BlueShamu330s From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 2046 posts, RR: 31 Posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7359 times:
Taken from the other site, (sounds like a dried fruit), a quote from Tim Jeans at Monarch:
Quote from Tim Jeans:
"After months of rumour Boeing has now confirmed to us the extent of the problems with the 787 production programme and the consequent effect this will have on the delivery schedule of our six aircraft.
"Boeing’s ability to ramp up production rates after the first deliveries was always the high risk factor in the programme and they have now confirmed that they will be unable to match their original estimates and are now planning on production build up in line with that they were able to achieve on the 777 programme. Taking the 777 programme as the benchmark, this would mean a 30 month delay to our first delivery and similar delays to the other five aircraft. The best case scenario is therefore that we would see the 787 in service for Summer 2013 which clearly has significant implications for the interim period.
"We are now working closely with Boeing on opportunities for them to assist us with interim aircraft to bridge the capacity gap in our programme. Inevitably some of the alternatives they will offer will be commercially sensitive, but we will share with you the possible options as soon as they are known to us."
Shamu
[Edited 2008-04-26 13:57:12]
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18437 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7284 times:
This is really where the Vought problems hurt them, but Boeing can only blame itself. In order to cut costs and not have to deal with unions in Washington, they have created an even bigger mess than the A380 convoys through tiny french towns.
Hopefully both Boeing and Airbus have learned from the A380 and 787 mistakes and future planes will involve fewer large section movements and fewer partners. For Boeing, when every section is critical, "sharing the risk" really ended up equating to "multiplying the risk" because it meant more outside interests were capable of delaying the program in more ways.
As others have asked in other threads, why haven't certain Boeing execs been summarily fired for this decision, or was it so ingrained in their culture that every single person in management thought the risk sharing and production chain was the best method?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
FlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6921 times:
Monarch has an order of 6 787-8s, which were supposed to be delivered during 2011-2013. What would be a suitable interim aircraft for Monarch? They are operating a rather diverse fleet currently with both Airbus and Boeing widebody aircraft. Sizewise the 767 would be closest to 787-8, but I think that the availability of the 767 is pretty close to zero currently. 777 on the other hand would be too big considering that the largest aircraft operated by them is currently A330-200.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6921 times:
I don't see how Boeing will be in a position to supply alternative aircraft as interim solutions to those customers severly affected in their growth-plans.
You can certainly squeeze the manufacture of some additional 777's or even 767's in the pipeline ,but not in large enough numbers to satisfy multiple customers with hundreds of aircraft concerned.
We have a backlog of over 800 aircraft ,and all of them will be affected.If ramp-up is slower than initially expected,those with delivery-slots initially sheduled for 2013 will have to wait until 2016/17 ??
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6873 times:
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 3): I don't see how Boeing will be in a position to supply alternative aircraft as interim solutions to those customers severly affected in their growth-plans.
Quite a bit of it will likely be helping postpone retirements and rearranging leased and to-be-retired aircraft to help.
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 3): You can certainly squeeze the manufacture of some additional 777's or even 767's in the pipeline ,but not in large enough numbers to satisfy multiple customers with hundreds of aircraft concerned.
True, but nobody (airlines or Boeing) wants a one-for-one replacement.
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 3): We have a backlog of over 800 aircraft ,and all of them will be affected.If ramp-up is slower than initially expected,those with delivery-slots initially sheduled for 2013 will have to wait until 2016/17 ??
It's not quite that bad...the worst delays are in the first few years, then they get better. By 2013 it's almost back to normal, assuming they hold this schedule.
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 513 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6804 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4): Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 3):
We have a backlog of over 800 aircraft ,and all of them will be affected.If ramp-up is slower than initially expected,those with delivery-slots initially sheduled for 2013 will have to wait until 2016/17 ??
It's not quite that bad...the worst delays are in the first few years, then they get better. By 2013 it's almost back to normal, assuming they hold this schedule.
It actually looks that bad, which was discussed in an earlier thread when the latest ( and hopefully last) delay was announced.
By 2013 they would be able to reach production of 140 planes per year, but it takes until 2016-2017 until the current backlog is cleared.
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)
Chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 406 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6716 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 5): It actually looks that bad, which was discussed in an earlier thread when the latest ( and hopefully last) delay was announced.
By 2013 they would be able to reach production of 140 planes per year, but it takes until 2016-2017 until the current backlog is cleared.
Does that mean that Boeing is likely to pay some kind of compensation for around 900 aircrafts?
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6557 times:
Quoting Chiad (Reply 6): Does that mean that Boeing is likely to pay some kind of compensation for around 900 aircrafts?
That's how I see it. If the first aircraft is delivered 30 months late, all the other aircraft following it will be 30 months late unless production rate is increased to an amount higher than the predicted 2 days per aircraft...
I find this ramp up schedule very disastrous. They are trying to produce a widebody at the rate they produce a narrowbody... The whole idea of having a new widebody coming out of the factory every 48 hours is just too crazy.
Boeing have been very good at selling the aircraft... promising outstanding performance etc...
Now that the aircraft is heavier than predicted they might even end up paying performance penalties for 900 aircraft...
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6235 posts, RR: 85 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6486 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4): Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 3):
We have a backlog of over 800 aircraft ,and all of them will be affected.If ramp-up is slower than initially expected,those with delivery-slots initially sheduled for 2013 will have to wait until 2016/17 ??
It's not quite that bad...the worst delays are in the first few years, then they get better. By 2013 it's almost back to normal, assuming they hold this schedule.
Goldman Sachs reckon that some 220 delivery slots have been lost between now and 2013, assuming there's no further delays.
Given the level of sales that the 787 achieved so far, it's difficult to see how things will be back on schedule, even by 2013.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): Hopefully both Boeing and Airbus have learned from the A380 and 787 mistakes and future planes will involve fewer large section movements and fewer partners. For Boeing, when every section is critical, "sharing the risk" really ended up equating to "multiplying the risk" because it meant more outside interests were capable of delaying the program in more ways.
The trouble is, other industries have successfully used this approach to reduce cost, schedule and risk. That's why Boeing attempted it.
In my view, the issue isn't in the strategy itself, as you appear to portray it, but in the execution of the strategy.
It's important to make the distinction IMO....
Quoting NCB (Reply 7): Now that the aircraft is heavier than predicted they might even end up paying performance penalties for 900 aircraft...
Can't see that.
There are rumours of an "overweight" issue, which seem sort of supported by Boeing's logic for delaying te 787-9 EIS to 2012 being to allow some weight reduction engineering to be incorporated.
So its possible early frames may be overweight (just as early A380's are)
It's possible that better-than-expected engine SFC and aerodynamics might overcome some, or all of this.
Then again they might not.
Either way, I see no reason why, (even in the worst case (he stresses) ), that by 2012 787's won't be hitting their specs.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 40 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6476 times:
Could someone tell me how long the barrel-sections and wings have to bake in an autoclave oven in order to gain max. strenght ? When searching the web I could not find any timing -related informations.
Subcontractors have each one (? ) autoclave oven to produce the sub-assemblies.Producing one aircraft every two days (roughly ) would stretch the sequence of those ovens to extremely high levels.Are there plans to increase the number of autoclaves?
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6463 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 5): It actually looks that bad, which was discussed in an earlier thread when the latest ( and hopefully last) delay was announced.
By 2013 they would be able to reach production of 140 planes per year, but it takes until 2016-2017 until the current backlog is cleared.
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)
While my numbers are a 'best guess', there were other numbers in that thread which were actually both more pessimistic and at the same time more likely. My guess was an optimistic one.
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6337 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Thread starter): a 30 month delay to our first delivery and similar delays to the other five aircraft
As many died in the wool Boeing fans pointed out when CaptainX first appeared on the forum making similar statements, a delay of 2+ years in deliveries is inconceivable. How on earth can CaptainX and the man from Monarch be so stupid as to believe in such an impossibility?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): Boeing can only blame itself. In order to cut costs and not have to deal with unions in Washington, they have created an even bigger mess than the A380 convoys through tiny french towns.
I am not aware of any reports that the Airbus convoy system has disrupted production.
Boeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6024 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 11): As many died in the wool Boeing fans pointed out when CaptainX first appeared on the forum making similar statements, a delay of 2+ years in deliveries is inconceivable. How on earth can CaptainX and the man from Monarch be so stupid as to believe in such an impossibility?
Probably because everyone saw how Airbus had problems with the A380 and thought that Boeing won't make the same mistake with their original 'too good to be true' production and delivery schedules, plus if the deal for 787s on offer to the airlines is good...
I think the only hope that Monarch have of getting aircraft earlier is IF airlines who have deliveries scheduled ahead of Monarch decide to defer them (a la VS with the A380) or decide to cancel (some will think it's unthinkable but there are airlines who will be willing to do this) but with such a huge order book I can't see this happening.
I guess we'll be seeing their A300s flying for longer than originally anticipated.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5842 times:
Quoting Chiad (Reply 6):
Does that mean that Boeing is likely to pay some kind of compensation for around 900 aircrafts?
It completely depends on how the contracts were structured. It's unlikely that a plane scheduled for delivery 8 years from now has a really tightly defined delivery date.
Quoting NCB (Reply 7):
I find this ramp up schedule very disastrous. They are trying to produce a widebody at the rate they produce a narrowbody... The whole idea of having a new widebody coming out of the factory every 48 hours is just too crazy.
I thought it was every 72 hours, not 48, but why is it crazy? The 737's come out at more than one per day and the final assembly process for a 787 is *way* simpler than a 737.
Quoting NCB (Reply 7): Now that the aircraft is heavier than predicted they might even end up paying performance penalties for 900 aircraft...
So far, Boeing has consistently said they're within contractual performance guarantees. Their heavier than they want to be, but not so heavy that they can't meet their obligations.
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 9): Could someone tell me how long the barrel-sections and wings have to bake in an autoclave oven in order to gain max. strenght ?
It probably depends on the part, but typical cure cycles for autoclave parts are on the order of a few hours.
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 9): Subcontractors have each one (? ) autoclave oven to produce the sub-assemblies.
They have multiple autoclaves (for the really big parts) or load multiple parts in each autoclave (for the smaller stuff).
Grantcv From United States, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5750 times:
Boeing was resisting a second production line. Now that it seems clear that Boeing was depending way too much on overly rosy expectations, does it not make sense for Boeing and their partners to invest in the facilities worldwide that would allow 787 production to actually be boosted? The 787 is essentially sold out for the next 8 years. Was that really the plan? Surely they are leaving money on the table by not having the production capacity for additional aircraft for so long.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 505 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5751 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 5): but it takes until 2016-2017 until the current backlog is cleared.
That must be pretty worrying reading for AA and UA.
AA's oldest B763s will be 30 years old in 2018 with UA's not far behind.
They may yet live to regret not getting on the 787 earlier.
PlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 500 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4485 times:
I would consider the 30 month figure a worst case, but not an unlikely one. In any case, devastating news for the profitability of the 787 program. Boeing may end up having to provide some sort of compensation for delivery delays as much as almost twice as long as the A380's (with an EIS ca. 18 months late), and for more than four times as many planes (almost 900 compared to less than 200).
Adding the reported very low prices Boeing has offered for the 787 so far, the effect on the bottom line will decidedly be very negative. It seems the early sales success of the 787 may have done as much harm as it was a boost to the program.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13): It's unlikely that a plane scheduled for delivery 8 years from now has a really tightly defined delivery date.
Well, for all we know now pretty much every plane on order will be delivered late, many of them as much as two years or more. I would consider it a given that delivery delays of this magnitude violate some sort of contractual agreement for most of the planes in the backlog. That's the difference between firm orders and more loose agreements such as a LOI or a MOU. There may not be an exact day set into stone for delivery, but a delay of 30 months - two and a half years - will incur some sort of penalty.
Anyway, this can only mean more orders for the A330. Either as direct interim lift orders, or due to an increased pressure on the used midsize widebody market, for which the A330 is the only reasonable available valve.
Edit: Removed my highly controversial Toulouse-champagne connection.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6235 posts, RR: 85 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4446 times:
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2221 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
The incredible delays on the 787 will involve Boeing giving out vast cash pay-offs. I'm sure Monarch will be happy to see that prop up their end of year accounts for the next few years. That's unless they decide to cancel the whole order.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2734 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3365 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 20): That's unless they decide to cancel the whole order.
I doubt Monarch, RJ or any other carrier will cancel the 787, just like nobody cancelled the a380 (pax) orders. Even though I do wonder what will happen with the 787-3 orders. But if this 30 month delay turns out to be true, it's going to cost Boeing big time, like it did Airbus. Anyway, RJ said "between 18 and 30 months late". Lets hope it's closer to the former (already announced delays) than to the latter.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3359 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 20): The incredible delays on the 787 will involve Boeing giving out vast cash pay-offs. I'm sure Monarch will be happy to see that prop up their end of year accounts for the next few years. That's unless they decide to cancel the whole order.
Apparently, according to several of the usual A.net suspects, Boeing reached their 'contractual limits' on compensation payments early on in the delays and thus won't be paying out anything extra. But thats just A.net pillow talk.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7186 posts, RR: 41 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 20): The incredible delays on the 787 will involve Boeing giving out vast cash pay-offs.
Not if this is any guide:-
"DUBAI (Reuters) - European plane maker Airbus paid Dubai's Emirates EMAIR.UL as much as $110 million during the last year in compensation for the late delivery of the A380, of which the Arab carrier is the largest customer, Emirates said.
"Emirates, which has ordered 58 of the world's largest passenger planes, received 404 million dirhams ($110 million) during the year to March 31 in "liquidating damages", according to its annual report released on Wednesday."
If that (about $2M. per aeroplane) is a typical level of compensation in the aviation world for a two-year delay, no-one is going to get rich (or poor) from mere delays.
Incidentally, the correct phrase is 'liquidated damages' - a sum pre-agreed by both parties, and shown in the sales contract as the limit of compensation payable in the event of delays (regardless of the actual loss to the purchaser, be it less or more than the pre-agreed sum). I would expect most contracts to contain similar clauses. It may, of course, be an annual amount - but even then paying out those sorts of figures isn't going to 'break the bank' at either Airbus or Boeing.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Boeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3035 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 21): I doubt Monarch, RJ or any other carrier will cancel the 787, just like nobody cancelled the a380 (pax) orders. Even though I do wonder what will happen with the 787-3 orders.
Never say never. I think it will be the level of compensation Boeing offers to customers for the delays what makes the minds up of airlines whether to cancel or stick with it, as there are no doubt several airlines (and growing) getting pi$$ed off over the delays.
Frankly, the EK case is probably the worst guide for this. With their large and growing number of additional A380 orders, they had plenty of opportunity to conceal additional compensation through higher discounts for new orders. (Which is something that Airbus was certainly more than happy to do.) Also note that EK placed additional orders during the height of the A380 crisis, for which they most likely got ultra-low prices from Airbus.
26 Observer: Lan Chile is now publicly talking about a two year delay for its 787s. This follows Monarch (30 months) and Royal Jordanian (up to 30 months). Qantas,
27 707lvr: As poisonous as the labor-management relationship has become, even this would not be a surprise. Perhaps they considered the enlightened self-interes
28 AirbusA6: As with the A380, there will be many airlines cursing the manufacturer for delaying the delivery, while there will also be others who over extended th
29 Musapapaya: I can only hope Airbus goes well on its A350 program and one day UA or AA will order some - boeing is not everything in the market.
30 Lorgem1: Excellent! Excellent! As I've said from day 1! If the (design) or any ?? changes continue, off course it will have a 'chain' reaction on its supplier
31 Glacote: With respect - not so. Those rumours have the B787 twice more overweight than the A388 was. Not counting redesigned wing box, non-wifi IFE, etc. Meth
32 Tdscanuck: Is that in pounds or %? A big reason for the non-wifi IFE was that it was *lighter* than the wifi IFE, so I'm not sure how you can pin the weight gai
33 NCB: The Dreamliner is 6 tons overweight now already, SUH said it 7 months ago. The A380 was 6 tons heavy at completion, with the extra wiring. The A380 wa
34 Ikramerica: Your logic is flawed on many levels. First, it's been widely reported that the plane is 2.5 tons overweight, not 6 tons. That's the same 2-2.5% the A
35 Tdscanuck: This somewhat depends on the timescale. During testing and production most aircraft loose weight as they figure out which bits were overdesigned. It
36 NAV20: Of course you're right that there's always scope for negotiation, PlaneInsomniac. But I'd have thought that EK, of all airlines, held all the cards i
37 Ikramerica: Yes, it sounds like bad business practice, but I would imagine that Boeing would welcome cancellations or conversations to 777s, and are also very li
38 Astuteman: Steve Udvar Hazy WAS quoted as saying that "the dreamliner is some 14 000lb overweight (roughly 6 tonnes )"...... He's generally pretty well respecte
39 Burkhard: I think nobody will cancel the 787 for the delays - but maybe selling 2013 delivery slots might make a good buck. On the other hand, we cannot be sure
40 NAV20: Astuteman, to try to avoid yet another disagreement, Airbus' present position is that after the 45 deliveries planned for 2010, they will be pretty w
41 Astuteman: Indeed not. That's obviously a historical position specific to the A380 in days gone by..... Rgds
42 Brendows: I'll have to arrest you here Astuteman Hazy was talking about the 789 here, not the 788. Here's the quote: Source: www.atwonline.com Pretty correct.
43 Astuteman: Fair Cop. I suspished as much, but wasn't sure. Some concern over the 789's weight does seem to be supported by Boeing's comments regarding its EIS d
44 Khobar: Current estimates: • Morningstar: $800 million to $1 billion; • Cowen & Company: $4 billion; • Goldman Sachs: $3 billion • Lehman Brothers: $
45 Rheinbote: Current analyst estimates for penalties are based on the assumption that a production rate of 10/mont is achieved by 2012. What Boeing now indicated t
46 Glacote: I may be completely out-of-touch with engineering reality - but I would have expected that shrinking windows size by say 30% (in surface) would be ea
47 N328KF: In the Boeing annual shareholder's meeting, I asked McNerney if he made a mistake letting Mulally go and putting Carson in his place. He said it was '
48 NAV20: Yes, Glacote, makes a lot of sense, given the political background. About 787 delivery dates, first of all there’s the question of ‘which type of
49 BestWestern: The AF delays were also attributed to the collapse of CDG 2E, which only reopened very recently - 2E was designed for A380 usage, with plenty of A380
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 2046 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2005, 18437 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 513 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 406 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6235 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, 
.
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2734 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7186 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
