How many 787s will Boeing deliver in 2011?

29 Comments on “How many 787s will Boeing deliver in 2011?

  1. Boeing thinks they can deliver up to 20 B-787s this year. Unlike all the pundents who have published few deliveries in 2011, I think Boeing knows exactly the condition of all the airplanes sitting on the ramps and how much re-work each one needs. These will all be RR Trent-1000 powered B-787s, and no GEnx-1B58/64/67 powered B-787s.

  2. Definitely less than 10 I think.
    Maybe having to change all those air conditioning units will prevent the wet dreams(liners)

  3. In a way it doesn’t matter how many planes get delivered in 2011, as long as they get one plane into service. It becomes critical next year because I don’t think Boeing and its partners know to manufacture this plane yet. I believe Boeing was suggesting delivering 4 or 5 planes a month next year. I wouldn’t be surprised to see less than 20 delivered for the whole year and a further delay of a couple of years for those awaiting delivery down the line.

    • Completely bungled ramp up?
      That would realy bring the pot to a boil.

      The A330 already has the MX intervals that Boeing boasted for the Dreamliner.
      What kind of improvements could be had from an engine upgrade? ( Trent 1000
      or Trent XWB or a GTF?) i.e. the wispered about A330-NEO for an EIS in ~2017.

      • Wouldn’t any ‘upgrade’ to the A-330 take sales away from the A-350? IIRC, the A-350 Mk.I was essentially a warmed over A-330, the Mk.II was an upgraded and reengined A-330. The airlines rejected both versions. In fact, the airlines rejected the A-350 Mk.I, II, III, IV, and V. We are now at the A-350 Mk. VI, which is the XWB and suppose to be a B-777 killer, even though it is narrower than any model of the B-777.

        • Afair the Mk-1 got to 250 in a very short timeframe.
          my understanding is that Hazy dissed the Mk-1 to
          protect the value of bought Dreamliners ( on his own
          or in synergetic interaction with Boeing). as it would
          have run circles around the 787 as producible ( well
          below what marketing attributed to the type).
          This led to Airbus deciding that the A330 would have
          to soldier on with the help of continuous improvements
          and turned to a “just below 777” type: the A350XWB.
          The same 350 base designation is just distraction.
          Thats is actually why I put the question earlier on :
          “When did Airbus know that Boeing was bogged down hard” .

  4. I think Boeing wants to avoid what happened with the first delivery of the A-380, to SQ, in the first part of Oct. 2007. It was nearly 6 months before the second was delivered, near the end of Feb. 2008, I believe.

    I could see a possible delivery schedule of 1 in Aug., 2-3 in Sept., 4-5 in Oct., 5 in Nov. and 6 in Dec. In 2012, the monthly deliveries would continue to grow until Boeing gets to about 10 delivered per month. I have not read anything that could confirm this. It is only my guess.

    • The japanese tankers were “delivered” but not “accepted” for quite some time afair.
      I could envision something similar for the Dreamliner except there is probably too
      much work to do to have it done off site. Could one of the japanese customers provide
      similar to LH-Technik’s help in completing onetheir (LH’s) A380s ?

      • Not exactly on the KC-767Js;

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767#Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

        “The first operational KC-767J was delivered to Japan on 19 February 2008, with the second KC-767 following on 5 March. The third KC-767 was delivered to the JASDF in March 2009. The three KC-767J aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) status with the JASDF in May 2009. The fourth tanker was delivered in January 2010.”

        There is a big difference between ‘accepting’ these tankers (which they were upon delivery) and IOC, which is when the tankers and crews are declaired ‘combat ready’. It was about 14 months from delivery of the first KC-767J to the JASDF to being ‘combat ready’. That is a typical amount of time for that state of readiness. You need to have your crews fully trained, your maintenance fully trained, and the minumum number of airplanes within the squadron, which was 3 out of 4 tankers.

        For the B-787s, yes, most of the re-work must be done at the Boeing plant because most of the near complete airplanes need to have engines installed. Not much sence moving an airplane without engines from Washington State to Japan for engine installations.

    • KC135TopBoom :
      1 in Aug., 2-3 in Sept., 4-5 in Oct., 5 in Nov. and 6 in Dec. In 2012, the monthly deliveries would continue to grow until Boeing gets to about 10 delivered per month. I have not read anything that could confirm this. It is only my guess.

      I think you are in some sort of fantasy world there… There is no chance of that scenario coming to fruition.

  5. In 2012, the monthly deliveries would continue to grow until Boeing gets to about 10 delivered per month. I have not read anything that could confirm this. It is only my guess.

    Yes we know that, as usual it is the kool-aid speaking.

  6. UKair :

    KC135TopBoom :1 in Aug., 2-3 in Sept., 4-5 in Oct., 5 in Nov. and 6 in Dec. In 2012, the monthly deliveries would continue to grow until Boeing gets to about 10 delivered per month. I have not read anything that could confirm this. It is only my guess.

    I think you are in some sort of fantasy world there… There is no chance of that scenario coming to fruition.

    Now, now…….

    Statham :

    In 2012, the monthly deliveries would continue to grow until Boeing gets to about 10 delivered per month. I have not read anything that could confirm this. It is only my guess.

    Yes we know that, as usual it is the kool-aid speaking.

    Now, now……

    I guess we will know by December 2011, won’t we?

    BTW, the Kool-Aid is cherry flavored.

    • “BTW, the Kool-Aid is cherry flavored.”

      My tentative guess is Boeing won’t cop that cherry 😉

      • I think you should bookmark this page and refer to it at the end of the year, we’ll see how your prediction fairs 🙂

  7. Uwe :Afair the Mk-1 got to 250 in a very short timeframe.my understanding is that Hazy dissed the Mk-1 toprotect the value of bought Dreamliners ( on his ownor in synergetic interaction with Boeing). as it wouldhave run circles around the 787 as producible ( wellbelow what marketing attributed to the type).This led to Airbus deciding that the A330 would haveto soldier on with the help of continuous improvementsand turned to a “just below 777″ type: the A350XWB.The same 350 base designation is just distraction.Thats is actually why I put the question earlier on :“When did Airbus know that Boeing was bogged down hard” .

    No, but it did get orders from US, and a few others which Airbus had recently (at that time) bailed out of their second bankruptcy in about 6 years. The A-350 Mk.1 version was heaverily criticised by airlines and leasing companies around the world, not just Hazy. I don’t remember this version selling 250 examples. The Mk. II, III, IV, and V were equilly disappointing to the airlines and leasing companies. Then GE told Airbus “no” on the GEnx-1A72, or any other GEnx engines for any version of the A-350.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/05/08/206441/airline-criticism-of-airbus-a350-forces-airframer-to-make-radical-changes-to-fuselage-wing-and.html

    Wiki has this on their A-350XWB page;

    Development[edit] Early designsWhen Boeing announced its Boeing 787 Dreamliner programme, it said the lower operating costs of this aircraft would make it a serious threat to the Airbus A330. In public announcements, Airbus initially rejected this claim, stating that the 787 was itself just a reaction to the A330, and that no response was needed for the 787. But airlines pushed Airbus to provide a competitor, as Boeing had committed the 787 to have 20% lower fuel consumption than the Boeing 767.

    Airbus initially proposed the A330-200Lite, a simple derivative of the A330, which would feature improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[9] The company decided to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[9] On 16 September 2004, then-Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed that a new project was under consideration during a private meeting, which was held with prospective customers.[9] But Forgeard did not give a project name, and did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. He indicated that Airbus would finalise its concept by the end of 2004, begin consulting with airlines in early 2005, and aim to launch the new development programme at the end of that year.[citation needed] The airlines were not satisfied, and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new airliner design.[9] The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabiliser were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[9] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an “authorisation to offer (ATO)”, and formally named it the A350.[9][10]

    On 13 June 2005 at the Paris Air Show, Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways announced that it has placed an order for 60 A350 aircraft. In September 2006 the airline signed an memorandum of understanding with General Electric to launch the GEnx-1A-72 for the aircraft.[11][12][13] Emirates decided against making an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design,[14][15] but has since ordered A350 XWBs.[16]

    On 6 October 2005, full industrial launch of the programme was announced with an estimated development cost of around €3.5 billion.[9] This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250- to 300-seat twin-engine wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines, while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. As a result of a controversial design, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry into service in 2010[citation needed] in two versions: the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nmi (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nmi (13,900 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.[9]

    Airbus faced almost immediate criticism on the A350 project from the heads of two of its largest customers, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) and GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS). On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, ILFC President Steven F. Udvar-Hazy lambasted Airbus’ strategy in bringing to market what they saw as “a Band-aid reaction to the 787,” a sentiment that was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.[17][18] Several days later Chew Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines (SIA), made a similar comment: “Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit” and adding advanced new materials, Airbus “should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage.”[19] At the time, SIA was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350. Airbus responded by stating it was considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands.[20] At the same time, Airbus’ then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes: “Our strategy isn’t driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises.”[21]

    • A link to the WP page would have taken much less space to not make an argument 😉

      Mk1 sales were similar to Dreamliner sales in the same “window” relative
      to official offering. Additionally the derision directed at the NE Option from some well known individuals has made it clear that this derision is nothing more than a protective act for the benefit of other resources. ( in the NEO case propping up residual values of 737 and 757 range.)

  8. This is from the US Wiki page;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways#Fleet

    Airbus A350-800 — 18 36 — 234 270 Entry into service: 2017[84]
    First American airline to order A350
    Airbus A350-900 — 4 36 — 294 330 Entry into service: 2017[84]
    First American airline to order A350

  9. These comments about the A350 Mk I, Mk II, etc don’t make sense. The first A350 would have been very successful after the first or second 787 delay (btw there are more 787 delays than A350 versions). Just look at how many A330 have been sold (and they are produced at a rate of 10 / month, more than the 777 and much more than 787).
    Boeing made just what Microsoft made 20 years ago with Windows : vaporware to obfuscate customers and analysts. Airbus should have kept the A350 Mk 1 (A330 NEO) and launched later a true 777-300ER killer (slightly bigger than the A350-1000). In that case, Boeing would have been in a very bad situation now.
    Engines are the key, the A320 NEO success is the best evidence of that. An A330 NEO with EIS in 2010 would have been a huge success as well.

    • Birdy :
      and they are produced at a rate of 10 / month

      Rate 10 will be reached in Q2 2013. Airbus should reach Rate 9 by the end of 2011.

      Birdy :
      Airbus should have kept the A350 Mk 1 (A330 NEO) and launched later a true 777-300ER killer (slightly bigger than the A350-1000)

      Absolutely agree with you! They should have kept A330NEO with plastic wings to cover the 250-270seat segment and launched A350-900/1000 to cover 300-360seat segment. The A330NEO would have been in service by now earning Airbus bucket load of money. Still, they are not in a bad position at the moment…

      Birdy :
      Just look at how many A330 have been sold

      687 since the launch of the 787… Not bad for an old lady.

    • Thats about what Airbus did. ( with a bit of deviation allowed )

      The A330 ( with a couple of tonnes MTOW increase ) was deemed
      sufficient enought to soldier middle term on gainst the 787.
      ( Works perfectly )

      The A350XWB hits the solar plexus “weak spot” of the 777
      possibly marginalising it at all but the performance extremes.
      ( Still open to judgement)

  10. KC135TopBoom :How many B-787s is NH suppose to get in 2011?

    KDX125 :NH is to get a maximum of three 787s in 2011.

    Thank you

    UKAir;
    “Birdy :
    Airbus should have kept the A350 Mk 1 (A330 NEO) and launched later a true 777-300ER killer (slightly bigger than the A350-1000)

    Absolutely agree with you! They should have kept A330NEO with plastic wings to cover the 250-270seat segment and launched A350-900/1000 to cover 300-360seat segment.

    IIRC, big airlines that are real Airbus customers (sorry US), like EK and QR soundly rejected the first 5 Marks of the A-350, including the warmed over A-330.

  11. Mr Boeing when subbing out part’s to the rest of the world THINK METRIC and DON’T design with A/F AS A/F-METRIC WON’T FIT TOGETHER..

    • I think Boeing knows that. I think Airbus knows that. They install imperial or metric bolts, nuts, etc, per the customers specs. The overseas subcontractors when working on a part for the B-787 does the same, installs the type of hardware the customer wants on the part.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.