Boeing delivers 762 airliners, gets 768 orders in 2015

Boeing LogoJan. 7, 2015: Boeing racked up 762 airliner deliveries last year, a record, while booking 768 orders–a book:bill of fractionally over 1:1.

Boeing throughout the year had largely guided a book:bill of slightly better or slightly lower than one.

The company delivered 495 737s, an equivalent rate of 41.25/mo. There were 18 747-8 deliveries, matching the monthly production rate of 1.5/mo. There were 16 767-300ERs delivered, matching the production rate, and 98 777s, slightly fewer than the equivalent 99.6 annual production rate.

There were 135 787s delivered, a rate equivalent to a production rate of 11.5/mo, higher than the actual rate of 10/mo. The extra planes would be the re-worked 787s that have been around Boeing since the inception of the program. The last of these, the so-called Terrible Teens, should be delivered this year.

There were (net) 588 737s (All), two 747s, 49 767s (the FedEx order), 58 777s and 71 787s. Boeing did not break out the 777 Classic and X in the table but scroll all the way down for a breakout. Only 38 Classics had been sold, short of the 40-60 a year needed to bridge the production gap. Scroll all the way down for a breakout of 737NGs vs MAXes.

Airbus announces its year-end orders results next week. It previously announced it delivered 635 aircraft last year.


41 Comments on “Boeing delivers 762 airliners, gets 768 orders in 2015

  1. Congratulations to Boeing on an amazing year of deliveries. We’ll have to wait to see if any of those 787 deliveries were not loss-making.

    They do show a breakout of NG and MAX 737s on their order page – :

    179 x NG & 409 x MAX.

    They also show a 777 breakout:

    38 x 777 & 20 x 777X

  2. The 747 delivery rate is a bit confusing, those who keep track ( 14 747s made their first flight/rolled out in 2015, and 18 were delivered, but some of those delivered made their first flight late in 2014.
    Production rate may have fallen below 1.5 month allready, as overall there are around half a dozen whitetails.

  3. While long term orders for single aisles may be good, looks like both fell short of the 500 marker this year. With the current economic blip, will there be demand for Airbus or Boeing to deliver 550 single aisles next year?

  4. “The extra planes would be the re-worked 787s that have been around Boeing since the inception of the program. The last of these, the so-called Terrible Teens, should be delivered this year.”

    I don’t agree Scott. As far as I can tell zero ‘terrible teens’ were delivered in 2015. LN 11 was which a terrible teen in spirit.

    The additional 787s that were delivered in 2015 above production rate were early 787-9 builds for NZ & JAL as well as a reduction in the number of aircraft that are/were in the testing phase.

    Also, I believe at least 2 ‘terrible teens’ won’t be delivered ‘this year’. I think ET will take at least a pair in 2017 which will look better on the financials. Unsure about LN 19 at the moment.


    • @tortugamon I didn’t say the Terrible Teens were delivered in 2015. I said there were re-work airplanes delivered in 2015, accounting for the excess over actual production. The remaining re-work airplanes, the Terrible Teens, will be delivered in 2016 (or most of them).


      • Ok Scott. I read this differently though: ““The extra planes would be the re-worked 787s that have been around Boeing since the inception of the program. The last of these, the so-called Terrible Teens, should be delivered this year.”

        ‘Been around since the inception’ sounds like the early frames, and when you add ‘the last of these, the so-called terrible teens’ makes me believe that you meant that the delivery rate above the production rate is due to delivery these early aircraft, not just the ones facing normal rework/travel work.

        While I disagree here, I like reading your and Bjorn’s work.

  5. “There were 135 787s delivered, a rate equivalent to a production rate of 11.5/mo, higher than the actual rate of 10/mo.”

    According to McNerney Boeing was supposed to break even on the 787 in 2015. Does anyone know what the situation is today? If they have not reached that point yet, like I suspect, how much money is Boeing still loosing on average per plane? It’s interesting to note that the 787 was designed to be easy to assemble. If I recall correctly it was projected initially to take only four days to put one together.

    • Normand Hamel,

      As of the 3rd Quarter 2015, Boeing was taking a loss of about $15 Million on each 787 delivered. Lately, the Boeing has started to produce more 787-9s than 787-8s and this no doubt is responsible for the decreasing deferred costs. As Boeing transitions to almost entirely producing the 787-9s, I believe they will about break-even on a unit basis.

      Meanwhile, it does not appear that Airbus is selling the A330-900 (reported ~ $159 Million) or the A330-900neo (reported (~ $124 Million) for cheap:

      As a result, I believe while Airbus may be putting price pressure on the 787-9 (reported ~ $134.7 Million), I don’t think the 787-9 is in a position where it can’t make money (unlike the 787-8). Also, the 787-9 selling price of $134.7 figure reported in the Wiki reference seems a bit low compared to the valuation of a new 787-9 of $141.4 Million given here:

      That’s…about as clear as I can make it. (About as clear as muddy water, I know!) Hope it helps, and maybe someone will put up some better info.

      • Thanks Jimmy. If it wasn’t for the A330 that is still in production today, and cheap to fabricate, I guess the Dreamliner would probably be already costing less to produce than the price it is/was sold at, which is some time much lower than the official price tag.

        That being said, 768 deliveries in one year is a phenomenal achievement. I remember when Boeing crossed the 500 mark for the first time a few years ago. I thought at the time that it would be hard to repeat that feat. But Boeing has kept increasing the output year after year ever since. The problem with this though is that it could make Boeing’s management overconfident and thereof could be caught unprepared when cash is likely to be in short supply at the turn of the next decade during the transition period of the 777 Classic towards the new 777. Which could possibly also be accompanied by a lower demand for the 737. For the latter a B2B ratio of less than one is already appearing in the distance on my radar screen.

        • Normand Hamel,

          I agree, 768 deliveries is phenomenal, and I bet that number also impressed the Boyz in Toulouse. Additionally, if Boeing’s 787 cost numbers are accurate, this past year has shown us that the 787 will at least approach break-even on a unit basis and not become a chronic, money-losing wound and may start eventually turning some small profits – especially if Airbus holds up prices on the A330s and A350s. So there is some very good news here for Boeing.

          And yes, your concerns about the 777 are valid, but I believe Boeing’s 737 profits will help them cover the cost of the 777 transition to the 777x (even if they do slow the 777 production dramatically, instead of smoothly).

          As far as the 767 and 767-Tanker goes, I think wise of Boeing to fire up the 767 Line for Fedex (even if they were sold cheap) so it will be hot and ready to produce Airforce Tankers when the orders come.

          Ya’ know, over-all, I think 2015 has turned out to be one of the better years for Boeing Commercial. Happy Holidays, Boeing!

          • “I agree, 768 deliveries is phenomenal, and I bet that number also impressed the Boyz in Toulouse.”

            No, not at all. For production has always been higher at Airbus. The difference in output is related to the fact that there is plenty of overtime at Boeing and none at Airbus. But that could change now that Airbus opened shop in Mobile, Alabama.

          • Overtime? Bad planning. Overtime for Quality Assured work tends to be problematic.

            Afaik XFW works on a 2 shift day and the painters work 4 shifts/24h.

    • Normand Hamel
      I believe they are looking to be at 12/month on 2 lines at the end of this year. Depending on how many days they work per week or month, that appears to me to get them to about 4 days per airplane. (A 30-day month would yield 5 days/plane, whereas a 21-day month would yield 3.5 days/plane.) And a year or so later they are looking at 14/month on 2 lines, so the 4-day estimate could well be off the mark, as you suggest 🙂

      • What they had in mind when they made that claim, circa 2003, is that each airplane would take four days to assemble. According to my calculation it is taking at this stage six days, which is already pretty good, and can only improve. After having made the calculation I can now say that they are indeed relatively close to their original claim: 10/month on two lines represents 5/month on one line; since there are approximately 30 days in a month, that brings the average to 6 days per airplane. For a complex aircraft like the 787 that figure is perfectly acceptable to me. But not for the accountants apparently. Nor for the waiting customers.

        • initially planned were 10/month from 1 line.
          i.e. 1 every third day. IMU 6 stations ~= 18days of transit for every frame.

          Today they produce on 2 lines and at about ?25? days of transit. ( FAL load to roll out )
          ( going by that table from the nyc blog.)
          just gone over those dates again with a bit more care:
          FAL Load to Roll Out has gone down to ~38 days
          Roll Out to FF ~23 days.
          FAL Load to Delivery seems to be down to ~80 days

      • The reason I take 30 days instead of 21 is that the Boeing employees are probably doing a lot of overtime (many at the legal maximum). That could actually be one of the reasons why the airplane is still very expensive to make. The reason why Airbus produces less airplane per year than Boeing is because Europeans employees don’t like to work overtime, and even less so during their vacations (more than 1 month/year). The opposite is true for the average American employee. Theoretically, if it was legally and humanly possible to do overtime each day and every weekend, production would have to be calculated on a basis far exceeding 30 days per month. But then the airplane would be far more expensive to make because in overtime the employees are paid at 1 1/2 time the normal rate.

          • I accept the fact that I could be wrong. So feel free to demolish my statement. If you jump in the discussion I could perhaps learn a few things.

          • OECD numbers for annual average hrs worked for 2014
            France 1473
            Germany 1371
            Greece 2042
            UK 1677
            USA 1789
            Difference between US and Germany is 418 hrs or around 10 weeks.
            US federal law requires ‘overtime’ to be paid for those on hourly wages which may be why the differences is so high , as it doesnt seem to be only the longer holidays in Europe.

          • Sorry, your comment had impact but is of little other value.
            Explaining to Normand, and others, where his ideas or beliefs are false would be much more useful and appreciated.

            e.g. Is it that the employees there no longer receive time and a half for overtime?
            Do they also get a month plus holidays per year in the US?
            Is it because they don’t do much OT over there?
            Or is it that there is no legal max on OT?

  6. And now to see what Airbus did in the A320s.

    If per the last few years they will have a couple more or a couple less (maybe less with the A320 P&W issues).

    the 50/50 market split looks to continue (with Airbus getting better revenues at least from the A321)

  7. this statement form the Dailey Telegraph

    “Airbus’s order figure for 2015, which stood at just over 1,000 in November, far outstrips its rival’s, but is seen as a less reliable indicator of performance than deliveries”

  8. Probably, 787 ramping up quite nicely (finally!) A350s coming on line (albeit slowly which is probably good), 767s continue, all offset by 747, A330 and A380 slowdowns of varying degrees.

    $64 question in my mind is should

    1. Freighters be separated out from the totals?

    2. should military application airframes be separated out or removed?

    Boeing is going to be able to claim both ends easily when the 767T gets going (yea I know, its a KC47 or some such but to me its a 767 Tanker)

    • 1 – No, they’re just a different version of the base plane, produced on the same production line.

      2 – No, for the same reasons.

    • The KC767 is different as those were 767-2ooer models delivered to Italy and Japan.
      The KC-46is a modified 767-2C airframe . This is the designation for the slightly stretched 200ER fuselage( probably to balance the rear boom, or to allow for its own boom receiver just behind cockpit), 787 style cockpit, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor.

      There was supposed to be some freighter orders for 767-2C models (without military equipment) but Fedex seems to be sticking with the 300F

      • The 767-2C airframe is exactly the same length as the bog-standard 767-200.

        The only reason a KC-46 is a few feet longer, is because the boom sticks out the back past the end of the plane. Look at a photo.

        • They could have difficulty balancing up a loaded aircraft with that extra weight of boom at rear. The simplest method is to add extra weight up front by an extra frame of two of fuselage.

          • But they haven’t – the 767-2C uses the 767-200 fuselage. It’s exactly the same.

          • Very little hard information out from Boeing, USAF or even when I looked up FAA certification of 767-2C. The speculation about fuselage length goes both ways.
            The ‘old’ -200 ER was out of production so no real reason to keep it exactly the same as before, and there are good reasons for adding a bit of fuselage here.

          • Boeing gives the length of the KC-46A as 165’6″ and the length of the 767-200 as 159’2″. The difference in length is entirely due to the boom. There’s no difference in actual fuselage length.

            See these photos which clearly show how far the boom sticks out even when fully retracted.



          • Im seeing a boom extending more than 2m past the end of the fuselage. And thats not counting the extendable probe.
            If you check plan view drawings , often its the rear horizontal tail tips which are the furthest point from the nose. Not completely sure in this case, as we havent seen all data rather than just vague pictures.

            As I said the speculation goes both ways until we see some definitive data of fuselage length, stowed boom, probe length etc.

          • The length of the 767 is measured to the rear tips of the horizontal and vertical stabilisers as these extend beyond the end of the fuselage (not sure which extends further). The boom on the KC-46 extends beyond that by an additional 2m.

            I can assure you that the 767-200, 767-2C and KC-46 all have identical fuselages. The extra length of the KC-46 is due entirely to the boom.

            Quote – “The KC-46A is based on the Boeing 767-2C, a derivative
            of the 767-200ER commercial airliner. Retaining the 767-
            200ER fuselage, the -2C includes a strengthened main
            deck cargo floor, a cargo door, several freighter features,
            strengthened 767-300ER wings, 767-400ER horizontal stabilizers,
            787-based cockpit displays, auxiliary body tanks
            for increased fuel capacity and provisioning for the plumbing
            and extra 50 mi. of wiring required for the refueling
            mission systems.”

  9. Yep, but it has a 300 wing, gear, door and the floor of the 300F.

    Nothing wrong with that of course but not bog standard as it also has 787 cockpit.

  10. Also applies to the 737 as its not a standard combo.

    Sort of unfair to Airbus as they don’t sell P8, KC46 (or 330T ) in those numbers and never will as the USAF is simply the biggest buyer by far, and they sure lag in freighters.

    • While I can see your point, breaking out freighters and military frames is only of limited interest to me personally. All those planes are built and delivered, which is what the business is all about, after all.

    • Referenced 737s and the P8 which is also not a bod standard aircraft setup.

  11. Another interesting metric, instead of just counting airplanes, would be to add the number of seats in those delivered airplanes. This metric would a better indicator when comparing Airbus and Boeing. Comparing number of seats would take into account the size of the planes delivered, thereby indicating volume of passengers that could be transported with the new airplanes delivered by each OEM.

    Anyone able to calculate the total number of seats in those 768 delivered airplanes? (Many of those are for cargo.)

    • Why?

      Airbus and Boeing sell planes. How many seats are fitted in those planes is decided by the airlines, not the OEM.

      Sorry, but I really can’t see the point.

    • A metric providing the “number of seats”? That is not up to the manufacturer at all, only the operator, so as a device to measure sales, it’s not good at all.

      • No seats an the Fs arte zeroed out for all reality as would be the Ts. The P8 per size pretty much ditto.

        Maybe a good idea to keep as is, they come off a civilian line then they get counted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *