Boeing said it expects to deliver the plane during the third quarter, which would be between July and the end of September. The new schedule has been padded in the event that anything else goes wrong, the company said.
The company said it will provide more information on its financial forecast and deliveries during its earnings conference call on Jan. 26. The revised delivery date is not expected to have a material impact on Boeing's financial results for 2010, the company said
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1592 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15542 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
Well, Boeing says Q3 with some contingency added back in. So, if it does slip past Q3 they'll have some tough questions to answer.
In 2009 they said 12 months flight test / certification schedule with a contingency built in, that 12 months has now been streched to 21 months. Boeing are never asked tough questions about the 787 timeline slippage and I dont exoect them to be asked tough questions about this slip either, nor do I expect it to be the last one.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7999 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15220 times:
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 6): Boeing are never asked tough questions about the 787 timeline slippage and I dont exoect them to be asked tough questions about this slip either, nor do I expect it to be the last one.
Well the airlines who signed contracts and are receiving compensation due to the delays probably don't care whether those questions are asked in the public domain, we do but then we cannot demand compensation for our delay in seeing the a/c entry into service or being able to book a flight.
The a/c are flying and other than the last "catastrophic failure" - my opinon of the fire - no issues have been reported in relation to flight, unlike the 748 which has an inboard wing "flutter" issue, so unless there is another major equipment failure they should be able to finally meet a delayed deadline.
I do not have any more fingers, eyes or limbs to cross, so...........
Out of this news message the following quote from independent airline analyst Saj Ahmad is quite remarkable:
"The three years of delays have proved costly as they have embarrassment for the company, but with most of the flight test program under their belt, this is probably the first time since the 787s first flight that Boeing can say with confidence that it can make this new revised delivery schedule."
Now let's hope he is right and Boeing can finally starting delivering this plane to the customers. .
cloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 13169 times:
[quote=ebbuk,reply=14]So potentially they could deliver the first plane on 07/08/11 exactly 4years after the initial rollout?
I take it they have sorted the condensation issues of the carbon fibre tube?
You know if I wrote a script about the 787 based soley on the facts as we know them, no one would believe it, in fact they'd call it mean spirited.
Just get the plane out this time. No padding Boeing, pls? And Airbus, you're on watch too![/quote
Yes, the delays due suck, but hopefully there will be a better aircraft at the end. Airlines can forgive a lot, late deliveries and all, but not an aircraft that does not live up to expectations. Quality is always better than speed.
cloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 12929 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 18): Unless you are bleeding millions of $ from these delays!
True. No doubt Boeing underestimated the complexity of the aircraft (wouldn't be the first time!), but even they know it is better to forgo short-term benefits for, hopefully, a much longer periods of profit. And those airline who foolishly canceled their orders will either return, or other customers will come take their place in line. As the order book clearly reflects, Boeing has a winner on its hands with the 787.
What good do "tough questions" do? The answer is the same: "We screwed up royally."
Quoting trex8 (Reply 15):
Unless you are bleeding millions of $ from these delays!
You will bleed a lot more than $$$ if your plane starts to fall out of the sky once it goes into service because you overlooked some "minor" detail.
A few high-profile DC-10 crashes didn't do McD any good. Nor do the number of MD-11's that seem to have wound up lying on their backs. That QF engine that decided to go all firecracker didn't work out so well for RR.
It is better to be a decade late in this business than to make a "Big Mistake."
azncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 8919 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19): A few high-profile DC-10 crashes didn't do McD any good. Nor do the number of MD-11's that seem to have wound up lying on their backs. That QF engine that decided to go all firecracker didn't work out so well for RR.
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 7652 times:
Still I would be interested about the changes done. Seems to be that the cause of the fire required some more changes then just minor adjustments around the rear Center electrics.
All other changes causing a delay had some proper explanation so far (wings, festerners missing, delamination etc.). This time not much detalis have been around. Probably I may have missed them though.
Just curious as an engineer - not to blame anyone. Its so quite around the details, so that I as an engineer would assume some major design issue.
Anyhow I wish Boeing a good and succesfull further flight test phase.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
Quoting Garpd (Reply 22): Isn't this just a confirmation of the new schedule following identification of the cause of the inflight fire and the corrective action required? Therefore not an additional delay.
Well it is a new delay in that before this announcement, NH was officially expecting their first delivery next month, even if everyone knew that would not happen within days of ZA002 making her emergency landing back in November.
Now NH is officially expecting their first delivery in July.
: One more article in today's Seattle Times claims that the FAA is asking Boeing for additional testing for certifying ETOPS above one hour. FAA could s
: I think that is rather good than bad news, as a lot of people expected 2012 already! If it is really july, or more likely september, remains to be see
: Since NH and JL won't be able to perform long-distance ETOPS missions for a year, anyway, if the 787 is certified with only ETOPS-60 at initial deliv
: Like everyone else, I'm certainly not going to be popping any champagne bottles until NH pilots actually fly the first one off the PAE runway, headed
: Wasn't Boeing talking about ETOPS-240 or higher out of the box? Anyway, the FAA is very likely uneasy about the Trent1000 due to the A380 problems as
: I'd be surprised if the 787, even if everything had gone perfectly, would have been granted ETOPS-240 out of the box. Zeke has provided a pretty soli
: I think so. The 'outside' knew over a month ago what needed to be done and how long it would take to fix, so its good to hear a timeline from Boeing,
: Kind of reminds me of the MD-11. There was a lot of hope, but it just didn't turn out that great for the early operators. Hopefully (and I'm sure the
: Question for you all then - Would you have any reservations about flying on a 787 when it EIS with NH? Personally, I would, but I'd be lying if i said
: Doesn't have to be "very cold weather" for you to ice up, but that's an irrational fear anyway. Do you similarly fear an uncontained engine failure w
: Although I agree the nervousness of Chris is a bit unjustified, the A380 has proven to be able to handle an uncontained engine failure.
: Agreed re the very cold weather - it is an irrational fear, but then I'm terrified of house spiders as well. Re the RR A380 - not been on one since t
: Does Boeing deliver all the ANA 787's at once or stager them? It seems like there's a back-log of these planes ready to go.
: I think its a fair comment. You will always read bad press about plane crashes or for example food poisoning on a cruise ship, and if your on either,
: Is this something you have definitive reason to suspect of the FAA, or a source to indicate that it has basis.......or is it merely just opinion?
: No, IMO you're not being ridiculous, rather, I think you're being honest. At the end of the day, we have to rely on our regulatory agencies (in this
: Not from a safety or design stand-point, no. If anything, all the crap that's happened to these birds and they're still in the air has probably made
: I'd have been a lot more worried if the EIS hadn't been delayed to the extent it has. As it stands we are now 3 1/2 years down the road from the roll
: Honestly the more of these problems that crop up during testing, the more comfortable with the plane I become. If there were repeated issues with a si
: None whatsoever. They should follow in relatively close order, but most airlines can't accept a giant whack of planes all at once anyway so ANA may n
: I dont think it is due to the A380 incident directly (which we all know was a 900 though basically the same core), but RR's own 1000 blew up on the t
: Actually, you are less likely to get icing in very cold weather. I don't worry even a little bit. Every type of airliner I have ever been on has suff
: Cumulative concerns, obviously. Trent 1000 blows up. Trent 900 blows up a few months later. Similar engines, both uncontained failures. Why would the
: With all of this talk of delivery I still have to ask the same question as TommyBP251b is asking. Are the problems that have cropped up along this jo