Good to hear!

Hopefully AA can get its -8's for the summer season.

BEG2IAH wrote:

Two people familiar with the matter said that Boeing has told airlines that deliveries would resume during the second half of this year. One of the people added that a restart during the third quarter of 2022 was realistic. The people and other industry sources cautioned that targets have repeatedly slipped.

A Christmas present maybe? Christmas IS in the second half of the year, and being a little more than a month away from the second half without having more specific information now makes an earlier date doubtful. Just my $ 0.02

Heavierthanair wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

Two people familiar with the matter said that Boeing has told airlines that deliveries would resume during the second half of this year. One of the people added that a restart during the third quarter of 2022 was realistic. The people and other industry sources cautioned that targets have repeatedly slipped.

A Christmas present maybe? Christmas IS in the second half of the year, and being a little more than a month away from the second half without having more specific information now makes an earlier date doubtful. Just my $ 0.02

What more specific information do you need?

Like a date and a month?

Boeing has given us more specifics in the last couple of weeks than they have in the past year and half. That’s how I know there’s progress and deliveries will soon restart.

EK 787s delayed at least a year, to 2024.

Emirates has said that the delivery of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners has been delayed by at least one year to 2024. Prior to the delay, the Dubai-based carrier was due to receive the first of its 30 Boeing 787-9s next year. Due to Boeing’s ongoing production and delivery issues, there are fears that deliveries could be pushed back further. Three years ago, Emirates converted 30 of its Boeing 777X orders to the smaller Boeing 787-9.


While it still has a staggering 115 of Boeing’s flagship 777X on order, deliveries of that aircraft have also been delayed until 2025. Tim Clark: "We're reviewing the whole situation and seeing whether the 787 has a place in the fleet or not. We'll let Boeing know accordingly." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-11/

Emirates sidelined an A330NEO order in 2019, they might be scratching their heads now. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/emirat ... s-a330-neo

keesje wrote:

EK 787s delayed at least a year, to 2024.

Emirates has said that the delivery of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners has been delayed by at least one year to 2024. Prior to the delay, the Dubai-based carrier was due to receive the first of its 30 Boeing 787-9s next year. Due to Boeing’s ongoing production and delivery issues, there are fears that deliveries could be pushed back further. Three years ago, Emirates converted 30 of its Boeing 777X orders to the smaller Boeing 787-9.


While it still has a staggering 115 of Boeing’s flagship 777X on order, deliveries of that aircraft have also been delayed until 2025. Tim Clark: "We're reviewing the whole situation and seeing whether the 787 has a place in the fleet or not. We'll let Boeing know accordingly." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-11/

Emirates sidelined an A330NEO order in 2019, they might be scratching their heads now. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/emirat ... s-a330-neo

If Emirates is really in need of metal they can order A350 or A330's with early delivery slots. If not, this is just moaning from his side to maximise compensation...

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

EK 787s delayed at least a year, to 2024.

Emirates has said that the delivery of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners has been delayed by at least one year to 2024. Prior to the delay, the Dubai-based carrier was due to receive the first of its 30 Boeing 787-9s next year. Due to Boeing’s ongoing production and delivery issues, there are fears that deliveries could be pushed back further. Three years ago, Emirates converted 30 of its Boeing 777X orders to the smaller Boeing 787-9.


While it still has a staggering 115 of Boeing’s flagship 777X on order, deliveries of that aircraft have also been delayed until 2025. Tim Clark: "We're reviewing the whole situation and seeing whether the 787 has a place in the fleet or not. We'll let Boeing know accordingly." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-11/

Emirates sidelined an A330NEO order in 2019, they might be scratching their heads now. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/emirat ... s-a330-neo

If Emirates is really in need of metal they can order A350 or A330's with early delivery slots. If not, this is just moaning from his side to maximise compensation...

A350 has also been delayed till 2024. So, there’s nothing he can do

keesje wrote:

EK 787s delayed at least a year, to 2024.

Emirates has said that the delivery of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners has been delayed by at least one year to 2024. Prior to the delay, the Dubai-based carrier was due to receive the first of its 30 Boeing 787-9s next year. Due to Boeing’s ongoing production and delivery issues, there are fears that deliveries could be pushed back further. Three years ago, Emirates converted 30 of its Boeing 777X orders to the smaller Boeing 787-9.


While it still has a staggering 115 of Boeing’s flagship 777X on order, deliveries of that aircraft have also been delayed until 2025. Tim Clark: "We're reviewing the whole situation and seeing whether the 787 has a place in the fleet or not. We'll let Boeing know accordingly." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-11/

Emirates sidelined an A330NEO order in 2019, they might be scratching their heads now. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/emirat ... s-a330-neo

Tim Clark realized their 787s would be delayed when he was interviewed already a couple of months ago: https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -of-777-9/

So why doesn't he talk to Boeing about taking up for example the Norwegian NTU's, or the Air China one? Lufthansa managed to accelerate 787 deliveries, they announced at the same time of the their 777F/XF order. Seems LH is far more constructive and far smarter in their negotiations with Boeing, with Tim Clark doing nothing but complaining. Which leads to worse than nothing, as we are witnessing now with the QR/AAB vs Airbus A350 paint saga.

It's time TC steps aside and makes way for a fresh new CEO at EK.

frigatebird wrote:

keesje wrote:

EK 787s delayed at least a year, to 2024.

Emirates has said that the delivery of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners has been delayed by at least one year to 2024. Prior to the delay, the Dubai-based carrier was due to receive the first of its 30 Boeing 787-9s next year. Due to Boeing’s ongoing production and delivery issues, there are fears that deliveries could be pushed back further. Three years ago, Emirates converted 30 of its Boeing 777X orders to the smaller Boeing 787-9.


While it still has a staggering 115 of Boeing’s flagship 777X on order, deliveries of that aircraft have also been delayed until 2025. Tim Clark: "We're reviewing the whole situation and seeing whether the 787 has a place in the fleet or not. We'll let Boeing know accordingly." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-11/

Emirates sidelined an A330NEO order in 2019, they might be scratching their heads now. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/emirat ... s-a330-neo

Tim Clark realized their 787s would be delayed when he was interviewed already a couple of months ago: https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -of-777-9/

So why doesn't he talk to Boeing about taking up for example the Norwegian NTU's, or the Air China one? Lufthansa managed to accelerate 787 deliveries, they announced at the same time of the their 777F/XF order. Seems LH is far more constructive and far smarter in their negotiations with Boeing, with Tim Clark doing nothing but complaining. Which leads to worse than nothing, as we are witnessing now with the QR/AAB vs Airbus A350 paint saga.

It's time TC steps aside and makes way for a fresh new CEO at EK.

Possibly because he may want 787s with improved specs which will come only in 2023 and onwards.

JonesNL wrote:

If Emirates is really in need of metal they can order A350 or A330's with early delivery slots. If not, this is just moaning from his side to maximise compensation...

Not so sure A350s can be had so early. The SU A359s possibly, but he has competition of Lufthansa for these. QR's A350-1000s, that would a tad too sensitive I guess... But yeah, I agree with you this is just about more compensation. As said in my previous post, there are still 787-9 NTU's available I believe.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Possibly because he may want 787s with improved specs which will come only in 2023 and onwards.

Indeed possible, but the improved specs weren't there when he ordered the 787s. So he can't complain about that, he could have perfectly fine 787s with the specs he ordered if he wants them sooner. Lufthansa accepted even different engines to have their 787 deliveries accelerated..

frigatebird wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Possibly because he may want 787s with improved specs which will come only in 2023 and onwards.

Indeed possible, but the improved specs weren't there when he ordered the 787s. So he can't complain about that, he could have perfectly fine 787s with the specs he ordered if he wants them sooner. Lufthansa accepted even different engines to have their 787 deliveries accelerated..

Oh yes they were. They ordered theirs after ANZ did. Which meant it was in offer to customers

JonesNL wrote:

If Emirates is really in need of metal they can order A350 or A330's with early delivery slots.

EK noted that delivery of their A350s on order have been delayed a year to 2024, so...

With the final assembly consolidation in Charleston, are there any remaining 787 operations (at a level below final assembly) in Renton?

Bird80 wrote:

With the final assembly consolidation in Charleston, are there any remaining 787 operations (at a level below final assembly) in Renton?

Correction: Are any operations remaining in Everett?

It looks like the FAA is still not happy with the 787 Documentation from Boeing. Wonder when the 787 deliveries will resume. For details go to:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-13/

CanukinUSA wrote:

It looks like the FAA is still not happy with the 787 Documentation from Boeing. Wonder when the 787 deliveries will resume. For details go to:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-13/

Certification packages are huge - I’ve been told there can be over a million pages of documents. If a regulator is doing their job, I would expect there to be additional questions and requests. What we don’t know is whether the “incompleteness” is part of the typical back-and-forth, or whether Boeing actually missed something.

Bird80 wrote:

Bird80 wrote:

With the final assembly consolidation in Charleston, are there any remaining 787 operations (at a level below final assembly) in Renton?

Correction: Are any operations remaining in Everett?

According to BOE Family Flights there are currently 19 787 sitting in PAE.

They can not deliver to the airlines, but can fly them cross country for storage??

CanukinUSA wrote:

It looks like the FAA is still not happy with the 787 Documentation from Boeing. Wonder when the 787 deliveries will resume. For details go to:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-13/

The very first paragraph kills me

U.S. air-safety regulators have told Boeing Co (BA.N) the documentation it submitted to win approval to resume 787 deliveries to airlines after a year is incomplete, two people familiar with the matter said.

I read this like the certification process is a big exam. You gather a massive definition/certif dossier, deliver it as a bloc, then wait for regulator answer....
Maybe just me, but...

This idea seems so weird because when you manage a type certificate you should be in continuous discution, on various aspects, with the authority. At leat with EASA that's how it works.
And the process continues on already certified part/system/procedure all along program life.

I mean, the Chief Engineer Office of any such program must have a KPI indicating the certification status progress for the whole program, bit by bit.
But here it reads like FAA just delivered something big while I can't imagine the whole re-certification effort to be anything else than a continuous process, it's continued airworthiness basics.

edit : for the avoidance of doubt, I think it's poor journalism, I don't pretend Boeing is doing anything wrong or whatever.

This may or may not be an issue that further delays the resumption of 787 deliveries. It's impossible from the info circulating to know whether it actually is a 'bump' or a further 'roadblock'. However, if I was Boeing, and considering everything that has happened, I probably wouldn't start sending out signals that deliveries are going to restart (e.g. you're confident, this time, that you've met the FAA's requirements) until I actually had the FAA's final sign off. Otherwise you're just repeating the same mistakes from the past (i.e. having misplaced confidence that you've done enough for the FAA). It's not rocket science: just keep quiet until you have the actual OK from the FAA! I suspect, as ever, there's too much of a wish/need to please the Boeing investors in these communications, rather than learning from past lessons.

accentra wrote:

This may or may not be an issue that further delays the resumption of 787 deliveries. It's impossible from the info circulating to know whether it actually is a 'bump' or a further 'roadblock'. However, if I was Boeing, and considering everything that has happened, I probably wouldn't start sending out signals that deliveries are going to restart (e.g. you're confident, this time, that you've met the FAA's requirements) until I actually had the FAA's final sign off. Otherwise you're just repeating the same mistakes from the past (i.e. having misplaced confidence that you've done enough for the FAA). It's not rocket science: just keep quiet until you have the actual OK from the FAA! I suspect, as ever, there's too much of a wish/need to please the Boeing investors in these communications, rather than learning from past lessons.

When they do that, customers and analysts get angry because there’s no visibility

sunking737 wrote:

They can not deliver to the airlines, but can fly them cross country for storage??

Yes, the aircraft isn't grounded.

ok thanks

A little more detail from Bloomberg (emphasis mine): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-f ... 06247.html

The FAA notified the company its latest submission is insufficient, said the people, who declined to be identified or specify what additional information is being sought. The rebuff is part of an ongoing back-and-forth between Boeing and its chief regulator and won’t likely amount to a significant hurdle, two of the people said Friday.

An FAA specialist requested additional information on one topic and it is not considered a significant problem for Boeing, said one of the people. Another person characterized the request as a bump in the road rather than a blockage. Both of the people asked not to be identified while discussing the sensitive issue.

The regulator’s latest request is awkward for Boeing’s leadership, which has highlighted its submission of the 787’s certification package as a key milestone in its journey to resume deliveries, touting the FAA’s deep involvement in its preparation. Chief Executive Officer Dave Calhoun last month called out the “quality of the package” delivered to the government.

The agency’s “fingerprints are all over it, because they’ve been sort of side-by-side with us in this process,” Calhoun said during Boeing’s first quarter earnings call. “I think we’re in reasonably good shape to go through a normal order, and I do not expect this to get elongated in any significant way.”

Sounds like the adjustment continues between what the FAA now expects in terms of documentation, and what Boeing is accustomed to delivering. Until they match that up, there will be back & forth between them.

Opus99 wrote:

accentra wrote:

This may or may not be an issue that further delays the resumption of 787 deliveries. It's impossible from the info circulating to know whether it actually is a 'bump' or a further 'roadblock'. However, if I was Boeing, and considering everything that has happened, I probably wouldn't start sending out signals that deliveries are going to restart (e.g. you're confident, this time, that you've met the FAA's requirements) until I actually had the FAA's final sign off. Otherwise you're just repeating the same mistakes from the past (i.e. having misplaced confidence that you've done enough for the FAA). It's not rocket science: just keep quiet until you have the actual OK from the FAA! I suspect, as ever, there's too much of a wish/need to please the Boeing investors in these communications, rather than learning from past lessons.

When they do that, customers and analysts get angry because there’s no visibility

I get that. But there's also anger and confusion when what's said doesn't tally with what happens. That just adds to the narrative that Boeing isn't being properly managed/isn't on its game. Surely it's far better, at this point, to be much more careful with the comms until it really is in the bag. But that would mean fighting that urge to say stuff that is primarily intended to boost the share price.

accentra wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

accentra wrote:

This may or may not be an issue that further delays the resumption of 787 deliveries. It's impossible from the info circulating to know whether it actually is a 'bump' or a further 'roadblock'. However, if I was Boeing, and considering everything that has happened, I probably wouldn't start sending out signals that deliveries are going to restart (e.g. you're confident, this time, that you've met the FAA's requirements) until I actually had the FAA's final sign off. Otherwise you're just repeating the same mistakes from the past (i.e. having misplaced confidence that you've done enough for the FAA). It's not rocket science: just keep quiet until you have the actual OK from the FAA! I suspect, as ever, there's too much of a wish/need to please the Boeing investors in these communications, rather than learning from past lessons.

When they do that, customers and analysts get angry because there’s no visibility

I get that. But there's also anger and confusion when what's said doesn't tally with what happens. That just adds to the narrative that Boeing isn't being properly managed/isn't on its game. Surely it's far better, at this point, to be much more careful with the comms until it really is in the bag. But that would mean fighting that urge to say stuff that is primarily intended to boost the share price.

They basically said they expected 787 deliveries to resume in the second half, but would not give a firm date. Also that they felt they had addressed the FAA requirements, after working closely with them. This sounds like a request from FAA for more information on specific issues. It doesn't necessarily mean their guidance was wrong. Given that they are in a new documentation regime with the FAA, it's about as certain as they could reasonably be.

I was encouraged that they submitted the proposal at the end of April, and have a response two weeks later. That bodes well that things are moving at the FAA. So hopefully this will be a similar turnaround period of a few weeks.

I hope this is being conducted in a structured manner and not tainted by politics. I would think that you submit the whole package and then the FAA would come back and say "A, B, D, and E look good but C is lacking this or we need more data on ...." I hope the FAA is not just rejecting out of hand with no feedback. I really don't have a lot of faith in the FAA anymore.

travaz wrote:

I hope this is being conducted in a structured manner and not tainted by politics. I would think that you submit the whole package and then the FAA would come back and say "A, B, D, and E look good but C is lacking this or we need more data on ...." I hope the FAA is not just rejecting out of hand with no feedback. I really don't have a lot of faith in the FAA anymore.

The FAA is full of good, smart and hard working people (as is Boeing). Both are operating under extreme political pressure, which drives decisions at the top. I doubt the FAA could say one nice thing about Boeing in public without getting called by DeFazio to testify. In the scheme of things, it probably benefits both the FAA and Boeing to make it look like the FAA is rejecting submissions even if they’re working collaboratively in the background.

IMO it's quite possible that the FAA only used to check certain items in detail and gave a pass if some minor items weren't included and if FAA are now checking that every single item is included then Boeing will be told their submission is incomplete. It's quite possible that this may bite other manufacturer in the back side as well since I'm sure that FAA is applying this policy to all submissions.

Calhoun will rely on what's reported upwards by his subordinates so if they're expecting the usual pass then they'll be wrong footed

The cynical me sometimes gets a bad viewpoint but I think @sxfr24 and @Sam Yeager2016 are more in line with reality.

MIAT Mongolian 789 JU-1789 on its B1 flight out of CHS



https://twitter.com/BoeingSCSpotter/sta ... 9iaIi-Gdfg

Beautiful shot of MIAT Mongolian 787-9! What line number/MSN is it?

According to planespotters.net, the #s are 1128 / 66877

I thought production line number 1128 belonged to WestJet originally??

Robs8533 wrote:

I thought production line number 1128 belonged to WestJet originally??

That's what it's still showing on the spreadsheet below...so I'm not sure what happened here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=2

That spreadsheet is years out of date.

West did a ntu on it back in January I think

RobK wrote:

That spreadsheet is years o[code][/code]ut of date.

So where can one find all the latest info re-production, test flights, aircraft disposition etc?

What I think is the most mysterious 787 is on the move, Air China (ntu?) B-1216 has been moved to the fuel dock.
https://twitter.com/boeingscspotter/sta ... KIHZnOOhAw

ikolkyo wrote:

What I think is the most mysterious 787 is on the move, Air China (ntu?) B-1216 has been moved to the fuel dock.
https://twitter.com/boeingscspotter/sta ... KIHZnOOhAw

They move it all the time, doubt anything is happening to the airframe. Just had to move out of the way for Westjet I assume

Devin wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What I think is the most mysterious 787 is on the move, Air China (ntu?) B-1216 has been moved to the fuel dock.
https://twitter.com/boeingscspotter/sta ... KIHZnOOhAw

They move it all the time, doubt anything is happening to the airframe. Just had to move out of the way for Westjet I assume

Bummer, that thing has been sitting forever. I don’t remember but was there an incident with aircraft during manufacturing?

ikolkyo wrote:

Devin wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What I think is the most mysterious 787 is on the move, Air China (ntu?) B-1216 has been moved to the fuel dock.
https://twitter.com/boeingscspotter/sta ... KIHZnOOhAw

They move it all the time, doubt anything is happening to the airframe. Just had to move out of the way for Westjet I assume

Bummer, that thing has been sitting forever. I don’t remember but was there an incident with aircraft during manufacturing?

Nobody knows (or at least has publicly said anything). Its just odd.

I believe Air China has now officially canceled the plane though.

Polot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Devin wrote:

They move it all the time, doubt anything is happening to the airframe. Just had to move out of the way for Westjet I assume

Bummer, that thing has been sitting forever. I don’t remember but was there an incident with aircraft during manufacturing?

Nobody knows (or at least has publicly said anything). Its just odd.

I believe Air China has now officially canceled the plane though.

I’d like to think there is something off with the aircraft, other 787s have been quickly placed with airlines. Although I’m not sure when the Air China cancelation was fully in place. Time will tell.

ikolkyo wrote:

Polot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Bummer, that thing has been sitting forever. I don’t remember but was there an incident with aircraft during manufacturing?

Nobody knows (or at least has publicly said anything). Its just odd.

I believe Air China has now officially canceled the plane though.

I’d like to think there is something off with the aircraft, other 787s have been quickly placed with other airlines, although I’m not sure when the Air China cancelation was fully in place. Time will tell.

I've asked about this airframe a while back and nobody was able to provide any answers. So, we do have a bit of a mystery here.

I too speculate that something happened to it to make the airframe "unlucky" - so Air China refused delivery- but left it in limbo due to cancellation penalties(?).

Or, perhaps there's a major manufacturing defect with this particular frame and Boeing doesn't want to write it off to avoid (even more) bad publicity around the 787 program?

Anyway, I look forward to learning the truth. So maybe someone who does know will leak the answer?

ikolkyo wrote:

Polot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Bummer, that thing has been sitting forever. I don’t remember but was there an incident with aircraft during manufacturing?

Nobody knows (or at least has publicly said anything). Its just odd.

I believe Air China has now officially canceled the plane though.

I’d like to think there is something off with the aircraft, other 787s have been quickly placed with airlines. Although I’m not sure when the Air China cancelation was fully in place. Time will tell.

It was only officially canceled earlier this year.

Who is the owner of LN688 then? I still have it as Air China, is this now back on Boeings books as a "white tail"

B787register wrote:

Who is the owner of LN688 then? I still have it as Air China, is this now back on Boeings books as a "white tail"

Boeing. Air China has never owned LN688 (it was just destined for them); the plane hasn’t even flown yet.

FAA AD is out for the recent 787 shim issue, another step closer to the resumption of deliveries. https://public-inspection.federalregist ... -11806.pdf