Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Total Orders And Options  
User currently offlineFlyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8148 times:

May seem like a stupid question, but how many 787s have been ordered in total. If it is avalible, an seperation between firm orders, and options would be nice too.


As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5796 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

Check out this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ders_sorted_by_chronology.27.27.27



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineFlyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7994 times:

The wikipedia charts are great. Do I detect the handiwork of NYC777? Well done whoever.

Mike


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7847 times:

So 915 frames including firm orders, options and purchase rights. That is astounding.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

No carrier listed as 787-9 only can have a 2008 EIS. There seems to be a problem in the numbers there...

edit: it's NZ that has that error.

[Edited 2007-04-25 04:59:36]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7176 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
No carrier listed as 787-9 only can have a 2008 EIS. There seems to be a problem in the numbers there...

I believe it was from when they initially ordered the 788s and the date wasn't changed when they switched to 789s!

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7074 times:

I find it very interesting that only two customers ANA and JAL have ordered the -3. I wonder what the additional costs are to Boeing for designing and certifying the -3 variant. If Boeing does not have further -3 orders in the pipeline perhaps they would be better off to try and switch these customers to -8's and drop the -3. As the -3 and -8 have the same length it would be possible to fit the same number of people (depending on door config).

Regards,
Lotsamiles


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7074 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3):
So 915 frames including firm orders, options and purchase rights. That is astounding.

Wow, I had no idea the combined total was over 900, they are approaching total 767 production numbers and exceeding total 330 numbers before EIS. Who would have believed this 5 years ago?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6991 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):
Wow, I had no idea the combined total was over 900, they are approaching total 767 production numbers and exceeding total 330 numbers before EIS. Who would have believed this 5 years ago?

And Boeing still isn't planning to open a second assembly line....?  wideeyed 


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):
Wow, I had no idea the combined total was over 900, they are approaching total 767 production numbers and exceeding total 330 numbers before EIS.

According to Airbus' latest spreadsheet, A330 orders total 680 frames. The 787 is coming up hard on this number before it even flies! Who would have imagined this four years ago -- certainly not Mr. Leahy...

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 6):
I find it very interesting that only two customers ANA and JAL have ordered the -3. I wonder what the additional costs are to Boeing for designing and certifying the -3 variant. If Boeing does not have further -3 orders in the pipeline perhaps they would be better off to try and switch these customers to -8's and drop the -3. As the -3 and -8 have the same length it would be possible to fit the same number of people (depending on door config).

JL and NH wanted the -3 and may have required it in order to place their orders. The 787-3 has a smaller wingspan which helps put more of them together side-by-side at the terminal gates and this may be important to JL and NH at regional Japanese airports like FUK, ITM, and even HND.


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6946 times:

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 8):
And Boeing still isn't planning to open a second assembly line....? wideeyed

Again, they don't need a second assembly line, the suppliers are the limitation, the single assembly line at Everett can handle up to about 200 frames annually.


User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6928 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 11):
Again, they don't need a second assembly line, the suppliers are the limitation, the single assembly line at Everett can handle up to about 200 frames annually.

You're right....I guess, most of us get carried away by the large number (900 plus).....gotta remember that these aircraft will be delivered in lots upto 2012-13 or thereabouts.....so no problem with the currently planned capacity, I guess.....


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6903 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 9):
The 787 is coming up hard on this number before it even flies! Who would have imagined this four years ago -- certainly not Mr. Leahy...

Which to me is the true beauty of the whole 787 story.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
JL and NH wanted the -3 and may have required it in order to place their orders. The 787-3 has a smaller wingspan which helps put more of them together side-by-side at the terminal gates and this may be important to JL and NH at regional Japanese airports like FUK, ITM, and even HND.

Thanks, that makes sense.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4930 times:

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 6):
I find it very interesting that only two customers ANA and JAL have ordered the -3. I wonder what the additional costs are to Boeing for designing and certifying the -3 variant. If Boeing does not have further -3 orders in the pipeline perhaps they would be better off to try and switch these customers to -8's and drop the -3. As the -3 and -8 have the same length it would be possible to fit the same number of people (depending on door config).

Regards,
Lotsamiles

ANA and JAL are both big time Boeing customers and I suspect the -3 was created with them and like airlines in mind. I don't believe you'll see Boeing asking them to change their order.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 15):
ANA and JAL are both big time Boeing customers and I suspect the -3 was created with them and like airlines in mind. I don't believe you'll see Boeing asking them to change their order.

Also given the similarities of the -8 and -3, I don't think that Boeing has spent much money on the -3. There is still a possibility that some carriers will order the -3. What is the range of the -3? Perhaps AA and DL (as many threads have discussed). Maybe LH? Perhaps more from JL and ANA as well as some from Chinese carriers for intra China flights?
Also- maybe the Indian markets for some of the trunk routes domestically and regionally. Personally, I think the 787-3 has a lot of potential, but who knows, Boeing may have made the 787-8 sooooo good, that a little loss in efficiency over short distances probably still means the plane oeprates like a 'beast'!! Who knows- time will tell!

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 15):
I suspect the -3 was created with them and like airlines in mind.

One would think. However, looking at the long list of customers with a wide variety of profiles, why no more -3's? Who are the other "airlines like them"?

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
Boeing may have made the 787-8 sooooo good

I think this is likely the case. The -8 gives an airline more flexibility so if there are no constraints that force you into a -3 (such as wingspan at the gate), why not have the longer range capable aircraft? Likely the operating costs of the -8 are very similar to the -3 given the same routings. If not for the wingspan issue at some of the ANA and JAL gates it would be possible to achieve the desired lower landing fees by derating the MTOW as is commonly done on other aircraft such as the 757.

Most likely the costs for the -3 specific development is a small fraction of the overall development budget and thus not worth the effort the drop it now.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 11):
Again, they don't need a second assembly line, the suppliers are the limitation, the single assembly line at Everett can handle up to about 200 frames annually.

Didn't Boeing recently claim a max capacity of 28/month on the one line?  eyepopping 



Airliners.net Moderator Team
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...
787/350: Orders And Delivery Dates posted Thu Nov 10 2005 21:11:55 by David31998
Aircraft Orders And Options posted Wed Jul 6 2005 16:04:09 by AirEuropeUK733
Questions About Orders And Options posted Mon Jan 24 2005 07:21:13 by Lehpron
Aircraft Orders And "Options" posted Thu Mar 25 2004 23:52:06 by Alitalia7e7
Airbus/Boeing -Orders And Commitments 2007. posted Mon Feb 5 2007 15:24:56 by WINGS
787 Vs 767 And 757 posted Sat Nov 4 2006 23:20:19 by EBJ1248650
The China Orders And 2005 "totals"... posted Thu Jan 19 2006 04:10:41 by Ikramerica
Embraer And Bombardier Orders And Deliveries posted Tue Jan 17 2006 22:37:54 by A319XFW
787 Composite Structure And Cargo Conversion. posted Fri Jan 6 2006 04:40:33 by TheBigOne
787 Impact On 330 Options? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 00:16:57 by Ken777