BlueShamu330s From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 1594 posts, RR: 10 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7048 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, 15004 posts, RR: 44 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6973 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, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6610 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, 4360 posts, RR: 19 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6610 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, 3156 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6562 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, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6493 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, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6405 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 Belgium, joined Jan 2008, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6246 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, 4488 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6175 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, 4360 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6165 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 Falkland Islands (Malvinas), joined May 2007, 2312 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6152 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, 1926 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6026 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, 726 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5713 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, 3156 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5531 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, 426 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5439 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, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5440 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, 275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4174 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.
[Edited 2008-04-27 13:21:12]
[Edited 2008-04-27 13:21:37]
Next: YYJ-LAX-MEX-LAX-YYJ July YYJ-...-CDG-...-YYJ July
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4488 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 1594 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2005, 15004 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 220 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 4360 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 3156 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 272 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 349 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jan 2008, 278 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4488 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From Falkland Islands (Malvinas), joined May 2007, 2312 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 1926 posts, 
.