Talk:List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries

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 How to keep the project accurate and not a piecemeal of accurate information and outdated information mixed together.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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)..

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).

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)

Launch Customers

Even though the Boeing Orders site has not updated UA's engine choice. United Airlines could be flagged as red since UA and CO are now one airline and CO has opted for GEnx engines. Boeing Orders site is very slow to revise their orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But that's still a relevant source, so we'll wait until it's updated. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• EIS: Estimated In-Service date?
• TBA: To be announced? Ascertained? ???
• GE, RR: GE-Aviation, Rolls-Royce plc

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aeromexico

Aeromexico is going to receive 5 787s, however only 2 of these are ordered from Boeing. The other three are being taken on lease from ILFC. Thus, these aircraft are listed under ILFC's totals, not Aeromexico's. To those who keep changing Aeromexico's total to 5 aircraft, please do not do this unless Aeromexico actually have 5 aircraft on direct order from Boeing, and you have a source for this. --Nick Moss (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Totals need checking

I just corrected the addition of the 3rd September Gulf Air commitment, and while doing this I noticed the totals on this page no longer seem to match Boeing's. We have:

787-4: 43
787-8: 652
787-9: 220

While Boeing has:

787-3: 43
787-8: 644
787-9: 208

I was assuming that someone had misattributed a -9 order as a -8, but then I noticed the Air Berlin order doesn't agree either (25 at Boeing vs 28 here). I don't have the time right now to go through the page with a fine toothed comb and work out where the numbers are incorrect, but if someone else does, I'm sure it would be appreciated. --Nick Moss (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AA will be going with GEnx engines for their 787s. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/amr-ge-idUKN1726790120090917 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.101.158 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

American Airlines

AA goes for GEnx engines. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/amr-ge-idUKN1726790120090917 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.101.158 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard that american airlines are going to buy 48 B787s will 54 options and expect to get the 787 by 2012 i got the information from The Order from American Airlines --Trulystand700 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.243.130 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks,

New member here. I'm having difficulty in finding the appropriate place to ask this question.

Why have Eithad's 787 engine orders not been updated to include the GEnx engines in th e787 engine orders page? TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Should Cancellations be included

This is a List of Orders and not List of Orders and Cancellations. I've noticed that most of the cancellations or conversions from one model to another are unsourced and are creating confusion. What to do about it? (Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
Yes, cancelations of orders are a topic in a list of orders. They should of course have a source.Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Net orders

I reverted the changes of Marcosino Pedros Sancheza as they don't show the net cancellations as per Boeing.Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Options and rights

Also reverted the deletion of options and rights. Don't see that as confusing.Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

EIS

What is the source for EIS? Whose estimate is it? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better question - what does EIS stand for in the first place? 98.165.151.225 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi order cancelled?

Is the Iraqi order cancelled after the demise of Iraqi Airways?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/26/342442/kuwait-airways-unfazed-by-iraqi-airways-reported-closure.html

RGDS Alexmcfire

Order Summary better than list of orders

I'm reverting again to the order summary by customers. This is the best option to see at a glance. If all the orders are to be listed, then it should be all the orders, not excluding cancellations. But this is a very large list and not easy to keep clean, if users make changes to it. There are the options and rights, I don't find this confusing, as there are normally made public. If possible include citations. I also delete the list of "possible orders" this is not relevant for Wikipedia, there are no more than public comments and they are no binding. I did this also for the A350 list. Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Also include the commitments list.Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia uses all official data, it must not be only that from Boeing. Please modify it only if it has more information value. We should include the new EIS information as it is available, a simple reference would help.Cirrocumulus (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Etihad Engines

Hi folks, New member here. I'm having difficulty in finding the appropriate place to ask this question. Why have Eithad's 787 engine orders not been updated to include the GEnx engines in th e787 engine orders page? TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: Moved from above to more appropriate section)

Because this page doesn't confirm that Etihad has firmly ordered an engine. Do you have a WP:RS source that says otherwise? Ravendrop 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both sources he included in the article were actually relevant, don't you? Slasher-fun (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

From previous practice it has always been standard to wait until the aircraft company (A or B, depending on the list) lists the order as official on their site. Yes, the source (or at least one) definitely said they ordered, but it was dated 2 years ago, and the fact that it hasn't shown up on the Boeing sheet makes me think the 787 part wasn't firm. Someone else on here probably has a better idea than I though. Ravendrop 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm... Agree, we had the same "issue" with A380 orders in the past (Grupo Marsans). Slasher-fun (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(moved from above to proper discussion section)Hi Ravendrop,

My apologies for being so persistent about Etihad Airways 787 engine choice, but I fail to understand why you have not red flagged and revised the GEnx totals for their GEnx engine order. Boeing have listed the Etihad 787 order as official on their site. General Electric have listed the GEnx as Etihad's engine of choice for these 787 aircraft. Etihad Airways also have listed the 787 aircraft order including the GEnx engine as their choice for this airframe. please refer to the attached links. Thank you Sir.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q3/080714b_pr.html

July 14, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Etihad Airways today announced an order for 35 787-9 Dreamliners.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20090616.html

June 16 2009 --LE BOURGET -- Etihad Airways, the national airline of the United Arab Emirates, has selected the GEnx-1B engine to power its new fleet of 35 Boeing 787-9 aircraft.

http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/etihad/global/en/aboutetihad/mediacenter/newslisting/newsdetails/Pages/Etihadannouncesrecordbreakingdeal.aspx?fromNewsListing=false

June 16 2009-- The Abu Dhabi-based national airline of the United Arab Emirates announced firm orders today at the Paris Air Show for:

• 78 GEnx engines, to power its 35 new Boeing 787 aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As of right now, Boeing have only confirmed the order for the frames, and not the engine choice. See this page here, the lack of RR or GE beside the 787-9 indicates no confirmed engine order. As mentioned above, my recollection of normal practice is to wait until the order shows up as official on the boeing website (or airbus depending on manufacturer), even if press releases from the airline/engine company say otherwise, as we have had problems with this in the past, and so that a single, and most official, source is used. That being said, I may be wrong, or there may be strong reasons to change this practice, but it requires consensus first, and as of yet that hasn't happened in the discussion. I will alert the Aircraft Wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft) to this discussion so hopefully a wider consensus one way or the other can be achieved. Ravendrop 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's very strange that Boeing have not updated their 787 engine selection list for Eithad Airways after such a long time has passed since the Engine Manufacturer (GE) and Airline (Etihad Airways) announced their engine choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So maybe it's just not *that* firm. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are Singapore Airlines blue boxed for RR engines when they are NOT on the Boeing list, AND no engine choice on their behalf. Yet Etihad Airways are NOT red boxed for GEnx engines??????? http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=787&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=787&ViewReportF=View+Report

Singapore Airlines (SINGAPORE) 787-9 ((-)) 10-Oct-2006 20 - 20 - Subtotal 20 - 20

Come on it's time to straighten this engine mess out!! It's very obvious that Wikipedia is very pro RR!! It's time for a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on... Slasher-fun (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines have not decided engine choice yet for their 787s, so the TBA and Rolls Royce Trent 1000 should be removed from the bottom of the Singapore Airlines Fleet table. They might choose the GEnx engines for their 787s since the Trent 1000 had a serious uncontained engine failure at the Derby test cell. Boeing have had many problems with engine change-outs with the T1000 including 4 engines with cracked compressor blades.

The blue box must be removed for RR engines for Singapore Airlines on this list of Boeing 787 orders.

You're right. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 787–9 — 20/20 TBA Rolls Royce Trent 1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for removing Singapore Airlines blue box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.81.176 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Option and Rights

I propose the options and expecially the rights columns be removed, as they are not verifiable among other reasons.

- They are not listed on the Boeing order table.

- Some airline press releases may mention them, others may not.

- Like 'firm' order announcements they may be a change before signing even if it is in a press release.

- They are less defined than orders. What exactly is a 'right' anyway? How is this encyclopaedic if it's so poorly defined? Avinerd (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would expect DL to go with GEnx engines as AA and UA have chosen these engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about expectations, it's about facts. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta Airlines.

Delta Airlines do not have options for 100 or 50 787s. So these numbers, (100 or 50) should be removed from the options column for DL. Thanks for the correction in advance. The Boeing Orders site does not reflect these options. http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&pageid=m25065&RequestTimeout=20000 — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Any sources for that? Because my sources said they actually do (inherited from the merger with NW). Boeing.com doesn't list options. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted, "I would expect", there was no mention of Wiki. The GEnx is the best choice of engine as reflected in the totals page. When AA and UA are added the totals will zoom for GE. Most Trent introductions have grounded airlines, CX with the T800 series, QF and SIA with the T900 series and RR bankrupted and almost Lockheed from the RB211 series. Any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia is not a forum. And for relevant contributions, please sign them when they're in the discussion page. Thanks. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines.

Why does the options column not indicate Hainan Airlines order for 30 787-9 aircraft yet Delta Airlines shows 100 or 50 options which is not reported in any news article. Hinan will choose GEnx engines for these 30 aircraft.

http://www.whatsonsanya.com/travel-msg-1532.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsail (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a MoU, not an order. And also because it doesn't appear in Boeing O&D list. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

United/Continental

Under the orders chart United and Continental are listed as separate airlines. Shouldn't these 2 be merged into 1 order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.155.113 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We keep them as they are listed on the Boeing orders summary. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)