This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Boeing: Deliveries Vs Orders
One of the questions emerging from the latest batterygate affair, this time not involving A123 or any other government subsidized lithium batter maker, is whether customers who have already preordered Dreamliners, some as far back as 2004, may end up just saying no over concerns how long it will take Boeing to resolve its problems, and opting for other airplanes from the company, or even choosing some of Airbus' offerings. Because it may come as a surprise to some that while a whopping 848 airplanes have been ordered, only some 49 have been delivered, virtually all of which are now grounded. What else may be surprising? The charts below summarize where Boeing is on the delivery vs preorders picture.
»
- 11242 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
That's fine, stock higher and no more looking back.
I don't know but all this pent-up demand for the BadDreamLiner looks bullish to me...
is Durden an idiot or does he just know absolutely nothing about commercial aviation?
The 787 is ridiculously more fuel efficient than the 767 it replaces and it is far more so than the A330 which stole a lot of orders from the 767 late in its lifespan. The 787 is early in its delivery lifecycle. The ONLY other option is the A330, which is a technically inferior airplane. You can't just fking swap one Boeing for another and call it a fking day, stupid.
The reason orders didn't continue to rise is because of the production delays that were experienced in bringing the product to market. Boeing is raising production of this jet as they are able to. This is also the reason for the recent relative strength in the 330s order book.
This plane got more orders faster than ANY OTHER PLANE in history...840 orders at this stage of the product lifecycle is unprecedented.
This aircraft is simply technically better than anything in its class. Boeing took the route of developing new materials technologies on a plane-wide basis.
All these morons on ZH talking crap about metal...GFY. You have NO CLUE that the wings keeping you aloft are already substantially CF, do you? Composites are increasingly significant shares of airframes; it's just a more capable material than the aluminum alloys they used on older airframes.
Boeing decided to jump to a new way of doing things and it had some growing pains. LiON battery issues are just one of them. The A380 had fking wing cracks and engine explosions...yet airlines continue to order (though the book has plateaued) and continue to accept delivery.
But, please, carry on, you morons waste not ONE opportunity to get hysterical like a bunch of women anyhow
Still, doesn´t really fly, does it?
It's been in commerical service for a YEAR AND A HALF, IDIOT.
ALL of those operators are killing it with this plane. Ethiopia Air flies these things from IAD to ADD every day.
Considering the fact that you also called Tyler an idiot I take this as a compliment
Ethiopia Air, ya, I'd fly that...
Obviously you are a Union shill, probably living in Everett WA.
Talk about dumb fucks.
We make the nacelle's for a variety of programs: MRJ, C-Series, A320Neo, A350, and yes the 787. Production is going to go ballistic in the next decade. We live in a plane-hungry world although us powerplant/nacelle engineers are very hush about the airframe guys and these recent problems. You never want to see your baby doing bad.
To quote Airbus CEO: "I honestly wish all the best to my colleagues at Boeing to get (787) back into service because an aircraft is designed to fly."
ps. TRAV, Airbus's order book set a new industry-wide backlog record of 4,682 a/c valued at over $638 bn, equivalent to 7yrs full production.
Still, doesn´t really fly, does it?
hey trav-maybe boeing should just stick w/ being a .gov welfare bi-yatch
sorry, don't let the FACTS get in the way of your daily chicken little hysteria
I think the reason Boeing claimed the Dreamliner would use less fuel than existing jets is because they would spend so much time being grounded...
Boeing only "down" +1.7% today. Gotta love those centrally planned efficient markets!
Why didn't they just use Duracell?
Edit: Mandy's tits look very pliable today...
As much as I hate CNBC I would love to play motorboat with Mandy. I'll bet she is a sassy little wench
http://pbfcomics.com/227/
Becasue Boening has a history of not fixing problems.
When is the new Boeing commercial showing the smoke billowing out during flight?
Will there be any extra fee's associated with the addition of lithium ion smoke inhalation??
No worries, fuel costs are about to go up anyway, so why not let the planes stay grounded for awhile. Heck, the plane might be even lighter by the time you actually got one. "winning".
huh, it already is:
lighter - noun; 1 - a person or thing that lights or ignites.
Hmm, something doesn't quite fly here....
Looks like the Dreamliner has become a nightmare. I can see the comercials now....come fly with us,we have all the bugs worked out...we think.
if you ACTUALLY believe that this battery problem constitutes a "nightmare," then you are too stupid to not pose a grave danger to EVERYONE around you.
JFC, the 748i had aerodynamic flutter in rear horizontal stabilizer tanks, the A380 had wing cracks, I could go on and on about the growing and development pains of commercial aircraft. There's no guarantee any of you idiots will listen, though.
Pay your engineers peanuts and put loads of 'business' people over them to manage the projects, and your company will suck too.
Exactly, straight out of the Microsoft Senior Leadership manual.
All new planes have issues. They will fix the batteries and move on. Boeing's main problem is the way Airbus gains orders. Are they still bribing foreign governments and their airlines? Perhaps a little sweetener to this or that minister of transportation of this or that banana republic? Perhaps the Mrs. would like a little appreciation gift? mmmm? The bulk of Airbus orders is from emerging markets which are... uh... tansparency-challenged.
Lithium battery fires create oxygen as they burn making them incredibly difficult to extinguish and ultra-risky to use in a 200 million dollar passenger jet. But yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.
What if they have to give up like 4 passengers per craft so they can use lead-acid or alkaline batteries instead of lithium?
The bribes can't change the fact that Airbus has no competive airplane. The A380 is a joke. The A350 is vaporware. All of their other airplanes are antiques. Boeing will get it straight and move on.
Or China will take over with cheaper planes....that work.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
China has maybe mastered copying the MD80 at this point, GTFO here with this nonsense.
This is a speedbump. The battery issue will be resolved and life goes on. The 350 will have the same massive delays that the 380 had, except worse, because Airbus was forced to go with a far higher CF content in this plane just to make it COMPETITIVE with what they know Boeing can do to a 777x.
Boeing's next product after the 737max is going to be the 777 replacement; that plane so totally dominates its segment that there really isn't another plane. The 787 likewise. It's that much better than the competition that it already has a 840+ deep order book.
Going the all-CF route will produce superior aircraft and looks to be a smart strategic move for Boeing assuming nothing goes majorly wrong. And given that wings have been made out of CF for YEARS now, hell over a decade since CF wing components and glued-together planes were out there, it's unlikely that they will unless Boeing totally missed something.
Airbus will dominate the VLA segment which isn't a cash cow, won't breakeven on the 380 and has no growth potential. A next generation 774 will eat its underside anyway.
Ok, a sell-side analyst for Boeing... not that there's anything wrong with that.
But how about they get this one flying safely first (despite many years of delays and redesigns) before you go drooling on the next marvel which won't be available for years not counting delays and redesigns.
The Chinese are developing a single aisle plane the Comac C919 , which is probably very similar to the Airbus A320.
CNBS doing a segment with the caption below the reporter "how to spot a liar". Irony
"3/4 Impulse power Scott; get those Boeing engines firing...or your fired, with 80,000 others.
Scott: I can't Capn, the lithion ion crystals are kaput, und De Volt; and ive loaded all my gold and platinum here and moving it to Germany,
TRANSPORTER ROOM; ENERGIZE......
Still plenty of quality, dependable, safe DC-3's available.
As an American, I don't take pride in much of the crap that we export, especially our shallow pop culture. But when I'm traveling through foreign airports, and I see those majestic 747's with Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, and JAL insignia's, I smile inside........good job, Boeing.
Back when Airbuses were dropping out of the skies the expression was "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going"...but now I'm not so sure
Umm....
"If it's Boeing, I ain't going"
Do you think that will work?
Well, one thing's for sure: we offer the ABSOLUTE BEST QUALITY inflation you can get with the 'Merkin dollah.
It's like it's wireless laser Bluetooth titanium deluxe premium. You know what yer buyin.
Orders are what matter, because that's what allows Boening to book sales and profits. Deliveries are merely the pesky unwanted necessary evil part of the fleece-the-investor game.
You DO realize that this will impact also their US suppliers (Engineering, MfG)? And their suppliers & service providers? Who, in turn employ people, who pay bills, buy things, etc, etc, etc.
Unlike Banks, these guys actually conceive, design and build something. And they have the guts to put their money (not obtained via CTRL^P) and necks on the line.
This event affects us all. So, go ahead, those of you knuckleheads who enjoy a sadistic "Schadenfreude" laugh. As long as you know you're also laughing at yourself.
Look mate we're allowed to laugh at the total REGULATORY CAPTURE the US economy has become, the FAA is a bunch of industry butt-boys totally controlled by the industry they supposedly "regulate", just like SEC and CFTC etc etc etc
People don't realize that our former functioning regulatory systems and the rule of law that backed them up USED TO BE some of the things that made America great. Instead nowadays what we get are regulators that DON'T work when we need them (capital markets, airliners) and DO work when we DON'T need them (civil liberties, property rights, etc)
The FAA's problem is that the avionics and airframe issues are too complex to deal with with ordinary reviews. They have to trust Boeing and see what happens. I have worked directly with the FAA and they do a good job within the limits of the problem. You are confusing the FAA with the FDA (who I have also worked with). Companies lie and bribe their way out of deadly medicines however when a plane goes down there is no hiding it.
For the few nattering nabobs of negativity
.
Critics of Boeing, they're not fair:
Only bad news they're willing to share
but to quiet the skeptics,
They'll fix the electrics,
And the jet will be back in the air!
.......the limerick wannabe
righteous
Time to clean out management.
Just the "battery" guys. For the Assault & Battery on Boeing's name. Tell them, they are... "Discharged!".
Bad pun day. Too many Arnold moives. ;-)
Update at 11
So, the Fed is responding to zerohedge through WSJ on a regular basis, the other central banks know the jig is up but have nowhere else to go, because all the exits to all the peer pressure groups are locked in with their addictive behaviors, the private economy in Germany is less than 15%, the Fed must raise relatively, Congress must squeeze fiscally, California is sticking out as the nail to be hammered, Treasury can only tread so long, there are three basic ways to adjust gravity, and suddenly the media empire is focusing on demographics…the Fed may only delay by removing delays in the global financial system. As an individual, you cannot run out of time; all you care about is frequency. The Fed is running out of time…as is the majority it represents, in a game of last man standing, devolution to lift-off, which depends upon where you want to go.
Why do you suppose Japan had no choice but to take delivery of those planes?
(this problem is easily solved anywhere in the economy you chose to do so, if you wanted to...)
Is Boeing too big to fail? With all of the union jobs at risk, my guess is YES.
"Boeing is not Hostess Twinkies."
Large capex high tech projects are locked into geopolitical diversification of the project's vendors. In the '70s I worked an airliner assembly line in CA; wings where from AVCO-Tennisee, doors-Kawasaki-Japan, Windscreen UK, etc. etc. It was ammazing the effort given to supply chain management.
The 787 is all new tech with an overly complex supply chain requiring levels of skillful management that Boeing seems to lack. http://www.supplychaindigital.com/outsourcing/boeing-787-dreamliner-tale-terrible-supply-chain-management
If they make it through this PR and tech teething probllem the 787 will compare favorably with 747 success. If they don't; the damage will be incapable of being repaired; a clear impact on USA balance of trade and use of ExIm Bank facilities. http://www.boeing.com/news/speeches/2001/condit_010405.html.
Ripples in motion
"Pay your engineers peanuts and put loads of 'business' people over them to manage the projects, and your company will suck too." YOU FORGOT TO ADD IN THE AND OUTSOURCE HALF THE PLANE TO OTHER MAKERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES SO YOU PLANE IS ONE BIG ASS JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT DONT MATE UP CORRECTLY. I HOPE BOING TAKES IT IN THE ASZ FOR NOT KEEP PRODUCTION 100% AMERICAN, THATS WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR PROJECT WHEN YOU ASK JAPS AND SPANISH TO BUILD SHIT FOR YOU. YOUR PLANE GETS DELAYED AND EF'D UP AND THEN NO ONE WANTS IT. DID I SAY FAIL?
Here's my prediction for Redhot: If you're younger than about 60, you'll be flying on one of these Boeing composite jets one day, and you'll be happy that they were successful, and safe.
Guess the union thingie didn't work out for you guys, huh?
"Just walk away."
There's going to be alot of money flowing under the table I suspect.
Had Airbus taken the lead in these new aerospace technologies, the critics would be howling "Why aren't we (Americans) spending on R&D, new design and manufacturing?" Well, Boeing is, and taking some heat for it. I'm happy for every good-paying job that Boeing and its suppliers create, except for the lawyers, of course.
Way to early to cancel orders or to change.....if a few wings fall off in flight ...now that is a different thing...this is just a lithium battery...bought because it was light....faster recharge....they could change to lead if they wanted to...heavier....less miles to the gallon...but what the hell...
Wrong. The batteries are formed to fit the shape of the air frame. And not every battery type can manage that.
The 787 is a product developed by the sales department....not customer demand or even the engineers. What a Frankenstein - check out where all the pieces are made (from Wikipedia) and you will understand where the orders are coming from and why:
Subcontracted assemblies included wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box)[36] horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea);[37] fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, USA; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, USA; Korean Air, South Korea);[38][39][40] passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab AB, Sweden); software development (HCL Enterprise India);[41] floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);[42][43] wiring (Labinal, France);[44] wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea);[45] landing gear (Messier-Dowty, UK/France);[46] and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, USA).[44][47] Boeing is considering bringing construction of the 787-9 tail in house; the tail of the 787-8 is currently made by Alenia.[48]
The obvious solution is to take the best parts of the 787 and the B-52 and combine 'em in like one plane.
My time on the Boeing Dreamliner design team:
Dreamliner design team:
Lithium batteries:
explode on contact with water.
explode on contact with air.
when overheating burst into flames.
Buy heh, Lithum batteries are light, it will save on jet fuel.
Okay let's use it.
(later Lithium batteries do what they do...)
Design team:
Okay fires in the planes are apparently bad.
Let's encase the batteries in steel.
(Me: But if we put the Lithium batteries in a steel case they lose their weight advantage, we can then use SLA gel cells which are cheaper and safer)
Okay everyone agrees we will add a steel case around the Lithium batteries.
Cannot believe that Air France's orders will be allowed to stand.
Frog Govt will apply immense pressure to cancel in favor of A350.
The composit technology used in the 787 has been around for years. Burt Rutan is the father of composite technology in experimental aircraft decades ago.
It's the batteries that are the problem. Remember the same type of batteries were doing the same thing in some computers several years ago. New technologies take time to refine. The 787 will survive and will be recognized as a major shift in economy and efficiency just as the jet engine was over the piston engine after WWII.
If any body of people hurt Boeing more than the compettiiveness of its products it is the denialists fronting for them and those stuck with the long positions like their bankers and the USG. Boeing by now has a now perpetually increasing and possibly irreversible record of under delivering; that started with the B747-400 on its failure to deliver the supposed designed take off weight / range / performance, and it has been exascerbated incredibly by the pain it inflicted on long term customers by failure to deliver this B787 to schedule. In commercially self destructive terms it has also patently made political choices to favour new customers over old. It has had to settle 787 contract suits brought by old customers due to non delivery. Look at the resulting paultry confirmed order book from QANTAS now compared to what had been signed and what would have been confirmed orders (as publicly announced as intended) by now if Boeing had stayed anywhere near target with its schedule.
It is Boeing that has given the necessary impetus to the Airbus long twin engine programmes to get both 787 and 777 competitiors across the line in a more aggressive form. An own goal, so what are you defending with your rhetoric that changes nothing - incompetence? The plane might eventually be good, but now it is likely to be not good enough. Putting the extent of the 380 programme delays head to head with those of the 787 is sufficient to douse your abusive rhetoric. The 380 proved technology ahead of Boeing's ability to get at it and that is what is more important about that platform. They had their learning problems confined to the lesser of the markets.
Quick solution to battery issue. Replace with AGM batteries for the time being. More weight, but I doubt it would kill the fuel efficiency of the plane. You don't need that many batteries on a plane.
Reminds me on the Concord orders in the 60s.