Article

2007-03-12 Home Front Economy

Boeing receives more than $4.5B in plane orders

The Boeing Co. said it's received orders for 28 new airplanes worth more than $4.5 billion from a Kuwaiti leasing company, a Russian air freight company and Continental Airlines. Chicago-based Boeing said Alafco Aviation Lease and Finance Co. of Kuwait City, Kuwait, ordered 12 787-8 airplanes and six 737-800s worth $2.26 billion at list prices. The leasing company says it's the first Middle Eastern company to buy the Everett-built 787-8 airplane.

Volga-Dnepr Group of Moscow has ordered five Boeing 747-8 freighters worth $1.4 billion at list prices. Boeing now has nearly 80 orders for the 747-8 model, which is also built in Everett.

Sucks to be AirBus, don't it?

And Continental Airlines said it's increased its order for 787 airplanes, adding five 787-9 airplanes worth between $892 million and $940 million at list prices. The Houston airline now has ordered 25 787s. "Since we placed our initial 787 order in December 2004, we have become even more impressed with the 787 and its capabilities," said Larry Kellner, chairman and CEO of Continental, in a statement.

Posted by Steve 2007-03-12 14:12|| || Front Page|| [11142 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 And of course EADS is having trouble with its GPS satellite system too. Hard to think of a worse business model than to be run by a group of (old) EUros.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2007-03-12 15:47|| 2007-03-12 15:47|| Front Page Top

#2 By my guess, this places this years Boeing backlog at over 1200 aircraft.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-12 15:55|| 2007-03-12 15:55|| Front Page Top

#3 787's cockpit looks sweet!

Posted by Clinesing Bucket8193 2007-03-12 16:57|| 2007-03-12 16:57|| Front Page Top

#4 EADS isn't a business, it's a jobs program.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-03-12 18:10|| 2007-03-12 18:10|| Front Page Top

#5 You mean AirBusted, right?

Posted by Mac 2007-03-12 18:13|| 2007-03-12 18:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Mac: You mean AirBusted, right?

I think it's Airburst. Seriously though - it wasn't too long ago that the EUros were crowing about the strength of the Euro. I don't think they're crowing any more. In dollar terms, European salaries are in the stratosphere. The problem for them is that European products are similarly expensive, in dollar terms. This is why Boeing has been beating Airbus in contract bid after contract bid, without breaking a sweat.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-12 21:20|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-03-12 21:20|| Front Page Top

#7 Good for Boeing but you'll never catch me on a 787.

Composite fuselage
It was suggested by many that the risks of having a composite fuselage have not been fully assessed and should not be attempted. It was also added that carbon fiber, unlike metal, does not visibly show cracks and fatigue and repairing any damage done to the aircraft would not be easy.

Posted by Icerigger 2007-03-12 22:37|| 2007-03-12 22:37|| Front Page Top

#8 Icerigger: I do not know your level of experience with composites or commercial aviation maintenance programs but you can relax a bit. The FAA has rigourous programs in place for the scheduled maintenance and repair of aircraft. And I can tell you from first hand experience with regard to 787 unique testing, they are on this aircraft's fabrication techniques and components like a duck on a slug. There will be a myriad of inspections of the barrel sections as they are wound and following the autoclaving process and the in-service inspection program will be very conservative, in order to verify engineering predictions. I have worked on a multitude of aircraft with various load bearing structures made of composites and have never had a failure due to design or flight parameters being exceeded.
Now on the other side of the coin, I have had failures from unreported damage and your statement about the lack of visible witness marks to show a damaged area is valid. This is the part that worries me; if you followed the numerous reports last year at SEA-TAC regarding Alaska Airlines and the ground crew causing damage you would be rightfully concerned. This is a whole other topic, outsourcing, but the gist to me was, that since the ground crew was a third party contractor and getting minimum wage (plus a little bit) and with the HR application 'in' box running over, there was a atmosphere of fear on the line, so if somebody crunched a jet they did not 'fess up, for fear of losing their job. Yes, an aluminum aircraft would have the tell tale witness marks showing the damage site, whereas the plastic airplane will not, and the damage is most likely subsurface, where flight loads will work at that site until failure. As a passenger, falling through space, you really don't give a rip about the root cause of the failure, since you know you are gonna die, but that is why I do not intend to fly a 787 for 5 years. Give the in-service inspection problem time to work out the bugs. As an aside, this past Sunday's Seattle Times had a very good, if lengthy article on the construction of the 787, well worth the read.

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-03-12 23:13|| 2007-03-12 23:13|| Front Page Top

07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker
05:28 Whiskey Mike
05:23 Whiskey Mike
05:21 Whiskey Mike
05:18 Whiskey Mike
05:15 Whiskey Mike
05:13 Whiskey Mike
05:08 Whiskey Mike