Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Backlog, Delivery Schedule And Ramp Up  
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15304 times:

As a personal exercise, I decided to see how long Boeings 787 backlog would extend now the delay has been confirmed and we have some tentative ramp up information. Now, this is purely guesstimate work based on some knowns and some unknowns, and I have tried to be optimistic as necessary.

Firstly, we know the current backlog stands at 892 Dreamliners.
Secondly, we know Boeing wishes to reach its 10-a-month standard by 2012.
Thirdly, we know Boeing wishes to extend that standard to 16 as soon as possible.
Fourthly, this assumes current orders are back to back with no blank production slots.

So this is what I came up with, annual delivery figures for the 787 -

2009 - 25 (confirmed by Boeing in the recent release)
2010 - 100 (optimistic number)
2011 - 100
2012 - 120 (10-a-month standard)
2013 - 140 (start the ramp up to 16 planes a month)
2014 - 180
2015 - 192 (16-a-month reached)
2016 - 192 (backlog of orders to date - 892 - caught up here plus 57 additional)

Boeing originally planned to produce 40 787s in 2008, 109 in 2009 and hit 120 in 2010. Assuming they would have hit 16-a-month in 2012, they would have exceeded their current backlog by the middle of 2014.

From my very rough, back-of-a-fag-packet musings, Boeing has lost two full years of production slots that they will probably never get back (yes, some people can say its deferred income, but the reality is those slots are lost).

What is also immediately obvious is that Boeing cannot bring the 787-10 on the scene until 2016 at the earliest - three years after its assumed Airbus competitor, the A350-900, is on the market and a year after Airbuses larger offering, the A350-1000, is available (take that sentence with a pinch of salt, we don't know what segment of the market Boeing will aim the 787-10 at - it could be either the A350-900 or -1000, or larger, or just a HGW 787-9)

Unless Boeing launches a second FAL.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChicagoFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15243 times:

This is an excellent post/exercise. Obviously, Boeing has previously communicated a variety of dates to customers, probably compressing the timeframe somewhat. Essentially, the question becomes, how many orders get cancelled? Three groups of events are likely to happen in the next few years:

* Airlines going out of business or getting into too poor a shape to pay for new aircraft
* 2 customers merging and needing a smaller number of new aircraft
* Boeing losing orders to Airbus

Boeing knows this, and has surely overbooked the slots... in anyway, if the schedule is on track, the current backlog is exhausted earlier...


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15244 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
Boeing originally planned to produce 40 787s in 2008, 109 in 2009 and hit 120 in 2010. Assuming they would have hit 16-a-month in 2012, they would have exceeded their current backlog by the middle of 2014.

So you stretch a 18 month delay into a 3 year delay (16 a month in 2012 vs. 16 a month in 2015)? How does that work? Do you know something we don't here?

Here are some rounder numbers but based on the previous ramp up schedule, just pushed out 18 months.

2009 - 25 (confirmed by Boeing in the recent release)
2010 - 90 (realistic number?)
2011 - 115
2012 - 140 (10-a-month standard reached in early 2012, start the ramp up to 16 planes a month)
2013 - 165
2014 - 190 (16-a-month reached)
2015 - 190 (16-a-month, current backlog filled, +23 frames)
2016 - 190 (16-a-month, all new orders based on current backlog)

That's assuming there are no more delays, of course.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15175 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
So you stretch a 18 month delay into a 3 year delay (16 a month in 2012 vs. 16 a month in 2015)? How does that work? Do you know something we don't here?

Uh, huh? Boeing has confirmed that they wont reach 10-a-month until 2012, this was confirmed in their conference call on April 9th, and they didn't lay down a schedule for 16 a month so I assumed they would reach it within three years full deliveries to allow for a progressive ramp up, considering they specifically said they were targeting a less aggressive ramp up.

Nothing untoward in my thinking...?

[Edited 2008-04-14 11:55:08]

User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15016 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
Fourthly, this assumes current orders are back to back with no blank production slots.

Bad assumption on two parts.

1) Boeing still has certain delivery positions resevered for airlines that, fairly early on, put down a refundable deposit but have yet to commit to a firm order. The window for these airlines commiting to a firm order is starting to close (naturally, that window is specific to each customer and when they wanted first delivery), but it is still there.

2) Most airlines prefer to space out their deliveries, instead of taking them as soon as Boeing can provide. In other words, it is often airline choice to only receive a few planes a year, thereby spacing out delivery (and thus Boeing's backlog) close to 2020. Therefore, simply because Boeing has 892 current orders, does not mean that those exact 892 orders will be fulfilled ASAP, before any new comer can get a 787.


In point of fact, the newest delay actually won't affect a "new" customer one way or another. Before the delay was announced, the soonest a brand-new customer could get delivery was 2017. Assuming, of course, that that customer was not one who has already reserved a certain delivery position.

Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
From my very rough, back-of-a-fag-packet musings, Boeing has lost two full years of production slots that they will probably never get back (yes, some people can say its deferred income, but the reality is those slots are lost).

How do you figure? Just like the A380, the deferred income will certainly hit Boeing's bottomline for the next 2 years, but that's it. There are no "lost" slots, merely slots that were 2014, and are now 2016. Note that only one customer (who has preferred to remain anoymous) has so much as hinted at the possiblity of converting some of their 787 order into 777's to facilitate earlier delivery of capacity.


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14899 times:



Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 4):
1) Boeing still has certain delivery positions resevered for airlines that, fairly early on, put down a refundable deposit but have yet to commit to a firm order. The window for these airlines commiting to a firm order is starting to close (naturally, that window is specific to each customer and when they wanted first delivery), but it is still there.

Thats almost certainly the exception and not the rule however - for Boeing to commit to a large proportion of its backlog in such an uncertain manner would place the company in shakey financial territory. Hence, its the exception and not the rule.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 4):
2) Most airlines prefer to space out their deliveries, instead of taking them as soon as Boeing can provide. In other words, it is often airline choice to only receive a few planes a year, thereby spacing out delivery (and thus Boeing's backlog) close to 2020. Therefore, simply because Boeing has 892 current orders, does not mean that those exact 892 orders will be fulfilled ASAP, before any new comer can get a 787.

Individual airlines would certainly be spacing their orders out, but it doesn't mean Boeing hasn't filled the gaps. Considering Boeing has previously said (as of 2006 iirc) that it had completely sold out the production line until 2011, I would say back to back production is the case for most of the backlog. Again, exception and not the rule.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 4):

How do you figure? Just like the A380, the deferred income will certainly hit Boeing's bottomline for the next 2 years, but that's it. There are no "lost" slots, merely slots that were 2014, and are now 2016. Note that only one customer (who has preferred to remain anoymous) has so much as hinted at the possiblity of converting some of their 787 order into 777's to facilitate earlier delivery of capacity.

Simple - the march of time will not wait for you to sell those deferred slots ad infinitum - what was a 2014-2016 slot range is now a 2016-2018 range, and what was a 2016-2018 range is now a 2018-2020 range, and so on. Unless Boeing opens a second FAL or drastically increases the current FALs rate (or lose a lot of customers), they cannot claw those lost years back, because the production period is not a fixed-length, movable block of time - Boeing cannot simply say 'Ok, we will keep the lines open another two years extra and that will recoup our lost slots'.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14828 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
2009 - 25 (confirmed by Boeing in the recent release)
2010 - 100 (optimistic number)
2011 - 100
2012 - 120 (10-a-month standard)
2013 - 140 (start the ramp up to 16 planes a month)

Boeing have said they will be using a more traditional two aisle ramp for the 787. I think this means the first three years will look more like this:

2009: 25
2010: 60-70
2011: 80-90

Beyond that, your numbers are probably correct IF Boeing and its partners can execute their plan.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14740 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 6):
2009: 25
2010: 60-70
2011: 80-90

Boeing will lose massive amounts of orders and owe huge penalties all the way down the line if those numbers are correct.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14701 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):

Boeing will lose massive amounts of orders and owe huge penalties all the way down the line if those numbers are correct.

They are already largely in the second position, but as for the first, where are customers going to go to? Airbus? Airbus has minimum three full years of production sold already ( unrealistically assuming they hit the ground running, its more like four years with the inevitable ramp up), they have precious little space on the A350 line before 2017.

The A330? Replace a 787 order with an A330 order? I don't see that somehow - interim lift maybe, but a full on replacement order? No.


User currently onlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 843 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14620 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
Secondly, we know Boeing wishes to reach its 10-a-month standard by 2012.

By 2012 or during 2012? If it is in the course of 2012, that means fewer than 120 deliveries in 2012.
Moreover, I don't know how it works at Boeing, but at Airbus, apparently annual production is less than 12 times the monthly production rate, due to holidays and such (it's about 11 times the monthly rate).

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 6):
2009: 25
2010: 60-70
2011: 80-90


Boeing will lose massive amounts of orders and owe huge penalties all the way down the line if those numbers are correct.

Many people seem to have missed out on the fact that the major piece of news in Boeing's latest 787 announcement was the slower production ramp-up. This will cause customers greater delays than the latest delay in first flight. OldAeroGuy's numbers seem plausible.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Boeing will lose massive amounts of orders and owe huge penalties all the way down the line if those numbers are correct.

The numbers OAG has quoted accord much more with analysts projections than the more optimistic numbers you've quoted.
Also as OAG said, Boeing themselves have stated that they intend to be FAR more conservative with the ramp-up, driven by ongoing concerns about the supply chain's ability to ramp up any quicker.

10 per month is targetted in 2012.

Personally, I don't think the ramp up to 16 (if it ever happens), will happen quite as quickly as the posts on this thread suggest. Airbus have been building A330's for years, and are really struggling to increase the production rate by 1 per month each year

Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
What is also immediately obvious is that Boeing cannot bring the 787-10 on the scene until 2016 at the earliest - three years after its assumed Airbus competitor, the A350-900

As OAG says, it's possible that there may be gaps in earlier years, but it does seem that even a straight stretch (no MTOW growth) 787-10 is unlikely to beat the A350-1000 into service, if, as you say, this plane achieves its EIS.

FWIW, an article in hard-copy FI (not yet linked) says that a 787-10 is no longer mentioned in the 787 plan. I presume that doesn't mean it's been shelved - rather that Boeing aren't looking that far out yet, preferring just now to focus on the variants the do have.

Regards


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14446 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
They are already largely in the second position, but as for the first, where are customers going to go to?

This was just reported in ATI...

Boeing has yet to tell 787 customers exactly how their delivery schedules will be impacted by the latest delay, but it has floated the idea of producing brand new 767-300ERs to help fill the capacity gap.

...

The US airframer is known to have put the 767 "lease" proposal to some of its 787 customers. Boeing declines to comment on the details of any discussions, saying only: "We will work with each of our customers individually to understand the impact of the delays on their business and how to mitigate those impacts."

Two early customers likely to be seriously affected by the production delay are major US carriers Continental Airlines and Northwest Airlines.

With both due to receive early 787 deliveries, their long-haul network growth plans are built around the new twinjets with, for example, the 787 earmarked to introduce new flights to China next year.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14196 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
Thats almost certainly the exception and not the rule however

Undoubtedly. Then again, the payoff can be worth it, too. For an example, let's look at British Airways. They were interested in the 787, placed their bets and waited for the manufacturers to respond to their RFP. With deposit in hand, Boeing reserved certain production slots for BA, should they chose the 787. They did, getting 2011 delivery on an extremely in-demand aircraft. The payoff for Boeing: 24 firm orders, 18 options and 10 purchase rights.

Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
for Boeing to commit to a large proportion of its backlog in such an uncertain manner would place the company in shakey financial territory

Here we'll have to disagree. At most, Boeing might be reserving one production slot a month at any one time. Therefore, we are talking about 12, maybe 15 slots a year at absolute maximum. And what happens if the customer in question decides not to order? Simple: Boeing returns their deposit, and those slots a filled (very quickly, I might add). There is one of two ways to do this: A) shop those slots on the market, most definitely at a premium. B) move those customers who are willing, up. I've certainly seen this happen on other programs before, and it's never been a problem per my understanding.

Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
Considering Boeing has previously said (as of 2006 iirc) that it had completely sold out the production line until 2011

They have. There's also a reason they said "until 2011"  Wink

Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
Boeing cannot simply say 'Ok, we will keep the lines open another two years extra and that will recoup our lost slots'

They can unless the customer(s) decide they don't want the aircraft anymore. The slots are only "lost" if Boeing was building on a set start-end operation. In other words, if they told the market: "We are going to be selling and building this aircraft from x to y. If you want it, you have to get it then." That is not happening, and I think you'll agree that it never will until the aircraft is no longer in demand, aka A300/310, 757, etc. Right now, those slots are simple delayed, but the revenue potential is still there for those slots. Obviously, Boeing will be paying compensation to those airlines most affected, and probably paying alot with the bungling they have done with the 787 production. But unless/until they start losing customers due to they delay, that revenue is still to be had.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 6):
Boeing have said they will be using a more traditional two aisle ramp for the 787. I think this means the first three years will look more like this:

2009: 25
2010: 60-70
2011: 80-90

On the whole, I'd have to agree with these numbers.  checkmark 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Boeing will lose massive amounts of orders and owe huge penalties

Orders? Doubt it. Penalties? You betcha! It's no wonder that Boeing and their contractors are quite literally working around the clock to minimize the delays. (Met one nice woman yesterday from Spirit who has worked 10-hour days, 7-days a week for the last 18 weeks!)

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
They are already largely in the second position, but as for the first, where are customers going to go to? Airbus? Airbus has minimum three full years of production sold already ( unrealistically assuming they hit the ground running, its more like four years with the inevitable ramp up), they have precious little space on the A350 line before 2017.

The A330? Replace a 787 order with an A330 order? I don't see that somehow - interim lift maybe, but a full on replacement order? No.

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting Scipio (Reply 9):
Moreover, I don't know how it works at Boeing, but at Airbus, apparently annual production is less than 12 times the monthly production rate, due to holidays and such (it's about 11 times the monthly rate).

It general does mean x12, yes. Remember that, in general, Europe has many more vacation days than in the States. I remember when in was living over there, we had 4 full days for Easter! That was nice - allowed me to see all of Paris on a "weekend."

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
FWIW, an article in hard-copy FI (not yet linked) says that a 787-10 is no longer mentioned in the 787 plan. I presume that doesn't mean it's been shelved - rather that Boeing aren't looking that far out yet, preferring just now to focus on the variants the do have.

I would agree with your analysis. Boeing's priority right now is to get the 787-8 flying and within Boeing's own weight projections (IIRC, it already meets contractual guarantees). Then get the 787-9 on track, underweight and on time (EIS now early 2012). Finally, decide what options they have with the 787-3. The 787-10, while still certainly an option, is most definitely on the back burner.

OTOH, why rush the -10 to begin with? I know what some people at Boeing are thinking in this regard, so I'd like to hear what some of ya'll think. . .


Regards,

Hamlet69  profile 



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30571 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 12):
OTOH, why rush the -10 to begin with? I know what some people at Boeing are thinking in this regard, so I'd like to hear what some of ya'll think. . .

If it is just a 6m stretch of the 787-9 with revised wingtips, then I say design in parallel with the 787-9 and offer it ASAP.

If it's something more, it will depend how the 777 sells... I expect it will sell somewhat well because Boeing will likely be offering very nice deals along with 767s.


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13786 times:

Sprint has impressed me with their ability to take on this revolutionary aircraft. Their ability to recover from the early problems and gear up - this has been one positive in this trying time. Spirit is in part owned by ONEX corporation and Gerry Schwartz the fellow who had bid for Canadian and was going to eventually do a run for AC. Knowing the financial backing this group has I wouldn't be surprised to see some further acquisitions in the aerospace arena. Once the schedule is humming I am also waiting to see something happen with regards to another assembly line and/or Spirit take on additional work.

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12861 times:



Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 12):
But unless/until they start losing customers due to they delay, that revenue is still to be had.

First, since new customers (who haven't ordered yet) may not be able to order as soon as they would otherwise have liked, they might chose another airplane instead.

Second, the airframe will someday get "old" (like the 757 and A300) and that day isn't getting delayed. Boeing is indeed building an airframe from "x" to "y"... nobody knows what "y" is yet, but it sure isn't going to be affected by the delays in "x". I thought Moo's point made sense.

From an EBIT standpoint, the profit on any delayed revenue is certainly gone forever.

(After the A380 delay of October 2006, I remember trying to make a similar argument that the delayed revenue was still to be had, and this was explained to me in great detail... convincingly, I might add. Those same people don't seem to have jumped into this thread quite as helpfully.)

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 12):
OTOH, why rush the -10 to begin with?

My theory: there are plenty of orders to fill, certainly more than enough to wait for a better idea of how (and when) the A350 will perform.


User currently offlineJariarkko From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12356 times:



Quoting ChicagoFlyer (Reply 1):
Three groups of events are likely to happen in the next few years:

* Airlines going out of business or getting into too poor a shape to pay for new aircraft
* 2 customers merging and needing a smaller number of new aircraft
* Boeing losing orders to Airbus

Boeing knows this, and has surely overbooked the slots... in anyway, if the schedule is on track, the current backlog is exhausted earlier.

Overbooking manufacturing slots? That's interesting. Poetic justice, I would say, given the treatment us mere mortals get from the airlines. I can just imagine a discussion happening a few years from now. "Mr. Airline CEO, I'm sorry but unfortunately we cannot accommodate your reservation for the Boeing 787 at this time. We're very sorry that you travelled all the way here to Seattle just to find out that your plane is already taken. We realize that your company's business plans will be greatly affected. But I'm sure you realize that we cannot always guarantee that a plane will be delivered. There are so many other CEOs that just reserve their planes but never show up to actually collect them, so we have to sell a few more slots than we actually can deliver. Yes, this practice is fully approved by the FAA. I'm very sorry, Sir. The next available plane will be in two years. Would you like to have 730 lunch coupons for the Boeing cafeteria while you wait for your plane?"

On a more serious note, since most plane manufacturing slots for both A and B have been sold for 5+ years, no one in their right mind would give up a slot for free. It would make much more sense to negotiate a price reduction for some delay, or take the plane and sell it to someone else who badly needs it.


User currently offlineTy134A From Austria, joined Apr 2008, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12254 times:

Maybe there would have been some space for a "face lifted" A330->A350 (I mean the first offered version of the 350) after all. I don't know how the economics of this plane would have been, but I assume that they would have been nice used aircraft once the 787 comes into service, and until then, the Airlines would have an alternative to the 330, if they desperately want new planes. And along going to the development in the fuel sector, this might just have been a niche fore some frames after all. But of course no alternative to the real A350xwb...and again letting out the thoughts on develpoment and production costs, time space, etc.... just a thought!


flown on:TU3,TU5,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,A40,YK4,YK2,AN4,A26,A28,A81,L11,D1C,M11,AB4,313,342,345,703,722,732,741,74L,J31,F50
User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12014 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
From an EBIT standpoint, the profit on any delayed revenue is certainly gone forever.

Exactly right, unfortunately.

The "delayed revenues" will not come on top of planned future revenues. Let's assume we are in 2016 and all current (as of 2008) orders have been delivered. Look at the revenues/profits the company had/made from 2008 to 2016. Compare it with the numbers they would have achieved without delays: won't be the same numbers. At any future point in time the missed revenues and profits are missing.

This is true as long as there is a backlog of orders and revenues/profits are restricted by production rate, which seems to be the case for Boeing for quite some time to come.

If revenues and profits were restricted by orders instead of production rate, delays would have only a minor financial impact (interests and possibly penalty payments).

In other words: if delays don't hurt financially, the company is in a really difficult situation...


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11551 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 11):
but it has floated the idea of producing brand new 767-300ERs to help fill the capacity gap.

How long to a thread on an enhanced 767-300ER - an EER perhaps - to better fill the gap? Raked wingtips, bleeding GEnx I can see it clearly, perhaps even reprofiled to magic more capacity to take containers.  duck 


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3946 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11382 times:

My arm-chair CEO opinion  Wink is that they should forget about trying to "buy time" by lending the customers old scrappers out of the ark. They tried that one for the tanker deal and got laughed out of the door.  duck 

Imho, they need to get shut of the 767s on order asap and get a second 787 line up and running. They'd soon be back on target if they were banging out double the amount and while that's happening get the design boys to sort out a 787-10 to the specs the airlines want and get it launched asap so that folks don't start jumping ship to the A350.

Obviously I realise that increasing 767 production rate from 1 per month to, say, 10 is not gonna be easy  duck  and a second 787 line isn't gonna happen overnight either (not to mention the ramp up of everything at the supplier end too), but there you go..  Wink

They need to do something drastic as the way it's going at the moment they're gonna have a whole bunch of pissed off customers from just about every angle you can think of (18 month delay for everyone + pissed off Jap's for shelving the 783 + pissed off 787-10 customers because Boeing won't build it) and on top of that, having to shell out millions in compo for the delays.

2p..

R


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10560 times:

Here are Goldman Sachs delivery assumptions which revise downwards expected deliveries by 222 aircraft. It is extracted from http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

'Goldman revised its delivery forecast, based on the Boeing program update conference call Wednesday, from 629 airplanes through 2013 to 407 airplanes. This forecast, by aerospace analyst Richard Safran, shapes up this way':

Goldman Sachs Current Assumption:

2009: 25

2010: 60

2011: 85

2012: 120

2013: 120

Total: 407

Safran's numbers are close to what OAG predicts. As for a second FAL, I don't see how the supply chain will cope in the near term. It is not yet mature, but is slowly getting there. The endzone is in sight, but progress is slow.

"From Flightglobal, ' Where do I think the inherent risk is?" asked Pat Shanahan, Boeing's 787 vice-president and general manager. "It's more in the capabilities of the supply chain to do what we want. That's the untested part of this production model, and, as they learn and grow and improve, the system will produce more aircraft."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-concerns-under-new-787-plan.html



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10433 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
767-300ER - an EER perhaps

When I think about it, the E should be after so a 767-ERE. This ways it fits, a plane you can have 'ere the 787 arrives.
 duck 


User currently offlinePlobax From France, joined Jan 2008, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9618 times:



Quoting RobK (Reply 20):
they're gonna have a whole bunch of pissed off customers from just about every angle you can think of (18 month delay for everyone + pissed off Jap's for shelving the 783 + pissed off 787-10 customers because Boeing won't build it) and on top of that, having to shell out millions in compo for the delays.

That sounds very much like some kind of heavy "mismanagement"

 Big grin


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9575 times:

To give a hint how much Boeing will have to pay in damages:

Quote:
Yesterday Qantas sources said only that the amount will be well in excess of the $200 million Airbus paid after it pushed back by two years the delivery to Qantas and other airlines of its first A380 super jumbo because of wiring problems.

Senior Qantas executives are tight lipped about the actual size of the Boeing payout.

"If you look at the size of the Boeing order against the 12 planes that Airbus delayed you get some idea of how much Boeing will have to pay," a senior airline source told BusinessDaily.

Qantas has placed firm orders for 65 Dreamliners with Boeing and holds options and purchase rights for another 50.

At this stage the airline can walk away from the deal without incurring a penalty because the setbacks that have delayed the delivery of the aircraft have already breached the multi-billion dollar sale contract.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23546539-664,00.html



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
25 Stitch : It's going to hurt, but on the flip side once Boeing gets a handle on production by around 2010-2011 I would not be surprised to see most of those ~50
26 474218 : What happened to all those that swore up and down that Boeing was going to build a 787 in just "three days"?
27 Tdscanuck : Boeing has already said the order will be 787-8, then 787-3, then 787-9. The have to do the -3 early because it's a major part of their commitment to
28 Planemaker : You must have missed the news... the -3 is actually now after the -9 as per the transcript of the Boeing press conference posted earlier up in the th
29 Post contains links Brendows : Not according to the latest program update... Source: www.boeing.com KHI is actually building a second production facility to handle the increased pr
30 Stitch : Spirit also has space for three more Section 41 mandrels, so they can expand, as well. However, Tdscanuck is absolutely correct in noting that there
31 NYC777 : Ok well here's a bit of information that I found out: Rear fuselage for the thrid aircraft arrived in Everett about 3-4 days ago, the forward fuselage
32 Post contains links Brendows : Correct. It would be interesting to see whether MHI, FHI, Vought and Alenia have the same ability to expand within their current production facilitie
33 Thegeek : Could be an expression from North America, but what's a whitetail? It's not on dictionary.com
34 Stitch : It is industry-speak for a completed plane that does not have a customer attached for it. Usually happens when a customer cancels an order after prod
35 Pilotboi : Just a guess, but probably an airplane that doesn't have an owner during/after it's built. In other words, a prototype, or just extra aircraft. So as
36 Mattcawby : That was EIA5165 N747BC but nothing was unloaded, they got fueled and left for RJGG a few minutes ago. Maybe tomorrow.
37 Astuteman : Just my . Appreciate the insights into new mandrels and autoclave etc.. I remain to be convinced that the "fuselage structure" is of necessity the la
38 JerseyFlyer : All the discussion of delays seems to ignore substantial re-design work. As I understand it, the wing box needs re-design because it flexes too much,
39 Astuteman : True indeed. My interpretation (stresses) of the press release is that 2012 gives Boeing time to engineer the 787-9 down to the weight that they want
40 Baroque : Might it not be easier to increase those production rates if Airbus were not spending so much of its managerial time trying to get rid of x thousand
41 Rheinwaldner : Why is this? I have a hard time to see the problems to tune production rates. What is the limiting factor for scalability? Is it because there are in
42 Moo : I don't think any specific problems have been identified, I think what Astuteman is referring to is that we are certainly not seeing the level of del
43 Stitch : Oh I am under no illusion it won't take a number of years before the supply chain will be even able to support the current desired production rate, t
44 Zeke : I have not seen any statement to this effect for the -9, only on the -8. The magnitude of the problem on the -9 is bigger in terms of percentage.
45 Moo : With the current weight and time issues, I have severe doubts that the 787-3 will ever be built - canceling a niche aircraft will allow Boeing to add
46 Stitch : (Deleted by OP) filler filler filler filler filler filler filler filler filler[Edited 2008-04-17 05:56:31]
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...
RJ At DTW - Weirdness In Schedule And Extra Flight posted Fri Mar 28 2008 17:31:03 by Nwafan20
Airbus Delivery Schedule posted Wed Feb 13 2008 06:05:22 by Dash8Pilot
787-10: What/When And If? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 12:55:53 by T773ER
Delta 777LR's Delivery Schedule posted Sun Dec 30 2007 15:44:11 by Papatango
When Will Lynx Ramp Up Operations? posted Wed Dec 12 2007 09:54:08 by Quickmover
Current Delivery Schedule For Delta Ex-TWA 757s? posted Mon Nov 5 2007 09:29:45 by 1337Delta764
DCI: It's Future And Make Up posted Mon Oct 8 2007 11:56:51 by FlyASAGuy2005
Current A380 Delivery Schedule posted Wed Sep 12 2007 17:45:36 by Gigneil
SQ: A380 Delivery Schedule? posted Thu Aug 23 2007 17:40:32 by KELPkid
QF Aircraft Delivery Schedule? posted Fri May 25 2007 10:48:25 by Quetzal
When Will Lynx Ramp Up Operations? posted Wed Dec 12 2007 09:54:08 by Quickmover
Current Delivery Schedule For Delta Ex-TWA 757s? posted Mon Nov 5 2007 09:29:45 by 1337Delta764
DCI: It's Future And Make Up posted Mon Oct 8 2007 11:56:51 by FlyASAGuy2005
Current A380 Delivery Schedule posted Wed Sep 12 2007 17:45:36 by Gigneil
SQ: A380 Delivery Schedule? posted Thu Aug 23 2007 17:40:32 by KELPkid