berari
Topic Author
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:47 pm

Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:58 am

The first Ethiopian B787 terrible teen has not flowing since April 17, 2018. This aircraft (ET-ATG) like all of the other 5 terrible teens it operates, is leased in. It is also line number 10, which is the earliest of the teens in ET's fleet.

Does anyone know why it is stored and no longer being flown? I can't recall any incidents, and its last flight was from Pointe Noir to Addis Ababa in April.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:09 am

Does it have RR engines?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
itchief
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:10 am

Not that hard to figure out, it has RR Trent 1000.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:14 am

hOMSaR wrote:
Does it have RR engines?

Our thread RR: 'Perfect Storm'? says it does.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
dkny
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:31 am

I saw a picture of the PM visiting Ethiopian facilities the day the terminal expansion was inaugurated where a 787 was painted in a Star Alliance livery. The registration on the weel cover was partially covered and it just showed the T... could be ATG
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:00 pm

berari wrote:
itchief wrote:
Not that hard to figure out, it has RR Trent 1000.


I'm glad we have you here to remind us of the trivial facts.

Someone asked, he responded; where's the problem???
 
fjhc
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:34 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:06 pm

I suppose if you have to ground a 787 because of the RR issues, then grounding the oldest, most terrible of the terrible teens, would make sense. The fuel burn of that LN#10 airframe compared to others will be higher, as will maintenance costs.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:32 pm

Eh. LN 10 was part of a build block that went from LN 7 through LN 19. All of those frames (Ethiopian received 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) have similar weight and maintenance issues. Each is ~6 t overweight and all of them are limited to 220 t MTOW (which is why they were a good fit for ET, which is takeoff weight limited out of ADD). I expect LN 10 just happened to be the most convenient one to park for whatever reason when there was a shortage of flyable T1000s.

"Real" production 787-8s with full MTOW capability started with LN 20, and weight was successively improved in blocks starting at LN 34, LN 50, LN 67, and LN 90 (where spec weight was reached).
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:58 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Eh. LN 10 was part of a build block that went from LN 7 through LN 19. All of those frames (Ethiopian received 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) have similar weight and maintenance issues. Each is ~6 t overweight and all of them are limited to 220 t MTOW (which is why they were a good fit for ET, which is takeoff weight limited out of ADD). I expect LN 10 just happened to be the most convenient one to park for whatever reason when there was a shortage of flyable T1000s.

"Real" production 787-8s with full MTOW capability started with LN 20, and weight was successively improved in blocks starting at LN 34, LN 50, LN 67, and LN 90 (where spec weight was reached).


This is a really informative post. Thank you for this!
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
Eh. LN 10 was part of a build block that went from LN 7 through LN 19. All of those frames (Ethiopian received 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) have similar weight and maintenance issues. Each is ~6 t overweight and all of them are limited to 220 t MTOW (which is why they were a good fit for ET, which is takeoff weight limited out of ADD). I expect LN 10 just happened to be the most convenient one to park for whatever reason when there was a shortage of flyable T1000s.

"Real" production 787-8s with full MTOW capability started with LN 20, and weight was successively improved in blocks starting at LN 34, LN 50, LN 67, and LN 90 (where spec weight was reached).


This is a really informative post. Thank you for this!

I happen to agree with seaboddca's summary on why LN10 was parked, but I also speculate it has the *lowest* monthly lease payments and would be one of the few I'd pick if I were on RR's team to minimize penalty payments. :spin:

Convenient and cheap. Partially as few wanted a widebody missing the ability to carry payload and a high fuel load (as the about 6 tons more structure adds up), but for ET, they have enough routes within say 5000nm that it was worth it. For those needing EU to Asia or TPAC, they weren't interested. This is a regional widebody as all of the "terrible teens" are (LN 7 to LN19).

Image

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:38 am

lightsaber wrote:
Convenient and cheap. Partially as few wanted a widebody missing the ability to carry payload and a high fuel load (as the about 6 tons more structure adds up), but for ET, they have enough routes within say 5000nm that it was worth it. For those needing EU to Asia or TPAC, they weren't interested. This is a regional widebody as all of the "terrible teens" are (LN 7 to LN19).


Indeed. In capability and operating cost they are rather similar to low MTOW A330-200s. They work well for ET because 1) ET has lots of regional and medium-haul widebody routes; 2) ET can't make use of full MTOW out of ADD anyway; and 3) commonality with ET's more capable and efficient later-build 787s. I'd be very very curious what sort of purchase price the lease terms correspond with. Boeing made multiple deals to sell at least a few of the teens, and airlines backed out.
 
brindabella
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:33 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Eh. LN 10 was part of a build block that went from LN 7 through LN 19. All of those frames (Ethiopian received 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) have similar weight and maintenance issues. Each is ~6 t overweight and all of them are limited to 220 t MTOW (which is why they were a good fit for ET, which is takeoff weight limited out of ADD). I expect LN 10 just happened to be the most convenient one to park for whatever reason when there was a shortage of flyable T1000s.

"Real" production 787-8s with full MTOW capability started with LN 20, and weight was successively improved in blocks starting at LN 34, LN 50, LN 67, and LN 90 (where spec weight was reached).
\

Any idea where the weight is w.r.t. the Spec. now?

cheers
Billy
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:15 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I happen to agree with seaboddca's summary on why LN10 was parked, but I also speculate it has the *lowest* monthly lease payments and would be one of the few I'd pick if I were on RR's team to minimize penalty payments. :spin:

Convenient and cheap. Partially as few wanted a widebody missing the ability to carry payload and a high fuel load (as the about 6 tons more structure adds up), but for ET, they have enough routes within say 5000nm that it was worth it. For those needing EU to Asia or TPAC, they weren't interested. This is a regional widebody as all of the "terrible teens" are (LN 7 to LN19).


seabosdca wrote:
Indeed. In capability and operating cost they are rather similar to low MTOW A330-200s. They work well for ET because 1) ET has lots of regional and medium-haul widebody routes; 2) ET can't make use of full MTOW out of ADD anyway; and 3) commonality with ET's more capable and efficient later-build 787s. I'd be very very curious what sort of purchase price the lease terms correspond with. Boeing made multiple deals to sell at least a few of the teens, and airlines backed out.


I think it's more complicated than that. ET has 4x B787-9, all with RR Trent engines, and all leased from AerCap. However, ET has 19x B787-8. The 6x "terrible teens" all have RR Trent engines, and are all leased. The remaining 13x all have GE engines, and the first 10 of them are owned, only the last 3 are leased. So they only have nine aircraft with RR Trent engine issues, and the B787-8 and B787-9 don't have interchangeable engines. Given that the 6 "terrible teens" were acquired together they likely have similar lease costs. Furthermore, give that the RR Trent engine issues were already widely known when ET took delivery of the 6 "terrible teen" models it was likely already accounting for in the lease rates along with the weight issues. They are not likely receiving any penalty payments from RR on the terrible teens unless RR are not meeting their agreed obligations in terms of their response. Obviously that is different for the B787-9, but they have been delivered since August 2017 they are likely "factory fixed" already.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25906
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:27 pm

brindabella wrote:
Any idea where the weight is w.r.t. the Spec. now?


In a Boeing 242-seat OEM configuration, ~120,000kg. Airline DOWs will likely be similar based on what I have seen for 787-9 DOWs vis-a-via Boeing's ACAP.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:31 pm

evanb wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I happen to agree with seaboddca's summary on why LN10 was parked, but I also speculate it has the *lowest* monthly lease payments and would be one of the few I'd pick if I were on RR's team to minimize penalty payments. :spin:

Convenient and cheap. Partially as few wanted a widebody missing the ability to carry payload and a high fuel load (as the about 6 tons more structure adds up), but for ET, they have enough routes within say 5000nm that it was worth it. For those needing EU to Asia or TPAC, they weren't interested. This is a regional widebody as all of the "terrible teens" are (LN 7 to LN19).


seabosdca wrote:
Indeed. In capability and operating cost they are rather similar to low MTOW A330-200s. They work well for ET because 1) ET has lots of regional and medium-haul widebody routes; 2) ET can't make use of full MTOW out of ADD anyway; and 3) commonality with ET's more capable and efficient later-build 787s. I'd be very very curious what sort of purchase price the lease terms correspond with. Boeing made multiple deals to sell at least a few of the teens, and airlines backed out.


I think it's more complicated than that. ET has 4x B787-9, all with RR Trent engines, and all leased from AerCap. However, ET has 19x B787-8. The 6x "terrible teens" all have RR Trent engines, and are all leased. The remaining 13x all have GE engines, and the first 10 of them are owned, only the last 3 are leased. So they only have nine aircraft with RR Trent engine issues, and the B787-8 and B787-9 don't have interchangeable engines. Given that the 6 "terrible teens" were acquired together they likely have similar lease costs. Furthermore, give that the RR Trent engine issues were already widely known when ET took delivery of the 6 "terrible teen" models it was likely already accounting for in the lease rates along with the weight issues. They are not likely receiving any penalty payments from RR on the terrible teens unless RR are not meeting their agreed obligations in terms of their response. Obviously that is different for the B787-9, but they have been delivered since August 2017 they are likely "factory fixed" already.


ET’s latest 789s will now come with GEnx engines also, seems they have had enough with RR.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25906
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:44 pm

evanb wrote:
However, ET has 19x B787-8. The 6x "terrible teens" all have RR Trent engines, and are all leased. The remaining 13x all have GE engines, and the first 10 of them are owned, only the last 3 are leased.


Did ET sell their six RR 787-8s and lease them back? I ask because Boeing's O&D shows them as direct sales to ET (along with 10 787-8s with GEnx power).


ikolkyo wrote:
ET’s latest 789s will now come with GEnx engines also, seems they have had enough with RR.


Or it could just be that the lessor for those frames has a deal with GE.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:51 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
ET’s latest 789s will now come with GEnx engines also, seems they have had enough with RR.


Not the reason. All the factory new ordered B787s were ordered with GE engines. They picked up two batches of RR engines, the 6 "terrible teen" B787-8 and 4x B787-9 that were ordered by AerCap and leased to ET (lease was too late to change the engine). The next batch of B787-9 ordered by CIT with GE engines, hence back to the GE.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:58 pm

Stitch wrote:
Did ET sell their six RR 787-8s and lease them back? I ask because Boeing's O&D shows them as direct sales to ET (along with 10 787-8s with GEnx power).


No, the six terrible teens were never purchased by ET. They were leased from Boeing Capital who then sold the leases on to other lessors. ET doesn't do much in the way of sale and leaseback on Boeing product since it messes with EXIM subsidized funding.

ikolkyo wrote:
Or it could just be that the lessor for those frames has a deal with GE.


Both AerCap and CIT who ordered the B787-9s and then leased them to ET (first and second batch). AerCap and CIT have portfolios of B787s on lease to customers with RR and GE engines. For example, CIT have RR with Norwegian and GE with Oman, while AerCap have both just with Ethiopian, nevermind other carriers. They both allow customer choice of engines, however, if the aicraft gets to engine choice before an assigned customer they have to make the choice. That's what happened with ET's first batch of B787-9s.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:00 pm

evanb wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Did ET sell their six RR 787-8s and lease them back? I ask because Boeing's O&D shows them as direct sales to ET (along with 10 787-8s with GEnx power).


No, the six terrible teens were never purchased by ET. They were leased from Boeing Capital who then sold the leases on to other lessors. ET doesn't do much in the way of sale and leaseback on Boeing product since it messes with EXIM subsidized funding.

ikolkyo wrote:
Or it could just be that the lessor for those frames has a deal with GE.


Both AerCap and CIT who ordered the B787-9s and then leased them to ET (first and second batch). AerCap and CIT have portfolios of B787s on lease to customers with RR and GE engines. For example, CIT have RR with Norwegian and GE with Oman, while AerCap have both just with Ethiopian, nevermind other carriers. They both allow customer choice of engines, however, if the aicraft gets to engine choice before an assigned customer they have to make the choice. That's what happened with ET's first batch of B787-9s.


I think you botched your 2nd reply as I didn’t say that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25906
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:20 pm

evanb wrote:
No, the six terrible teens were never purchased by ET. They were leased from Boeing Capital who then sold the leases on to other lessors. ET doesn't do much in the way of sale and leaseback on Boeing product since it messes with EXIM subsidized funding.


Fair enough. I wonder why Boeing shows them as ordered by and delivered to ET when they were not.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:32 pm

This was simply the way Boeing did it with all of the orders they leased to their customers. With the new accounting rules they can't do this anymore, that's why you now have all the Boeing Capital orders.

An order by a customer looks better on the books then an order to Boeing company. I can't think of any other rational reason behind it.
 
airnorth
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:40 pm

Very informative post, thanks everyone, for the info, and keeping it civil!
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:08 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I think you botched your 2nd reply as I didn’t say that.


My apologies, I botched the text I deleted. It was Stich.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:15 pm

Stitch wrote:
Fair enough. I wonder why Boeing shows them as ordered by and delivered to ET when they were not.


There are so many weird idiosyncrasies which can determine how Boeing captures it, and that doesn't always remain consistent over time. I think ET now operates enough B787s (23 at present, with 4 more to come) that they can legitimately operate both engine types. Furthermore, keep in mind that while the Trent XWB on the A350 is not interchangeable with the Trent 1000 on the B787s, there is a very large degree of commonality, both in terms of skills and tooling, but also parts, so you can also add the +-24 A350-900 in the mix.
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
evanb wrote:
No, the six terrible teens were never purchased by ET. They were leased from Boeing Capital who then sold the leases on to other lessors. ET doesn't do much in the way of sale and leaseback on Boeing product since it messes with EXIM subsidized funding.


Fair enough. I wonder why Boeing shows them as ordered by and delivered to ET when they were not.


They’re shown as ordered by ET because they were. ET is active in the SLB market and export credit. They tend to use a mix of funding.
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:56 pm

Sorta off topic but are they using the 787s as a one for one replacement of the 763? Where are they going?
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:15 pm

Speaking to some of their crew at Jeddah recently, the RR engines on their -800s are rated at 69k which makes them a lot more restricted than 72k options.

If their fleet planners had any sense, they would have bought 330s with the Trent offering.
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:17 pm

UnitedIsBae wrote:
Sorta off topic but are they using the 787s as a one for one replacement of the 763? Where are they going?


planespotters.net is your friend: 6 still in service I believe (incl. one on UN duty), 9 763s gone to a wide variety of destinations (e.g. El Al, Amazon, Polar, MIAT Mongolia, Azur etc. etc.)
Last edited by GCT64 on Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,B190,(..54 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 pm

GCT64 wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
Sorta off topic but are they using the 787s as a one for one replacement of the 763? Where are they going?


planespotters.net is your friend: 6 still in service I believe (incl. one on UN duty), 12 763s gone to a wide variety of destinations (e.g. El Al, Amazon, Polar, MIAT Mongolia, Azur etc. etc.)


thank you
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:20 pm

UnitedIsBae wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
UnitedIsBae wrote:
Sorta off topic but are they using the 787s as a one for one replacement of the 763? Where are they going?


planespotters.net is your friend: 6 still in service I believe (incl. one on UN duty), 12 763s gone to a wide variety of destinations (e.g. El Al, Amazon, Polar, MIAT Mongolia, Azur etc. etc.)


thank you


There was a typo, it should have said "9 gone to ...." I've edited the original post I made
Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,B190,(..54 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:08 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Speaking to some of their crew at Jeddah recently, the RR engines on their -800s are rated at 69k which makes them a lot more restricted than 72k options.

If their fleet planners had any sense, they would have bought 330s with the Trent offering.

And add another new type to their already diverse widebody fleet? Thats going to cost more than having a small subfleet of slightly less able sisterships around. And these birds are presumably leased at a cheaper rate than a "normal" 787.

Furthermore, the terrible teens are used interchangeably with "normal" 787s on longer routes than the regional role that they were expected to be on. These planes have been to SIN/HKG/NRT (old routing via HKG) so they aren't that handicapped to a point that it affects operational flexibility.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:42 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
And add another new type to their already diverse widebody fleet? Thats going to cost more than having a small subfleet of slightly less able sisterships around. And these birds are presumably leased at a cheaper rate than a "normal" 787.


The lease rates on the "terrible teens" are excellent, well below market rate for normal B787s.

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Furthermore, the terrible teens are used interchangeably with "normal" 787s on longer routes than the regional role that they were expected to be on. These planes have been to SIN/HKG/NRT (old routing via HKG) so they aren't that handicapped to a point that it affects operational flexibility.


ADD-SIN, ADD-HKG and ADD-BKK are not particularly long routes (+- 4,000mnm). When people refer to the routes they don't get seen on, they're referring to ADD-GRU and the non-stop returns from North America which are 5,000/6,000 plus nm.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:50 pm

sxf24 wrote:
They’re shown as ordered by ET because they were. ET is active in the SLB market and export credit. They tend to use a mix of funding.


I never said they didn't. I just said they're cautious because without EXIM funding they wouldn't be where they are. They do use a mix of funding and have tended to use leasing of ET factory ordered aircraft when EXIM hasn't been available. They've never taken an EXIM financed aircraft and done an SLB transaction on it without intermediate refinancing. But they've also taken leased aircraft directly from lessors, new and second hand, which were not ET ordered aircraft.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 pm

evanb wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Furthermore, the terrible teens are used interchangeably with "normal" 787s on longer routes than the regional role that they were expected to be on. These planes have been to SIN/HKG/NRT (old routing via HKG) so they aren't that handicapped to a point that it affects operational flexibility.


ADD-SIN, ADD-HKG and ADD-BKK are not particularly long routes (+- 4,000mnm). When people refer to the routes they don't get seen on, they're referring to ADD-GRU and the non-stop returns from North America which are 5,000/6,000 plus nm.

My point is, they were originally meant for much shorter routes in the ET network (eg Rome, intra-Africa), and they had stayed in that role for a while. In some of the threads regarding the terrible teens,it was surmised that this sub-fleet was more suited for regional routes where RR has an advantage in and where the additional weight wouldn't be too much of a concern. They then started appearing on the Asian routes as "once-off" occurrences as operational replacements for the GE birds, and now, they are frequently on the Asian routes, alongside the GE birds.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:11 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
evanb wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
Furthermore, the terrible teens are used interchangeably with "normal" 787s on longer routes than the regional role that they were expected to be on. These planes have been to SIN/HKG/NRT (old routing via HKG) so they aren't that handicapped to a point that it affects operational flexibility.


ADD-SIN, ADD-HKG and ADD-BKK are not particularly long routes (+- 4,000mnm). When people refer to the routes they don't get seen on, they're referring to ADD-GRU and the non-stop returns from North America which are 5,000/6,000 plus nm.

My point is, they were originally meant for much shorter routes in the ET network (eg Rome, intra-Africa), and they had stayed in that role for a while. In some of the threads regarding the terrible teens,it was surmised that this sub-fleet was more suited for regional routes where RR has an advantage in and where the additional weight wouldn't be too much of a concern. They then started appearing on the Asian routes as "once-off" occurrences as operational replacements for the GE birds, and now, they are frequently on the Asian routes, alongside the GE birds.

Well, maybe it simply means those terrible teens were not that terrible after all, or that they have matured in young adults.
ET is the best to know the actual numbers and how those frames fit in their network.
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:37 pm

evanb wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
They’re shown as ordered by ET because they were. ET is active in the SLB market and export credit. They tend to use a mix of funding.


I never said they didn't. I just said they're cautious because without EXIM funding they wouldn't be where they are. They do use a mix of funding and have tended to use leasing of ET factory ordered aircraft when EXIM hasn't been available. They've never taken an EXIM financed aircraft and done an SLB transaction on it without intermediate refinancing. But they've also taken leased aircraft directly from lessors, new and second hand, which were not ET ordered aircraft.


You can't do a SLB on an Ex-Im financed aircraft and Ex-Im has nothing to do with the aircraft being discussed.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:48 pm

sxf24 wrote:
You can't do a SLB on an Ex-Im financed aircraft and Ex-Im has nothing to do with the aircraft being discussed.


That's the point I was making. If you go through the whole thread it'll be clear that the point that I was making was that the specific aircraft (the "terrible teens") were not SLB aircraft, and that generally ET don't do much SLB transaction because they are highly reliant on EXIM finance, not because these aircraft were EXIM.
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:49 pm

evanb wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
You can't do a SLB on an Ex-Im financed aircraft and Ex-Im has nothing to do with the aircraft being discussed.


That's the point I was making. If you go through the whole thread it'll be clear that the point that I was making was that the specific aircraft (the "terrible teens") were not SLB aircraft, and that generally ET don't do much SLB transaction because they are highly reliant on EXIM finance, not because these aircraft were EXIM.


Your points continue to be wrong. The specific aircraft WERE financed with SLBs.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:00 am

sxf24 wrote:
Your points continue to be wrong. The specific aircraft WERE financed with SLBs.


I'm not sure how you define an SLB, but the accounting definition of an SLB would require writing it up as an asset on the balance sheet, and then noting a disposal in the notes. From ET's financial statements you can see the following:

30 June 2015 - 30 June 2016 notes disposals of aircraft of $0.1 million
30 June 2016 - 30 June 2017 notes disposals of aircraft $14.8 million
These six aircraft were all delivered between 16 Sep 2016 and 29 June 2017.

There are claims of an SLB: for example, two aircraft are leased from SKY Aviation Leasing, ET-ATH delivered on 30 Mar 2017 and ET-ATG delivered on 29 Jun 2017. SKY released a press release on 29 June 2017 noting a sale and leaseback (https://www.skyleasing.com/news/SKY-Lea ... -Ethiopian). So this suggests that an SLB would have occurred between 30 Mar 2017 and 29 June 2017, right? But unless ET sold them to SKY for $7.4 million each, then SKY didn't buy them from ET. And we all know, that even these aircraft cost a shift ton more than $7.4 million. So who did SKY buy them from?

What in fact happened, and what SKY (incorrectly IMHO) call an SLB, is that ET agreed a price with Boeing Capital who owned the aircraft. However, before they took delivery of the aircraft, they ceded the contract to purchase the aircraft to SKY in return for an operating lease. They did this because they couldn't secure EXIM financing guarantees on these aircraft because EXIM got shut down for 5 months just around when ET signed the contract with Boeing and it wasn't clear if and when EXIM would get reopened. ET cannot raise capital efficiently without EXIM or similar guarantees, mostly because of underdeveloped domestic financing or currency risk on foreign loans, even with good collateral like a B787. You may want to call this an SLB, and obviously some do, but this is very different from an SLB where an the airline takes delivery of an aircraft financed on their own balance sheet or with secured debt and then sells it to a lessor with the provision to lease it back.

People can refer to both as an SLB, but I don't think they both are.
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:26 am

evanb wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
Your points continue to be wrong. The specific aircraft WERE financed with SLBs.


I'm not sure how you define an SLB, but the accounting definition of an SLB would require writing it up as an asset on the balance sheet, and then noting a disposal in the notes. From ET's financial statements you can see the following:

30 June 2015 - 30 June 2016 notes disposals of aircraft of $0.1 million
30 June 2016 - 30 June 2017 notes disposals of aircraft $14.8 million
These six aircraft were all delivered between 16 Sep 2016 and 29 June 2017.

There are claims of an SLB: for example, two aircraft are leased from SKY Aviation Leasing, ET-ATH delivered on 30 Mar 2017 and ET-ATG delivered on 29 Jun 2017. SKY released a press release on 29 June 2017 noting a sale and leaseback (https://www.skyleasing.com/news/SKY-Lea ... -Ethiopian). So this suggests that an SLB would have occurred between 30 Mar 2017 and 29 June 2017, right? But unless ET sold them to SKY for $7.4 million each, then SKY didn't buy them from ET. And we all know, that even these aircraft cost a shift ton more than $7.4 million. So who did SKY buy them from?

What in fact happened, and what SKY (incorrectly IMHO) call an SLB, is that ET agreed a price with Boeing Capital who owned the aircraft. However, before they took delivery of the aircraft, they ceded the contract to purchase the aircraft to SKY in return for an operating lease. They did this because they couldn't secure EXIM financing guarantees on these aircraft because EXIM got shut down for 5 months just around when ET signed the contract with Boeing and it wasn't clear if and when EXIM would get reopened. ET cannot raise capital efficiently without EXIM or similar guarantees, mostly because of underdeveloped domestic financing or currency risk on foreign loans, even with good collateral like a B787. You may want to call this an SLB, and obviously some do, but this is very different from an SLB where an the airline takes delivery of an aircraft financed on their own balance sheet or with secured debt and then sells it to a lessor with the provision to lease it back.

People can refer to both as an SLB, but I don't think they both are.


It is normal for an aircraft SLB to happen at delivery. If the aircraft is sold to the lessor at the same price as purchased from the OEM, there are no gains or losses, nor is it reported as an addition than a disposal.

Your history of the aircraft conflicts from FlightGlobal, which says the aircraft were ordered and delivered to ET with a purchase and leaseback (the lessor term for a SLB) at delivery. I've seen no reference in any database or Boeing's SEC filings that the aircraft were owned by Boeing Capital.

I would suggest you stop spouting nonsense. I lease airplanes for a living.
 
evanb
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:45 pm

sxf24 wrote:
I would suggest you stop spouting nonsense. I lease airplanes for a living.


I did the deal for these six, so there's that ...
 
smartplane
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:03 pm

sxf24 wrote:
evanb wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
Your points continue to be wrong. The specific aircraft WERE financed with SLBs.


I'm not sure how you define an SLB, but the accounting definition of an SLB would require writing it up as an asset on the balance sheet, and then noting a disposal in the notes. From ET's financial statements you can see the following:

30 June 2015 - 30 June 2016 notes disposals of aircraft of $0.1 million
30 June 2016 - 30 June 2017 notes disposals of aircraft $14.8 million
These six aircraft were all delivered between 16 Sep 2016 and 29 June 2017.

There are claims of an SLB: for example, two aircraft are leased from SKY Aviation Leasing, ET-ATH delivered on 30 Mar 2017 and ET-ATG delivered on 29 Jun 2017. SKY released a press release on 29 June 2017 noting a sale and leaseback (https://www.skyleasing.com/news/SKY-Lea ... -Ethiopian). So this suggests that an SLB would have occurred between 30 Mar 2017 and 29 June 2017, right? But unless ET sold them to SKY for $7.4 million each, then SKY didn't buy them from ET. And we all know, that even these aircraft cost a shift ton more than $7.4 million. So who did SKY buy them from?

What in fact happened, and what SKY (incorrectly IMHO) call an SLB, is that ET agreed a price with Boeing Capital who owned the aircraft. However, before they took delivery of the aircraft, they ceded the contract to purchase the aircraft to SKY in return for an operating lease. They did this because they couldn't secure EXIM financing guarantees on these aircraft because EXIM got shut down for 5 months just around when ET signed the contract with Boeing and it wasn't clear if and when EXIM would get reopened. ET cannot raise capital efficiently without EXIM or similar guarantees, mostly because of underdeveloped domestic financing or currency risk on foreign loans, even with good collateral like a B787. You may want to call this an SLB, and obviously some do, but this is very different from an SLB where an the airline takes delivery of an aircraft financed on their own balance sheet or with secured debt and then sells it to a lessor with the provision to lease it back.

People can refer to both as an SLB, but I don't think they both are.


It is normal for an aircraft SLB to happen at delivery. If the aircraft is sold to the lessor at the same price as purchased from the OEM, there are no gains or losses, nor is it reported as an addition than a disposal.

Your history of the aircraft conflicts from FlightGlobal, which says the aircraft were ordered and delivered to ET with a purchase and leaseback (the lessor term for a SLB) at delivery. I've seen no reference in any database or Boeing's SEC filings that the aircraft were owned by Boeing Capital.

I would suggest you stop spouting nonsense. I lease airplanes for a living.

All the undelivered teens were notionally owned by Boeing Capital at some point or other, as has historically been the case with other development aircraft.

To satisfy 'new' aircraft EXIM rules, ownership is internally transferred, and then when they find a home, are transferred back to BCA.

SEC rule changes and clarifications has an impact now on such transfers, but only at this stage on Boeing Capital and commercial aircraft, not military.

SLB, in particular timing, can have as much to do with tax effectiveness and related financing, as the aircraft itself.
 
smartplane
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:08 pm

evanb wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
And add another new type to their already diverse widebody fleet? Thats going to cost more than having a small subfleet of slightly less able sisterships around. And these birds are presumably leased at a cheaper rate than a "normal" 787.


The lease rates on the "terrible teens" are excellent, well below market rate for normal B787s.

Unless you are privy to the 'true' purchase price, including previously undisclosed retrospective credits, unit values on the aircraft including fees and drawdowns, and residual and EOL payments, only notional lease costs are known.

As you advise later in the thread you were specifically involved in this transaction, I recommend caution in any more specific disclosures.
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:55 pm

evanb wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
I would suggest you stop spouting nonsense. I lease airplanes for a living.


I did the deal for these six, so there's that ...


Do you work for ET? If not I'm not sure I understand as the planes were financed by multiple different parties.

smartplane wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
evanb wrote:

I'm not sure how you define an SLB, but the accounting definition of an SLB would require writing it up as an asset on the balance sheet, and then noting a disposal in the notes. From ET's financial statements you can see the following:

30 June 2015 - 30 June 2016 notes disposals of aircraft of $0.1 million
30 June 2016 - 30 June 2017 notes disposals of aircraft $14.8 million
These six aircraft were all delivered between 16 Sep 2016 and 29 June 2017.

There are claims of an SLB: for example, two aircraft are leased from SKY Aviation Leasing, ET-ATH delivered on 30 Mar 2017 and ET-ATG delivered on 29 Jun 2017. SKY released a press release on 29 June 2017 noting a sale and leaseback (https://www.skyleasing.com/news/SKY-Lea ... -Ethiopian). So this suggests that an SLB would have occurred between 30 Mar 2017 and 29 June 2017, right? But unless ET sold them to SKY for $7.4 million each, then SKY didn't buy them from ET. And we all know, that even these aircraft cost a shift ton more than $7.4 million. So who did SKY buy them from?

What in fact happened, and what SKY (incorrectly IMHO) call an SLB, is that ET agreed a price with Boeing Capital who owned the aircraft. However, before they took delivery of the aircraft, they ceded the contract to purchase the aircraft to SKY in return for an operating lease. They did this because they couldn't secure EXIM financing guarantees on these aircraft because EXIM got shut down for 5 months just around when ET signed the contract with Boeing and it wasn't clear if and when EXIM would get reopened. ET cannot raise capital efficiently without EXIM or similar guarantees, mostly because of underdeveloped domestic financing or currency risk on foreign loans, even with good collateral like a B787. You may want to call this an SLB, and obviously some do, but this is very different from an SLB where an the airline takes delivery of an aircraft financed on their own balance sheet or with secured debt and then sells it to a lessor with the provision to lease it back.

People can refer to both as an SLB, but I don't think they both are.


It is normal for an aircraft SLB to happen at delivery. If the aircraft is sold to the lessor at the same price as purchased from the OEM, there are no gains or losses, nor is it reported as an addition than a disposal.

Your history of the aircraft conflicts from FlightGlobal, which says the aircraft were ordered and delivered to ET with a purchase and leaseback (the lessor term for a SLB) at delivery. I've seen no reference in any database or Boeing's SEC filings that the aircraft were owned by Boeing Capital.

I would suggest you stop spouting nonsense. I lease airplanes for a living.

All the undelivered teens were notionally owned by Boeing Capital at some point or other, as has historically been the case with other development aircraft.

To satisfy 'new' aircraft EXIM rules, ownership is internally transferred, and then when they find a home, are transferred back to BCA.

SEC rule changes and clarifications has an impact now on such transfers, but only at this stage on Boeing Capital and commercial aircraft, not military.

SLB, in particular timing, can have as much to do with tax effectiveness and related financing, as the aircraft itself.


Development aircraft are not owned by Boeing Capital. Or, Boeing Capital never discloses that they own development aircraft.
 
nelbert75
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:19 pm

They seem to store one at GVA. I am there often at all times of the day from early morning through to evening and there is always a 787 sitting. I don't know the schedule but it doesn't seem a terribly efficient use of an airframe
 
berari
Topic Author
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:18 am

UnitedIsBae wrote:
Sorta off topic but are they using the 787s as a one for one replacement of the 763? Where are they going?


They have gone beyond a one for one replacement for the 763, in fact, their growth has not allowed for the 763 to be retired just yet. The 763 operate on a handful of routes, specifically Delhi, with irregular services to Bamako/Dakar, Beirut, secondary Nigerian cities and some East African destinations including Moroni.
 
danj555
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:09 am

seabosdca wrote:
Eh. LN 10 was part of a build block that went from LN 7 through LN 19. All of those frames (Ethiopian received 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) have similar weight and maintenance issues. Each is ~6 t overweight and all of them are limited to 220 t MTOW (which is why they were a good fit for ET, which is takeoff weight limited out of ADD). I expect LN 10 just happened to be the most convenient one to park for whatever reason when there was a shortage of flyable T1000s.

"Real" production 787-8s with full MTOW capability started with LN 20, and weight was successively improved in blocks starting at LN 34, LN 50, LN 67, and LN 90 (where spec weight was reached).


They only reached spec weight by the 90th plane?? Unreal. What caused them to be so overweight?
 
sxf24
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian terrible teen Boeing 787 stored/grounded

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:47 am

nelbert75 wrote:
They seem to store one at GVA. I am there often at all times of the day from early morning through to evening and there is always a 787 sitting. I don't know the schedule but it doesn't seem a terribly efficient use of an airframe


ET does night flights to/from ADD on almost all European flights leaving the aircraft parked during the day.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos