Boeing 787 Schedule Revised
August 27th, 2009
Boeing today announced a revised scheduled for the oft-delayed 787 Dreamliner.
The company has indicated that first flight would occur by the end of the year with first delivery tentatively poised for the fourth quarter of 2010. Based on this timetable and past delays, Boeing has added margin into the flight test program, effectively allowing up to a full 12 months prior to handover of the first example.
Previous flight test estimates for certification were based on an ambitious 8-month certification effort - now that Boeing has added around 25% more buffer into the flight test program (alongside 65% of the airplane already having been FAA-certified), there is optimism that this timetable could well be accomplished.
That Boeing has announced this timetable ahead of the end of the third quarter means that there is a sliver of optimism that this new schedule can indeed be achieved, despite concerns on past statements.
Critically, Boeing confirmed that the program is not in a forward-loss position. Since the last delay announcement in June 2009, speculation about the financial impact of these setbacks seemed to generate more debate than the overall project delays.
ZA002 taxiing
Image courtesy of Tim Dauber
“Having a new schedule sure beats that weird combination of “we know what the problem is” and “we can’t give you a schedule just now.” And the flight test window is longer, which is certainly good news. But we’ve had plenty of experience with this program indicating that problems tend to arrive at the last moment,” Richard Aboulafia tells me.
The first three test 787’s have also been incorporated into R&D costs given that these will not now be refurbished or sold to customers. However, it continued to say that their adjustment as R&D expense now means that the pre-tax charge will have “no impact on the company’s cash outlook going forward” and that the remaining three test airplanes are marketable.
Below is a summary of the webcast detailing the plan ahead for the 787:
Jim McNerney
• Added margin into the program/reduce risk in certification
• No market value for first three test airplanes
• Non-cash charge previously record
• Execution of 787 program has had its challenges
• Remains on track to be a game changer
• Thorough analysis on side of body – local issue, local fix
• High degree of confidence
• Added cushion to flight test program (FTP)
• Running to the same flight test schedule
Scott Carson
• First flight this year with EIS in Q4 2010
• 787-9 EIS pushed back to Q4 2013
• Aiming for 10-per-month rate by late 2013
• Increased the time between first flight and EIS
• Allow extra time to address issues during FTP
• First three test 787’s have limited commercial value due to rework
• Staying engaged with supplier base, discussions continuing
• ZA001, ZA002, ZA003 conform fully with FAA regulations, will be type certified
• Second line to come after reaching 7-per-month
• Conclusion to second line by year end
• Placed hedging with permit to build in S. Carolina
• Evaluating sites on merit, based on costs/schedule
Patrick Shanahan
• Basic architecture of modification remains unchanged from June 2009
• 4 to 5 new fittings, installed on each stringer located on upper wing at side of body attachment location
• Team has developed thorough understanding in loading conditions of the side of body
• Team has incorporated loads into modelling tools and those have been validated
• Straightforward modification
• Paced by limited access to wing box, side of body area access
• Team is eager to get started
• Incorporate modification to static test/ZA001 concurrently
• Modifications on airplanes 1 through 15 at Everett
• Modifications on airplanes 16 onwards done by supply partners
• Excellent progress made – demonstrated by completion of gauntlet, taxi tests
• Maturity of software continues
• “Ready to fly on all accounts”
• Modelling all credible
• Greater fidelity in wing box & side of body
• Always analysing the airplane
James Bell
• 787 has unprecedented demand
• 787 program is not in forward loss position
• Costs will be reclassified for first three test 787’s that have “no market value”
• Customers weren’t interested in taking first 6 airplanes
• Non-cash charge amounting to $2.5bn
• Original assumption that all 6 FTP 787’s would be refurbished/delivered as production units
• Customers shifting to other production units
• Difficult to place first three airplanes due to extensive rework/modifications
• Further charges will be to R&D expense
• Airplanes 4-6 will be sold
• No significant impact due to new schedule
• No significant impact on cash flow
• January 2010, Q409 earnings to give FY10 guidance
• No intention to shift burden of cost to supply partners
• Ramp up to 13-per-month as per prior plan
• No guidance on deliveries for FY2011/12
Entry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
31 Comments Add your own
1. Jacobin777 | August 27th, 2009 at 16:45
There is a bit more confidence in their comments this time around. I think they’ll get it this time around.
2. Mike M | August 27th, 2009 at 16:49
I dont see how any of these guys named above can be in their jobs if this (sixth??) timetable is not met.
3. Sal | August 27th, 2009 at 17:11
I agree with the above comments. I think this time, we can have a greater degree of confidence in the program then before. Looking forward to seeing First Flight. Oh and if Boeing would like, I’ll gladly find a home for either ZA0001 or 2 in my backyard if they like.
4. LGB787 | August 27th, 2009 at 17:16
I can’t say that I’m particularly excited at these announcements anymore. However, I’m hopeful they will finally figure it out this time with no more major surprises. ZA001 would make a great gift to The Smithsonian after testing is complete, and ZA002 and ZA003 will make excellent testbeds for future development unless they can find an interested BBJ buyer.
5. Chris Wallace | August 27th, 2009 at 17:44
At this point, all I can say is “good luck”.
6. BlueSky1976 | August 27th, 2009 at 18:55
I’m happy to see that Boeing has finally come to realize that the flight test program of the all-new airframe cannot be “compressed”. I cannot wait to see the 787 fly, but as with their other PR stunts, I’m holding my reservations.
Bottom line is, I’ll believe the first flight date when I’ll see it finally leave ground.
7. Jerry1t | August 27th, 2009 at 21:54
Sounds like they have finally made it to the startingline with the course all laid out and the past trials as preparation for this event.
There appears to be more confidence and margins in this announcement and I am rooting for them to finish this phase in time or earlier and with pride.
Good luck!
8. Aurora | August 27th, 2009 at 22:01
Best summary I’ve seen in the media by far; this is an excellent report.
Apparently the stock market loved the news today; Boeing’s stock was up over 8%! Its about 10% higher than it was before the delay was announced last June.
9. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | August 28th, 2009 at 11:00
Nice report.
Well, Q4 2009 looks set to be a very interesting period. A race between the 787-8 & 747-8 - and how close will the 787 fly to the 747’s cruise Mach number - some of the lesser questions amongst the more important, like seat-mile costs? All may be revealed - stay tuned…
10. Vero Venia | August 28th, 2009 at 12:03
What’s the impact of the strike at Spirit?
11. damn! | August 28th, 2009 at 14:43
Haven’t we heard this crap from Boeing before?
12. ikkeman | August 28th, 2009 at 18:16
as with all such announcements and plans - I’ll believe it when I see it
13. Erik Bloodaxe | August 28th, 2009 at 20:45
I have to agree with Ikke… these shitbirds running Boeing have zero credibility at this point. To be honest, I have no idea why they still have jobs. Must be nice to monumentally screw up your job, flush billions of dollars down a toilet, and still keep collecting a paycheck.
I HOPE this schedule is correct, but I have NO Confidence in the current managemnt structure at Boeing.
14. keesje | August 28th, 2009 at 22:50
Thnx for the bullets! All seem reasonable adjustments. Many were long overdue (e.g. flight test period). We have to wait for further progress / lack of it to see if this schedule holds.
End of 09: first flights of 787, 747-8 and A400M. Hopefully they’ll be all up in the air.
15. chaser | August 29th, 2009 at 00:50
The big caveat in all this is that the fix has to pass the static test.
Does anyone know if this is a one-off procedure or does it have to undergo continuous”fatigue” tests?
16. Vero Venia | August 29th, 2009 at 11:08
15. chaser | August 29th, 2009 at 00:50
The static test (up to ultimate load) is done once.
Fatigue test will continue with the modified stringer ending in order to verify the fatigue behavior of the modification. This was said in the conf call.
17. Henry | August 29th, 2009 at 15:53
If this is seriously delayed again and as others have pointed out it would be amazing if anyone in upper managment kept their job.
Even if they dont, like the bigshots at so many other companies they get their golden parachutes, some after running their companies into bankruptcy, the only thing the rest of us get is a golden shower,
18. Vero Venia | August 30th, 2009 at 09:52
If Boeing manages to ramp up the production by 2011, perhaps the 787 will ride the next “Up”.
See my blog entry:
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/ups-and-downs/
19. Aero Ninja | August 31st, 2009 at 08:05
Chaser & Vero Venia, but will they run it all the way up to 150% in one shot or take it in small increments? I can see them running it up in small increments at a time and then analyse the results. That seems to take about a month for them to do each time (end of May to end of June from test to realising they had a definite problem) & hence their schedule is once again out the door if this fix does not completely solve the problem.
20. Aero Ninja | August 31st, 2009 at 08:12
Question: Is it reasonable to get a second production line up and running to full capacity in a 4 year time frame? Choose a site, design the facility, build the facility, train the personnel (esepecially if not in Washington) and what other factors are there? There is also the issue of getting the supply chain ramped up to meet such a production rate, although I would assume much effort has already been put into that.
For the case where the second line is not in Washington, would the aircraft be assembled there and then flown to Seattle for interiors, painting, calibration etc? How would IAM react to that?
21. JustSomeDude | August 31st, 2009 at 11:43
From only one IAM member’s perspective: maybe we’ll add membership from SC. Also, they will have the same build/production problems Everett, WA has had (ie re-doing everything).
Personal perspective: If it flies, great. Ho hum. I’ll believe it when I see it. I doubt the “major problems” are over with, though. Because so far, the track record is not good.
Every bit of these delays were forseen by myself and other smart ones, miles ahead of time. It’s like BCA did everything in their power to ignore good sense, and as if they were dead against doing it the right way from very the beginning… I wonder why?
And now here they are trying to correct mistakes that need not have happened if they’d listened or had half a grain of sense. Oh well, huh?
22. Vero Venia | August 31st, 2009 at 15:18
19. Aero Ninja | August 31st, 2009 at 08:05
I would do the static by small increments up to 150%. When you hear some cracks or bangs before 150% you stop the test and analyse thouroughly the data before going forward.
It is insane to do a static test directly to 150%.
Frankly, I don’t have any experience in static test. But I would do what I said above if I were the static test manager. Why make it difficult when you can do it simply? It’s a question of good sense.
It is not yet clear whether they will break the 787’s wing or not if it does not break at 150%. In my very humble opinion, they should stop at 150% just for certification this time and wait until further date to break it.
23. Vero Venia | August 31st, 2009 at 15:22
20. Aero Ninja | August 31st, 2009 at 08:12 said, “Is it reasonable to get a second production line up and running to full capacity in a 4 year time frame?”
Yes. It is not only reasonable but it is necessary. Don’t forget that the 767 and 757 are both out of production. The replacement wave is coming fast. They’d better to satisfy the demand quickly before somebody else comes, especially in the 200-250 seat market.
24. Vero Venia | August 31st, 2009 at 15:41
21. JustSomeDude | August 31st, 2009 at 11:43
Yes, this is a difficult time for BCA on the 787. But as I mentioned in the link below, if Boeing manges to sort things out this airplane will be successful.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/how-bad-is-bad/
Another important point is that the 787 seems to be the “ouverture” of Boeing’s widebody development plan.
see the link below:
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/the-third-movement/
25. Vero Venia | August 31st, 2009 at 15:56
By the way, if Boeing announces that it would build a large-composite-part-manufacturing facility in addition to the final assembly line at the future location then I would be curious to know if the facility is “compatible” with the hypothetical 777-8/-9 wing manufacturing (and maybe fuselage???).
Will this be the foreshadow of the 777 revamp?
Hmmm. Conspiracy theorists, wake-up!
26. Mike M | August 31st, 2009 at 21:23
So, it seems Scott Carson is self-ejecting before the shit hits the fan when the 787 doesnt fly by year end?
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=818
Interesting move, very interesting.
Discuss.
27. Jerry1t | August 31st, 2009 at 22:01
The early retirement of Scott Carson comes at an appropriate time and is a positive move for the Company. His replacement, Jim Albaugh, is a competent individual and can reassert control over the faltering 787 program as well as the BCA.
28. Aotearoa | August 31st, 2009 at 22:39
Well, some of you have your wish and one of the major decision making individuals relative to the 787 Project is out if there!
It seems Carson may have been a better Salesman than an organisational manager.
29. DWS | August 31st, 2009 at 23:34
Well, at least Albaugh DIDN’T come from the MD side of the house…
The IDS side had done OK in the past but has been coming up with the short end of the stick on quite a few competitions lately. Hopefully he can breath some new life into the 787 program (as well as the rest of the commercial programs). At least he has an engineering degree (although it’s civil engineering)!
30. ikkeman | September 1st, 2009 at 06:53
anyone that believes a change of face for the top position will mean the trouble on 787 are over and the “culture” within Bo management will change for the better - I’ve got some very powerfull magic beans to sell! very cheap ’cause you’re my friend.
31. Don | January 28th, 2010 at 07:36
Do you have any idea how many people have been assigned to this program, and then either left on their own or transferred by others on this program? I like to see how the employees rate their confidence on the quality of this plane compared to 747!
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