Take... These Broken Wings... And Learn to Fly Again.

Boeing hasn't seen such small orders since 2003; roughly a tenth of the some 1,413 planes ordered in 2007.

Boening delivered 481 commercial plans last year, up 28% after a strike in 2008 hindered production.

The biggest seller?  The 737- a short and medium-range, narrow body jet, numbering 372 of the 481 (over 77%) planes made and delivered in 2008.  For you frequent fliers out there- the 737 has been in production over 40 years and has an order pipeline of over 2,000 as of May 2009.

An interesting quip- at any given time, there are some 1,250 737s in the air, and one takes-off or lands somewhere, anywhere in the world, every five seconds.

This brings Boeings total backlog for all commercial aircraft to 3,375 planes.  To look at this in lousy 2009 terms- about 24 years worth of orders, or about seven years of production; providing no one cancels.  Basing off a good year, say 2007- just 30 months worth of orders.

Boeing's biggest loser last year, the 787.  Over two years late- over 80 787 orders have been nixed, about a tenth of the total 851 that are in the pipeline- set to begin deliveries by the end of this year.

Boeing will report 2010 plane delivery guidance later in the month, while its rival, Airbus will disclose 2009 performance Jan 12.

As of the end of November, 2009 Airbus had outperformed Boeing in orders by about 50, but some 44 less with only 437 deliveries hitting the tarmac. 

All production figures adapted from the Associated Press... 

Comments

[Ivanovich]

It's a good thing their stock is up 17% y/y.  Otherwise we might think this news wasn't so good!

[Spitzer]

I cant wait to fly on the Dreamliner. Bigger seats, quieter, better air.

[Anonymous]

bigger seats, yeah right. Expect U.S. based airlines to place as many 17.5" seats, at a 31" pitch, as they can inside these aircraft.

remember bigger seats = less seats = less profit potential.

[OutLookingIn]

With these seats non-padded and all passengers shackled and handcuffed for our own safety. Have a nice flight! Bad guys 1, good guys 0.

[SimpleSimon]

InTheBuff Air

• Same size seats as others, but feels bigger.
• No threats of undiebombers or shoe bombers.
• No wedgies.
• Extended entertainment opportunities.

[Anonymous]

And I'd almost certainly get seated between two fat guys, as usual.

[Cognitive Dissonance]

The 787 appears to be a game changer on all levels. It will be interesting to see how the composites hold up in commercial use. I know the military has used composites extensively for a decade and many control surfaces on earlier Boeing and Airbus models are also composite.

But this is the first time one piece barrels have been made, military or commercial, and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the bumps and bangs of normal usage. I'm very worried about microscopic damage and delamination over time or from damage that isn't obvious on the surface.

But I will be one of the first to fly it if for no other reason than the bigger windows and better air.

[Anonymous]

Most of the micro-damages (which is always a starting point of a structural damage) in metal planes has been using skin-effect probes. This can probe the metal to a certain depth. There is NO counter-part for composite materials.

Composite delamination already killed Airbus passangers, when rudder broke. Delamination will definitely kill some 787 passengers, but not with a first couple of years (which is again opposite to the common wisdom, that the longer the model flies, the safer it is. E.g. 737 is the safest air-plane on the planet due to its 40 years old history. I prefer it.)

So anyone having a good idea how to spot delamination, I'm sure Boeing will like to hear from you.
Kreso

[Slewburger]

"Composite delamination already killed Airbus passangers, when rudder broke. Delamination will definitely kill some 787 passengers"

FALSE!!!

The AB rudder was a controls problem (specifically pitot tube deicing), not a composite issue. Google it.

Aluminum cracks grow with fatigue so most airplanes have cracked everything to some extent. Think about it next time you're on that 40 year old 737.

"So anyone having a good idea how to spot delamination, I'm sure Boeing will like to hear from you."

UT inspection is industry standard, its likely to be done at manufacture and regular airframe inspection intervals.

Just wanted to clear up any disinfo.

[Glenjo]

Cognitive Dissonance was referring to the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, not the crash of Air France Flight 447.  The composite rudder structure on the flight 587 had been damaged during manufacture, repaired and flown for many years.  The single largest attributed cause to the failure was pilot error using multiple rudder hard overs to respond to wake turbulence from a Boeing 747.  This is NOT a recommended maneuver and overloaded the rudder structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

But, detecting cracks in composite structures and aluminum structures is currently being done using a variety of technologies.  Obviously, crack detection in aluminum is a more developed field, but progress will be made in composite structures.  Current engineering estimates are that the composite structure will have a significantly LONGER useful life due to the improve resistance to fatigue failure of composite structures.

Long time reader of ZH and have learned much about finance, happy to contribute some knowledge from my area of expertise.

[Reductio ad Absurdum]

(1) There have been at least 2 cases of composite-based Airbus planes having rudders fall off: Flight 587 and Flight 961.

...Air Transat flight 961 was heading home to Quebec with 270 passengers and crew. At 3.45 pm last Sunday, the pilot noticed something very unusual. His Airbus A310's rudder - a structure 28 feet high - had fallen off and tumbled into the sea.

Full article here.

(2) Glenjo says:

The single largest attributed cause to the failure was pilot error using multiple rudder hard overs...

NTSB says:

In its report, the NTSB said the tail and rudder failed because they were subjected to stresses 'beyond ultimate load', imposed because the co-pilot, Sten Molin, overreacted to minor turbulence...

But Airbus appears to have influenced the NTSB report:

However, the NTSB investigation has been criticised by many insiders. Ellen Connors, the NTSB chair, told reporters last January that the report was delayed because of 'inappropriate' and 'intense' lobbying by Airbus over its contents...

Furthermore, rudder motion doesn't explain why the rudder on Flight 961 fell off:

Against this background, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Transport Safety Bureau, which is performing the investigation, disclosed that there is 'no evidence' of any movements by the rudder before its rupture, while Air Transat confirmed that it had separated when the plane was at cruising altitude and speed. 'You barely use the rudder at all in those conditions,' the former A300 pilot said. 'If this plane lost a rudder with no one doing anything, it has to raise new questions about the fate of flight 587.'

I have to add that there is no way Airbus should be blaming pilot error for Flight 587. It is clearly a design error on their part to allow a pilot to move the rudder beyond its designed stress limits.

(3)

Obviously, crack detection in aluminum is a more developed field, but progress will be made in composite structures.

Which is why I won't be flying in any composite planes until they have been tested and perfected decades from now. Remember the de Havilland "Comet" crashes from the early 1950's? (see "1954: 'Metal fatigue' caused Comet crashes") It took awhile to learn how to build commercial metal jets properly and it will take awhile with composite planes. Until then, I'll stick with the tried and true technology.

[Professor James Williams of MIT] and other scientists have stated that composite parts in any aircraft should be tested by methods such as ultrasound, allowing engineers to 'see' beneath their surface.

Barbara Crufts, an Airbus spokeswoman, said visual inspections were 'the normal procedure' and insisted Williams's case was unproven.

Airbus's denials don't make me feel safe about their composite planes. Also, apparently they are *not* using UT (ultrasound).

(4)

Current engineering estimates...

Again, the only thing that will convince me is seeing decades of planes flying safely in practice, under real world conditions.

(5) Finally, from the previous article:

...after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587, he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how convinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'

Like the pilot above, I will be avoiding composite aircraft for a long time to come.

[crosey]

Coupled with the recent event, reminds me of Casino Royale...Al Qaeda shorts the airline stock.

[Brett in Manhattan]

This is the original song with that line in it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLSmFdunK8&feature=related

[Anonymous]

Kyrie Eleison down the road that I must travel...

[alexdg]

Is this a "Conviction Buy" rating?

[Anonymous]

Sanction! The weapon of choice that the US government/Congress so attached to will soon be copied by the Chinese. Soon, Chinese government will impose sanctions onto Boeing and other US conglomerates for selling weapons to that Tiny Island named Taiwan. Yeah, it is so sad for loosing the chance to really screw up Taiwanese by charging outrageous amount for outdated toys.

What comes around always goes around!

[Anonymous]

Sanction! The weapon of choice that the US government/Congress so attached to will soon be copied by the Chinese. Soon, Chinese government will impose sanctions onto Boeing and other US conglomerates for selling weapons to that Tiny Island named Taiwan. Yeah, it is so sad for loosing the chance to really screw up Taiwanese by charging outrageous amount for outdated toys.

What comes around always goes around!

[trav7777]

Uh...the 737 they're selling now is completely redesigned.  It's not the same airframe.

[Anonymous]

I say stick the Muslims in one plane, the Christians in another and us atheists (the ones that believe in things like gravity) can have our own airline.

[The Rock]

We can take what was wrong and make it right