Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Boeing delays delivery of 787/777s to Air Canada

Boeing delays delivery of 787/777s to Air Canada

Old Apr 1, 11, 9:01 pm
  #211  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM, WS Gold
Posts: 15,169
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
Actually there have been extensive talks about a new engine for the 77W (e.g., a 777NG). Boeing has pushed back those plans to focus on the 737NG to compete with A320NEO.
The narrow body market is the subject of some fascinating business strategy. Airbus and Boeing (along with GE/SNECMA makers of the CFM56) have enjoyed a very lucrative duopoly selling vast quantities of 20+ year old designs. They were lothe to spend lots of engineering resources updating this comfortable stalemate.

Then along comes Bombardier with the C-series.

How to react if you are A or B managers? Posture but do nothing for as long as possible until customers seriously threaten to walk.

Eventually Airbus blinks because they know that they can re-engine the A320 at relatively low cost whereas Boeing, because of the low ground clearance of the 737, can't do this without a major redesign.

Airbus' decision will force Boeing to come up with a "clean sheet" replacement of the 737 that will render the A320NEO obsolete.

That will force Airbus to do likewise, meaning they will nead to earn back their development costs of the NEO on a relatively small cohort of orders.

This will make for fascinating business case studies a decade from now.

Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
That's all we need to know . . . Boeing is so confident in how their flagship aircraft stacks up, they can assign thier resources to shore up other issues in the short-to-medium term.
Are they "so confident" or resource constrained (financial and engineering)? Companies can only take on so many projects at one time. Right now they need to get the kinks out of the 787 and 747-8. They have decided (probably correctly) that getting a new 737 to market is more critical to them than further updating the 777.

Once the 787-9 is certified, I think they'll turn to updating the 777 lineup.
The Lev is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 8:32 am
  #212  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,496
Is the 77W's inability to get more range a fuel thing (gas tanks not big enough so runs out of gas) or a thrust thing (can't carry the gas into FL390 even if the whole thing were a tanker)? If the former, put a tank in part of the back hold and call it the 300LR. If the latter, I guess they'll need a bigger engine.
stupidhead is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 9:11 am
  #213  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 22,764
Originally Posted by stupidhead View Post
Is the 77W's inability to get more range a fuel thing (gas tanks not big enough so runs out of gas) or a thrust thing (can't carry the gas into FL390 even if the whole thing were a tanker)? If the former, put a tank in part of the back hold and call it the 300LR. If the latter, I guess they'll need a bigger engine.
Likely takeoff weight.
Stranger is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 9:16 am
  #214  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by The Lev View Post
Are they "so confident" or resource constrained (financial and engineering)? Companies can only take on so many projects at one time. Right now they need to get the kinks out of the 787 and 747-8. They have decided (probably correctly) that getting a new 737 to market is more critical to them than further updating the 777.

Once the 787-9 is certified, I think they'll turn to updating the 777 lineup.
The A350 is overweight and under-powered (i.e., the engines dont have enough thrust). Airbus has some huge hurdles to clear to get it on spec. IMO, Boeing doesnt believe they will clear those hurdles, therefore, No urgency to make the 777 better until A350 delivers close to spec.
After 787, I think all focus will be on 737NG (maybe 797?) for the next few years at least

Last edited by CloudsBelow; Apr 2, 11 at 9:25 am
CloudsBelow is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 9:22 am
  #215  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by stupidhead View Post
Is the 77W's inability to get more range a fuel thing (gas tanks not big enough so runs out of gas) or a thrust thing (can't carry the gas into FL390 even if the whole thing were a tanker)? If the former, put a tank in part of the back hold and call it the 300LR. If the latter, I guess they'll need a bigger engine.
Weight is an issue for every aircraft.
The 777NG would be lighter with more efficient engines.
It must be tough to improve on the current 77W offering. Doing so now would be competing against yourself
CloudsBelow is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 10:54 am
  #216  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,035
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
Weight is an issue for every aircraft.
The 777NG would be lighter with more efficient engines.
It must be tough to improve on the current 77W offering. Doing so now would be competing against yourself
Bingo. I can't see Boeing offering a 777 replacement for at least 15 years. A 777NG with some improvements in maybe 5 years, yes, but a complete redesign, no. Boeing has to finish the 787 & 747-8 projects, and start and complete a 737 replacement program before a 777 replacement will even approach the front of their minds.
rehoult is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 10:58 am
  #217  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 22,764
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
Weight is an issue for every aircraft.
The 777NG would be lighter with more efficient engines.
It must be tough to improve on the current 77W offering. Doing so now would be competing against yourself
Actually they could go for some of the things implemented in the 787. Such as, getting rid of air bleed and go for electric/hydraulic with electrically driven pump.

Additionally, isn't GE coming up with improved versions of their engine?

At the end of the day, there is always room for improvement. They might not major changes to the airframe. But a bit of tweeking, more efficient engines, repalcing some components by composites to lower weight...
Stranger is offline  
Old Apr 2, 11, 5:43 pm
  #218  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
The A350 is overweight and under-powered (i.e., the engines dont have enough thrust). Airbus has some huge hurdles to clear to get it on spec. IMO, Boeing doesnt believe they will clear those hurdles, therefore, No urgency to make the 777 better until A350 delivers close to spec.
After 787, I think all focus will be on 737NG (maybe 797?) for the next few years at least
I'm not sure if the A359 at spec is underpowered....if it meets spec, it'll have the same MTOW/thrust ratio as the 77E. A351 however is definitely underpowered. Kind of depends too on where the A359 would lose the 60,000lbs vs. 77E. If it's that much capacity, they're in deep ...., but if it's that much airframe weight, who knows.
stupidhead is offline  
Old Jun 11, 11, 10:19 pm
  #219  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: YVR
Programs: AC Super Elite, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 4,462
Air India Said to Consider Boeing 787 Delay

“Boeing won’t have a problem reallocating these aircraft to other airlines,” said Binit Somaia, director of Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation in Sydney. “The 787 is so late that so many airlines are screaming to get hold of it.”
I wonder if this could potentially speed up Air Canada's delivery by a few months?
yvr76 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 11, 10:23 pm
  #220  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: YUL/EZE
Programs: AC*SE,SPG Platinum,HHounours Gold, FairmontPlat
Posts: 990
Originally Posted by yvr76 View Post
Air India Said to Consider Boeing 787 Delay



I wonder if this could potentially speed up Air Canada's delivery by a few months?
I personally doubt it. I think AC will be lucky if they get their first delivery as planned now in the late Spring of 2014 at best.
EZESE is offline  
Old Nov 5, 11, 7:33 am
  #221  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YGK
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 16
Thumbs down Dreamliner delivery delayed to 2014

Air Canada is now scheduled to take deliveries of the first seven of its 37 Boeing 787s in 2014 - four years later than originally planned and possibly more than a year later than at last count.

Air Canada president Calin Rovinescu said in a teleconference call reporting third-quarter results that "Boeing has indicated that it continues to evaluate the schedule of deliveries for the remaining 30" planes.


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Dream...#ixzz1cpzvbamE
Imex15 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 6:27 pm
  #222  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 54,764
http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...388/story.html

MONTREAL — The grounding of all Boeing Co.'s 787s Wednesday after yet another in an astonishing run of recent technical problems does not imperil Air Canada's delivery schedule — yet.

tcook052 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 7:11 pm
  #223  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,237
At this point AC should go to Airbus and see what can be delivered and time frame then scale back or cancel 787 orders.

It might be best thing ever that they never got any 787's , looking like problem aircraft at this rate
xLuther is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 8:00 pm
  #224  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
Jumping the gun a little

Originally Posted by xLuther View Post
At this point AC should go to Airbus and see what can be delivered and time frame then scale back or cancel 787 orders.

It might be best thing ever that they never got any 787's , looking like problem aircraft at this rate
If AC were to cancel its order now there would most likely be (stiff?) financial penalties at this point.

The A350XWB has not had its first flight yet - roll out of MSN1 only happened about 7 weeks ago, first flight isn't expected until May-ish. Then there's the issue of delivery slots in the skyline - they may not be available for when AC would need such an aircraft.

Let's wait for the folks at Boeing to figure out the major issues - which so far seem to be an electrical problem with the Li batteries and a minor fuel valve issue.

There are too many arm chair quarterbacks and talking (bobble) heads on TV about this at the moment.

Boeing needs to figure out the root cause of the issues before saying something publicly, and all the rampant speculation by the aforementioned armchair QBs and bobble heads just makes matters worse.

If it comes out that there is a serious design flaw that requires significant redesign which would add significant delays, then AC would probably be in a better position to cancel its order.
jaysona is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 8:02 pm
  #225  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,035
Originally Posted by xLuther View Post
At this point AC should go to Airbus and see what can be delivered and time frame then scale back or cancel 787 orders.

It might be best thing ever that they never got any 787's , looking like problem aircraft at this rate
They wouldn't be the first. The 787 delays/problems have been the best thing to happen to the A330.
rehoult is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread