Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Boeing give 787 delivery guidance for 2015

Boeing released its 2014 financial results and while the company reported record earnings as well as higher 787 deliveries, it also reported higher deferred production cost (the gap of actual cost of production of each aircraft vs. the average cost over the accounting block which at this moment is 1,300 aircraft) had increased by almost $1bn over the 4th quarter to $26.149bn up from $25.189bn.  Year over year increase in deferred production costs was $4.5bn, an increase of almost 21% year over year!  Mush of this increase was due to increasing the inventory of parts as well as maintaining high employment levels within the 787 program.

Boeing’s 787 delivery guidance was reported by CFO Greg Smith as the annual production rate plus 3 to 4 early build aircraft.  This would mean a total delivery guidance of 123-124 787s for 2015.

However, one question that was not asked if this delivery guidance included the 3 787-9s that were used for flight testing and certification purposes. The big question is that do they consider the 3 787-9 that were used for the certification program last year as early build? If so, then are the only "early build" deliveries would be the 787-9s that are earmarked for customers this year?  If not then Boeing can deliver the 120 regular production + 3 787-9 from test flight + 3-4 early deliveries (terrible teens) which would add to 127 deliveries.  2 out of the 3 787-9 test airplanes are at the EMC being bought up to certification standards for delivery to Air New Zealand while the third is parked on a runaway at Everett. 

Boeing expect that the 787 program should become cash positive this year meaning that revenue for each delivered 787 will exceed the cost of production though the program as a whole will still be running at a loss.  Additionally, Boeing expect deferred production cost to moderately increase this year before declining next year when the 787 rate goes to 12 from 10.  Obviously getting a handle on production costs will include renegotiating (read: squeezing) the supply base as well as lowering labor costs within the program.  Greg Smith reported during the earnings call that 787-9 production costs fell 20% from the first delivered aircraft and 30% for the last 175 delivered 787-8 airplanes.

In other news it looks like Air Force One will continue to be a Boeing product.  The Air Force is going to negotiate for the delivery of three 747-8 air frames to replace the current 747-200 that have been in service for over 20 years but are dated.  This will be a non competitive acquisition but mission equipment and furnishing will be competitively sourced. The only question that remains is will they acquire a 747-8I or 747-8F?

787 Full Production Table


Anonymous said...

"... The only question that remains is will they acquire a 747-8I or 747-8F?"

Probably 747-8I.

1) The current Air Force One is based on 747-200B, which is the passenger version (freighter version being -2000F).

2) All BBJs so far are -8Is.

Uresh said...

For Air Force One it's a matter of if they need the additional space of the I over the F that would determine which one to chose. Both can be used as Air Force One.

Anonymous said...

The government usually goes big, just as they like to tax us big/more.

You can find a good-looking rendering of it (-8I) here:

mokong78 said...

Can they not increase the passenger carrying capacity of the 8Is close to 500 @ least, to make this beauty more viable considering that the next gen 777x's passenger cap will be more than 400. Using the latest aluminum base material which is considerably lighter than the current one in use may be enough to keep the airplane's weight within the current range thereby avoiding major redesign. A 500 passenger aircraft maybe the sweet spot for most liners and passegers alike.

Hiromichi Notake said...

ANA's new B787-9 will be registered as a follow.

ZB414(L/N401) will be JA877A.
ZB415(L/N414) will be JA878A.

1coolguy1 said...

7 January deliveries: Why was the month such a dog? Did they push too hard in December or were they changing systems, etc? Anyone know?