Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Considers 787 Production Increase  
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8929 times:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/245213_boeing20.html

Boeing may speed up 787 production
Exec says 'demand is high' with early deliveries sought

Thursday, October 20, 2005

By MASUMI SUGA
BLOOMBERG NEWS

The Boeing Co. may increase the rate it makes the new 787 Dreamliner to meet rising demand for the fuel-efficient aircraft, a company executive said Wednesday.

"We are evaluating the optimal level to increase production to," Wade Cornelius, Boeing's vice president in charge of global strategy on commercial aircraft division, said in Tokyo. "Demand is extremely high. There are many customers who'd like to have early deliveries."

With oil prices high, demand has surged for fuel-saving planes such as the 787, which will use 20 percent less fuel than similar-sized aircraft. Boeing is counting on the 787 to recoup market share from Airbus, which surpassed the company in deliveries in 2003. The new plane is scheduled to enter service in 2008.

Boeing now forecasts the production rate for 787 models at seven aircraft a month, Cornelius said, declining to say how much more the plane maker can bolster production.

Boeing has announced orders and commitments for 293 planes, including the latest order for 20 aircraft worth $2.5 billion from an unidentified customer.

The order was booked last week, said Michael Tull, a spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing. He declined Wednesday to identify the buyer. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the customer is International Lease Finance Corp., citing people familiar with the purchase whom it didn't name.

In Japan, Boeing has won a combined firm order for 80 787s from Japan Airlines Corp. and All Nippon Airways Co., the country's two largest carriers, extending its dominance over Airbus in the country. About 35 percent of contracts for the 787, including work for wings and fuselage, were awarded to Japanese manufacturers, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.

International Lease Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy said while visiting an Airbus factory in January that the leasing company was in talks to buy the 787 as well as Airbus planes. Price was the sticking point in the negotiations, Udvar-Hazy said at the Paris Air Show in June.

The 787 is scheduled to go into service in 2008. The plane has a list price of between $125 million and $135 million, according to Boeing.

Airbus won approval from shareholders earlier this month for a $5.7 billion project to build the A350 aircraft, which would compete with the Dreamliner. The A350 will feature the same fuel-saving engines being used on the 787. The plane isn't expected to enter service until 2010. It has a list price of $159 million to $165 million.


One Nation Under God
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8829 times:

I don't understand Airbus setting a list price for the A350 30% higher than the list price for the B787. I realize nobody pays list prices, but this seems excessive.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8800 times:

Boeing is unusually bullish on this airplane. I am curious to see if the 787 will do what they say it will.

User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8753 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 2):
Boeing is unusually bullish on this airplane. I am curious to see if the 787 will do what they say it will.

It was about time they woke up and started throwing punches, while they were sitting in Everett waiting for orders to magically fall off the sky, Airbus was out there SELLING their airplanes, I personally like their new sales attitude, keep up the good work Boeing.

[Edited 2005-10-20 16:59:21]

User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8730 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1):

It may not be necessary expensive if big discount is applied. Part of marketing gimmicks. Operators should know the value of the plane they're getting.

Cheers.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 2):
Boeing is unusually bullish on this airplane.

I can probably give another reason why Boeing is bullish on the 787--the potential for a huge order of tanker planes for the USAF derived from the 787-8 design. Note that when Boeing showed the final configuration of the 787 it appears they changed the tail design to accommodate the Boeing Flying Boom air-refuelling system.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

Luisca,

That was me and not Zveda by the way. I think it would be better if they simply let the sales numbers themselves do most of the talking and support that with confident and measured words. And I think that is what Boeing does most of the time. I would leave the over-the-top bluster to John Leahy.


User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8655 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1):
I don't understand Airbus setting a list price for the A350 30% higher than the list price for the B787

OK, lets look at a very crude way of evaluating the costs of these 2 birds.

The A358/9 carries either 253/300 pax in 3-class according to Airbus.com
The B788/9 carries either 223/259 pax in 3-class according to Boeing.com

That, very crudely, puts the airbus ~15% larger in terms of seats/earning potential. So I'm with Zvezda, why is the airbus 30% higher in terms of list price? The only think that would make sense is if the A350 beats the B787 significantly on fuel burn per seat.


User currently offlineXA744 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 734 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8617 times:

... Boeing is aggressively flirting with Aeroméxico and expects to get an order for the 788 real soon.

AM is in the bad need to replace its aging 767 fleet, which has been announced will be retired by mid 2007. In this regard, the natural choice is the 787. Boeing has offered to accommodate the carriers needs in terms of delivery times and technical specs.

... More and more metal polished frames are to be seen at Renton !

Regards



No matter how you fly...just never get your wings clipped !
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5744 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8608 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 7):
OK, lets look at a very crude way of evaluating the costs of these 2 birds.

The A358/9 carries either 253/300 pax in 3-class according to Airbus.com
The B788/9 carries either 223/259 pax in 3-class according to Boeing.com

That, very crudely, puts the airbus ~15% larger in terms of seats/earning potential. So I'm with Zvezda, why is the airbus 30% higher in terms of list price? The only think that would make sense is if the A350 beats the B787 significantly on fuel burn per seat.

Remember that the 787- is supposed to have competition from the A358 and the 772ER is competing against the A359. Airbus is not fielding a competitor against the 783 or the 788. We should compare the listing prices of the four models above according to the seat/payload range categories.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8588 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 7):
That, very crudely, puts the airbus ~15% larger in terms of seats/earning potential. So I'm with Zvezda, why is the airbus 30% higher in terms of list price?

Hesitate to put this on - but I spent a lot of my career analysing capital projects. I suspect that the reason is that, as reported several times lately, Airbus are currently shopping around for risk-sharing partners. So the project analysis has to make some sort of financial sense, in terms of the lines on the graph eventually crossing to show a profit.

Airbus have to find $5B. up front to develop the A350. And they have less than 200 'commitments' to play with so far. And there's unlikely to be any inward cash flow for five years or more.

I'm afraid that - provided you're unscrupulous - the easiest way to make any proposed project show a profit (on paper, anyway) is to jack up the projected selling prices. Which could very well be why such high sticker prices are being quoted at this stage.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSupa7e7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8566 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 5):
I can probably give another reason why Boeing is bullish on the 787--the potential for a huge order of tanker planes for the USAF derived from the 787-8 design. Note that when Boeing showed the final configuration of the 787 it appears they changed the tail design to accommodate the Boeing Flying Boom air-refuelling system.

I have not heard anyone support this theory before. Personally, I disagree. The tail was changed to burn less fuel... probably...

Usually the military seems to prefer old designs to new ones. More proven, tough and reliable. Plus, the 787 has huge demand supporting high unit prices, unlike the 767. Not that I know jack, but the 767 seems perfect for the job.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8549 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 6):
That was me and not Zveda by the way.

If I must be confused with someone, it's an honor to be confused with N79969.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8535 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
Airbus have to find $5B. up front to develop the A350. And they have less than 200 'commitments' to play with so far. And there's unlikely to be any inward cash flow for five years or more.

I'm afraid that - provided you're unscrupulous - the easiest way to make any proposed project show a profit (on paper, anyway) is to jack up the projected selling prices. Which could very well be why such high sticker prices are being quoted at this stage.

I knew there had to be a reason. Thank you NAV20 for the enlightenment. I should have seen that one.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting Supa7e7 (Reply 11):
Usually the military seems to prefer old designs to new ones. More proven, tough and reliable. Plus, the 787 has huge demand supporting high unit prices, unlike the 767. Not that I know jack, but the 767 seems perfect for the job.

The C-135 was not an "old design," and neither is the C-17 or V-22. Also, WIG and BWB aircraft are believed to have their greatest chance for success with the DoD.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8460 times:

I would think that if this program demanded more production slots, especially to allow EK to place a large order for 787-10's with early slots, it would be hard for Boeing to look the other way and not increase production rates on this aircraft.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8449 times:

Quoting XA744 (Reply 8):

AM is in the bad need to replace its aging 767 fleet, which has been announced will be retired by mid 2007

787 will not be available in 2007.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4745 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
Boeing now forecasts the production rate for 787 models at seven aircraft a month, Cornelius said, declining to say how much more the plane maker can bolster production.

they can't go over 10/month as thats the max rate Alenia can turn out the fuselage sections they make.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8290 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
Airbus have to find $5B. up front to develop the A350. And they have less than 200 'commitments' to play with so far. And there's unlikely to be any inward cash flow for five years or more.

Pretty normal for any major airline programme............


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8196 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 17):
Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
Boeing now forecasts the production rate for 787 models at seven aircraft a month, Cornelius said, declining to say how much more the plane maker can bolster production.

they can't go over 10/month as thats the max rate Alenia can turn out the fuselage sections they make.

OK, ten a month top whack. Are they ever likely to need greater capacity than that? That's 120 yr / nearly 500 in 4 years.


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8164 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 5):
Note that when Boeing showed the final configuration of the 787 it appears they changed the tail design to accommodate the Boeing Flying Boom air-refuelling system

My original thought was they changed it to a conventional design simply because the shark-fin tail was creating more drag rather than reduce it. Maybe a combination of both?

Anyway, at least Boeing is smart enough not to tell the airlines they cannot meet production demands, unlike what Airbus stated for the A350. I still question if Airbus is that dense or not to make a comment like that. Just doesn't make sense.

Previous thread "Airbus Fears A350 Demand Will Outstrip Supply Chai" here:

Airbus Fears A350 Demand Will Outstrip Supply Chai (by Keesje Oct 11 2005 in Civil Aviation)



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5744 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8133 times:

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 20):
Anyway, at least Boeing is smart enough not to tell the airlines they cannot meet production demands, unlike what Airbus stated for the A350. I still question if Airbus is that dense or not to make a comment like that. Just doesn't make sense.

I think Airbus should just drop the A350 and work with Boeing to make the 787. It'll be a win-win for both carriers.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 21):
I think Airbus should just drop the A350 and work with Boeing to make the 787. It'll be a win-win for both carriers.

But then there is one less type of aircraft for spotting. Where is the fun in that? Big grin

Besides, I look forward to witnessing both as they are the next evolution of civilian aircraft.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8080 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 21):
I think Airbus should just drop the A350 and work with Boeing to make the 787. It'll be a win-win for both carriers.

With competition out of the way, airlines would be paying _much_ higher prices for aircraft and we would be paying higher prices for tickets. No thanks!


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2358 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8067 times:

Quoting XA744 (Reply 8):
More and more metal polished frames are to be seen at Renton

Sorry to disappoint, but there won't be any polished 787 AM planes.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
25 Luisca : I hope you dont mean that their wont be any AM 787. I think what you are saying is that you will not see any polished metal 787 PERIOD
26 DAYflyer : You won't be abe to tell the A-350 from the A-330 anyway.....
27 Areopagus : ...unless you can discern the bigger engines and taller landing gear.
28 Jacobin777 : with the A350-900 competing against the B777-200, will the A359 have "triple bogey" landing gear like the B777-200?
29 Trex8 : probably more likely it will have an additional center fuselage gear like the A343
30 SunriseValley : I hope they remember back to DAC when it had such a plethora of orders that it about broke them trying to build them for the contracted price which di
31 NYC777 : You hit it right on the head. With production increases comes costs and not just for Boeing but the entire supply chain. Boeing and the suppliers mus
32 Trex8 : they don't have to remember DAC, BCAG had the same problem less than 10 years ago and took charges of several billion, there are still lawsuits from a
33 AirbusA6 : It's expensive ramping up production to 10 a month, if say 2 years later, the demand has been sated and demand drops down to 6 a month?
34 XA744 : How can you say that my friend ?... You want them all in white or in some lavish and colorful scheme or what ? Regards
35 XA744 : Quite aware of that Manni. 767s are leaving AM´s fleet in 2007, just to make room for additional T7s. The 787 is being considered for early 09 and w
36 NorCal : Composites can't be polished to look like aluminum, they are black in color, they have to be painted a silver color in order to get the same look. AA
37 SunriseValley : They are years overdue for a change of livery!
38 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : The main reason is the material. You can't polish composite, because it's not metal. What you'll see would be something along new Northwest livery li
39 DAYflyer : I thought the concept was great, but efficiency is king and the fuel saving must prevail over looks.
40 Post contains images Jacobin777 : respectfully disagree, I think their livery looks amazing!
41 RayChuang : However, given the strong demand for the 787 I think Boeing might be looking at dismantling the 767 production line so they could accommodate more 78
42 Zvezda : The limit on B787 production is not Boeing's assembly line, but the production capacity of suppliers (said to be 10 per month).
43 Trex8 : Alenias new factory in Grottaglia will have a maximum capacity for 10 central fuselage sections/month
44 XA744 : Thank you gentlemen, I appreciate your input. Must admit I wasn´t aware of the characteristics of new materials to be used in the production of the
45 Sonic67 : Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Boeing going to break all production records assemble the 787 in 3 days? At that rate wouldn't they be able to produ
46 Trex8 : The assembly process at Boeing will take the 3 days or whatever they say it will take, thats because the assemblies being sent in from suppliers are
47 N1120A : The earning potential is not 15% greater because the CASM isn't 15% lower.
48 Slarty : IIRC, Boeing had announced a yearly production capacity of 98 787 A/C per year; in addition they also floated the notion that "800 proposals" were cu
49 Astuteman : Excellent post, Trex8. It's fascinating to see so many on here who believe that most of the tasks associated with constructing an aircraft have miracu
50 SunriseValley : Astuteman.... is this possible on a day in and day out basis and what is the likely learning curve to achieve this. Another point, are all the major
51 Astuteman : Of course it's possible on a day-to-day basis. The challenges are just that bit greater when trying to engineer a product for modular construction. F
52 Sonic67 : Good point it is shame that Boeing can't select Multiple suppliers to produce the same pieces. As you said this could add major cost if they aren't c
53 Gigneil : Boeing already said that the 787 wouldn't lend itself well to a tanker. Why, dunno. Your bias is quite well on record... but this is pretty outrageou
54 Trex8 : IIRC Boeing actually said something more like it would not lend itself to being a platform for special roles like sigint/elint as that requires all s
55 Post contains links Keesje : True, major competitors will even cooperate on key constructions. Like EADS will build the rear bulkhead of the Boeing 787. It will probably look pre
56 Post contains images Slarty : But will be lighter, consume less fuel, look better, have lower maintenance and fly faster.
57 Astuteman : Interesting. How much fuel does a 787 composite rear bulkhead use compared to that on an A350?
58 Art : Sorry Slarty but you make these sound as some kind of winning features vis a vis 787 v A350. I (rhetorically speaking) could design you an aircraft t
59 Zvezda : Great question! Respect!!!
60 DAYflyer : If the supply partners are up to the task and it increases profits, why not?
61 Art : Can't see that anyone has mentioned this, so here goes: From Flight International 25/10/2005 regarding 787 production - "The current production plan w
62 Zvezda : Airbus and Boeing study options that are much more radical than anything they are likely to do. Don't forget that Boeing recently got burned by rampi
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...
Could Boeing Move 787 Production Line? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:54:08 by Lumberton
WSJ: Boeing May Increase 787 Production Rate posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:59:51 by N328KF
Can Boeing Increase 787 Production? posted Wed May 4 2005 23:36:14 by Mark777300
Boeing Reviewing Second 787 Production Line posted Mon Nov 6 2006 18:50:56 by Aeropiggot
Bair: No Question 787 Production Will Increase posted Tue Jul 18 2006 12:44:35 by Leelaw
Japanese To Increase 787 Production Rate posted Fri Jun 9 2006 15:48:39 by DeltaDC9
Boeing 787 Production Rate May Hit 16 Per Month posted Mon May 29 2006 16:42:16 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Production Ramp Up Decision : June posted Mon May 22 2006 23:51:16 by Keesje
Boeing May Double 787 Production posted Thu Nov 17 2005 16:30:39 by BoomBoom
Boeing 787 Production & Logistics Detailed. posted Sun Sep 11 2005 13:07:35 by Keesje
Boeing Reviewing Second 787 Production Line posted Mon Nov 6 2006 18:50:56 by Aeropiggot
Bair: No Question 787 Production Will Increase posted Tue Jul 18 2006 12:44:35 by Leelaw
Japanese To Increase 787 Production Rate posted Fri Jun 9 2006 15:48:39 by DeltaDC9