ANA Targets 787 Delivery In Feb 2010
February 2nd, 2009
The launch customer for the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, All Nippon Airways (ANA) confirmed that it would start taking deliveries of the revolutionary airplane from February 2010 - around 21 months later than planned. ANA plans to commence operations with the type in March 2010.
ANA also envisages that around 20 Boeing 787-8’s will be in service/operation by the end of the fiscal year of 2011, which ends March 2011. ANA plans to deploy its 787’s on domestic and regional routes to build up experience and ETOPS background before commencing longer routes.
“Initially, it will be flown on domestic flights for ETOPS rating purposes and to expedite pilot training,” says ANA.
The initial route had the 787 been delivered in May 2008 would have seen the airplane deployed on routes to Beijing.
Below are images taken last week of ANA’s second Boeing 787, currently in final assembly, complete with engines, now that it too progresses toward completion after the removal of various non-conforming fasteners.
Last week, Boeing confirmed that it had resumed assembly on the 787 line, with the fifth 787 due to be one of two airplanes to be powered by General Electric’s GEnx engine. The remaining four to be used in the flight test programme consist of Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
Boeing remains upbeat that it can get all six test airplanes flyings within around four months of first flight, which is penned to take place before the end of the second quarter.
“Until Boeing gets the 787 into the air and flight-test results into the lab, there should be few if any new surprises. Their timetable therefore at the moment seems realistic — a question of months, not years,” says Arran Aerospace’s MD, Doug McVitie.
FleetBuzz Editorial.com also undertook extensive discussions with the 787 team in Everett, WA - details of these discussions will be posted in the coming days. Please check back later for this entry.
All images copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
Entry Filed under: All Nippon Airways, Boeing, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-8, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
35 Comments Add your own
1. Jerrold | February 2nd, 2009 at 13:12
This is a positive outlook and hopefully will be fulfilled. There is an indication that there should be no surprises nor glitches on the production side. The next challenge will be the results of flight testing but the Company indicated that much of this has already been computerized tested and outside of an anomoly, they do not expect additional problems.
Is this warrented optimism or earned lessons and preparation from prior mistakes?
2. Jeff | February 2nd, 2009 at 14:34
Unbelieveable optism. Boeing has no idea what problems they will have in REAL testing, and they seem to be scheduling to have essentially none.
3. JerryF | February 2nd, 2009 at 15:39
What are the REAL problems that they will face in testing. They claim that they have run this stuff through computer simulations and precleared alot of procedures with the FAA…is this possible?..BA does send manned spaceships up without pretesting…are there ways to test alot of this in simulations so as to get an idea if things are working well? Give some accurate examples of unexpected problems…
4. keesje | February 2nd, 2009 at 16:33
nice pics curious at to what further info you got.
Feb 09 EIS would assume a smooth finishing & intro of all 6 proto’s and flawless flight test program.
The kind of optimism that made Boeing hit the wall several times now, but obviously Doug McVitie doesn’t feel this way.
Some recent cockpit / cabin shot of 787 would be nice.
5. FlightBlogger - Aviation &hellip | February 2nd, 2009 at 17:36
February 2 - The Week Ahead Open Thread (Groundhog Edition)…
Happy Groundhog day! It looks as though we’ll have six more weeks of winter. I don’t think London could/would disagree with this assessment today. GTF Update & CSeriesPratt & Whitney is hosting a media day on Tuesday recapping the initial……
6. Falcon | February 2nd, 2009 at 17:54
Why do you write down the 787 21 month delay to around 18 months when you constantly called the A380 delay 2 years when it was less that is expected for the 787 with current schedule?
Please surprise me by answering.
7. bobbelieu | February 2nd, 2009 at 17:56
Ordinarily all the flight testing that comes before certification should take upwards of a year. Boeing apparently thinks it can get it done in about half that time. All the how/why/where’s of that decision are over my punkin head.
B~
8. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | February 2nd, 2009 at 17:59
My bad with the delay calculation, its now been corrected Falcon
9. mike j | February 2nd, 2009 at 18:30
I predict April 2009 for first flight of ZA001, as I think Spring/early Summer was when first-flight happened for almost all Boeing models ie: the weather is better for flying new designs.
10. Falcon | February 2nd, 2009 at 19:53
Sorry to say but you missed the point. The issue wasn’t that you rounded 21 months to 18 but that you did it after having rounded the lesser A380 delay up to 2 years.
You call yourself an aviation analyst. For an analysts opinion to be worth while it is important that all data is treated consistently so as not to taint the conclusions. With things as the above I’m sorry to say you’re a flag waiver hiding behind the analyst title in the hope of getting more creditability. Please become an analyst.
11. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | February 2nd, 2009 at 20:08
“…but that you did it after having rounded the lesser A380 delay up to 2 years”
Semantics.
I recall using “almost two years” - that by default doesn’t make it so (as I am sure you will agree) - even if thats what you interpret it to be.
If you want to nitpick for nitpickings sake, be my guest.
12. YVRtoYYZ | February 2nd, 2009 at 21:00
This ANA bird must be ZA002 used for continual testing while ZA007 will be the first B787 delivered.
13. JerryF | February 2nd, 2009 at 23:41
I am still requesting some color on what type of problems could arise in flight testing that would be serious.
Does the simulation cover alot of ground? Would there be vibration…cracking…breakage, etc…would someone try to describe what are some of the unexpected possibilities..
14. Ed | February 3rd, 2009 at 01:05
Jeff said:
“Unbelieveable optism. Boeing has no idea what problems they will have in REAL testing, and they seem to be scheduling to have essentially none.”
JerryF said:
“What are the REAL problems that they will face in testing. They claim that they have run this stuff through computer simulations and precleared alot of procedures with the FAA…is this possible?..”
Keesje said:
“Feb 09 EIS would assume a smooth finishing & intro of all 6 proto’s and flawless flight test program.
The kind of optimism that made Boeing hit the wall several times now, but obviously Doug McVitie doesn’t feel this way.”
Why not give Boeing the benefit of the doubt that they could pull this off, on their new schedule.
I might add, the pride of the EU, the A-380 was more than two years late entering airline service, and even now isn’t burning up delivery records, are they? The Whale still has wiring problems. The A-400M is going three years late. It seems Airbus cannot meet a delivery schedule either. Neither the Whale, or the C-130 wannabe are as complicated and tenhnoligly advanced airplane as the B-787 is.
15. Brandon | February 3rd, 2009 at 02:49
Nobody here can really comment because you just have to wait until they start testing to see how things work out. Simulations are simulations its not perfect. But I do have the highest hopes for Boeing and their 787 Program.
16. joolzg | February 3rd, 2009 at 10:20
Do you guys really think boeing is that much better than EADS.
This is an all new plane, never been self powered, never been off the ground. never been really tested and they are talking about it carrying fare paying passengers in 13 months.
Now can anybody tell me what the shortest time it has taken ANY aircraft manufacturer to go from self powered taxiing, first flight and all testing, and not a little 2 seater
Im sure boeing expect it to go smoothly but they expect NO problems or delays.
joolz
17. Steve | February 3rd, 2009 at 11:46
“Why not give Boeing the benefit of the doubt that they could pull this off, on their new schedule.”
Why should this new schedule (which version are we on now?) be any more accurate than all the hopelessly inaccurate previous schedules?
“I might add, the pride of the EU, the A-380 was more than two years late entering airline service…”
One, you need to check your numbers. Two, why bring Airbus in to a discussion about Boeing and the 787? Maybe you’re feeling a little defensive?
18. boeing investor | February 3rd, 2009 at 11:55
Steve is right, this new schedule is probably as reliable as the last.
if as the images suggest progress, then first flight may not even be the issue - flight tests will be the question.
19. Jerrold | February 3rd, 2009 at 14:40
Once again, not trying to be difficult, but curious as to waht type of flight problems get encountered. That is, the plane is designed with engineering principals and simulations, etc.
How and where do the problems show up? Is it weight issues, vibrations…other planes have been designed and tested and lessons learned. Here, we are working with a lighter stronger material and different production methodology…but does that introduce some new aeronautically aspects that can produce problems? The plane looks like any other plane, Any engineers onboard here?
20. Falcon | February 3rd, 2009 at 18:09
Ed,
The A380 was a very poorly run project and it is amazing how they still have not been able to get it right but it was not more than two years late entering airline service. Have some respect for facts.
21. Peter | February 4th, 2009 at 11:25
Every forum I read about 787 and A380 ends up as a slanging match between Boeing and Airbus and which company/product is best.
Both Boeing AND Airbus design and make technologically advanced products that continually push the boundaries of technology/design/manufacturing. The result of this effort is superior products.
Schedules are created on estimates and (hopefully) lessons learned on previous projects, but any project that involves new technology Or process WILL incur delays from unexpected items. These items are called RISK and the analysis and reduction of such risk is paramount to both Project Management and Quality Engineering.
Both Boeing and Airbus will continue to deliver outstanding and SAFE products and will each take the time they NEED to do that. Whether it’s 6 months or two years, it doesn’t matter, as long as the final flying product is SAFE.
As a Design Engineer AND a Project Menager I take my hat off to both companies for what they achieve in the time they achieve it.
22. Uli Gerhard | February 4th, 2009 at 14:35
Really dont care how late this plane is going to be, it is more that Boeing has been way too optimistic for a long time. Yep one problem will be that the plane in too heavy, given the change to the wingbox…. as far as i understand aroung 6 tons, meaning that all the fuel efficiency is out of the window.
Nor do I want to fly on a plane where the fasteners have been replaced several time, we have no idea what it does to the stbility of the structure whilst boeing insists to deliver those to customers…..
I am also amused about the comments re Airbus who had and have their problems as well. But we should not forget that it was Boeing who came out and pointed fingers and was bantering that this could not happen to them etc. Well they had to conceed that a complicated aircraft such as the A380 or 787 will take longer to bring to markets due to unforseen problems. As long as they fly, who cares.
23. Jerrold | February 4th, 2009 at 16:55
Uli gerhartd…the weigh tof the wingbox was addressed when the stress test was passed with flying colors I think 150% results…and BA information at that time indicated that the results enabled the alleged problem to be solved within standards….is that true…anyone…Is weight still an issue…and what can be done about that?
24. Jacobin777 | February 4th, 2009 at 21:39
The first number of frames will be overweight as they are a bit “over-optimised”. Once the first set of planes are flying, removing weight from various areas to hit target will be Boeing’s goal.
Carriers get compenstated/reduced prices for the first sets of planes as they know those aren’t the most efficient to come out of the hangar.
25. Jerrold | February 4th, 2009 at 22:00
Jacobinn777 Thank you. Since you seem to know about these things, could you or others add to any other thoughts on what could go wrong during flight testing certification.
Also, how does weight get reduced. Are the frames recalibrated to weigh less? Which areas are most available for weight reduction. Is it a big problem?
26. tony | February 5th, 2009 at 00:13
what happens when a service truck dents & cracks the fuselage?
i wont be flying this thing.
27. mike j | February 5th, 2009 at 09:02
It is way way way too common for Corporate America, and for International Corporatorations to way way way over-advertize their ‘products” and to paint way way way too much optimism for the sake of sales and income… and the actual products to be be rather so-so at best.
…(same with Presidents, Congress-People, Mayors, UN-Official, and, and, and the list is endless, even the average person’s resume is nothing but total and complete over-advertizing, if not outright fraud)…
So I would take every Boeing public anouncement as nothing but total and complete Hot-Air.
HOWEVER, with that said, I’ve seen 787 close up and from far away, and it sure LOOKS LIKE it’ll fly just fine.
But until they get the dang thing off the runway, well, don’t bet on anything.
And there WILL BE more bugs to fix, because Boeing did way way way too much “virtual-designing” and hardly any enough “real-world-designing”, which is the only major-flaw of the entire program. (I hope this is not the fatal-flaw, but it could yet be, and so far has been almost fatal from the beginning and at every step of the program).
28. Jerrold | February 5th, 2009 at 13:04
What is” real world designing” (prior comment). I assume there are basic aeronautical principals that govern the design of this plane. The difference here is simply the composite material as well as the production method.
I thought the testing of the materials all indicated a strengthened product and the pressure tests, etc so far have shown aditional strength.
The real world test will be when it flies….hard to believe after all this work and effort that there is a basic flaw in the product….
29. Jacobin777 | February 5th, 2009 at 17:45
Jerrold, there are always “bugs” in the system. Its like trying anything new out. Unexpected flutter, higher (or lower drag), better (worse) SFC, braking issues, software issues, etc.
I do expect there to be some “glitches” and some minour problems, however, I don’t see anything major…..yet at least.
30. Jerrold | February 5th, 2009 at 18:19
Comment/question from #26 regarding dents and cracks if hit by service truck
It is hard to believe that this was not a consideration when designing this plane…or choosing to use this material.
But, what does happen? Is it reparable? Is it the same as if our automobile is bumped into…ios there a specialway to repair composites?
31. Jerrold | February 5th, 2009 at 19:24
Jacobin777 Thanks for intelligent response. Does not sound too bad from your point of view but I guess we all have to wait to see if the “flutter” is just a “flutter” and not something more serious.
Many skeptics seem to think this plane is some unknown but I, like you, think there are normal adjustments to follow but that the bird will fly as it was designed to .
32. mike j | February 7th, 2009 at 18:44
for Blogger #28, for “real-world-designing”, see if I can articulate it a bit…
I doubt the hardware is bad, I think the 787 will fly fine… but it turns out that Boeing not only outsourced each section, but outsourced the Engineering and Design of each of those sections with little or no oversight except to give out “design-perameters”, ie: some of these companies have never-ever even once made any aircraft component, nor had a schedule to keep (which has been a problem so far)….
And also, not enough “real-world-designing”, I mean Boeing dropped-out and scrapped every prior successful action regarding new models,
ie:
0) new program (to be successful) should’ve kept all variables to as close to near-zero as possible, ie: just the actual airplane/material changes, but no! Boeing went and put all the variables to near-infinity, by changing exactly EVERY little thing…
(ie: their whole philosophy on how to go about designing and building this 787 left every variable to total chance, and then Murphy’s Law has taken over since then, and we’ve all seen it in-action from the get-go)
1) they changed EVERY computer-system related for production/building (so that no-one from other programs like 737, 777,747) can just step-in and go… one has-to learn very complicated new systems all over again, which systems really don’t work right at all Velocity, Delmia, Enovia5, etc… (which the older OWI, REDARS, etc systems although sometimes flawed yet was already working and functioning through out, and everybody on other programs already knows how to operate and use)…
2) at the very beginning of 787 program they only wanted “brand-new” employees– who had zero aircraft experience (regardless of the training they received, just didn’t pan out so well)… whereas I believe that if Boeing had used only the best-of-the-best veteran personell they wouldv’e only needed say 50 to 100, not thousands…
33. Jerrold | February 7th, 2009 at 21:16
If the prior comment is correct, it makes no sense why Boeing would have chosen those options. Sounds Counterprodutive.
What is the logic behind those alleged decisions.
Hard to believe that there could be such decisionmaking from an experienced Company..
Fleetbuzz says it has spoken to many 787 engineers and will be publishing some of there oservations soon….not soon enough for me!
34. J.Mankin | February 8th, 2009 at 16:02
I will believe the delivery dates when we see the aircraft lift off on it’s delivey flight. I hate to say this, but I forsee SERIOUS problems in the flight test programme, the possiblity of flaws in this deisgn that could cause serious (possibly fatal) accidents. I have my doubts that it will fly before 2012.
35. Jerrold | February 8th, 2009 at 16:50
When indicating doubts, etc, it would be more informative if you state the reason for your doubt…having a doubt is easy…substantiating the reason is another.
Several knowledgeable people define where they foresee problems…others just express skepticism. Some with familiarity express confidence.
Perhaps the next Fleetbuzz report will shed some light on these areas….with more clarity
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed