Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
I love those crazy dutch
Joined
·
11,591 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html

Is this thing ever going to fly? Can't believe it's been over two years since the first one rolled off the production line! It's a severely needed aircraft so I would hope many airlines don't exercise their cancellation rights but in the current climate I wouldnt be surprised if they start dropping like flies shortly. Were Boeing too ambitious on this one? I'm sure they'll iron out the issues but there just seems to be issue after issue with this development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,043 Posts
Building 8 production models before your prototype has even flown, sheesh. of course the real irony is that Boeing was always laughing at Airbus delays and saying they would never have those problems. People remember the first public appearance of the 787? They had rushed it using non aviation fasteners so as soon as the press left they had to dismantle it again so the correct fasteners could be used.
 

·
Londinium langur
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
The difference between this and the A380 is that the B787 has already sold more than enough to make a profit. The A380 needs to sell hundreds more merely to break even - a target that may take decades.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,501 Posts
The difference between this and the A380 is that the B787 has already sold more than enough to make a profit.
In a note to clients, Campbell estimated the total cost overrun of the Dreamliner program so far — extra startup and engineering costs, penalties owed to customers for delivery delays and contractual obligations to suppliers for engineering changes — as "in the vicinity of $11 billion."
or rather it had sold enough assuming it got off the production line in time, and now it hasn't so it's lost money. one of the biggest reasons is they sold so many of them they have huge, huge penalties for delivery delays. had they sold less they'd actually have lost less! for each sale they have run up additional costs of 13 million dollars so far on a plane that costs between 150 and 200 million dollars.

the a380 meanwhile has run up 3 billion of cost overruns thanks to delays AND changing exchange rates (that'll teach them to price those planes in dollars!) which is 15 million per unit on a plane that costs at least 317 million dollars. cost overruns for the a380 as a result are substantially less per unit relative to the overall cost than for the dreamliner. as they are now delivering the a380 and it's flying it's likely that both the relative and absolute loss per unit will end up greater for the dreamliner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Adding to Gothic's Seattle Times quote:

Because 850 Dreamliners have already been ordered, Campbell still believes the jet can be "highly profitable" over two decades of full production.

But with that level of cost overrun, Campbell said, "Boeing is highly likely to lose large sums of money on the first 400 to 600 aircraft."
Airline analysts are always slightly optimistic, so that means that the first 600 will be lossmaking. And with no flight date in sight, there are already signs of airlines cancelling 787 orders in favour of extended-range A330s. If the 787 gets delayed further, then it'll move into direct competition with the A350, which will do the former no favours.
 

·
Londinium langur
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Given that Boeing have already sold 850 x Dreamliners then they can afford to lose on the first 400-600 and will still make a handsome profit. The A380 needs to sell about three to four times as much as it has since launch merely to break even (and we're talking about a plane that has been on sale since 2001). That could take decades. Boeing is in a much better situation with the B787 than Airbus is with the A380.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
They haven't sold 850 Dreamliners though, any more than Aérospatiale-BAC sold 100 Concordes (= number of pre-launch orders). With no launch date in sight for the 787, many of those orders will be cancelled and switched to 777s, A330s and A350s. At which point, the 787 will struggle to make a profit.
 

·
Londinium langur
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
^ We'll see about that.... :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
All the Boeing nuts were well smug when the a380 was delayed, they laughed their butts off didn't they.

Well well well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,043 Posts
comparing 787 with a380 is also a bit of a misnomer, the original 747 development almost bankrupted boeing but the planes still selling 40 years later. Now Airbus has the design they can make continual small improvements like the stretch versions, but also add in new materials and cost saving gradually.
 

·
Londinium langur
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
All the Boeing nuts were well smug when the a380 was delayed, they laughed their butts off didn't they.

Well well well.
But the difference between this and the A380 is that the B787 has already sold more than enough to make a profit. The A380 needs to sell hundreds more merely to break even - a target that may take decades.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,501 Posts
or they might not have to sell hundreds depending on exchange rates.

But the difference between this and the A380 is that the B787 has already sold more than enough to make a profit
no. you don't seem to understand this. it sold enough to make a profit assuming that it began manufacturing and was delivered without any delays when it was supposed to. it hasn't. i don't understand how you get confused about an 11 billion dollar loss. put another way, the boeing loss is equivalent to 55 of the most expensive planes they are making, the airbus loss is equivalent to 10. it's likely both planes will make profit over decades but the a380 by the very nature of its design has a much longer production life than the 787. the a380 is comparable to the 747 in terms of how long they can make it for whilst the 787 will gradually be replaced by newer models. the a380 should turn into a long-term income stream for airbus.
 

·
Taikun
Joined
·
10,129 Posts
or rather it had sold enough assuming it got off the production line in time, and now it hasn't so it's lost money. one of the biggest reasons is they sold so many of them they have huge, huge penalties for delivery delays. had they sold less they'd actually have lost less! for each sale they have run up additional costs of 13 million dollars so far on a plane that costs between 150 and 200 million dollars.

the a380 meanwhile has run up 3 billion of cost overruns thanks to delays AND changing exchange rates (that'll teach them to price those planes in dollars!) which is 15 million per unit on a plane that costs at least 317 million dollars. cost overruns for the a380 as a result are substantially less per unit relative to the overall cost than for the dreamliner. as they are now delivering the a380 and it's flying it's likely that both the relative and absolute loss per unit will end up greater for the dreamliner.
all proving what i originally suspected, that my idea to set up a new generation jumbo factory in my garden shed was a brilliant one. two aircraft manufacturers, one of which is actually worse than eads! :lol:
 

·
Londinium langur
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
or they might not have to sell hundreds depending on exchange rates.

no. you don't seem to understand this. it sold enough to make a profit assuming that it began manufacturing and was delivered without any delays when it was supposed to. it hasn't. i don't understand how you get confused about an 11 billion dollar loss. put another way, the boeing loss is equivalent to 55 of the most expensive planes they are making, the airbus loss is equivalent to 10. it's likely both planes will make profit over decades but the a380 by the very nature of its design has a much longer production life than the 787. the a380 is comparable to the 747 in terms of how long they can make it for whilst the 787 will gradually be replaced by newer models. the a380 should turn into a long-term income stream for airbus.
What you don't seem to understand is that Boeing has already sold enough 787s to cover the cost of the delay and then some (ie profit). The A380 hasn't. This is a fundamental difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,824 Posts
What you don't seem to understand is that Boeing has already sold enough 787s to cover the cost of the delay and then some (ie profit). The A380 hasn't. This is a fundamental difference.
You keep missing the point which is trying to be made.

When airlines start exercising their cancellation rights, the number they have 'sold' reduces. It only sold enough to make a profit assuming there were no deays or cancellations. Now it has to sell more to make the same profit.

It is pretty simple, I don't understand why you keep missing the point unless it is deliberate.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,501 Posts
exactly. it HAD sold enough based in it being manufactured in 2006 to make a profit. now it's made a loss of 13 million per unit eating into the profits whilst it's also had 57 cancellations so far this year. if the delays are much longer then more customers will start cancelling for the a350 whilst every day it is late in even getting the plane flying they have to pay more penalties to everyone who has ordered a plane and gets late delivery. i wonder how many airlines haven't cancelled simply because they can make money out of boeing's **** up?

well as well as the falling number of orders boeing has had to reduce the cost for planes that people have agreed to buy keeping them on board and this alone has wiped 11 billion off the size of the order book in a single quarter - money that is not included in the cost of the delay. that's despite taking 57 new orders and having 52 cancellations. boeing has now "sold" 777 of the planes down from 850!

the modifications boeing are making now to the plane will make it overweight and reduce its range/fuel efficiency by 8%. this then makes the next airbus 16% more efficient, not 8% which is a substantial difference.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top