Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Impending 787 Cancellation  
User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 557 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25575 times:

Scott Hamilton is reporting that there is likely to be a significant 787 order cancellation due to the economic downturn and repeated delays. It is likely to happen this month.

For Boeing this would decompress the delivery schedule and provide much needed breathing room.

The customer is not DL/NW.

Don't understand this bit, there will be a cash-cost (compensation) to Boeing, we understand, because of the delays to the customer

So they lose their deposits but get compensation? Or is the compensation in lieu of the deposits?

Wonder who it is? Let the speculation begin...

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/


The grass is greener where you water it
92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25487 times:

China Eastern? I've read where they may cancel or defer aircraft from both OEMs.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 331 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25486 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Probably VS considering they can't make up their minds when it comes to orders  stirthepot 

Seriously though, it does not surprise me to see the cancellations start rolling in. Really interested to see who it could be. For Boeing, probably best if it helps free up some early slots.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25456 times:



Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
So they lose their deposits but get compensation? Or is the compensation in lieu of the deposits?

Maybe the contract stated something along the lines of "If the plane is over a certain lateness then you can cancel and get your deposits back" which isn't usually the case.

My guesses are (in no particular order)

- one of the 783 customers not converting their 783s to 788/9 and cancelling (but this wouldn't do much for the delivery time)
- VS as they've just reviewed their plane orders
- One of the holiday groups TUI, Monarch or Thompson
- LOT (they're apparantly in trouble)
- Icelandair (look at Iceland generally)
- Air Berlin - deciding that they don't want to go long haul after all!


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25383 times:



Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
Don't understand this bit, there will be a cash-cost (compensation) to Boeing, we understand, because of the delays to the customer

Bad punctuation I imagine, there will be a cash cost to Boeing ie Boeing will pay the customer to cancel the order otherwise the customer could just keep on milking compensation for the delays and then never take delivery of the aircraft as it is outside of the contract dates. Better to just pay them off once and for all.



BV
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25383 times:

I think the airline can cancel their order and get the deposit back due to the big delay.
In addition Boeing has to pay compensation as well.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25346 times:

One or more Chinese carriers, is the first thought to spring to my mind. But looking at the total list of customers, Air Berlin is a prime candidate as well. LOT is in trouble, but a cancellation from QR or SQ would be a huge blow to Boeing. QR may consider keeping their A330's (which were due to be replaced by the 787's) somewhat longer, or decide that their order for A350's (including the -800) will be big enough to fulfill their expansion plans. SQ may decide to keep their A330's as well, certainly now that the A359 and B789 will be delivered almost around the same time frame.

AI or 9W will most likely defer their orders, but I doubt very much that they will cancel. Same for AC and VS.



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 offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25286 times:



Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
Wonder who it is? Let the speculation begin...

QF, they want the a350 instead  Wink



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25194 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 7):
Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
Wonder who it is? Let the speculation begin...

QF, they want the a350 instead

VS, then they will order 6 x the new high-weight A332s to replace their deferred orders for A346s, to open up new routes


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25189 times:

Quoting Swallow (Thread starter):
So they lose their deposits but get compensation? Or is the compensation in lieu of the deposits?

I understand the confusion, but I think what Mr. Hamilton actually intended to convey in his statement was simply this:

there will be a cash-cost to Boeing, due to the compensation Boeing will have to pay the customer for delays

The "...(compensation) to Boeing..." in his sentence is the fragment which makes his wording of the sentence confusing.

[Edited 2009-01-15 06:14:38]


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24917 times:

I think that it will be either

-LOT troubles
-AI troubles
-TUI group troubles
-NH or JL cancelling B783 and the B787 altogether as a result
-EY, SQ due to B789 available only from 2013 on and decision to go with XWB-only fleet
-VX or QF due to B789 available only from 2013, decision to switch to XWB

VX is very likely in my opinion. The B789 is not coming until 2013 and the B789 is ok for replacing the 6 A343's that are due for retirement, but too small to replace A346 and B744, plus it may not be so interesting due to limited F and J cabins. So they may want to switch to XWB and get fleet commonality by ordering A358 through -1000.

It must be an important order or Boeing would not have mentionned it.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24859 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
Maybe the contract stated something along the lines of "If the plane is over a certain lateness then you can cancel and get your deposits back" which isn't usually the case.

I don't quite understand your reasoning here. If an aircraft is delayed by a manufacturer (time stipulated in contract) then the airline is very much entitled to have the deposits returned if the order is cancelled. Under what circumstances of delay do you feel it "usually wouldn't be the case"?


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24801 times:

Quoting NCB (Reply 10):
-NH or JL cancelling B783 and the B787 altogether as a result

ANA and JAL -3 cancellation is highly possible. They could use the "wave 1" 787s on shorter routes insted of the -3s, which would be odd-balls in their fleets, anyway. The entire 787 order cancellation - IMHO highly unlikely.

LO - possible. If the things will keep going the way they are going now, I don't see them being in existance in 2010.

Now, here's my big guess: ILFC. While I do not see a complete cancellation, I would not be surprised if they reduce their order by 30 - 50%.

VS may defer their deliveries, but I don't think they will cancel. SQ - no way. They like to have all the latest and greatest equipment. Icelandair - possible, with the country's economy going down the drain.

Another big question marks are Air India and Jet Airways orders. Air India may prevail, but Jet - I'm not sure. Best case scenario here is a major delivery deferral.

[Edited 2009-01-15 06:42:50]


Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24742 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 11):
I don't quite understand your reasoning here. If an aircraft is delayed by a manufacturer (time stipulated in contract) then the airline is very much entitled to have the deposits returned if the order is cancelled. Under what circumstances of delay do you feel it "usually wouldn't be the case"?

I meant in comparison to the plane not being late in which case the airline would lose some or all of thier deposit on cancellation.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24690 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As noted, the "compensation" Boeing would be paying will almost certainly be the return of the deposits. If NH, NW or AT cancel, there would also be progress payments made on ZA001 through ZA006 since those birds are in production. I suppose Boeing could conceivably also be receiving progress payments for ZA007 through ~ZA020 since at least some major structural pieces have evidently been built for them, as well, but I do not know who those customers are.

Also, "meaningful cancellations" does not have to mean an entire order is canceled by a customer. For example, there is that 23 frame UFO widely believed to be for AC. AC could cancel that order, while keeping their initial 37 frame 787-8 order. Or perhaps their 23 frame order is for the 787-9 and they keep that and cancel the 37 frame 787-8 order. NH and JL could also cancel their 43 787-3s while still keeping their 42 787-8s.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24615 times:



Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 5):
I think the airline can cancel their order and get the deposit back due to the big delay.
In addition Boeing has to pay compensation as well.

How many operators should of had 787 delivered to them by now? They are only ones that are due compensation.

If an airline has a 787 scheduled to be delivered in June of 2011, there is no way it can clam compensation now. They have to wait until the contract has been broken.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24557 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):

Maybe the contract stated something along the lines of "If the plane is over a certain lateness then you can cancel and get your deposits back" which isn't usually the case.

I have said repeatedly that I simply cannot imagine that any airline would sign a contract that would allow the manufacturer to be arbitrarily late with no repercussion and no cancellation. What if Boeing was 100 years late (just to take the point to its extreme)?

No, if I order a car and two years go by and the dealer still hasn't delivered it, I am going to say
"I'm sorry but I don't believe you can, in good faith, provide me with a car. I want my deposit back."

And I think that the law would back the airlines up in this situation.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24557 times:

IThe thing is, ANY one customer could cancel their entire order and and while it would hurt, it wouldn't do any lasting damage to the program.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24538 times:

The rumour doing the rounds last week was that VS had gotten board approval for 10 A330's (6 bought, 4 leased) so on that basis its logical that they could cancel their 787's, besides which when was the last time that VS took delivery of something they ordered?

But it also makes sense for it to be SQ, they are getting 19 new A330's on lease probably on very good terms probably with an option to extend the lease, with the improvments to the RR donks and the projected downturn in traffic and oil at $40 a barrel they may not see the need to take the 787 which would arrive at the same time as their A359's anyway. Lets face it SQ are not a sentimental bunch some might say they are ruthless for non performance of contract terms. Bank X million in compo lease cheaply, dont buy the expensive birds and standardise training and maintenence on Airbus models.... whats not to like?



BV
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24321 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 17):
it wouldn't do any lasting damage to the program.

Agreed. The a358 is bigger than the 788 and the a350 program also has a big backlog, so I don't see many customers (if any) jumping ship. IMHO, there will not be many cancellations. Deferrals are likely, as are some cancellations, but I think those will be the exceptions that confirm the rule  Wink

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
The rumour doing the rounds last week was that VS had gotten board approval for 10 A330's (6 bought, 4 leased) so on that basis its logical that they could cancel their 787's, besides which when was the last time that VS took delivery of something they ordered?

IMHO a deferral may be more logical than a cancellation. Besides, they took delivery of a346's up to last year IIRC  Wink

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 12):
ANA and JAL -3 cancellation is highly possible. They could use the "wave 1" 787s on shorter routes insted of the -3s, which would be odd-balls in their fleets, anyway. The entire 787 order cancellation - IMHO highly unlikely.

Fully agreed, maybe they will even convert 783 orders into 788 or, even better, 789 orders. I highly doubt they will cancel altogether.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineVictorKilo From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24089 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 12):
Now, here's my big guess: ILFC. While I do not see a complete cancellation, I would not be surprised if they reduce their order by 30 - 50%.

I agree. If ILFC can't lease aircraft and Boeing can't deliver them and ILFC could use cash due to the financial condition of their parent and Boeing has a vested interest in ILFC having the ability to accept delivery of aircraft Boeing can deliver and ILFC can lease, then it sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 12):
Another big question marks are Air India and Jet Airways orders. Air India may prevail, but Jet - I'm not sure. Best case scenario here is a major delivery deferral.

If Air India bought these aircraft primarily for range for travel to the US, and is finding from its 77L flights that UHL flights to the US aren't as economical as they thought, they may not have a need for these planes - which would make them a good candidate for cancellation, independent of their financial state.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 23981 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
My guesses are (in no particular order)

Those are good guesses. I could see more than one of those coming true.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 23980 times:

Both Icelandair and LOT seem to be candidates for cancelling their orders.

User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 23774 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 10):
-NH or JL cancelling B783 and the B787 altogether as a result

In your dreams maybe. The 783 may very well never be built, but JL or NH will never cancel their whole 787 order altogether.

Quoting NCB (Reply 10):
-VX or QF due to B789 available only from 2013, decision to switch to XWB

That doesn't make sense for them, A350 delivery slots aren't available until 2016 IIRC. SQ and QR already have early A350 delivery slots, so they might re-evaluate their needs for the 787, since they also have very efficient A330's in their fleets (or, in case of SQ, to receive them shortly).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
The rumor doing the rounds last week was that VS had gotten board approval for 10 A330's (6 bought, 4 leased) so on that basis its logical that they could cancel their 787's, besides which when was the last time that VS took delivery of something they ordered?

If VS is follow their pattern, VS will defer delivery of their A330's as well...  Silly  duck 



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 offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 23702 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 5):
I think the airline can cancel their order and get the deposit back due to the big delay.
In addition Boeing has to pay compensation as well.

How many operators should of had 787 delivered to them by now? They are only ones that are due compensation.


If an airline has a 787 scheduled to be delivered in June of 2011, there is no way it can clam compensation now. They have to wait until the contract has been broken.

Theoretically you are correct, Boeing is only in default where delivery should have taken place. It would however be commercial suicide to play hard with customers and refuse to discuss compensation until the theoretical delivery date, which everyone knows is not acheivable. Customers subject to this treatment, might well be reluctant to ever look towards Seattle for planes ever again.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
The rumour doing the rounds last week was that VS had gotten board approval for 10 A330's (6 bought, 4 leased) so on that basis its logical that they could cancel their 787's, besides which when was the last time that VS took delivery of something they ordered?

Do VS still have deferred A340's ? I believe they do. Plus they definitely have deferred A380's. If so they could negotiate with Airbus to convert some or part of their the orders into A330's, which would get them off the hook with Airbus; whilst also wriggling out of their 787 order, due to Boeing not being able to deliver on time. This would be considered by many to be a good strategy for VS


25 Scouseflyer : I beleive that there's 6 still to be delivered which would marry up nicely with rumour of 6 A330s.
26 Nicholaschee : Wonder if this cancellation will lead to a domino effect among the other struggling airlines with 787 orders.
27 NCB : They ordered the B787 because they could order the B783, especially NH. Also, I'm not sure that NH and JL would convert them all into B788 orders. Th
28 Khobar : Boeing doesn't automatically have to pay compensation due to delay - there are a lot of exclusions (acts of God, war, strike) as well as immunity whe
29 Ikramerica : Well, some 767s have already been ordered which would indicate 783s are less likely to appear.
30 Danny : VS could jump to A330 to use their depoits paid for A346. If they were not going to use all range of 787 there is not much point in getting them over
31 Scouseflyer : Surely one of the circumstances that compo will be paid is when B makes a right-royal SNAFU of the build of the planes and delays the test programme?
32 A380900 : By the time this economic downturn is over, I'm afraid the decompressing of the delivery schedule du to cancellation will be downright scary. If Boei
33 Virginblue4 : Does anybody actually think they will? I hope they dont! Jordan
34 AirbusA6 : Some senior guy from VS was on the radio yesterday talking about the importance of the 3rd runway, and the environmental benefit from new aircraft, sp
35 PlanesNTrains : This would certainly seem plausible. Their aircraft planning department seems to be the equivalent of a monkey swinging from tree to tree. In reality
36 Khobar : That depends on what caused the program delays. In the case of the fasteners, they simply weren't available from any manufacturer. Boeing apparently
37 Stitch : Boeing could develop a "787-8 Domestic" using the -3's wingtip extensions. There was only around 10t of empty weight between the -3 and -8 and Boeing
38 NCB : Indeed. What we don't yet know is whether they have been ordered as a B788 gap-filler or as a definitve B783 replacement. I don't give the B783 any c
39 KochamLOT : This whole 787 thing is dissapointing. One can expect delays, but to this extent? On top of that, Boeing recently eliminated several thousand jobs in
40 PlanesNTrains : I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything? How are they different than almost any other company right now? And IINM, these were not necessar
41 Bongodog1964 : Any airline ceo wouldn't care who's fault either A or B said was the cause of a delay; all they care about is getting the plane they ordered. Of cour
42 BoeingVista : No, partly because they bought the wrong engine to go with their A330's but the delayed 788 has killed JQ expansion at a time when airtravel is getti
43 Ikramerica : I was going to bring that up. No matter how nice the A330 is, the 787 is a greener plane, and Sir Richard "Green" Branson is all into that this week
44 Jacobin777 : The B787's VS are ordering are to replace the A343's and for expansion.
45 BoeingVista : You really have to stop with this line of logic OR take the 7E7 sonic cruiser into account for 787 delays
46 Ikramerica : No, I don't have to do anything you say. And frankly, that's a silly, silly argument. The Sonic Cruise was a different plane completely. The A350X is
47 BoeingVista : The A350XWB is a completely new design, its not a derivative of anything. The clock starts with the XWB the previous project having been canceled a'l
48 MAH4546 : They already are flying long-haul to MIA, JFK, LAX and a few others. Though I believe the LTU-operated fleet is still quite young and really not in n
49 Jbernie : And Boeing might be needing some new underwear. Not the end of the world but pretty bad news all the same. QF/JQ could possibly reduce the orders/opt
50 Post contains links EGNR : Several mentions of VS on this thread so far... Interestingly the fleet section of VS's website says: "ONE OF THE YOUNGEST FLEETS IN THE WORLD We curr
51 Jfk777 : Instead of any one airline, the 787-3 orders will be cancelled or deferred for years since many of the -3 airlines have 787-8/9 orders too. In today's
52 Stitch : QF has recently noted they can walk away without penalty, but they said in the same breath that they had no intention of doing so. Therefore, I tend t
53 PM : Only ANA and JAL have ordered the -3. Both of them have also ordered the -8 but neither has ordered the -9.
54 474218 : How correct your are! However, the A350XWB has not far enough along in its design phase to be considered late. Wait for a year or two.
55 PlaneInsomniac : Now this is just silly. The A350XWB is a different plane, period. It has an entirely different fuselage cross-section, is overall significantly large
56 Khobar : Which I addressed in my reply 28: "Boeing doesn't automatically have to pay compensation due to delay - there are a lot of exclusions (acts of God, w
57 FlyDreamliner : Boeing is partially covered, I'm sure, contractually to some point in terms of their delays as a result of their issues with industrial actions and ou
58 Rheinwaldner : If an airline can no longer afford to buy 787's and must cancel it tells more about the airline. The 787 is a tool to save money. If the investment to
59 Kappel : I made a joke about it in reply 7, but I agree, I highly doubt that QF will cancel. I do see them as a prime candidate for the 787/a350 combo however
60 Scouseflyer : Apologies - that's my mistake I didn't know that they were already doing long-haul.
61 Astuteman : I would be absolutely astonished if ANYTHING whatsoever to with Boeing's supply chain partners and Boeing's relationship with them is even remotely c
62 NCB : Well imagine yourself being a head of NH. Not only is your order to be 2+ years later than planned so that you have to extend leases on existing airc
63 PM : ANA and JAL (allegedly) have already signed for 767s (I assume on the cheap) as compensation for the late 787s. It therefore seems doubtful that eithe
64 Sxf24 : Politically, there is no way NH and JL could cancel a 787 order. Boeing placed a substantial amount of work for the 787 in Japan in exchange for the
65 Bongodog1964 : Khobar, I feel that you are under the impression that Boeing will always have the dice heavily loaded in their favour, when it comes to compensation
66 Stitch : I am confident QF will not order the 747-8I. But I also wonder why QF suddenly feels they need a long-range, high-capacity twin all of a sudden - esp
67 ER757 : I'm going to mention one no one else has brought up so far: VN. They may have decided that they don't really need the 787 AND the A350 both since grow
68 NCB : I'm not sure that Boeing placed the substantial 787 work in Japan in exchange for the orders but merely out of need and availability. There's not mil
69 Post contains images Zeke : I have also read China Eastern canceled some orders this week. We know that MG-4.1 happened on time in Jul 07, and MG-5 happened on time in Dec 08, I
70 Trex8 : they are cost sharing partners not just subcontractors. Plus the Japanese government has given , what is it, almost a $billion + in "aid" to the 3 Ja
71 Sxf24 : My point is that because of the government involvement, it is highly unlikely the Japanese airlines would change their existing 787 orders. There is
72 Trex8 : granted but the Japanese have the cards here, a loss of part of NH, JLs orders still leaves the Japanese suppliers with a huge backlog of work , some
73 Sxf24 : Who says Boeing can't send the work elsewhere?
74 Trex8 : they can as long as someone coughs up the money to build the factories to build those wingboxes and fuselage sections the Japanese do- assuming there
75 Rheinbote : Would a slot bought back by Boeing be accounted for as a cancellation?
76 Stitch : If it was formally assigned to a customer, I would, provided that customer has formally indicated that they do not wish to take the plane, period. If
77 BestWestern : Has anyone considered Aeroflot as the cancellation carrier? Large order of both 787 and 330/350
78 Stitch : They ordered 22 787-8's along with 18 A350-800s and 4 A350-900s. They also have five each of the A330-200 and A330-300 in service or on order. All th
79 Revelation : We're not sure about the never part, are we?
80 VC10DC10 : Wouldn't there still be a fuel burn penalty with this solution, though? Nah, these PR hacks will change their tune at the drop of a hat. I can say th
81 BoeingVista : 4 Engines 4 long haul
82 Stitch : On such short missions I can't believe it would be much. You could still fit the 53k thrust engines and your TOWs even at maximum structural payload
83 VC10DC10 : Right, I see what you mean. I meant that there would still probably be a fuel burn penalty over the long haul for the additional weight of the -8 ver
84 Stitch : Well it will have an effect, but really, in the grand scheme of things it's likely not something JL and NH are going to lose sleep over. The 747-400D
85 BoeingVista : Ok, but do you really see prospects for many more 787-3 sales? If it turns out that JL and NH took some 767-300's I would have thought the 787-3 is d
86 Stitch : In it's current form, I do not. Even if Boeing makes it lighter and more efficient. The 787-3 is designed for missions around or less then 1500nm, wh
87 Par13del : And as mentioned in numerous other threads, if Boeing could increase the range of the 787-3 it would begin to look like a good A300 size and capable
88 Jbernie : They could maybe twist the arm of QF/JQ as there are a few routes in Oz (SYD-MEL) that could be suitable, though I don't see QF/JQ actually ordering
89 MillwallSean : Boeing will not be to unhappy about one or two cancellations unless they are from customers that are involved with further purchases (BA for example).
90 Rheinbote : How about Air Europe?
91 Revelation : The basic problem is the ones who hold the earliest slots are the ones who need the plane the most, so they won't be likely to cancel. A380F cancelle
92 Rheinbote : Customer announcements indicate that around ~2015 accumulated delays will reach 36 months. Taking back 1 early slot means reducing the delay of 800+
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...
Any B-787 Cancellation? posted Sat Jun 21 2008 15:38:14 by Plairbus
AC Notifies Boeing Of 787/777 Order Cancellation posted Sun Jun 19 2005 04:50:42 by Avek00
DL Seeks To Revise NW's 787 Plans posted Sun Nov 30 2008 22:48:11 by Burnsie28
Could Qantas Cancel The 787? posted Thu Nov 27 2008 10:54:06 by Plairbus
CO 787 BusinessFirst Seats To Face Windows posted Thu Nov 27 2008 06:59:57 by STT757
787-8 -v- 747SP posted Tue Nov 25 2008 10:10:22 by Kaitak
Boeing 787 Production Frozen. posted Mon Nov 24 2008 08:40:30 by WINGS
787 Fastener Problems Caused By Boeing Engineers posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:01:46 by FrmrCAPCADET
German Paper: 787 Another Ten Weeks Late.... posted Wed Nov 19 2008 09:50:28 by Beaucaire
Boeing Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares
Boeing Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares
Boeing 787 Production Frozen. posted Mon Nov 24 2008 08:40:30 by WINGS
787 Fastener Problems Caused By Boeing Engineers posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:01:46 by FrmrCAPCADET
German Paper: 787 Another Ten Weeks Late.... posted Wed Nov 19 2008 09:50:28 by Beaucaire
Boeing Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares
787 Fastener Problems Caused By Boeing Engineers posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:01:46 by FrmrCAPCADET
German Paper: 787 Another Ten Weeks Late.... posted Wed Nov 19 2008 09:50:28 by Beaucaire
Boeing Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares