787 Total Orders And Options — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

787 Total Orders And Options

Flyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 903 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6865 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

NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5153 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6809 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.

Flyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6711 times:

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

Mike

JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6564 times:

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

Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21027 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6369 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.

AA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3346 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5893 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

God is a Trini...

Lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5791 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

Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 2986 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5708 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

B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5695 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.

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26698 posts, RR: 83
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5681 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).

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.

Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5663 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.

Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 2986 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5645 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.....

DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5620 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

Lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5553 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.

EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

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!

AA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3346 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3463 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

God is a Trini...

Lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3332 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.

MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3215 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: