Boeing bias . Keesje - possibly Airbus ? However, you can not deny that Keesje posts the most popular and intriqueing threads time
74 PlaneDane : NAV20, I wasn't intending to take us even further off-topic, but I felt I needed to clear up just a few misconceptions held out there. As for the Ira
75 FlyingHippo : When Boeing bought MD division, their commercial aircraft division where not doing so great as it is... MD-11 proved to be a flop as a PAX jet, and e
76 Post contains images NAV20 : Thanks, PlaneDane. Sorry for the outburst, it wasn't justified - I just had a 'flashback' to how I felt seeing those rocket salvos going off on TV, an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing 787 Production Rate May Hit 16 Per Month posted Mon May 29 2006 16:42:16 by Keesje
WSJ: Boeing May Increase 787 Production Rate posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:59:51 by N328KF
Photo Of Boeing 787 Section Being Transported posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:09:01 by RobK
AA, DL, UA Vie For Boeing 787 Gold Care Contracts posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:13:52 by WorldTraveler
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Break Even No! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:26:50 by Bringiton
Boeing 787-3 For Delta Hawaii Routes? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:30:06 by 1337Delta764
Boeing 787 Progress posted Mon Sep 4 2006 18:03:31 by DTW757
Kawasaki Heavy Mulling 2nd Plant For Boeing 787 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 20:29:44 by NYC777
Pegasus Aviation Order 6 Boeing 787-8s posted Tue Jul 18 2006 09:29:00 by PanAm_DC10