Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First 787-9 To ANZ In Early 2013  
User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8226 times:

Just broke in an Air New Zealand statement.

"Boeing confirmed yesterday a further 12-month delay could be expected with the first 787-9 aircraft to be delivered to Air New Zealand in the first quarter of 2013,"

Air New Zealand's first 787-9, the 135th 787 to come out of Everett, was originally expected in January 2012, but is now set for early 2013. The twin 787-9 flight test aircraft (88 & 93) will likely take to the sky about six to eight months ahead of the first delivery to Air New Zealand.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ood-news-bad-news-787-9-deliv.html

Onward...soon.

IAD787


Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8200 times:

Such a pity it's been delayed for another few years. The NZ expansion plan would pretty much be brought to a standstill until they wait for the 787s to be delivered. What are the reasons behind the first 787-9 being produced about 100 frames after the first 787-8? Do they have a separate line for this or are they wanting to make sure an entire batch of 787-8s go through faultless?


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8166 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1):
What are the reasons behind the first 787-9 being produced about 100 frames after the first 787-8?

We have to design the airplane before we can start building it. The engineering takes time and resources (people), and there's not enough of that to design both the base model and the -9 at the same time. Even working on the two derivatives (-3 and -9) concurrently as had originally been planned would have required a large increase in the number of engineers working on the program, at least where I work.

A further factor could be related to using data from the -8 flight testing to feed improvements into the -9.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That would mean that the B787-9 and the first A350 models will enjoy the EIS in the same year. Quite remarkable. Although the direct competing A350-800 is still planned for 2014, and the A350-900 is still planned for 2013.

Who would have thought this 2 years ago. According to the article it will be the 135th B787 to leave the production line. So that means they will build in 4/5 years (2009-2013) the earlier 134 planes. Making that the yearly production on average would be 30-35 a year. That would seem to indicate that the production ramp up would be very slow considering the enormous backlog for the B787. Boeing better find ways to speed up the production to keep the customers happy.


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7909 times:



Quoting IAD787 (Thread starter):
"Boeing confirmed yesterday a further 12-month delay could be expected with the first 787-9 aircraft to be delivered to Air New Zealand in the first quarter of 2013,"

Air New Zealand's first 787-9, the 135th 787 to come out of Everett, was originally expected in January 2012, but is now set for early 2013

Wait - if it was originally scheduled for January 2012 and is now scheduled for "early" 2013, what's with the "further" delay BS? Does originally expected mean different things to different people, or what?


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7879 times:



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 2):

Oh ok thanks for that info



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7817 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1):
The NZ expansion plan would pretty much be brought to a standstill until they wait for the 787s to be delivered

Given that the global economy will not be picking up for another 1 or 2 more years, it actually might be a blessing in disguise.

[Edited 2008-12-23 19:45:03]


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinePianos101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7789 times:



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 2):
We have to design the airplane before we can start building it.

And there are very significant design changes going into the -9 (most will be flowed down to the later -8's). Much more than a typical derivative or anything that's been seen in the "Airbus Report," anyway. The increased wheel size, for one, right now is an issue that is affecting multiple sections and designs.


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7784 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 4):
Wait - if it was originally scheduled for January 2012 and is now scheduled for "early" 2013, what's with the "further" delay BS? Does originally expected mean different things to different people, or what?

Good point. Perhaps they are including the switch from the 788 to the 789 order. I believe the 788s were due to be delivered in 2010.

But either way, a bit of an exaggeration if memory serves about the original delivery schedule.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7760 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 4):
Wait - if it was originally scheduled for January 2012 and is now scheduled for "early" 2013, what's with the "further" delay BS? Does originally expected mean different things to different people, or what?

What am I missing here........early 2103 is a year later than January 2012 so how on earth are you not getting a delay out of that?


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7746 times:



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 6):
Given that the global economy will not be picking up for another 1 or 2 more years, it actually might be a blessing in disguise.

But in saying that, the EIS won't be until early 2013 which still leaves us 5 years to go. If the worldwide economies have already started to pick up, NZ could be in a position where they lose out on recovery. Also, to bear in mind, New Zealand is hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 in which NZ would probably want increased capacity to cater for the many extra thousands visiting the country. It'll be interesting to see what they end up doing and when the economies turn for the better.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pianos101 (Reply 7):
The increased wheel size, for one, right now is an issue that is affecting multiple sections and designs.

Was the 787-9 always going to have a larger wheel size to support it's MTOW, or is this a sign Boeing is planning to push MTOW beyond 252t with the current undercarriage?


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7700 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
What am I missing here........early 2103 is a year later than January 2012 so how on earth are you not getting a delay out of that?

He's talking about the FURTHER delay quote.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8626 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

just to clarify as it seems that some people couldnt/didnt use the link that the OP provided


- as launch customer for the -9 NZ was originally supposed to be receiving the first a/c at the end of 2010 , this got delayed to early 2012 and has now been further delayed until at least Q1 of 2013



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7455 times:



Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 8):

Good point. Perhaps they are including the switch from the 788 to the 789 order. I believe the 788s were due to be delivered in 2010.



Quoting Khobar (Reply 4):
Wait - if it was originally scheduled for January 2012 and is now scheduled for "early" 2013, what's with the "further" delay BS? Does originally expected mean different things to different people, or what?

The 789s were originally due in late 2010. I'm not sure when the 788 was going to be delivered early 2010?

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10):
New Zealand is hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 in which NZ would probably want increased capacity to cater for the many extra thousands visiting the country. It'll be interesting to see what they end up doing and when the economies turn for the better.

There was a bit of an article about the RWC in the NZ Hearld the other day saying how nZ would have nice new 77Ws to show off. I think it mentioned the 787 wouldn't be here in time in that, which it wouldn't have anyway unless it was delivered in 2010.


User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7410 times:

NZ is such an important customer to Boeing (more so for its reputation than volume of orders) that I'd expect the compensation for this late delivery would be massive and would more than cover the cost of this delay.

May see some 773s or 772s provided 'free of charge' to develop their expansion. As far as I know 773 delivery is still on track for mid-2010.



-
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7375 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10):
l early 2013 which still leaves us 5 years to go

Four... Wink

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10):
. If the worldwide economies have already started to pick up, NZ could be in a position where they lose out on recovery

From my rough "guesstimates", it will be 2011 before we really start to see things moving along..a staggering $34 trillion in wealth has been wiped out worldwid, just in equities alone!  Wow! This will take a while.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10):
Also, to bear in mind, New Zealand is hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 in which NZ would probably want increased capacity to cater for the many extra thousands visiting the country. It'll be interesting to see what they end up doing and when the economies turn for the better.

I still think there won't be capacity issues. Remember, CZ wanted to get its A380's for the Olympics and it didn't seam as if there were any problems getting a flight to China.

YMMV



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7305 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
What am I missing here........early 2103 is a year later than January 2012 so how on earth are you not getting a delay out of that?

2103 is a tad more than a year later there sir.  Wink

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 14):
The 789s were originally due in late 2010. I'm not sure when the 788 was going to be delivered early 2010?

So the story is wrong - the 789's weren't originally scheduled for 2012 delivery. From April 2008 -

"Air New Zealand has eight 787-9 aircraft on firm order with delivery of the first initially expected around the end of 2010, with all aircraft delivered by late 2013.

The delivery of the first aircraft is now likely in early 2012."

And -

"The first delivery was initially expected around the end of 2010, with Boeing informing Air New Zealand in April the delivery of the first aircraft was likely in early 2012.

Boeing confirmed yesterday a further 12 month delay could be expected with the first 787-9 aircraft to be delivered to Air New Zealand in the first quarter of 2013. "

So now it makes sense. If he hasn't already done so, Jon probably should clarify this to remove any confusion.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7262 times:



Quoting TG992 (Reply 15):
NZ is such an important customer to Boeing (more so for its reputation than volume of orders) that I'd expect the compensation for this late delivery would be massive and would more than cover the cost of this delay.

May see some 773s or 772s provided 'free of charge' to develop their expansion. As far as I know 773 delivery is still on track for mid-2010.

It'd be great if such compensation was delivered. But then again I wonder if NZ would opt for the money to be on the safe side. Yeah, this kind of goes against my argument. Maybe they cancelled those 4 77Ws knowing that they could get something from Boeing.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
Four...

Haha yes, my bad.. I forgot about the beginning bit of 2013

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
From my rough "guesstimates", it will be 2011 before we really start to see things moving along

Still, that's two more years' benefit they could get if the 787s were delivered earlier. No one really knows what will happen and i guess only time will tell.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
I still think there won't be capacity issues. Remember, CZ wanted to get its A380's for the Olympics and it didn't seam as if there were any problems getting a flight to China.

I have posted in the New Zealand aviation thread regarding this: China has many gateways in which passengers can enter through and they aren't as tightly squeezed as New Zealand. Their domestic capacity is pretty big and if people must, they would have travelled through Shanghai or HKG (or any other big city with a big airport in China) to get to Beijing.

New Zealand, on the other hand, only has 2 major airports which (can) receive long haul flights - AKL and CHC - the latter of which capacity is much smaller. Sure, QF could ramp up the trans-tasman flights but most people from the likes of Europe and America would be wanting to get here more direct rather than via Australia. Ok if it was in such popular demand, maybe SQ would send an A380 down for a couple of flights and others could increase frequencies etc but this is quite a big opportunity for NZ to make some money. NZ not having the 787s by then is a bummer, especially when they were expected into the fleet in 2010, which may have a completely unseen before cabin layout as they were pondering.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineNcfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7249 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 3):
According to the article it will be the 135th B787 to leave the production line. So that means they will build in 4/5 years (2009-2013) the earlier 134 planes. Making that the yearly production on average would be 30-35 a year. That would seem to indicate that the production ramp up would be very slow considering the enormous backlog for the B787.

This is the part that concerns me the most, If the ramp up is this slow, the later deliverys will be delayed again.

Just a couple of quick questions-

When would Boeing be in a position to firm up to customers their delivery schedules?
How far in advance is delivery date confirmed to the customer for any aircraft, not just the 787?


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7235 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 18):
New Zealand, on the other hand, only has 2 major airports which (can) receive long haul flights - AKL and CHC - the latter of which capacity is much smaller. Sure, QF could ramp up the trans-tasman flights but most people from the likes of Europe and America would be wanting to get here more direct rather than via Australia. Ok if it was in such popular demand, maybe SQ would send an A380 down for a couple of flights and others could increase frequencies etc but this is quite a big opportunity for NZ to make some money. NZ not having the 787s by then is a bummer, especially when they were expected into the fleet in 2010, which may have a completely unseen before cabin layout as they were pondering.

Good points and certainly true and worth considering. NZ might need to delay retiring part of its fleet . Yes, it might be difficult, but I think its "doable".



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7136 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10):
But in saying that, the EIS won't be until early 2013 which still leaves us 5 years to go. If the worldwide economies have already started to pick up, NZ could be in a position where they lose out on recovery. Also, to bear in mind, New Zealand is hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 in which NZ would probably want increased capacity to cater for the many extra thousands visiting the country. It'll be interesting to see what they end up doing and when the economies turn for the better.

NZ always has the option to hold on to its 7 (possibly 8 if they hold onto the grounded bird) plus the arrivals of the 77W. The world economy is likely to be in the toilet for at least the next 2 years if not 4-5 years so it could be a bonus for NZ that they get compensated and don't have lots of spare capacity being wasted.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 14):

There was a bit of an article about the RWC in the NZ Hearld the other day saying how nZ would have nice new 77Ws to show off. I think it mentioned the 787 wouldn't be here in time in that, which it wouldn't have anyway unless it was delivered in 2010.

Exactly... I think the idea is to replace the 744s with 77Ws but to have both types for the world cup for extra capacity.

Quoting TG992 (Reply 15):

May see some 773s or 772s provided 'free of charge' to develop their expansion. As far as I know 773 delivery is still on track for mid-2010.

NZ has ordered 4x77W on firm orders and I believe it was NZ1 that said that they were likely to take 3 more... now if Boeing was to offer NZ buy 2 get 1 free as compensation that would be a very nice deal considering NZ is already getting good pricing on its orders.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7007 times:

So, at least over 4 more years before EIS of the -9... And I believe Boeing started work on the 789 this year, so this derivative will take about as long as was originally planned for the 787-8 program, from scratch till EIS...  boggled 

But there will be very good reasons for this. Boeing will re-evaluate everything that has gone wrong with the 787-8 and apply the lessons learned into the -9. Overall program management, supplier management, outsourcing, weight issues, etc. Essentially: how can we put this bird into the air smoothly, and if this takes a bit longer than originally planned, so be it. Just as Airbus does with the A350XWB program (well, at least the -900. I think they are far too ambitious with the -1000, but that's for another thread).

I think one of the biggest mistakes of the 787-8 program was the outsourcing of parts of the design, and correcting this mistake is one of the main reasons for the long delay of the -9. But I also believe, as a result of Boeing doing far more in-house, the 787-9 will be a fantastic plane, maybe even better than expected. IMO, it will also be the variant that will sell in the biggest numbers eventually, (with huge orders from AA, AF/KL and many more in the pipeline), therefore absolutely critical for Boeing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Quoting Pianos101 (Reply 7):
The increased wheel size, for one, right now is an issue that is affecting multiple sections and designs.

Was the 787-9 always going to have a larger wheel size to support it's MTOW, or is this a sign Boeing is planning to push MTOW beyond 252t with the current undercarriage?

And/or perhaps an engine with a bigger fan diameter? Just like the TrentXWB for example? With first flight and EIS of the A350-900 in the same timeframe, I would be very surprised if the RR engines of the 787-9 will be much different (somewhat lower thrust, and no XWB designation of couse Big grin But that will be about all...).



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6639 times:



Quoting Pianos101 (Reply 7):
And there are very significant design changes going into the -9 (most will be flowed down to the later -8's). Much more than a typical derivative or anything that's been seen in the "Airbus Report," anyway. The increased wheel size, for one, right now is an issue that is affecting multiple sections and designs.

Given Boeing's track record on the 787 programme thus far, I have no confidence in the 789's delivery schedule. This is all BS (Boeing Spin).
The company is so bogged down with the -8 that I don't believe they can realistically assimilate all the lessons learnt into the 789 in such a short space of time.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6086 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 17):
So the story is wrong - the 789's weren't originally scheduled for 2012 delivery. From April 2008 -

"Air New Zealand has eight 787-9 aircraft on firm order with delivery of the first initially expected around the end of 2010, with all aircraft delivered by late 2013.

The story is sloppily researched. Early 2013 for 787-9 first delivery is about 27-30 months later than the original date which was 4Q 2010. With the last program update of April 2008, 787-9 delivery had been pushed to 2Q 2012. The delays assumed by IFLC ("in excess of 27 months on average") and Air Canada ("24-30 months") were based on Boeing's April 2008 guidance, which is obsolete.

Based on the feeling that the latest 6-month delay will not be the last, with a big question mark hanging over the 787-8's entry into service in 1Q 2010, and the likelihood that the production ramp-up as announcd in April 2008 is not going to happen, delivery delays may very quickly accumulate beyond 36 months.

Before you jump all over me, I have the feeling that the 350 will be delayed as well.

Seasons Greetings  santahat 


25 Frigatebird : OTOH, it is highly probable that some 787 customers go belly-up or will be taken over by other airlines, which can result in cancellations and/or def
26 AirNZ : But the thread is nothing remotely to do with the A350.
27 YULWinterSkies : I don't wanna be the devil's advocate but it is not a safe assumption at this point to say that the A350 will not be delayed as well. Actually, if it
28 Stitch : Nonetheless, the A350 should be discussed in it's own thread. We cross-pollute enough, as-is.
29 Pianos101 : I'm *pretty* sure this was always the plan. And increasing the tire size is taking its toll on the MLG doors and the section 45 pressure deck.
30 Stitch : Okay, thank you. I was operating under the impression the family shared a common undercarriage (including tire dimensions).
31 Rheinbote : Without any doubt, but obviously these excellent resources and suppliers are too few and too far in between. The aerospace industry now starts paying
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...
WSJ: Eads Reaffirms First A380 To SQ In October posted Mon Jul 23 2007 17:24:55 by N328KF
Airlines To ILE In Early 80s? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 15:11:23 by Chase
MEA To LIS In Early 60's... posted Fri Jun 14 2002 17:16:17 by CV990
CX The First Airline To Advertise In Airlinersnet? posted Tue Mar 13 2001 05:10:40 by Oxygen
Who Are The First Airlines To Recieve Their 787's? posted Thu Aug 21 2008 11:20:54 by Virginblue4
First Two NW 787's Will Be In NW Livery posted Tue Aug 12 2008 11:36:49 by Burnsie28
First A320 Parts On Way To FAL In China posted Tue Jun 24 2008 11:38:35 by Scbriml
Air France To Decide In 2009 Between A350 Or 787 posted Thu May 22 2008 06:37:55 by Beaucaire
First A320 To Be Assembled In Hamburg posted Wed Mar 26 2008 03:14:33 by Columba
Boeing To Expand 787 Mod Line In San Antonio posted Wed Jan 23 2008 14:20:43 by TUIflyer