Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 Update From Earnings Conference Call  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9632 times:

Here are a few key points from Boeing's conference call with Jim McNerney and James Bell:

+ 787 - deliver on time in May 2008 in accordance with contractual obligations
+ Vibration issue is fixed on the LCF, certification expected in the 1st quarter of 2007.
+ 787 engines to start airborne tests in 1st quarter and arrival of 787 major pieces for assembly in 1st quarter at Everett.
+ Final assembly of first 787s for 2nd quarter
+ Schedule, weight and supplier issues but are being resolved.
+ First flight for end of August 2007
+ No additional R&D expenditure other than what has been budgeted.
+ 787 updates twice a quarter next 787 update in early March

[Edited 2007-01-31 16:49:13]


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUal747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

Great news for the 787!! Can't wait for the roll out.

UAL747-600


User currently offlineDrExotica From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9434 times:

Boeing is showing the world how its supposed to be done. Thanks for the info NYC777.


N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9385 times:

Boeing still expects to deliver 112 787 in 2008 to 2009 with about 36 to 37 of those delivered in 2008.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9305 times:

Its nce to see Boeing addressing issues up front and staying on track for EIS. They spent money last year when needed to correct issues and address concerns. A well managed program. Thats how it's done

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

I'm a little surprised that none of the participants in the conference call tried to pin-down Mr. McNerney more on exactly how much the 787 is "overweight" at this juncture. I'm sure that Mr. Bair will get more closely questioned on this point at the next "update" in March.

[Edited 2007-01-31 18:19:22]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12732 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
787 engines to start airborne tests in 1st quarter

Cool. What will RR use for a flying testbed for the Trent 1000?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9102 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Cool. What will RR use for a flying testbed for the Trent 1000?

I think they have a 747 engine test bed in England similar to GE's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8848 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
I think they have a 747 engine test bed in England similar to GE's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

RR will be testing the engines in the US, Texas IIRC, on a 742. I believe it's the ninth test engine that they will be using on that aircraft.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

A transcript of today's conference call is now available online:

http://online.wsj.com/documents/Transcript-ba-20070131.pdf (Subscription)


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8550 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 5):
I'm a little surprised that none of the participants in the conference call tried to pin-down Mr. McNerney more on exactly how much the 787 is "overweight" at this juncture.

Me too. No one is asking the hard questions. As long as the stock is rising, nobody wants to rock the boat...or so it seems.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8501 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 10):
Me too. No one is asking the hard questions.

I have a question about that.

We have been hearing from Boeing cheerleaders that it is only overweight of internal Boeing targets, NOT of promised performance targets nor published figures.

We have heard from Boeing bashers that their 'sources' say it is overweight in all senses of the word.

If the case is the latter, wouldn't Boeing have to disclose that?

But if the case is the former, is Boeing actually obligated to disclose it at all? Isn't "we are meeting contractual weight but are above our internal metric" enough of an explanation?

I mean, if they are meeting their promises but not their own internal goals, by "how much" they are missing internal goals is really not relevant, is it? It's an "industry secret" and nobody's business but Boeing's, not even the investors, if that's the case. Revealing too much at this point would give Airbus more information as they try to solidify the A350X proposal, something we know right now is far from solid.

For example, when Boeing was continuing to improve the performance of the 77W after it was certified and already surpassing promises as it was delivered, it wasn't really Boeing's responsibility to tell anyone of the progress of that effort, only of the result. Keeping it hush-hush as long as possible helped to blind-side Airbus, and made the 346HGW and 346E both less valuable when it was revealed that the 77W would end up with nearly 7900nm range 2 years into service (including a retrofit package for delivered frames) compared to it's launch spec of 7600nm...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMultimark From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8467 times:

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 2):
Schedule, weight and supplier issues but are being resolved

Saying "Schedule, weight and supplier issues are being resolved" and actually resolving them are different things.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8465 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
I mean, if they are meeting their promises but not their own internal goals, by "how much" they are missing internal goals is really not relevant, is it? It's an "industry secret" and nobody's business but Boeing's, not even the investors, if that's the case. Revealing too much at this point would give Airbus more information as they try to solidify the A350X proposal, something we know right now is far from solid.

..word eventually leaks so maybe they felt its better to let it out themselves..after all, it became "common knowledge" as to how heavy the A380 was....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8414 times:

Quoting Multimark (Reply 12):
Quoting DrExotica (Reply 2):
Schedule, weight and supplier issues but are being resolved

Saying "Schedule, weight and supplier issues are being resolved" and actually resolving them are different

And NOT saying "Schedule, weight and supplier issues can't be resolved"

is also different and shouldn't be implied because not saying they can't be resolved does mean that Boeing feels those issues can and will be resolved.


User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8410 times:

all in all, sounds like good work for boeing!


Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8225 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 5):
I'm a little surprised that none of the participants in the conference call tried to pin-down Mr. McNerney more on exactly how much the 787 is "overweight" at this juncture.

Hmmm.... Perhaps a non-issue made an issue by a-net goobers.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8168 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13):
..word eventually leaks so maybe they felt its better to let it out themselves..after all, it became "common knowledge" as to how heavy the A380 was....

Is it? We still don't know the real answer there, only the wild claims on both side by a.netters. I for one don't know exactly how heavy it is nor how overweight it is over what it was supposed to be, since all those numbers have changed so much.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

I really hope this thread doesn't go the way of the other thread about the 787 "issues".

I am glad that Boeing is on schedule for a first flight in August. (The 26th would be a nice birthday present).

I posted a question in the last thread and it never got answered (too much bitching).

One of the issues that Boeing stated in a Seattle news article posted a month or so ago was about Alenia being behind.

So what is up with Alenia?
Why are/were they behind?
Why did Boeing have to send an small army of engineers to help them catch up?
Has Alenia produced any parts (final or test)?



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):

also,

Quote:
McNerney said on Wednesday that half of the eight contingency plans Boeing had prepared last year in case of production problems have now been launched. Last October, he said only one had been launched.

He confirmed recent industry talk that some work on components being flown in from Japan to South Carolina was not complete, and said he was prepared for more.

...

"What we are doing with Mitsubishi and Alenia specifically is adding a lot of our resources to supplement theirs to get them through the knothole," he said. "We're not totally out of the woods yet, but the progress is good."

Nevertheless,

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 4):
A well managed program. Thats how it's done

 checkmark  it certainly seems like they've got a well-run risk management effort.

I'm curious to see their actual 10-K filing, and if there are any significant updates to the risk descriptions. Does anyone know when it is due to appear?


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7977 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 19):
I'm curious to see their actual 10-K filing, and if there are any significant updates to the risk descriptions. Does anyone know when it is due to appear?

Shortly after the audited financial statements are completed, last year the 10-K was filed on February 27th.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7932 times:

Quote:
"...I'm feeling pretty comfortable about the progress on that weight reduction program and getting the plane down to where we need to be to meet the commitments to our customers," McNerney said.

He stressed that he is telling analysts "exactly" what Boeing is telling its customers -- that the 787 will be delivered on time.

But some analysts remain skeptical.

"To develop a plane with that sort of technological innovation not even a couple weeks late would be unheard of," Morningstar analyst Chris Lozier said. "I would be extremely, positively surprised if they delivered that plane even in June of next year. I would think when push comes to shove, there will be a couple of late-inning kinks that need to be worked out of the program, as you would expect..."

...McNerney said Boeing has implemented about half of the eight contingency plans that are in place to meet the most risky 787 production challenges...

"...The kinds of things I'm talking about with contingency plans are having standby capability to make some tubes, clips and brackets in the state of Washington in case they don't show up in some of the components that have been stuffed before they get there," McNerney said.

He said the trouble areas, so far, have mostly involved only a few suppliers or partners. They are responsible for the 787 structure, rather than systems, he said..."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/301982_boeingearns01.html


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7914 times:

Well that clears up some things. The weight issue is dependent on how you want to read it. He says they are not worried about meeting their contractual weights, but they have said in the past they are worried about meeting internal targets. But either way, the current jet is heavier than BOTH metrics.

And the problems are not any different than disclosed months ago. They said then that they will have to do some work "in house" that should have been completed by subs, but that they will get that under control as production ramps up to full speed after EIS. This hasn't changed, but some details have been clarified about how they will do it (building some parts in Washington if they don't arrive in time).

Analysts can believe or not believe what they want. They are poisoned by the Airbus problems, but also there is history of most programs being a few weeks late, so they aren't out of line.

It is wise to remember though that analysts are not really very accurate. Throwing a dart at a dartboard or flipping a coin is as effective as listening to stock advice from analysts, taken as a whole...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7212 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

Is it? We still don't know the real answer there, only the wild claims on both side by a.netters. I for one don't know exactly how heavy it is nor how overweight it is over what it was supposed to be, since all those numbers have changed so much.

..actually we do...I have an interview with then Airbus A380 program manager Charles Champion discussing the weight issues about the A380....which he stated "its 2.5% overweight but within accepted weight tolerance limits"...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
And the problems are not any different than disclosed months ago. They said then that they will have to do some work "in house" that should have been completed by subs, but that they will get that under control as production ramps up to full speed after EIS. This hasn't changed, but some details have been clarified about how they will do it (building some parts in Washington if they don't arrive in time).

....actually Boeing stated a while back they will be solving some of these problems in house...unfortunately I don't have the source of the statement...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
Analysts can believe or not believe what they want.

I tend to call them "anal-ists"....just a few years ago, many were clamoring for Boeing to sell their BCA division..I would like a list of them so we can lock 'em up for sheer stupidity......



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6631 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):

I mean, if they are meeting their promises but not their own internal goals, by "how much" they are missing internal goals is really not relevant, is it? It's an "industry secret" and nobody's business but Boeing's, not even the investors, if that's the case.

I don't agree with whole idea that Boeing is speaking of a secret internal goal. It's pretty clear to me that they are talking about the design weight of the aircraft, which is what customers plug into their modelling software to figure out what the airplane can do. They decide to buy the aircraft based on such data.

The contractual guarantee weight is somewhat higher. It gives Boeing latitude to deliver a heavier aircraft so long as it meets promised performance. Meeting those promises per the contract won't guarantee satisfied customers and future sales. Meeting the design specifications will. The question of "how much" is very relevant to the ultimate success of the 787.

McNerney's statement:"...I'm feeling pretty comfortable about the progress on that weight reduction program and getting the plane down to where we need to be to meet the commitments to our customers"
really doesn't tell me much other than Boeing sees that there is a problem. Meeting guarantees is a minimum, and Boeing knows it.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
25 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : I think we can infer that the A380 is about 5 tonne over the original empty weight (MEW) specification based on Mr. Champion's comment above and Mr.
26 DrExotica : Multimark - you blew the quote. I didn't say that. NYC777 made the statement. You need to hit the "quote selected text" button on the post that you a
27 Leelaw : Intriguing that Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times who was a participant in yesterday's conference call hasn't filed a news story yet. He might be on
28 Post contains links NYC777 : Here's his article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...logy/2003550608_boeingnews010.html
29 BoomBoom :
30 Post contains images Leelaw : Thanx, weird that it hasn't been posted on the Boeing/Aerospace page yet. Sorry to clutter-up the thread. Anyway, I found Mr McNerney's response to M
31 Post contains images Jacobin777 : OldAeroGuy..thanks for your excellent work ..... ...I dont' see any "hidden agendas"....the plane is a bit overweight (according to internal targets)
32 NYC777 : I think Boeing as early as late last year expected travel work and that the first few airplanes will have traveled work until all the suppliers have r
33 N844AA : Man, whoever would have thought Italian engineering would be less problematic than Japanese engineering?
34 Leelaw : I agree. IMO, what's interesting about Mr. McNerney's comments are not they disclosed the fact of "travelling work," but his views about how best to
35 Post contains images Rheinbote : More so as Boeing's communication obviously was less overt and up-front regarding the wireless IFE issue. Don't get me wrong though. I'd LOVE to see
36 NYC777 : Boeing has been more forthcoming and open about any and all issues affecting the program. I don't seem to recall Airbus being open and honest about t
37 Post contains images Rheinbote : No need to shout. Didn't you get what I said? I would really appreciate if Boeing could manage to stay on schedule. See, I don't give much on A vs B.
38 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2003540074_boeing25.html I guess the announcement didn't come soon enough for you?
39 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=182811
40 Post contains links Leelaw : "Boeing's good quarter still leaves skeptics on 787 and 777" By Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..
41 Post contains links BoomBoom : Given that the stock just closed at $91.04, just 6 cents shy of its all time high, I'm glad I didn't go short when Wachovia coughed up its "analysis"
42 Revelation : Nope, the best indicator of the A380's problems was when Noel Forgeard dumped his shares....
43 Ikramerica : That is exactly what I am talking about. It's nebulous. The fact we have to "think we can infer" anything means that we are now provided with so many
44 Post contains images Iwok : I though this was telling: "Some 787 work has travelled from Japan to Charleston, South Carolina where Global Aeronautica, a 50/50 joint venture betwe
45 SEPilot : Guess what, engineers are human and people are people the world over. Cultural climates and political environments differ, but people remain the same
46 Sparklehorse12 : I have a sneaking suspicion the 787 will be late. There would be zero speculation if there wasn't a concern of some sort. There was a silent cheer whe
47 SEPilot : Read the posts about legal consequences for company officials for making knowingly false statements in the US. They are real. No project of this magn
48 Post contains links Trex8 : http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/02/02/afx3388429.html
49 SEPilot : Reading the article I am impressed by the fact that Boeing had contingency plans from the outset for delays, and the article states that four out of
50 BlackKnight : Correct, the comments being related through the media are months prior to any major assembly. The 787 program is following the same path as the 707,
51 Post contains links SeJoWa : Here's a direct link to the FT article quoted by Forbes: Boeing partners wrestle with deadlines By Mariko Sanchanta in Tokyo Published: February 2 200
52 Post contains images Halls120 : You are correct. It is an important addendum. One we know about while it is happening. Just like we knew about the A380 wiring problems while they we
53 SEPilot : I totally agree; and I'm sure that Boeing management realizes this more than any of us. Based on their track record I believe they'll pull it off suc
54 Post contains links TeamAmerica : It's the term "internal target" that I don't buy. I don't think there is a magic number known only to Boeing that they speak of. My understanding is
55 Sparklehorse12 : Boeing cha cha cha! Boeing cha cha cha! The cheer squad are out in force hoping that nothing bad happens to Boeing even though the 787 is looking like
56 BoomBoom : Looks can be deceiving, but keep saying those novenas. cha cha cha!
57 OldAeroGuy : In my opinion, the biggest risk to delivering the 787 on time will be the flight test/certification program. The current schedule calls for a 9.5 mont
58 Post contains images AvObserver : Though you COULD end up ultimately being right, at this juncture, you've really nothing to base your supposition on. The evidence posted in this thre
59 SEPilot : Boeing has been late (by a few months) on precisely one of their last 22 major commercial projects. That gives us cheerleaders solid grounds for hope
60 Pygmalion : The 777 flight test program was a year and that was with ETOPS cert at delivery. I heard that Boeing might add another flight test aircraft to the fl
61 Post contains links BoomBoom : Boeing beat Airbus in the dollar value of commercial orders and deliveries last year for the first time since 2001. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news
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 Update - Where Are The Pics? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 11:32:41 by Emirates2005
FlyI Q3 Earnings Conference Call 10/27 posted Wed Oct 27 2004 18:49:40 by Kohflot
AirTran Q3 Earnings Conference Call 10/27 posted Wed Oct 27 2004 04:23:20 by Kohflot
Boeing's Saddler Gives 787 Update posted Fri Sep 8 2006 16:46:22 by NYC777
Vought/Alenia: 787 Update Sheet posted Mon Jan 15 2007 20:08:10 by Beech19
NZ Purchases Four More Boeing 787-9 A/C posted Tue Dec 19 2006 06:19:59 by TG992
New Boeing 787 Order Rumor posted Thu Dec 7 2006 03:13:06 by ERAUgrad02
Boeing Order's Update For 11/28/06 posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:44:01 by NYC777
US Airways - Delta Merger Proposal Conference Call posted Wed Nov 15 2006 14:34:50 by Nuggetsyl
Photo Of Boeing 787 Section Being Transported posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:09:01 by RobK