Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 - Boeing Still Facing Big Challenges?  
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12028 posts, RR: 47
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing will announce their 3rd Quarter results tomorrow (Wednesday 26th October). At the same time, they are expected to give guidance on some burning 787 questions:

How many will be delivered this year?
How many will be delivered next year?
How quickly will production ramp-up be achieved?
Over how many frames will the program's accounting block be allocated?

Analysts (yes, them again) are predicting that Boeing will only deliver six 787s this year and 51 in 2012. Additionally, that Boeing will not acheive its desired 10 per month production rate until 2015.

Boeing is still facing significant challenges in finishing 787s after they're built. Earlier this month UA's first -8 rolled out of the factory. This was the 45th plane off the production line, but it will still take another 8 months until it's ready for delivery.

Some analysts are predicting that Boeing will need to spread the cost of development of the 787 over as many as 1,000 frames instead of a more typical 400. Some even doubt the program will be profitable over that many frames. Estimates based on Boeing's SEC filings suggest that the 787 has so far cost Boeing $32 billion ($16 billion in production costs, $15 billion development costs and $1 billion to buy out struggling partners). That gives a production cost of about $400 million for each of the first 40 787s off the line!

Sources:
http://atwonline.com/airline-finance...edicts-more-787-delays-boeing-1024
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2016600067_boeing25.html


Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5637 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20337 times:

I think it can't be pretty... I came to that conclusion after United's hoo-rah announcement a couple weeks ago. When the aircraft was supposed to inaugurate IAH-AKL next month, yet won't be delivered until "second quarter" (yet another three-month Boeing window) of next year, it doesn't bode well for the program.

I think it's probably a spectacular plane, more ambitious than the A350. Yet simultaneously, this bird may eventually put Boeing under, especially if they're unable to get the production sped up to their crack-headed original advertised 10 per month very soon.

Who cares how fast you can snap together a 787, if the bird then has to wait half a year to have the "finishing touches" put on? Building 100 airplanes per month, just so they can take up space at every airport in Washington state, is senseless.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29671 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When Boeing cocked-up the 737NG's production in 1997, they had to double the accounting block from 400 to 800 frames, so 1000 frames for the 787 is not as unprecedented as it sounds at first look. And with the current order book, 1000 frames should be guaranteed unless Armageddon happens in the next 20 years. So either way, there are no worries about "break even".  

I don't believe the analysts have stated just how many frames the USD 16 billion in inventory account for, but I expect it is more than 40 frames. One analyst has stated some of the earliest deliveries had production costs near USD 400 million, so that would make the costs for later frames less.



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
Yet simultaneously, this bird may eventually put Boeing under, especially if they're unable to get the production sped up to their crack-headed original advertised 10 per month very soon.

Boeing has already covered just about every dollar spent, so the 787 cannot kill the company even if they shuttered it tomorrow and bought back both deliveries to NH.


User currently offlinecaptainMeeerkat From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20067 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
And with the current order book, 1000 frames should be guaranteed unless Armageddon happens in the next 20 years. So either way, there are no worries about "break even"

Yet, all this excess expense must put their capital expenditure in serious trouble for the next few years? If it takes more than twice as many frames to break-even, they have less to spend in that extra 500-600 frame time-span on R & D, technological improvements etc etc.

At a time when many feel that Boeing should try become innovative once again, perhaps they only have the resources to be reactive for the forseeable future?

Edit: wrong figures

[Edited 2011-10-25 05:16:31]

[Edited 2011-10-25 05:17:00]


my luggage is better travelled than me!
User currently offlineInsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20007 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing has already covered just about every dollar spent, so the 787 cannot kill the company even if they shuttered it tomorrow and bought back both deliveries to NH.

I wouldn't be so sure. If Boeing cancelled the whole programme today, they would still have to compensate all their customers. I don't think that this is in any way covered....


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29671 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting captainMeeerkat (Reply 3):
Yet, all this excess expense must put their capital expenditure in serious trouble for the next few years? If it takes more than twice as many frames to break-even, they have less to spend in that extra 500-600 frame time-span on R & D, technological improvements etc etc.

It should not be. Let us not forget that Boeing has increased delivery rates for the 737 and 777 and that means significant revenue increases that will bolster Boeing's cash flow and provide new cash to fund R&D. Let us also not forget that Boeing's credit rating remains strong and they recently secured a USD 2.4 billion revolving line of credit they can draw from.


Quoting InsideMan (Reply 4):
I wouldn't be so sure. If Boeing cancelled the whole programme today, they would still have to compensate all their customers. I don't think that this is in any way covered....

Boeing has eleven figures worth of cash and cash equivalents on hand. It is unlikely 787 customer deposits and progress payments to date are that high.

[Edited 2011-10-25 05:23:50]

User currently offlinecaptainMeeerkat From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19967 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
It should not be. Let us not forget that Boeing has increased delivery rates for the 737 and 777

Good point! In all the 787 fanfare, I had forgotten that they produce other types as well 

Many thanks for your answer, I hope you are right.



my luggage is better travelled than me!
User currently offlineInsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19824 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing has eleven figures worth of cash and cash equivalents on hand. It is unlikely 787 customer deposits and progress payments to date are that high.

I was refering to liquidated damages on top of any deposits. None the less I don't think it will ruin the company. Neither do I believe they will cancel the 787... Just something that people keep forgetting when discussing the financials of the programme.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29671 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 7):
I was refering to liquidated damages on top of any deposits.

That seems to be around 0.5% of the contract price based on what AI and QF have received.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 7):
None the less I don't think it will ruin the company. Neither do I believe they will cancel the 787...

Agreed on both counts.   






It just seems to me that there is this somewhat common misconception that these eleven-figure costs for programs like the 787 and A380 are pure debt and a financial hole that must be filled lest it bankrupt the company, when in fact they have been mostly, if not completely, paid in full through the operating cash flow of other programs.

The A380 and 787 need to break even to justify the decisions to launch them.

They do not need to break even to keep Airbus and Boeing fiscally solvent.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19635 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing has already covered just about every dollar spent, so the 787 cannot kill the company even if they shuttered it tomorrow and bought back both deliveries to NH.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
It just seems to me that there is this somewhat common misconception that these eleven-figure costs for programs like the 787 and A380 are pure debt and a financial hole that must be filled lest it bankrupt the company, when in fact they have been mostly, if not completely, paid in full through the operating cash flow of other programs

Boeing has managed to acquire 12.6B dollars in short and long term debt (at the end of 2010) so not everything has been paid for?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12028 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
they had to double the accounting block from 400 to 800 frames

But that's for a plane that has sales figures an order of magnitude higher than the 787.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I don't believe the analysts have stated just how many frames the USD 16 billion in inventory account for, but I expect it is more than 40 frames.

From one of my quoted sources, the $16 billion figure was what Boeing last filed as the cost to produce the 787s. I would imagine at that time, they'd built or were in the process of building the 40th 787? That would give you the $400 million per plane figure. Obviously, as they pump out more, that figure will come down significantly and start being offset by revenue from deliveries.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The A380 and 787 need to break even to justify the decisions to launch them.

They do not need to break even to keep Airbus and Boeing fiscally solvent.

Of course, but there seem to be as many obsessed about 787 break-even as there are about A380 break-even. From my perspective, the news of the accounting block will give a clear indication of when Boeing expects the 787 to be making a positive contribution to profits, but they need to get the production rate up in good time. It could be a very interesting announcement.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineebbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19272 times:

Dear dear me. Surely Boeing would have had more success with the Sonic Cruiser than this plane? What a shambles. I expect more vacuous "future forecasting" speak from Boeing tomorrow, promising much and delivering little. It has no credibility, in my view, when announcing anything to do with civil aircraft. I'll believe it when BA gets its 787s.

With all the struggles with composite planes, I wish, oh how I wish Airbus never listened to Udvar-Hazy and built the 350MK1. If ever there was a case for not listening to the customer that shouts loudest, this was it. Sure there were others voicing concern but he had the biggest balls at the time. I expect BIG troubles the XWB.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2087 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19236 times:

There are two issues. 1) Is financial. 2) Is when are the airlines going to get the frame they need and have budgeted/programmed for. The fiasco just never ends!!

User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19095 times:

Quoting scbriml (Thread starter):
Analysts (yes, them again) are predicting that Boeing will only deliver six 787s this year and 51 in 2012. Additionally, that Boeing will not acheive its desired 10 per month production rate until 2015.

Boeing is still facing significant challenges in finishing 787s after they're built. Earlier this month UA's first -8 rolled out of the factory. This was the 45th plane off the production line, but it will still take another 8 months until it's ready for delivery.

if Boeing could start building them in SouthCarolina then they could easily achieve any production rate target they desire, but thanks to the agenda of a selfish few, Boeing might fail to generate sufficient cash flow to sustain the company and end up in Chp 11.

instead of delivering jobs to South Carolina, the NLRB will probably deliver them to Europe, Canada, Brazil, and even China.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see Boeing going bankrupt. The technology/processes in developing the 787 can be used in virtually all future aircraft lines should they wish. They are taking short term losses for what should be long term gains in production efficiency and fuel efficiency/passenger comfort.

No doubt the lessons they've learned (supply chain management, fastenerGATE etc) were painful but not fatal.


User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2039 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 18830 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 14):
I don't see Boeing going bankrupt. The technology/processes in developing the 787 can be used in virtually all future aircraft lines should they wish. They are taking short term losses for what should be long term gains in production efficiency and fuel efficiency/passenger comfort.

No doubt the lessons they've learned (supply chain management, fastenerGATE etc) were painful but not fatal.

And lets not lose perspective, there is far more to Boeing than just their commercial division.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 18637 times:

Interesting how an announcement of a quarterly earnings call has people randomly predicting bankruptcy. Dream on.

User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 18183 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 16):
Interesting how an announcement of a quarterly earnings call has people randomly predicting bankruptcy. Dream on.

Actually not a single one in this thread is predicting bankruptcy! Or did I miss a post?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17779 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The A380 and 787 need to break even to justify the decisions to launch them.

They do not need to break even to keep Airbus and Boeing fiscally solvent.

  

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
if Boeing could start building them in SouthCarolina then they could easily achieve any production rate target they desire

Really. 1) I understand they have started building them there. 2) Why are they not constrained by the suppliers earlier in the supply chain?

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
but thanks to the agenda of a selfish few

You mean the selfish few who failed to understand the rules they have to follow. And then putting the company in trouble because they had to brag about it.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9834 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
Boeing might fail to generate sufficient cash flow to sustain the company and end up in Chp 11.

???

As Stitch says, most of the $32Bn quoted as spent to date is exactly that - spent.

I don't see a huge overhang of costs coming in that the underlying $3Bn - $4Bn operating profit PER YEAR that Boeing make can't swallow.

Quoting GBan (Reply 17):
Actually not a single one in this thread is predicting bankruptcy! Or did I miss a post?

See reply #13 as I've quoted above.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The A380 and 787 need to break even to justify the decisions to launch them.

They do not need to break even to keep Airbus and Boeing fiscally solvent.

Correct on both counts.

I think the only thing I would be uncomfortable with are the comments in the Seattle Times article that a "1000 frame" accounting block could still be based on "best case" scenarios....

Quote:
To avoid an overall loss based on a more realistic assumption — that it can reduce its manufacturing costs at the same rate as it did on the 777 in the mid-1990s — Strauss projected Boeing would need to spread the Dreamliner costs over approximately 3,000 airplanes.

But an accounting block that large couldn't be justified by the sales to date.

Strauss' analysis assuming a 777 pace of cost reduction shows Boeing breaking even on manufacturing costs only in 2038.

Just for the record, I don't think either Boeing with the 787 or Airbus with the A380 will ultimately regret launching these programmes, even if either (or both) of them, struggle to make an NPV of the kind that the "accountants" amongst us seem to demand.

Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12028 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some further information in this article, although much of it is just a rehash of existing news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ility-to-output-of-1-100-jets.html

However, there is a bit more information about the use of accounting blocks.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2795 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17144 times:

Quoting ebbUK (Reply 11):
I expect more vacuous "future forecasting" speak from Boeing tomorrow, promising much and delivering little.

I doubt it, unless they want to run afoul of the SEC.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineMark2Fly1034 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16739 times:

I was at the Boeing plant in July and I remember seeing 20 or so 787s sitting all over the place and another 20 747-800 sitting around. Hope they can get it moving soon.

User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16544 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
You mean the selfish few who failed to understand the rules they have to follow. And then putting the company in trouble because they had to brag about it.

when did "a non-government enterprise must not host manufacturing capacity in a right-to-work state" become a rule ?

the NLRB is neither constitution nor law.

look at how many companies unions have bankrupted in history and you'll see the dangerous thin ice Boeing is skidding upon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29671 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 15342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 474218 (Reply 9):
Boeing has managed to acquire 12.6B dollars in short and long term debt (at the end of 2010) so not everything has been paid for?

Boeing is more than just the 787, so a good part of that debt is likely for other programs.



Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
But that's for a plane that has sales figures an order of magnitude higher than the 787.

At the time they set the accounting block to 800 units, the 737NG had just over 723 orders.



Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
From one of my quoted sources, the $16 billion figure was what Boeing last filed as the cost to produce the 787s. I would imagine at that time, they'd built or were in the process of building the 40th 787? That would give you the $400 million per plane figure. Obviously, as they pump out more, that figure will come down significantly and start being offset by revenue from deliveries.

But was all that inventory just for 40 frames? What about long-lead items for later frames? Spirit alone had over 50 Section 41s completed.



Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
Of course, but there seem to be as many obsessed about 787 break-even as there are about A380 break-even.

Indeed, unfortunately.  


25 mham001 : You must have missed a post, or two.
26 Post contains images scbriml : I really don't know when Boeing made the filing the analysts are making their calculations against. If it was 3 months ago when Boeing announced thei
27 cmf : It is rather ignorant suggesting that is the problem. Far less than bad management..... Boeing is on thin ice with unions because they have decided t
28 aerodog : The Bloomberg article noted one of the key financial problems: "Boeing will need to reduce the 787’s manufacturing costs 50 percent to 60 percent fa
29 bennett123 : Mark2fly1034 Do you mean 20 B737-800 or B747-8?.
30 cmf : Doubt the contracts are cost plus. Boeing stated units produced in SC cost more to produce.
31 ikramerica : And currently they are building inventory without deliveries. Within 1 year, they should be depleting inventory which will help cash flow even if eac
32 aerodog : My guess is they are fixed with an escalator for material and labor costs thru the end of the decade.
33 cmf : Agree. And negotiated discounts for higher production rates. But I have only been involved with contracts in other industries.
34 Post contains images ZKEOJ : That's a lot of aircraft. Dumb question (but serious): Where are they all parked? At BFI? I wouldn't think they have the space for so many frames on
35 mogandoCI : unions, by design, are confrontational. there's nothing smart when you have to deal with a bunch of people who views all management as "bad" and "evi
36 par13del : So are you saying that the 787 was not innovative and their last such project was the 777? Boeing attempted to apply some lessons learned from the 77
37 cmf : With that position I understand you're having problems dealing with unions. And if they think management is bad and evil then it probably is because
38 ghifty : I wrote a response to the silly NLRB actions for my college english course... I still don't see how they have jurisdiction to interfere with BA's dec
39 Post contains links and images PW100 : Please correct me if I´m wrong, but my fading memory seems to recall that the original A380 business plan was supposed to have break even at around
40 cmf : Add 10 for ILFC.
41 scbriml : From the Seattle Times article I linked to, which now seems to have been edited, but still includes this:
42 Post contains images Babybus : I like the way this has been turned around into an Airbus thread Why did Boeing do it? Why did it allow that project to get so out of hand? It is unli
43 UALWN : The splitting of the production, or "politization" as you call it, has worked very well for the 330/340 and 32X programs. So the reason for the cock-
44 cmf : What kind of profit are you thinking about? Because many costs have already been expensed or written off and production costs are spread over a signi
45 mogandoCI : are you or were you involved in a union? if so, this discussion is already moot because you have a pre-disposed viewpoint. i've been never involved i
46 cmf : Then you should know it is about retaliatory actions for striking and nothing about right to work that is the issue in question. And that falls under
47 cmf : I have on multiple occasions negotiated with unions about reducing number of employees after we have bought companies. I have never been a member of
48 blueflyer : It is my understanding that most customers have already received the maximum amount of compensation for delay they're contractually entitled to, and
49 Post contains images cmf : You mean doing what airlines do to us if a flight is delayed/cancelled [Edited 2011-10-25 14:45:55]
50 Stitch : It is because those planes themselves have change incorporation and re-work that need to be done. To keep the sub-contractor's lines from stalling by
51 JoeCanuck : The unions have to show actual harm caused by management action, not future harm or theoretical harm. Regardless of what Boeing said, no union member
52 Stitch : Boeing this week announced employment in Washington State is the highest it has been since the mid-1990s.
53 art : Mmmm... not convinced that employess who are in a union never see any increase in take home pay. They would be on the same income for their entire ca
54 Post contains images seabosdca : You admit... ...and then you make claims you can't possibly support, given that admission, like... Unlike you, I've been both union and management in
55 ikramerica : Without getting too political, this is only part of the Obama administrations payback to union supporters without real justification. The NLRB overst
56 BMI727 : Financially the situation shouldn't get worse than it is now. Even if the sale price doesn't cover cost on early airframes, the loss will only become
57 justloveplanes : One of the concepts in the 787 design was increased/faster producability with lower overall labor costs. They've so far seemed to get a handle general
58 cmf : Or the strike was a result of earlier actions. Not sure I would label it as they have found a way around it. Seems they found a way to get in to a an
59 blueflyer : When will we get to a point where planes coming out of the FAL will not need any re-work? What's good for the goose...
60 Stitch : Well all the changes are defined now, so I expect chipsets started within the last 30 days or so should be built to the final standard and not need a
61 Post contains images Revelation : And of course thinking management is bad and evil happens at non-union shops too. Good question!
62 JoeCanuck : Boeing, their workers and their customers will all be winners in the long run with the 787. It will mean more jobs and more customers. The unions mig
63 Post contains images cmf : Bad is bad and there is plenty of bad management out there. Fortunately a lot good too. Not that much bad employees getting hired. They are "trained"
64 cmf : No, they will all be losers as time, money and effort has been wasted on something that should never have happened. I think that has been clear since
65 Post contains images Baroque : Hope that is shipsets??? But this whole thread is way beyond my comprehension, so maybe the 787 has been reduced to an integrated circuit while my mi
66 JoeCanuck : It seems not everyone shares that opinion. The time, money and effort will be recouped in the long term not just in sales but in R&D, which will
67 cmf : When the "idiot" is the CEO of the company...
68 JoeCanuck : It doesn't matter who he is. The CEO doesn't work in a vacuum...decisions this big aren't made by him alone. Sometimes people get upset and say thing
69 Post contains links markalot : http://www.cnbc.com/id/45019400 Boeing posted a larger quarterly profit on Wednesday that topped analyst forecasts, as its order backlog grew. The wor
70 Post contains links Flying-Tiger : Boeing is now putting the break even for the B787 to a hefty 1,100 units - as usual it´s a question how this break even has been defined: http://www.
71 Stitch : I would imagine it's the same way they projected break-even for their other programs. When the 777 blew her budget by a rumored 100%, did Boeing upda
72 mogandoCI : totally favoring this. time to launch ALL new programs outside WA, include 737MAX, Y-1, and the eventual Y-3. the unions need to learn a lesson that
73 fcogafa : At least Boeing is being honest about the break even requirement for the B787, however embarrassing it may be. Not something Airbus ever did for the A
74 Post contains images astuteman : You kidding? Aibus were as forthcoming about the break-even numbers as they could be It is. That said, I would understand that the programme accounti
75 Stitch : Boeing has done this, in part, with the write-downs on LN001, LN002 and LN003, have they not? I believe Boeing has also recorded "exceptionals" in re
76 art : Were. When it rose from 275 to 400+ (due first the CATIA disaster, then the failure to ramp up as planned), I think they stopped giving estimates of
77 Post contains images EPA001 : Could this be maybe due to different accounting rules on both sides of the pond? Anyway, the B787 will face more then enough challenges still, but it
78 JoeCanuck : Bills have to get paid, regardless of the condition of a particular program. As it turns out, Boeing can afford to pay it's bills and look to the fut
79 Revelation : Article in #20 says: Same article says: So it appears to be a figure that can be changed as the program evolves. It seems Boeing sets it to a number
80 Post contains images N14AZ : This is what I do not understand about these announcements: why can't they say how many 787s and how many 747s? Or should I say why do they avoid pro
81 474218 : Airbus won't provide a break-even number because if and when they reach that number they have to start paying back the government loans they received
82 Post contains images Stitch : Because they literally don't know how many of each they will deliver. It depends on completion of certification (787 with GEnx engines), completion o
83 par13del : You are aware that police have arrested, prosecutors have prosecuted, judges and juries have found persons guilty of crimes only to have them overtur
84 Post contains images N14AZ : Well, I think this is what everybody here thinks. So do they think it's clever to announce it in this way? Aviation enthusiasts are not that stupid.
85 Post contains links flood : Agreed. According to Leeham, however: "Boeing said in its press release today that two thirds of the deliveries will be 747s, or 10-13. Thus, this me
86 Stitch : I should have been more specific by noting that Boeing probably does know how many 787-8s and 747-8s they could or should be able to deliver, but can
87 scbriml : Ouch, that's a shockingly low number given the number of frames built and that two have already been delivered.
88 NYC777 : But it's higher than many analyst have been saying. ANA expects to have 7 787 by the end of the year. also I anticipate that Boeing will be able to d
89 NYC777 : Both are required to follow GAAP especially since stock for both are listed on European as well as US exchanges.
90 Post contains images EPA001 : OK, thanks for your answer. Then the different must come down to how each company feels it has to deal with the losses on a single program. Either wa
91 NYC777 : Around airplane 60. At the rate of 2.5 planes permonth that point is about 4 months away.
92 Post contains images scbriml : Which will be very easy to confirm come next March.
93 Post contains images cmf : Boeing has not released a break even number. They released the accounting block number and stated they are not in forward loss. Neither means anythin
94 cmf : EADS use IFRS and are listed in Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Nilbao, Barcelona and Valencia. They are not listed in US or London but I think they were a
95 NYC777 : All but two are at Everett. The other two are at San Antonio and two have been delivered. The 6 test airplanes are at Boeing Field.
96 Post contains links and images flood : It's looking increasingly likely they will cancel 15 frames: "NEW DELHI: The Air India board has recommended that the ailing state-run carrier purcha
97 Post contains images astuteman : That's a fair comment, Stitch. Boeing has written down some specifics, and LN's 1-3 was one of them Ultimately it becomes a meaningless discussion as
98 Stitch : Indeed. The 787 draws from R&D for the Sonic Cruiser and the 747-8 likely draws off R&D for all the various models Boeing has been studying s
99 WarpSpeed : Quoting blueflyer (Reply 59): When will we get to a point where planes coming out of the FAL will not need any re-work? Might we see a temporary deliv
100 Post contains links flood : Over the Summer, ANZ had publicly expressed its frustration over new delays to the 787-9. Boeing, however, denied the widespread media reports, "reaff
101 WarpSpeed : I've wondered about this sort of corporate talk a lot as it is very frustrating coming from a company that once exceeded expectations. While it appea
102 Post contains images Baroque : Not sure which was the greatest pleasure, imagining the response that was going to get or reading the actual response. I think your username should c
103 tdscanuck : Interesting...take all the things that made the 787 so difficult, apply them even more, and expect a better result. Accounting block changes most yea
104 Baroque : With the obsession of some you would think that they personally were paying for the B787 program or the A380 program (as appropriate). Happiness is B
105 aircellist : You owe me a new keyboard...
106 BoeingVista : calling them liars when they say that delivery has been postponed until 2014..
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...
Boeing 787 - Boeing Field Question posted Mon Nov 8 2010 15:54:27 by derekf
787: Boeing Reorganises Quality Control Process posted Tue Mar 25 2008 09:30:06 by Nycbjr
Champion Air Facing Major Challenges posted Thu Dec 6 2007 12:08:10 by WA707atMSP
Clark: 787 Is Still In The Race For Emirates Order posted Fri Oct 12 2007 03:31:30 by EI321
787/Boeing Sales Presentation & Information posted Thu Sep 6 2007 15:49:41 by Strandedinbgm
787: Boeing Says Visual Inspections Enough posted Mon Sep 3 2007 04:25:48 by BoomBoom
Would Boeing Still Make 764s? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 18:30:36 by WestJetYQQ
WSJ: 787 Fasteners Still A Problem posted Tue Jun 19 2007 18:29:25 by GoAllegheny
Is Boeing Still #2? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:45:00 by DIA
787: Boeing Admits Supplier Problems posted Wed Oct 25 2006 15:10:52 by RedFlyer