787 Ramp-Up: UBS Securities issued a research note Monday in which it reports that the 787 rate ramp-up to 10 per month–a goal Boeing’s to be by the end of 2013–has slipped to the first quarter of 2014.
- More from UBS: Supply chain ahead of Boeing: We believe the supply chain is still ahead of Boeing given significant rework and a high level of component deliveries in 2009-10, although a pick up is expected soon. We understand Boeing now plans to ramp from current 3.5/mo to 5/mo in Q4 (had been Q1), 7/mo in Q2 2013 (had been Q4 2012) and 10/mo in Q1 2014 (had been Q2 2013).
ISTAT: We’re at the annual ISTAT AGM in Phoenix and we’ll be reporting throughout the event odds and ends (adding to this post initially, separate posts later on). So come back often.
- 40% of Airbus 2011 deliveries were via lessors: 115 through direct sale to lessors, 95 via lessor purchase-leaseback
- Lessor sees overlapping production of 737 NG with MAX, A320neo with CEO due to limited availability of production slots because of massive early neo/MAX commitments.
- Congressional targeting Ex-Im Bank financing is short-sighted; cutting funding will harm Boeing, GE, Pratt & Whitney.
- Airbus has delivered 10 A330-200Fs, four operators now.
- Undercurrent buzz about 737MAX. Watch for developments in the next weeks and months.
- Airbus about to start final assembly line for A350.
- Flight tests of Trent XWB going well.
- Airbus now advertising A350-1000 at 369 passengers, up from 350.
From Twitter, via Phil LeBeau of CNBC:
@Boeing says it has NOT changed its goal of building 10 Dreamliners per month by end of 2013.
Back to ISTAT:
- A321neo gains 600nm, A320neo gains 500nm.
- Average oil price 1968 non-inflation adjusted was $3.18bbl (that’s per barrel, not per gallon!).
- Airbus sold 448 A320ceo since launch of neo.
- Airbus competes 99% of the time against Boeing, not new entrants, for sales. Barriers to entry for a new aircraft type very high rather than changing fleet type.
Side trip to Ex-Im:
Take a read of this column on the Ex-Im Bank financing controversy.
Back to ISTAT:
- Mike Bair: We are in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380.
- 787-10 will have 50% lower operating costs than A340-600, Boeing’s Bair claims.
- 747-8I has turned out to be the darling of billionaires who have too much money–Bair.
- New revenue opportunities for long, thin routes validate the 787 like San Diego to Japan. Opening new markets and opportunities for customers.
- Boeing uses 162 seats in 737-800/8 vs A320ceo/neo 150 seat comparisons; Airbus uses 157 seats for the Boeing.
- Every engine/airframe combination has a sweet spot, a bucket’s flat area with 3-4 inches of fan diameter. In MAX’s case, this means the 68.4 inch fan is the sweet spot.
- Our intent is to build the MAX until the market decides it doesn’t want it any more.
“Slipped from end of 2013 to first quarter of 2014”
Certainly nothing to write home to one’s Mom about. First quarter 2015 would be a good start to make the assessment a little more realistic.
If Boeing were producing 8 or 9 planes by the end of 2014, it would be a solid accomplishment.
Would be interesting to see what UBS based its report on except that Boeing recently indicated that it saw nothing to interfere with its goal of 10 per month by the end of 2014.
Depending on the nature of problems encountered, a solid advance in production combined with an increase in margins and production time is what the goal is. There is still the issue of clearing the backlog of 65 planes and how they will fit in the delivery schedule
.. that it saw nothing to interfere with its goal …
All the problems Boeing encountered were of the “closed glass door, nose earliest contact” variety. ( As mentioned to the general public that is. )
I find this tight “busy waiting, no progress loop” arrangement irritating.
With all the delays Boeing appears to be too leaned back in their approach to a fix.
What could Boeing gain by not making significant progress into deliveries?
Force more customers to dump 787-8 for -9 ?
Entangle Airbus by hampering suppliers ?
“I see nothing to interfere with the goal of ten” reminds me of young kids who think they can effectively hide themselves by covering their eyes with their hands 🙂
A 3 month slip is no big deal, but do we know anything about the UBS research?
Uwe, Airbus has been pretty quite about the A-350 program lately. Is this a case of no news is not good news? Usually if things are going good, Airbus like to shout it from the top of the French Alps.
You should “get out” more. Bunch of reports out on A350 progress in the last 3..4 month.
Look on A.net : http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5351041/
The straggler currently seems to be Spirit ?
Any single slip is no big deal 😉
Spirit the staggler? Hardly… more like Airbus itself. Spirit has already delivered several center fuselage sections to St Nazaire… yet Airbus’ own internal factory only just finished up the structural build up of the first aft fuselage. Wings are also a concern. We’ve seen only 1 start assembly so far… That’s two slips right there.
So, if any single slip isn’t a big deal for the mighty Airbus A-350 (which has had at least 3 slips to date, and maybe more than that), why are you insisting it is a problem for the B-787 then?
A lot of Mike Bair’s quotes would make everybody cringe (rightly so) if they were to come froom Leahy.
Comparing the 787-10 against the A340-600, and the 747-8i putting the A380 out of business. Right.
Silly me, but I thought it was Mike Bair’s less than stellar leadership on the 787 that almost put Boeing out of business. And now he wants the 747-8I to put the A380 out of business. Yeah right!
I agree, these comments are almost hilarious. It is comparing apples to bananas!
The best one is the 787 vs A330 comparison; how many A330 sold since the launch of the 787? (the later being the killer of the former, in theory)
> 740 A330s sold since launch of 787 in April 2004.
It seems he “forgets” the 350…
So even if Boeing manages to find the production volume to be able to deliver all the twin aisles the world needs, he forgot to pitch a B product against the 350.
You can’t start when you haven’t been supplied with parts:
Leaving Spirit jan 9.
Spirit AeroSystems has delivered its first composite center fuselage section to Airbus for the manufacturer’s A350 XWB (extra wide body) program.
Wings are added rather late in FAL assembly. ( First Power On before attaching of the wings! )
And yet Spirit are STILL ahead of the internal Airbus built aft fuselage, which must be to the FAL at the same time.
Spririt delivered naked partset(s) for the middle fuselage that still needed joining and stuffing. ( done in France ).
The equivalent production steps happened much earlier for
the front and rear section.
A bit opaque for sure as the static test specimen and the flyable prototype dance around each other during the completion process ( MSN001 taking longer in the stuffing stage than the minimally equipped static test frame).
Methinks we have an Airbus and a Spirit employee here…
“Denke nie gedacht zu haben, denn das Denken der Gedanken ist gedankenloses Denken! Denke nie, denn wenn du denkst du denkst, dann denkst du nur du denkst, gedacht doch hast du nie!” 😉
Spirit employs ducks ;-?
Based on the current progress, and 50+ planes stored at Boeing back yard, I am in doubt that Boeing will achieve its gool before the end of 2015 or January 2016.
Boeing should introduce more realestice plan based on facts and real progress not on theories and dreams. However I wish her GOOD LUCK.
Negative or positive buzz?
Depends on who you are.
787-style buzz or 777X-style buzz?
I remember being mad that when I started driving in 1971 that gas had jumped to $.32 per gallon, how unfair that my older brother only paid $.26. This was in the Denver area.
“Mike Bair: We are in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380”
I guess he mixed up A340 and A350?
Boeing saying they are putting Airbus out of business.. Leahy should thank Bair for making Boeing look out of touch..
He talks about marching.
They have passed the 777 vs A340 waypoint.
Only two further hurdles to take.
A walk in the park. ( manic laughter 😉
“Mike Bair: We are in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380″
I am glad to see that 27 years down the line not much has changed.
”We’re out to see to it that the A320 has no more than four years in the market,” says Dean Thornton, head of Boeing’s commercial aircraft division. New Boeing planes, he thinks, can nip the A320 long before it approaches breakeven.
I am sure the attitude will remain the same for the next 27…
“787 vs A330”
They have tried pushing the old lady out of the game… Lesson learnt: Never underestimate an A330. Watch out for more news on that front later in 2012.
“747-8I has turned out to be the darling of billionaires who have too much money–Bair”
Great, they can sell another 3-4 copies.
“New revenue opportunities for long, thin routes validate the 787 like San Diego to Japan. Opening new markets and opportunities for customers”
In theory a lot of routes are possible, whether an airline is willing to support them is another matter. We will see what happens when more 787s enter service…
“787-10 will have 50% lower operating costs than A340-600, Boeing’s Bair claims”
Excellent, how many percent is it better than A380? I thought Jim was recently sounding the 789 as the perfect A333 replacement. They raised the bar now. 🙂
“Airbus competes 99% of the time against Boeing, not new entrants, for sales. Barriers to entry for a new aircraft type very high rather than changing fleet type”
That’s what true competition is all about. I expect nothing less from both sides.
Good luck to Boeing in achieving their 2013 10/month goal, even though most of the observers and their neighbours think it is not possible. It will be good if they prove critics wrong, for a change.
By the way Scott, thanks for the updates. Very interesting news.
Great find. Don’t you just love the internets!
Did he really say this? Because if he did, he just insulted some very good customers. It seems like a comment made by competitors rather than someone from Boeing.
Boeing’s management is Airbus’s biggest asset.
I think Boeings PR department should formulate guidelines for upper management on how to contribute restoring credibility and reliability as linked to the Boeing brand communication. And include them in their targets, to make sure.
As long as stock values / packages are more important, short term half truths, unfounded optimism and unrealistic market assesment keep damaging the brand.
First get those MAX commitments into orders from blue chip airlines, get those 787-8s off the platform, make the 787-9 real & on spec and sell the new 747s in more then marginal quantities.
Then say you’ll put Airbus out of business. This only looks arrogant.
An Airbus CEO no way would not have survived a Boeing like 2010-2011.
McNenrney bags xx million. IMO the system is wrong.
I agree with this. Hopefully Boeing has some good products in its portofolio helping the company to stay abreast (I don’t think that the 787 is one of these).
I do not know though for how long more it will be able to survive this management 🙁
Well, with a $23 million pay cheque for the CEO, it can be readily seen why the old Westminster system of accountability is now dead and buried.
The Bair comments defy logic, but I guess the tried and true “I was quoted out of context” will be applied in due course.
It truly saddens me to see such a fantastic company sink to the levels attributable to some of their recent utterances!
$23 million for pay and bonuses is IMO an obscene level for someone who has seemingly never created anything, but always lived off other people’s work and creativity. Interestingly, the Steve Jobs of the world typically live a modest lifestyle. What matters to them is the quest of creating something entirely new that potentially can impact and change the world.
Boeing’s production system draws on the principles and practices of the Toyota production system and other successful just-In-time/lean manufacturing systems. What is interesting to note though, is how keen Boeing’s management was in copying the manufacturing handbook from Toyota, but not Toyota’s handbook on executive pay scales. From a typical Boeing executive|s point of view, you don’t have to copy the “bad habits” from the Japanese, only the “good ones”, right?
inflation correction (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi):
What cost $3.18 in 1968 would cost $19.70 in 2010.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1968,
they would cost you $3.18 and $0.50 respectively.
“Undercurrent buzz about 737MAX. Watch for developments in the next weeks and months.”
I would not be surprised at all to see some far reaching improvements on the MAX on top of what has been communicated so far. Boeing says the MAX is superior, has 1200 “commitments” & parity has been re-established. I sense a lot of hope there & it is not what I see in the marketplace. And I do listen to traditional big mouths like O’Leary.
Read between the lines: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/737-max-not-a-long-term-solution-udvar-hazy-369728/
I do “NOT” listen to traditional big mouth like .. 😉
Doesn’t look too good for the MAX, does it. Significantly larger weight growth than the neo and a significantly smaller bypass ratio for the Leap-1B compared to the PW-1100G.
I see Airbus forgot to tell us, OV-099, what the weight gain of the A-320NEO is with the sharklets, and related wing structure to support them and the heavier engines, over the current A-320CLASSICs without sharklets.
Must be just a slight oversite.
The B-737MAX still has a weight advantage. Lower weight increase means you need less thrust per engine, which also adds to the SFC advantage. Then of course there is the undeniable fact the B-737-8MAX still carries 5% more passengers than the A-320NEO, which translates directly to a lower CASM.
It looks better and better everyday for the MAX over the NEO.
KC, listen to Airbus’ Tom Williams at 18:54
OEW B737-800 : 91,300 lbs
OEW A320-200 : (CFM56) : 92,980lb, (V2500) 93,079lb
Look at the weight grows of the MAX and NEO. I guess everyone has a calculator.
I think the agressive seatcount discussions and ignoring of BPR/sfc and cargo / payload range capabilities from Boeing are understandable at this point and I do not think the basic specs of the 737 MAX are frozen until major airlines / lessors give the green light. Boeing / Im-Ex cannot give everyone a Southwest/LionAir deal.
keesje, you still didn’t answer the question. What is the total weight gain for the A-320NEO when sharklets, engines, and wing and other structual strenghtening is all added in, compared to the B-737MAX? You already said the B-738 is about 2,000 lbs lighter than the A-320, but we all already knew that.
“Hazy says Boeing’s 737 Max still holds distinct advantages over the A320neo, despite a 4.5t (10,000lb) weight growth in the airframe, he says, including being slightly lighter with nine additional seats between the 189-seat 737-8 and re-engined 180-seat A320neo.
By comparison, Airbus says the A320neo’s weight has grown by between 1.6t and 1.8t (3,500lb to 4,000lb) with the addition of Leap-1A and Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engines, respectively.”
I say again, Airbus has not added in the structual and sharklet weight gains. Why?
Just to set things straight:
CFM Engines 41 244 kg (90 927 lb)
IAE Engines 41 345 kg (91 150 lb)
Wingtip Devices, weight gain:
“Sharklets are expected to reduce fuel burn over long sectors by at least 3.5 per cent, representing an annual CO2 reduction of approximately 700 tonnes per aircraft. The Sharklets measure 2.4 metres in height, with their 200-kg. installed total weight offset by weight savings being introduced throughout the A320 Family airframe.”
I understand it is easier to type some “argument fitted” information than searching on your own.
KC, didn’t you watch the video starting at 18 minutes, 54 seconds. At that point Tom Williams started to talk about the weight savings that are to be implemented on the neo.
KCTB, all NEO’s have sharklets and structural mods, so I guess its in. Why do you think it somehow is not ? Your concerns for this additional NEO weight are probably are not neccessary.
“The Sharklets have a height of 2.4 metres, and their 200-kg. Installed total weight is offset by weight savings being introduced throughout the A320 Family airframe.”
I think one of the reasons to modify the NEO wingtips is to keep the weight down.
keesje, that is not correct. Airbus has the sharklets (blended winglets) as a seperate program. Each sharlet will weigh about 200 kg, for 400 kg per airplane, not counting the additional wing structual strenghtening, and wingbox strenghtening which will be close to another 2 tonnes per aircraft. So the sharklet mod will add close to another 3.5 tonnes per aircraft, on top of the structual steenghtening needed for the heavier engines of the NEO program. I might mention that unlike the B-737, B-757, and B-767 blended winglet programs, the sharklets cannot be retrofitted into A-32Xs delivered without sharklets or older A-32X series airplanes. Those airplanes will have to live out their lives with just those wingtip fences installed.
Topboom you are just like me:
My former latin teacher wrote ” a very nice story, but unfortunately no connection to the source” below one of my translations.
But I guess you are not in the process of learning anymore, are you?
To recite Airbus:
Adding winglets will be weight neutral. i.e. whatever winglets add will be taken out elsewhere.
The NEO will have 1.6..1.8t increased OEW ( that includes structure changes and the heavier engines.
( my understanding was that only ~half of this gain will be added to MTOW.)
Let go of the straws, they don’t have any nutritional value anyway ! 😉
KC, your belief of the sharklets being unable to be retroffited onto older frames is incorrect as well:
[Edited-no personal attacks permitted.]
Well said, Jim 🙂
Press releases also available at the three OEM’s home pages.
Curiously, Bombardier is not getting in on the action. Perhaps the Canucks prefer using jet fuel refined from their dirty Albertan Tar Sands.
More about alternative fuel research at Airbus:
The USAF has been using a blend of synfuels and biofuels for about 3 years now, although it is not being used in any combat operations. IIRC a B-747 (VS?) flight tested these fuels back in 2010 also. Since Boeing and Airbus both use the same engine OEMs, it stands to reason these fuels will work in both manufactuers airplanes.
Somehow this slipped completely by me, and since no one else has mentioned it, apparently it got by everyone else, too.
But Boeing received the FAA certification yesterday for the B-787/GEnx airplane/engine combination. Does anyone know if the EASA also certified this combo yet?
The first delivery of a GEnx powered B-788 to JL looks like it will take place on Monday, 26 March 2012.