Talk:List of Boeing 787 orders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Overall commentary

Please excuse the placement of this comment on top (you may move it if you object strongly). This comment is about the article in general, which could get lost among the many sections about particular airlines.

Editors contributing should be commended because this article is difficult to keep current.

There is also a potential problem as airlines and leasing companies change between MOU, firm orders, options, back and forth, etc. Do you need more columns? How to keep the project accurate and not a piecemeal of accurate information and outdated information mixed together.

In short, a potentially difficult article to get right. Keep up the good work! Archtrain 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primaris Airlines

I have heard from an internal source that Primaris Airlines will be the first US customer with 787s. Can someone confirm and add to the list? Reference here: http://www.primarisairlines.com/index.aspx?ID=8 12.111.23.142 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines

Singapore Airlines order should be pink. It has not been confirmed yet by boeing on their orders site.--Bangabalunga 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Singapore Airlines order was confirmed and signed on October 11th, 2006 for 20 Boeing 787-9 and options for 20 more. The engine selection has not been made. The total number of Boeing 787 orders are now at 422 firm orders not 432, according to the Boeing website. This article need to be updated. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/news/2006/q4/061011b_nr.html Dk16 11:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Choice Airways

The First Choice Airways order is more likely the 9/25/06 order instead of the 7/18/06 order as they are -8 models instead of -9 models, but identification on this page should wait until this is confirmed by Boeing.

[edit] ANZ

Air Newzeland has ordered an additional 4 Boeing 787-9s. I will provide the link ASAP. The total number of B789s for Air Newzealand is now 8 FIRM, with 8 OPTIONS. FlyAirCanada 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try for an ANZ or Boeing press release. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added chart sorted by airlines

I added a new chart which is a summary of all orders and sorted by airlines. This is similar to the chart on the article for the Airbus 380. I appreciate the attempt by user 68.36.172.115 to update the table, but in doing so both tables have become corrupted (extra columns, order for 787-8 in the column for 787-9, the loss of the date header, etc.) I have reverted it back to the last chart that is not corrupted. If some of the numbers are incorrect, please correct those number, but any more changes could cause the charts to be corrupted again. user:mnw2000 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)..

[edit] India's Jet Airways buys 10 Boeing 787 aircraft

FYI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070102/bs_nm/jet_boeing_dc_1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.54.59 (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scottish Flag next to FlyGlobespan

In case you didn't know, the UK is one country, and not england, wales, scotland & northern ireland. If you want to argue about that then go to Act of Union. I'm changing the flag. W2ch00 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Customers

According to Boeing:

"Continental is a bellwether addition to the 7E7 Launch Team," said Mike Bair, Boeing vice president and general manager of the 7E7 program. "Continental understands the superior operating economics, faster turnaround times and lower maintenance costs of Boeing airplanes."

The other 7E7 Launch Team members are ANA, Air New Zealand , Europe 's Blue Panorama and First Choice, Primaris of the U.S. and Japan Airlines. " This order plus the previously announced orders demonstrate the Dreamliner's unprecedented appeal for a wide range of airlines with distinct business models," said Bair.

Primaris has since canceled their order.

So, who is the overall Launch Customer (ANA?), European Launch Customer (Blue Panorama, First Choice, or LOT?) and North American Launch Customer (Continental or Northwest?) user:mnw2000 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ANA is the Launch Customer per multiple Boeing articles user:mnw2000 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose getting rid of all launch customers and keeping only ANA. Thats it. That is how it should be. When we look back at the 747, we talk about Pan Am. 737 would be Lufthansa. And on and on. People always remember the LAUNCH customer in the future not every single launch customer for every region. Where is this gonna stop? Airlines get excited during press conferences and get all giddy and want to gloat that they are a launch customer for some region. Its a feel good story and Boeing goes along with it. But this is not right. At this rate we will have 23 Launch customers. One for the whole line, then one for every variant (787-3, 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, 787 freighter maybe) and for every region in the world (Europe, North America, Asia and on and on). Launch customer is a very prestigious title. It carries with it pride and risk. ANA in 2004 took a huge risk and orderred 50 planes. Remember the 787 had a very slow start and did not sell well untill China ordered a year later. Just because some airline in 2007 shows up and orders 10 planes and calls themselves the Launch customer is not right. What does everyone else think?--Bangabalunga 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Atlantic

I think the March 9 order is the one that went for Virgin. The WSJ article said "up to 24 airframes," which to me implies options, and there is no 24-frame order. It also said the order was one of the current UFO listings... —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Arik Air

Three of the January UFOs belong to Arik Air - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/23/213349/mctighe-turning-arik-air-into-nigerias-largest-carrier.html 24.63.204.55 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primaris?

Primaris is shown as having signed an order for the 787 and later canceling. This is not accurate, because Primaris never signed a firm order. Primaris placed refundable deposits to secure delivery slots and expressed their intention to order via an LOI, but they never firmed the order. If someone else has a source that claims otherwise, I am all ears. I suggest we remove Primaris from the orders chart and perhaps make an annotation somewhere else. Ryanmac06 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is highlighted in pink, indicating that it was never a firm order. 24.63.204.55 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it really worth mentioning an order that was never firm and later cancelled? 192.88.212.44 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
They were publicly announced at the time, so I would suggest they are noteworthy enough to be included in the table. Nick Moss 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the unexplained removal of the Primaris order by 69.113.41.107 (talk). Could we please get a consensus on whether it should or shouldn't be in the table. As I said above, given Boeing announced it at the time, I believe it is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. Of course, if a majority of contributors have a valid reason not to include it, I'm happy to agree with that. Thoughts? Nick Moss 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I view the LoI/MoU orders in the list as placeholders for an eventual firm order. The Primaris order will never be firm, and should be removed from the list. If it remains, it would be the only order in the chronological list that doesn't appear in the alphabetical list; inconsistency is bad. The CR Airways/Hong Kong Airlines order may have a similar fate, so it would be a good idea to decide on a policy. Mduell2 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pending Orders

Can somebody explain what the 23 pending orders are? This is not properly defined. Which orders are pending? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.160.217 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

They are orders which have been announced, but for which a firm contract hasn't yet been signed (i.e. the ones which are shaded in pink on the list). Nick Moss 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Jordanian Order

Does anyone know which of the unidentified customer orders for 2 aircraft belongs to RJ - January 18, January 24 or March 30? I notice the 'Orders by Airline' table has been updated to reflect the RJ order, but it would be good to update the 'Orders by Chronology' table too... Nick Moss 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news: Aeroflot is back

They signed it (another MoU? an LOI? a firm order) today in StPete. [1] 22 units, configuration and delivery estimates unknown as yet. EDIT TO ADD: Deliveries to start in 2014 [2]--apoivre 12:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table column legend

For the benefit of non-"in-crowd" readers---most of WPs general public---we'd better include a table column legend, i.e., explanations of the non-obvious abbreviations in the column headings:

Without such explanations, the list does not adher to encyclopedic standards, but rather seems like an internal memo... I consider myself quite interested in aircraft matters, but some of the abbrevs is unclear to me, and would probably be to other people as well. --Wernher 16:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, and I've made a few tweaks to the tables to make it more understandable to someone not familiar with the terminology or the project.Nick Moss 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images down the right hand side

I like the idea of including images of the airlines who have ordered the 787 in the article, however I am wondering whether it is better to have them where they are at the moment, down the right hand side, or in a gallery at the end of the article. I'm not certain whether I do or don't like the way the tables are now more compacted as a result of the images. Likewise, I am not certain if losing the notes section has been a good or a bad thing. I'd like to put these two thoughts out there for discussion and hopefully consensus.

One thing which I certainly dislike about the way the layout is at the moment is that the two edit links for the two tables are now both sitting together beside the '787 in Kenya Airways Livery' picture, instead of at the top of their respective sections. Can this be fixed while retaining the new layout, or would it require the pictures to be removed?

Certainly I think it would be good if we could get Boeing promotional pictures of all the 787 customers into this article, and perhaps this one too, if its creator will grant permission for its use. What does everyone else think? Nick Moss 07:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In talking with another editor he said the same thing. He uses 800 X 600 resolution which makes the page cramped. I use 17" monitor 1024 X 768 mostly which is fine. So even though I like the pictures on the side, I am ok with it at the bottom if it works for everyone. As for the notes section, I deleted it. We can bring it back as well, but I really dont see a point of it. Anything mentioned in the notes section- like who the launch customer is- is already covered in other areas.--Bangabalunga 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hated the notes section, mostly empty cell - good riddance. The photos do look better at the bottom, as there were so many, but we could still keep a few down the side. I'm sure there are a few people using 640×480 or 800×600 but everything they look at on the web must be cramped, I don't see why we should construct pages on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Gerbilface 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALAFCO

Why is ALAFCO in the orders-by-customer table when they have no orders? They should be removed just like Primaris was, if indeed their order was transfered to the Kuwait Airways. 192.88.212.44 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Qantas Order

Qantas just bought another 20 firm, but I'm not about to edit that complicated table. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=ao81UH_16VO8&refer=australia 24.63.204.55 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Atlantic Airways

According to [[3]] Virgin has converted its 8 options into firm orders but this hasn't yet been noted on this page. I was hesitant to do it simply because I'm a bit unsure of the way this type of conversion would be noted and didn't want to screw things up. So could someone please modify the tables to show this? Thanks. NcSchu 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Al

El Al has selected the 787, but the quantity is not yet known: [4] 65.166.89.2 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither El Al's order nor Arkia/Nakesh's follow-on order is included in the Boeing weekly orders. These seem to be news reports about intended future orders. They should either be removed from the list altogether, placed in possible future orders with the source, or added as pending if a a release from the airline or Boeing indicating they will be direct orders rather than leases can be found. The total should be reset to 677 firm, and the numbers of each model and engine should be checked. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now (or for the next ~8 days) to do this properly, so can someone else please take care of it? --Nick Moss 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LAN Chile

LAN Chile bought 32 - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN1238287220070712?rpc=44 $100m/frame, not bad! 24.63.204.55 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New ILFC order for LAN Chile?

The list of leased aircraft shows that LAN Chile will be leasing 6 787-9 from ILFC, but acording to the chart ILFC have only ordered 1. Any thoughts? (64.252.134.13 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Is the chart right in both places? (68.246.150.30 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fate of Hong Kong Airways and Garuda Orders

Is there any insight on what is happening with these two orders? The Hong Kong Airways one seems to be dead in the water, given they have ordered A320s and A330s for their fleet explansion.

Meanwhile, Garuda has been quietly removed from the list of airlines on the New Airplane website - is this order also dead in the water?

--Nick Moss 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible future orders

Why did 203.177.247.116 removed a "Possible future orders" section from the 787 page and added it t the A350 page? The section talks about both airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedz (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Mikedz 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pending Orders

Does it make sense to list pending orders from the years 2004,2005 and 2006? I propose, to remove it. It seems, such pending orders did not lead to a real order, --84.161.155.254 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOT - inconsistent dates

I believe LOT is the launch customer in Europe, but one table says 2008 and another one claims 2012. I think it should be 2008 in both tables, although I'm not sure of that. 83.16.106.14 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)