Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Pedicts Another Phenomenal Year For The 787  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

Quote:
Boeing is predicting "another phenomenal year" for the 787 in 2006, with Mike Bair, VP and GM of the Dreamliner program, telling ATWOnline that there are another 30 offers out to airlines for 500 787s on top of the 28 customers who have committed to 386 aircraft.

"We thought the demand might slow up a bit, but 2006 looks like a great year," Bair said. Boeing's 787 production is committed through 2011, but some of those slots are assigned to carriers that have not yet announced orders. The company is examining a ramp-up in production and a decision is expected mid-year. Earlier this month, Alenia confirmed it had been asked to look at an increase from seven to 10 aircraft per month.

Anyone know which costumer those 30 might be?

We can expect EK, SQ and BA. That leaves us with 27 more  Smile


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
We can expect EK, SQ and BA. That leaves us with 27 more

Well, basically every airline which operates old 767s, A300s, and every airline who is willing to get rid of their A330-200s will be willing to order the 787 (or A350).


User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

I'm thinking:

EK, SQ, BA, LH, AV, SU, LY, CX, and FJ.

Possible but not likely:

AA & UA.

[Edited 2006-03-29 08:54:59]


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

I forgort to share the link. Sorry!

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4522

Quote:
The 787-8 will fly "late summer in 2007" and be delivered "in early summer 2008," according to Bair. The test program will include six aircraft and be one of the tightest ever for a Boeing or Douglas jet.

He said 787 production, which is the world's largest industrial program, is proceeding "remarkably smoothly" at 132 sites around the globe. Rolls-Royce and General Electric offer engines for the aircraft that have run at more than 80,000 lb. thrust and are operating flawlessly, he noted. The Trent 1000 and GEnx will be certified up to 75,000 lb.

Just some additional information.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 1):
Well, basically every airline which operates old 767s, A300s, and every airline who is willing to get rid of their A330-200s will be willing to order the 787 (or A350).

True, but I hope Bair have more insight on who, than just every airline that already flies the above mentioned airplanes  Smile

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 2):
I'm thinking:

EK, SQ, BA, LH, AV, SU, LY, CX, and FJ.

Possible but not likely:

AA & UA.

I would love to see some of them buying new planes.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineMah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5341 times:

Geez, there truly is excellent news coming out on the 787 sales these days.

User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5306 times:

Many airlines in need of this sized aircraft able to afford taking it into service within the next 5 to 6 years will have requested more information from Boeing. While Boeing might have indeed sended out offers to 30 airlines, no doubt Airbus recieved a similar amount of requests from the very same airlines. But after failing to sell 200 before the end of 2005, Airbus PR division seem to have taken a more modest approach.


SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Wow, if this is true then: Toulouse, we have a problem...

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Quote:
Boeing is predicting "another phenomenal year" for the 787 in 2006, with Mike Bair, VP and GM of the Dreamliner program, telling ATWOnline that there are another 30 offers out to airlines for 500 787s on top of the 28 customers who have committed to 386 aircraft.



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Can the 747 large freighter hold the 787-10 sections properly, or do you think there might be a need for a 748F version of the freight for the 787-10 fuselage?

Since if they ramp production they MUST add more 747 freighters to the mix, I'd love to see them use the 748F test aircraft as these freighters, and deliver new builds to customers. That's if they are needed. The length of the 744F might suffice.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirwave From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 1):
Well, basically every airline which operates old 767s, A300s, and every airline who is willing to get rid of their A330-200s will be willing to order the 787 (or A350).

Willing, but able? Not if your about 3/4s of the eligible US airlines...

Quoting Manni (Reply 5):
Many airlines in need of this sized aircraft able to afford taking it into service within the next 5 to 6 years will have requested more information from Boeing. While Boeing might have indeed sended out offers to 30 airlines, no doubt Airbus recieved a similar amount of requests from the very same airlines

My thoughts exactly. The nice thing about safe harbor provision is that Boeing can't really be held accountable for what its execs say. And to me, what they're saying is based on some pretty flimsy evidence...

I hope it's all true, don't get me wrong. But saying that offers out equals a bullish return for this year...  boggled 

Airwave  eyebrow 



When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10697 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5211 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 1):
Well, basically every airline which operates old 767s, A300s, and every airline who is willing to get rid of their A330-200s will be willing to order the 787 (or A350).

And of cause the airlines who have 777-200s since the 90s and didn´t follow with new orders. Airlines like Kuwait Airways, Egyptair, China Southern and others might replace their 772s with 787-10s. Their 777s aren´t exactly young airplanes past 2010.
In another thread about the soon-to-be-expected first 747-8I order their is a link to an article indicating that the US legacy carriers seem to build up interest in ordering substantial orders for widebodies. I see UA as one ordering 787s to replace their 767s and early 777s (you know they´ve the oldest 777s) as well.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5186 times:

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 6):
Wow, if this is true then: Toulouse, we have a problem...

Who's to say Airbus can't sell 150-200 A350s as well?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4762 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5159 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if there are potential sales of 500 they don't have enough production slots available in the near term to deliver 500 so as Ikramerica says Airbus could get some orders solely for that reason

User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 11):
so as Ikramerica says Airbus could get some orders solely for that reason

Right Trex8, has it also ever crossed your mind that airlines may also order the A350 due to it's merits?

One advantage Airbus has over the B787 is with the A330/A340 as a stop gap measure until the A350 starts to get delivered. We have witnessed this with Tap Portugal and Finnair. I would also lean to believe that some future A350 orders will be won by this fact.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 5):
Many airlines in need of this sized aircraft able to afford taking it into service within the next 5 to 6 years will have requested more information from Boeing. While Boeing might have indeed sended out offers to 30 airlines, no doubt Airbus recieved a similar amount of requests from the very same airlines. But after failing to sell 200 before the end of 2005, Airbus PR division seem to have taken a more modest approach.

I agree Manni. I guess Airliners are waiting to see what Airbus will end up with when they freeze the design of the A350. It is something very different from the first offer from Airbus.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Can the 747 large freighter hold the 787-10 sections properly, or do you think there might be a need for a 748F version of the freight for the 787-10 fuselage?

Good question. While I don't know if there is just section flown, Boeing need more freighters if they intend to ramp up production from 7-10 787 pr month. I would love to see the 747-8 do this job.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

I didn't say they'd get them (A350s) solely for that reason. I just said they could sell up to 200 as well.

One would assume that if B are in negotiations for 500 frames, like last year, and last year they sold 300+ (if you count commitments) and airbus sold nearly 200 (doing the same), then you can't dismiss that the same thing would happen this year, right?

Not because of production slots (due to later EIS, the 350 is "sold out" further out than the 787), but because some carriers will prefer the A350 for many reasons, for a lot of the same reasons that some carriers prefer the "inferior" 737NG to the "superior" A320 series, which outsells the 737NG 60:40 at worst.

edit: added references because there were new posts between what I was answering and my response after the fact...

[Edited 2006-03-29 11:21:53]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5104 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 5):
Many airlines in need of this sized aircraft able to afford taking it into service within the next 5 to 6 years will have requested more information from Boeing. While Boeing might have indeed send out offers to 30 airlines, no doubt Airbus received a similar amount of requests from the very same airlines. But after failing to sell 200 before the end of 2005, Airbus PR division seem to have taken a more modest approach.

I must say I fully agree with Manni on this.

As a mostly passive participant on this forum, I allow myself the privilege to lean back and observe all topics and I can not help but notice that since about one year there is a constant stream of reports about company X or Y being in talks with Boeing on pretty much their whole product range.

As true as these will be, I can not believe these talks didn't happen in the past either, unless the state Boeing was in was even more desperate than I'd reckon in the worst of situations. It seems however Boeing has discovered these unofficial progress reports in the press are a perfect tool to build self-confidence (something they'd lost) of their workers and shareholders of also to win some exposure in the press during quiet times. I expect these comments to be part of a chance in communication strategy at the top, from a strategy where they never discussed sales until fully signed, to a pro-active and thus more positively sounding style in which they show their company as being more dynamic, having more opportunities and working really hard.

Think about it: each time a tender comes to an end, we see a very close battle between A and B, so I don't think it is a wrong assumption to think company X or Y would not be in talks with A over similar numbers of planes too. Why we hear less of that side, I don't know, but I expect it to be mostly PR driven indeed.

As to the topic itself:
Since Boeing pretty much announced the 787-10, I expect a fair amount of their new orders to be for this version of the 787, so it really shouldn't surprise us there is another stream of orders coming as they push the 787 in new market segments all the time.

This makes me wonder: Should the 787 still be called the 787?
The 787 already pretty much was 2 very different planes with the same name right from the start (i.e. the -3 and the -8/-9), but with the looming -10 version around the corner, it is actually clear there are several planes sold under the same name. You'll say they are all based on the same fuselage cross section and have the same cockpit and that is the case indeed, but they do have different wings, landing gear etc, so basically, the 787 product line is as diverse as the A330/A340 family, but for the number of engines. Putting them all under one name makes them add up sales more easily and seems to be fitting the strategy of building a bright aura around this plane.

Before I get personally attacked here, I'd like to ask you not to get me wrong: I am not playing down the importance of the 787, it is just that I think this plane is without doubt the best promoted plane ever...


User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5104 times:

Lets hope that we're talking about some real orders soon rather than talking about expected orders. But I wish Boeing all the best for the 787 as I do for the A380 and airbus but IMO the 787 should rather be sold to all these customers than an A350...

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 6):
Wow, if this is true then: Toulouse, we have a problem...

Who's to say Airbus can't sell 150-200 A350s as well?

Nobody, but it might now be even more of an uphill battle now that the leasing company execs have slammed Airbus for not going with a clean-sheet design. This alone could cause airlines currently considering the A350 to hold off and see if Airbus will further revise the design; some may even be pondering whether Airbus will heed ILFC and GECAS and scrap the existing design. This is a hell of a lot of uncertainty, also for those who've already signed for the A350. It certainly can't hurt the 787; in fact the leasing execs.' A360 criticism should be ringing through the industry as a MASSIVE 787 endorsement, likely to further boost already brisk sales. I'd say MBJ2000 is probably correct in assessing that Toulouse indeed DOES have a problem.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15):
This makes me wonder: Should the 787 still be called the 787?

That's silly. The 787-3 and 787-8 are basically the same jet. The 3 has less powerful engines and different wingtips, but otherwise, it is basically the same. The 787-9 is the same jet with a longer fuselage and strengthened undercarriage, and the 787-10 is again the same plane with the same mods. All share the same engines.

Because they span the high end of one old model and the low end of another doesn't make them two or three planes. Those old models arbitrarily defined a delineation anyway. This new plane arbitrarily redefines it.

The plane basically comes in a size range from 210-300 when outfitted the same way, and is a long range airplane except for a special SR model designed for Japan that may sell other places but probably won't.

Was the 747SR/D a different plane just because it had a shorter range?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4906 times:

And btw they already have different names: 783, 788, 789, 7810  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18):
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15):
This makes me wonder: Should the 787 still be called the 787?

That's silly. The 787-3 and 787-8 are basically the same jet. The 3 has less powerful engines and different wingtips, but otherwise, it is basically the same. The 787-9 is the same jet with a longer fuselage and strengthened undercarriage, and the 787-10 is again the same plane with the same mods. All share the same engines.



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4906 times:

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 19):
7810

That should be named 78A, A being the hex equivalent of 10. Typing 787-10 everytime is a pain.  Wink


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4748 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 4837 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15):
Before I get personally attacked here, I'd like to ask you not to get me wrong: I am not playing down the importance of the 787, it is just that I think this plane is without doubt the best promoted plane ever...

I think that honor goes to the A380.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 4831 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15):
This makes me wonder: Should the 787 still be called the 787?

YES!  Smile They are very similar. More than different 737 models. That is why they have taken away the last two digits that reffered to one customers type certificate. So that is why you have the -8 instead of -800 to show there are more standard equipment, and less option.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 17):
obody, but it might now be even more of an uphill battle now that the leasing company execs have slammed Airbus for not going with a clean-sheet design. This alone could cause airlines currently considering the A350 to hold off and see if Airbus will further revise the design; some may even be pondering whether Airbus will heed ILFC and GECAS and scrap the existing design. This is a hell of a lot of uncertainty, also for those who've already signed for the A350. It certainly can't hurt the 787; in fact the leasing execs.' A360 criticism should be ringing through the industry as a MASSIVE 787 endorsement, likely to further boost already brisk sales. I'd say MBJ2000 is probably correct in assessing that Toulouse indeed DOES have a problem.

I do not think that comments from leasing companies effects the airlines desition. They review what they need, and the late 2011EIS and the the already sold out slots early have prevented Airbus from capturing more sales. Some airlines want the airplanes prior to 2011, that is why Boeing try to peak 10 787 pr month in the secon year of produtcion, so they get as many new orders as possible. But I expect the order income will eventually increase when we get closer to 2011.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8222 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

The decision everyone (especially Airbus) is waiting for is the one related to increasing production. That opens up the airlines racing to get slots before they are sold out. If Boeing is looking at selling 500 787s this year the production increase is going to be very important.

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Who's to say Airbus can't sell 150-200 A350s as well?

Boeing are hoping they do.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 25, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
One advantage Airbus has over the B787 is with the A330/A340 as a stop gap measure until the A350 starts to get delivered. We have witnessed this with Tap Portugal and Finnair. I would also lean to believe that some future A350 orders will be won by this fact.

Disagree......TP and AY are Airbus customers also, and it was probably better for them to go with the A350 over the 787.......if the "stop gap measured" worked in terms of deciding what kind of fleet to purchase, then QF/JQ would have gone with the A350....as it would have fit in seamlessly with their A330's...... Smile



"Up the Irons!"
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...
Why Did NWA Choose RR For The 787? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 05:45:22 by Scouse
2005 A Bad Year For The American Airline Industry? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 23:11:22 by JetBlueGuy2006
Record Year For The 777 posted Fri Dec 16 2005 14:56:56 by TinkerBelle
Wireless IFE For The 787 posted Mon Nov 28 2005 22:24:58 by FlyingHippo
Airbus Will Build Parts For The 787 posted Tue Oct 18 2005 19:54:05 by Oldeuropean
Thai For The 787? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 12:27:42 by Clickhappy
Eventual Name/code Designator For The 787? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 21:08:55 by Iowa744fan
64 More Firm Confirmations For The 787 By Summer!? posted Mon Feb 7 2005 06:03:11 by Jacobin777
Next Order For The 787? posted Fri Jan 28 2005 22:15:50 by Nyc777
2004...another Banner Year For BEY posted Sun Jan 23 2005 17:34:01 by Yegbey01