Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5773143/

Topic: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ukoverlander
Posted 2013-05-25 10:18:30 and read 21014 times.

Now that the 787 is finally returning to the skies, I can't help but feel that the senior management at Boeing would do well to quietly kill off/drop the name "Dreamliner" and simply refer to the aircraft as the 787 going forward. Given the problems in production, long delivery delays, the recent and extensive grounding of the aircraft, the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

Given the history of successful aircraft Boeing has produced that have simply been referred to by their 3 digit type (737, 747, 757, 767, 777, etc) maybe it's time to do the same with the marketing of the 787. The irony of the "Dreamliner" moniker is that it simply reminds everybody of all the difficulties that have plagued the aircraft. Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: maddog888
Posted 2013-05-25 10:46:37 and read 20796 times.

Whilst I follow your reasoning and can see some valid logic, I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air. All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity). Apart from one return to base flight, the passenger "FLIGHT" experience was and I assume will continue to be "dreamlike". So I see no reason that Boeing would want to quietly allow the name to fade away. Also from a purely commercial basis, Boeing has - presumably - an awful lot invested in that name just to throw it away.

Julian

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-25 10:52:46 and read 20728 times.

The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now. It would be like Boeing dropping use of the Stratocruiser name after that type's many crashes. That name was much more familiar to the public in the 1950s than Boeing 377.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-05-25 10:53:43 and read 20733 times.

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

Effective how? Boeing still has more than 800 aircraft left to deliver.

Every since United restarted domestic 787 flying this week we have seen great load factors on the 3 to 4 (depending on the day) 787 flights that we have on the ORD-IAH route. These 3 to 4 787 flights are in addition to our normal flight schedule they did not replace any of the aircraft UA normally uses on the ORD-IAH flights. Last saturday at this time all of our 787's flying ORD-IAH were almost empty while our normally scheduled flights were completely full and/or oversold. Monday and Tuesday most 787s left we plenty of empty seats but as the word got out that the 787 were flying a lot of people who were already going to fly from ORD to IAH began changing their flights from the 737 to the 787. We had passengers stay at ORD 2 to 3 extra hours just to get on a 787 flight to IAH. The only flight that has gone out with a lot of empty seats this week is the787 flight that leaves ORD at 2200 departure arriving into IAH after midnight. That flight is basically filled with employees who want to catch a ride on the 787. United is also seeing high load on the IAH-ORD 787 flights as well, and I'm sure both DEN and LAX are seeing high loads on their domestic 787 flights as well. So while it may seem like the grounding and all the production problems has tarnished the Dreamliner's image from the looks of it most passengers do not care. To have passengers voluntarily change their flight and stay at ORD 2-3 extra hours just to get on a Dreamliner is crazy because on a normal day most passengers try to catch an earlier flight to get out of ORD as quickly as possible. I think in the real world outside of aviation forums like this one the public is glad to see these plane back in the sky and they will do whatever they can to get on a Dreamliner if it is headed to their destination. So I think they should keep the name as it is Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: airdfw
Posted 2013-05-25 13:29:28 and read 19966 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: WildcatYXU
Posted 2013-05-25 16:05:13 and read 19210 times.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-05-25 16:11:42 and read 19097 times.

Why would Boeing or anyone else want to kill the name? It helps the general public tell the difference between the 787 and the 767 or 777. We know the difference in detail but much of the general public does not pay that much attention so the "Dreamliner" moniker helps set it apart in their minds. Dropping the name is not going to make any difference to anyone paying attention. The other issue is that they want to try to hype it to the public to goose sales, especially before the A350 gets off the ground. The fact is that the plane has little to directly offer the passenger and from a butt in seat standpoint is inferior to most 777 configurations. It does however offer a lot to the airline, with 777 per seat efficiency with 767 capacity.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-25 16:17:53 and read 18982 times.

Quoting airdfw (Reply 4):
Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?

First UA international 787 routes are the new DEN-NRT nonstop and one of 3 daily IAH-LHR flights, both starting June 10.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: seahawks7757
Posted 2013-05-25 16:27:47 and read 18804 times.

It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8370580033_dbae789843_b.jpg
JA813A ANA 787-8 Dreamliner by Brandon Farris Photography

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: HOmSaR
Posted 2013-05-25 16:33:36 and read 18690 times.

If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old, and already has its replacement under development. Yet, Boeing still refers to them as Next Generation aircraft.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ER757
Posted 2013-05-25 16:38:46 and read 18587 times.

I wish the manufacturers would go back to naming their models instead of using numbers. I miss ones like Constellation, Viscount, Caravelle, Comet, Concorde, etc. Yes, I know the Comet ended up being rather infamous but it was still a cool name. Those were so much better than 757, A320, Q400 etc. So if Boeing should drop anything, it should be "787"
In reality, there's as much chance of that as there is of "Dreamliner" fading quietly away. As someone else pointed out, the name is painted on nearly every one in service

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2013-05-25 16:40:54 and read 18549 times.

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 9):
If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old

Sorry, but it's still quite relevant to keep the NG designation, due to the hundreds of 737 "classics" still in service.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ghifty
Posted 2013-05-25 16:54:28 and read 18352 times.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

That's up to the airline. What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't. The OEM 787 will be better than the OEM 767 potential wise. It's not like carriers are opting to *not* pressurize the cabin 6,000 feet.. or installing standard-sized windows..

Let's not forget that Boeing's customers are airline, not so much the passengers flying in them.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

Don't all Dreamliners have that? Can be covered up easily, too.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: WildcatYXU
Posted 2013-05-25 17:11:35 and read 18123 times.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't.

OK, so the airlines designed the 787 to be a generous 8 abreast but only so-so but doable 9 abreast aircraft?

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-05-25 17:23:01 and read 17941 times.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):

The airlines do have an influence of the design of the aircraft.

I believe in the past, Boeing said they were not expecting the majority of the customers to select the nine-abreast seating like they have, but only the tour operators.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Tupolev160
Posted 2013-05-25 17:23:36 and read 17937 times.

I just prefer not to imagine the bashing it would have been if it was a Russian aircraft (such as the SSJ) grounded for so long and with fire on board... I can't but to be impressed how the majority of comments are clement and hopeful regarding the 787 since the incidents started happening, this actually might be the first topic in a realistic tone by the author, my regards...

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2013-05-25 17:25:27 and read 17908 times.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

But that's not Boeing's fault. If the airline decides to squeeze in tons of seats into a 3-4-3 configuration, it most certainly isn't a Dreamliner, but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-05-25 18:09:39 and read 17370 times.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

That....and JL and NH heavily market the aircraft here as the "dreamliner" itself, instead of the 787. Seriously, killing the name would kill off a huge brand which has a following here in Japan, even despite the incidents. I'm going to HND today and my buddies said to expect a huge crowd on top of T2 when the 787 arrives from CTS marking the return to commercial service for NH.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: bliksem
Posted 2013-05-25 18:09:43 and read 17370 times.

I believe that the name Dreamliner is great and is here to stay. The name has caught the attention and imagination not only of the industry but importantly also passengers. It is a refreshing departure from the boring and mostly confusing combinations of letters and numbers designating the offerings of different manufacturers. Boeing would do well to name their future models.   

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: WildcatYXU
Posted 2013-05-25 18:14:52 and read 17280 times.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.

OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...
As far as impact of the innovations on the passengers in concerned, please don't tell me it's the larger windows and higher cabin pressure. The passenger in 39E won't even see the window and what will be the real life cabin pressure remains to be seen.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-05-25 18:18:34 and read 17208 times.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...

It is just a marketing name...it can mean whatever Boeing wants it to be based on the context. For airlines they pitch the aircraft's innovation and efficiencies and for the public they pitch the improved passenger experience.

It is marketing, that is all. Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: RottenRay
Posted 2013-05-25 18:20:48 and read 17187 times.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity).


No, they haven't been "very very" serious.

Most have been at the nuisance level.

Please, cite ONE instance where a 787 was in "serious" or imminent danger (as in uncontained engine failure, etc) and then we can take your statement seriously.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Tupolev160
Posted 2013-05-25 18:23:40 and read 17163 times.

The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made in what i'm concerned and probably the least attractive for me as a passenger to fly into. There was so much hype about this plane, but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: zkokq
Posted 2013-05-25 19:03:14 and read 16632 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

I am glad we all done share the same opinion on aviation, otherwise it would be boring.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: WildcatYXU
Posted 2013-05-25 19:04:57 and read 16581 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made

I guess we will have to agree to disagree   While the Dreamliner isn't the Queen Of The Skies (for me the definition of a beautiful aircraft), it's very, very far from ugly. But I realize that beauty is in the eye of the be(er)holder.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ghifty
Posted 2013-05-25 19:14:02 and read 17137 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

 

Oh, really? Take a look at this database, then: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage

Go to "Current ADs," click on "By Make," and then click on "Boeing Company, The." Go compare that to the 777-300ER and then the 787. Or, for a real treat, check out the list for the 727.

So "more problems than any previous model ever encountered"? I think not.  

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-05-25 19:27:54 and read 16904 times.

The media outlet I work for has enjoyed the DreamLiner moniker very much recently, especially when, after the battery debacle and subsequent groundings, the business editor was able to use the line "Boeing's nightmare run continues with its new DreamLiner passenger jet..."

Personally I've never liked the name DreamLiner, it's as if Seattle/Chicago was trying to get us all to forget about the equally banal SonicCruiser.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2013-05-25 22:13:01 and read 15621 times.

For me the term Dreamliner is typical American braggadocio. Kinda like proclaiming 'the US is the greatest county in the world'. Let them carry on fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-05-25 22:19:51 and read 15544 times.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 27):
For me the term Dreamliner is typical American braggadocio. Kinda like proclaiming 'the US is the greatest county in the world'. Let them carry on fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.

You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: A36001
Posted 2013-05-25 22:24:16 and read 15516 times.

The only aircraft that should be allowed the honour of a "nickname" is the Constellation. That is one classic aircraft from a classic era in time for aviation. As good as the 787 is and will be, the nickname "Dreamliner" sounds to me stupid and childish! And I personally will never refer to it as such. I will blindly refer to it with name it should have. And that is the Nightmareliner....o sorry I meant the 787-800!   My thoughts are my own

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-05-25 23:30:23 and read 14867 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body

I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively  

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: flyingthe757
Posted 2013-05-25 23:44:56 and read 14694 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

It's a new make of aircraft totally so it's a given there would be more issues then other aircraft. The 747-400s and 777 and 737 are all based in part on there older brothers, with new additions and tech, but the 78 was new in every way. The first jumbo had a lot of kinks, as did most new aircraft when.

Have you flown in it yet? As the saying goes, it's not what's on the outside that counts. It's the inside customer experience that's the most important thing.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Braybuddy
Posted 2013-05-26 01:06:53 and read 13846 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

And before any of them ever flew on it, which is strange. Boeing have such a strong and recognisable brand in the 7X7 series -- one of the most recogniseable brand names in the world, in fact, and much more so than the Airbus designations -- that there was no need to dilute it. It's one of those ridiculous marketing gimmicky names that mean absolutely nothing when you analyse it: unless you're travelling in F or J, or have an entire row of seats to yourself, your flight is hardly likely to be dreamlike, no matter what airline or aircraft you are on.

And, with its problems over the last five years, it's inevitable that it's going to be used against it, with nicknames such as Nightmareliner and worse, as we've seen on these forums.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: aerorobnz
Posted 2013-05-26 01:13:08 and read 13757 times.

It will fade once there are heaps in service. It stays because at the moment they are still relatively rare and most airports don't have 787s regularly

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: GDB
Posted 2013-05-26 02:08:43 and read 13129 times.

I always thought it was a bloody stupid, baby-ish, Disney like name.
Though with hindsight maybe a warning about where all too much of Boeing's attention, management wise, was right at the start of the program.
In this I'm referring to the 3 year late entry into service, more than the events of this year.
Remember their absurdly optimistic projections for the flight test effort back then, how they pissed off customers by sometimes being less than straight with them about the problems encountered.

Sadly, it is too late to grow up and drop the name.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: PHLapproach
Posted 2013-05-26 03:02:14 and read 12483 times.

I just jumpseated on one operating the LAX-IAH redeye on the 25th and Houston Approach and Tower both refered to us as a "Dreamliner" to other redeyes following us in. I wasn't expecting controllers to start referring to it's name for it's type. I thought it was neat. Caught me off guard.

"United 1209, caution wake turbulance, you'll 8 miles in trail of a Heavy Dreamliner"

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Putnik
Posted 2013-05-26 04:44:44 and read 11412 times.

It turned out to be more of a nightmare than a dream for many people involved so the Dreamliner moniker should be silently dropped.

However, I believe the 787 will be a success in the long run when all teething problems are solved. The size of the aircraft is perfect, economics seems to be as good as expected, we just have to be patient and see this through.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-26 04:55:22 and read 11302 times.

I agree. Dreamliner is not what I think of when you mention the 787, although the 747 is still known as the Jumbo Jet. Once you name something, it is hard to stop the name especially from those who only listen to the media who keep calling it Dreamliner.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: lastrow
Posted 2013-05-26 05:07:20 and read 11153 times.

keeping the name Dreamliner for existing aircrafts represents an opportunity for marketing later production blocks / improved version of the plane with a slightly different name (which ever this may be) or some extension. Similar to the "E" or the "X" designation on some later Airbus models. This would mark the difference of having a notably improved aircraft when compared to the firstly delivered versions.

I know that Airbus did not do marketing with "E" or "X" to end customers, but I think among airliners.net fellows this difference is well known.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-05-26 05:32:06 and read 10859 times.

I'll have to look up some marketing research on any preferences among the general public for different makes of airliner.

Reason being, a few months ago (before the 787 problems), 'acting on impulse,' I asked a couple of my neighbours who were travelling (one on business, one for a holiday) what aeroplane type they were booked on. Neither of them knew........  

I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

[Edited 2013-05-26 05:33:15]

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-05-26 05:45:51 and read 10705 times.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):

I totally agree. It is actually the brand strength of the 787 "Dreamliner" that will help it overcome the horrible initial problems. Thank God no souls were lost. Many people thought BP would change its name and identity after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it was actually the strength of the brand and it's optimistic identity that HELPED save the company after such a massive disaster.

I think the vast majority of the flying public and the aviation community understand the 787 was a huge technological leap forward and thus the teething issues SOMEWHAT understandable, yes, far more than expected. But the Dreamliner moniker is a huge asset to an airline today. If you just look at United, it is the primary driver of innovation for United...an airline in dire need of an image driver. The fact they got 'em first is a big deal for them.

Dreamliner will be the moniker for a long time, but one day, it will just be called a 787 when the aircraft is a very common model. As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

What is interesting is that the world's best selling WB, the 777, doesn't have a "name". But 3 7's may be enough. And if 7 is a lucky number...it sure as hell was good luck for Boeing! (although I have the deepest respect for the 777 creators) Boeing really gets the power of a brand and brilliant branding!

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: lastrow
Posted 2013-05-26 05:57:45 and read 10545 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

that is certaily true for the persons who fly one or two times a year. However, giving the opposite example: I have heard a business traveller talking ... claiming that he always aims of choosing Boeing over Airbus aircraft, because of their higher cruise speed and therefore arriving some minutes earlier when going inter continental. personally, I would not care for this criterion. however, people are different.  

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-26 06:06:09 and read 10491 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

Great question!    

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it?

The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Global Cruiser came out tops among US respondents, and Dreamliner overall. Frankly, to me it is the only decent, easy to say and remember name out of the list, with eLiner a possible second.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/arc...ehind_the_scenes_story_on_nam.html

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
It is marketing, that is all. Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

Yes, but was one of four shortlisted by Boeing and put up for public vote.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: justplanesmart
Posted 2013-05-26 08:45:37 and read 8607 times.

The time to kill the name was before it was ever offered as a possible name.


Quoting sankaps (Reply 42):
The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Yes, and none of them were worth spit. I did vote for "Global Cruiser", but only as the least idiotic choice. However, Boeing is ignoring their own history when they try to market a plane with a name. Consider:

Boeing Monomail - 2 built
Boeing Stratoliner - 10 built
Boeing Stratocruiser - 56 built

Yes, they have tried to affix a name to some of their jetliners, as I believe the 707 was once marketed as the "Jet Stratoliner", and they often referred to the 747 as the "Superjet", but they were never used over and above the model number.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-05-26 08:59:46 and read 8432 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 40):
As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

Now it looks like "piling on," but I agree. Dreamliner is something the public has heard about, and the public likes.

How it sounds like to enthusiasts doesn't really matter. But it helps the industry get a bit of glamour back in advertising.


After 10 years of hard work, the airplane deserves a name. Without the name, people would ask what the hell took so long to design what looks like a slightly improved 767.

[Edited 2013-05-26 09:01:00]

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: boeingguy26
Posted 2013-05-26 09:10:51 and read 8258 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

Have you seen an A380? That whale makes every bird look good.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: art
Posted 2013-05-26 09:18:14 and read 8165 times.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8370580033_dbae789843_b.jpg

I have to say that when you look at the photo, the 787 logo near the front of the fuselage is very, very prominent while the Dreamliner logo is tiny in comparison so most observers would be struck by the large 787 logo and might not even notice the Dreamliner logo further back IMO.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: okAY
Posted 2013-05-26 09:55:52 and read 7646 times.

I never understood why they creted the name Dreamliner and not continued on the old path of just calling it 787 as they have called all the other types with different middle number. I think an additional name creates confusion if anything, and I think they broke a nice tradition. It used to be, that just by introducing a new type, naming it another 7X7 is a Boeing thing, label on its own right for quality. Now, they came up with this "empty" additional name, and quite mess it has become, of course not because of the name, but it does not do the company any good that the additional name has generated some other additional names to the airliner, like screamliner, fireliner etc. If no additional name had been created, these infamous nickames would not excist, either.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
Why would Boeing or anyone else want to kill the name? It helps the general public tell the difference between the 787 and the 767 or 777.

I don't get this argument. "787" tells the public the difference between 787 and the 767/777 etc. Just as 767 tells the difference between 787/777 etc.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: DL747400
Posted 2013-05-26 10:01:18 and read 7570 times.

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

The Dreamliner has thus far been more like the "Bad Dreamliner" for Boeing and airlines alike. From the beginning, this to me always seemed like a risky name for such a revolutionary new airliner.

Whenever you try to make such large advances in design, materials and assembly processes simultaneously, there is exponentially more risk that things can go wrong. And they did. Boeing tried to do too too fast and made promises that could not be kept. Bad program management certainly didn't lessen the challenges this aircraft program faced from early on. As a result, their reputation has been significantly damaged. In time it hopefully will recover and the troubles with the 787 will become memories.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: RJA321
Posted 2013-05-26 10:15:44 and read 7415 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

I agree. The currently available 787 is short and just plane ugly
  

The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

As for the phrase 'Dreamliner' I don't think it matters to most passengers, so whether or not Boeing continues to use it will only be mostly relevant to airlines and aviation enthusiasts.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: okAY
Posted 2013-05-26 10:20:59 and read 7329 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 40):
I totally agree. It is actually the brand strength of the 787 "Dreamliner" that will help it overcome the horrible initial problems. Thank God no souls were lost. Many people thought BP would change its name and identity after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it was actually the strength of the brand and it's optimistic identity that HELPED save the company after such a massive disaster.


What is interesting is that the world's best selling WB, the 777, doesn't have a "name". But 3 7's may be enough. And if 7 is a lucky number...it sure as hell was good luck for Boeing! (although I have the deepest respect for the 777 creators) Boeing really gets the power of a brand and brilliant branding![/quote]

I think the vast majority of the flying public and the aviation community understand the 787 was a huge technological leap forward and thus the teething issues SOMEWHAT understandable, yes, far more than expected.

A common air traveller does not understand the technological advances in 787. Their thinking goes as far as to maybe think "what aircraft type am I on? Dreamliner? isn't that the type that had all those problems in the beginning? If you are in branding, you should know how human mind works.

It is the brand strength of Boeing that will get the 787 out of the mud. Dreamliner has very little brand value as of yet, and even that little has been damaged, quite badly in my opinion.


777 has a nickname, tripleseven. It has not however been created by Boeing, as it used to be that it was their thing to call their products 7X7, in line with their other products. The names tells nothing to an average traveller. This additonal name creates confusion, as one can think, "ok this is 787 Dreamliner. Is there then 787 Worldliner?", for example.

I think Boeing opened Pandora's box by introducing this name. It will have a negative connotation in regards to 787, one that Boeing has to now work out how to get rid of. And that will cost them money, again.

[Edited 2013-05-26 10:25:53]

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-26 10:21:13 and read 7342 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 30):
Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body
I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively

As in POS?   

Anyway the so-called XWB is a gross misnomer & misrepresentation as it is way down the pecking order of (pax & cargo) airplanes' fuselage girth.

A quick non-exhaustive googling of cabin widths:-
1. A380: 6.58m
2. An124/225: 6.40m
3. 747: 6.10m
4. 777: 5.87m
5. C-5: 5.80m
6. L-1011: 5.79m
7. DC-10: 5.77m
8. IL-86/96: 5.70m
9. MD-11: 5.69m
10. A350: 5.61m
11. A300/A310/A330: 5.28m
12. 767: 4.72m

I did not list the LCF, Beluga & Superguppy as they are special modifications from airliners.
Even if the non-commercial-passenger Antonovs & Galaxy are to be excluded, it is still very far down the line.
In fact, it ranks just above ONLY TWO other WB paxliners. So much for XTRA Wide Body!   

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-26 10:30:32 and read 7163 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 51):
In fact, it ranks just above ONLY TWO other WB paxliners. So much for XTRA Wide Body!

XTRA only compared to the original A350 spec and the A330 cabin it was based on.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-26 10:49:44 and read 7081 times.

Quoting okAY (Reply 47):

I never understood why they creted the name Dreamliner and not continued on the old path of just calling it 787 as they have called all the other types with different middle number.

It could be that they are bridging the naming of the future Boeing liners after the current 7X7 series. Much have been speculated on numbers after 797 but how about names instead of numerals like the suggested 8X8 or 17X7 or 27X7 or even the recycling of 7X7.
I am imagining a future Boeing world where the airliners they produce are given only alphabet name and not numbers. Therefore, the 787 Dreamliner is the transition by featuring both.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-05-26 10:52:47 and read 7078 times.

Quoting okAY (Reply 50):

Well, I disagree naturally. However, yes, if there are more big problems, and their may, I am sure then Dreamliner will be a liability. Right now, it's the name Dreamliner that is saving its image. All names come with a risk, ALL! Every time a company develops a new name for a big thing the cynics will rename it something bad. Ask a naming professional, I work with a team of 12 and every time we create a new name we always advise the company to name its symbol before the public does it for them: like the "cracked egg" for Jet Aiways or the "cats sphincter" for MetLife!

It is also the only plane in recent history that the average person has heard about. They may not be able to tell the difference from the outside, but it is a very sticky name with the gen pop, and in a good way...it is targeted to them not Boeing talking to itself.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-26 10:57:30 and read 7056 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
XTRA only compared to the original A350 spec and the A330 cabin it was based on.

Yes, to you, me and other folks "in the know" but to the vast majority of the travelling public it is very likely to convey the mistaken impression its body is really xtra wide compared to other airliners. I am of the opinion that A is happy to let that be the case, whether or not by design.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-05-26 11:00:49 and read 7035 times.

I don't think "triple seven" rises to the level of a name. It's just a shorter way to say "seven, seven, seven"

Also, I love "seven, seven, seven" in other languages. I used to always love when VARIG was SO proud of their new ones they would say with such virve "sete, sete...SETE!"

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-05-26 11:19:20 and read 6981 times.

Quoting okAY (Reply 50):
A common air traveller does not understand the technological advances in 787. Their thinking goes as far as to maybe think "what aircraft type am I on? Dreamliner? isn't that the type that had all those problems in the beginning? If you are in branding, you should know how human mind works.

Some travellers know what plane they are on. I suspect the ones that are widely known in the general public are the Concorde, Jumbo jet (747) and the A380. The rest not so much.

A story. I was sitting next to a frequent traveller on some flight, and he was reading an article on the 787 battery problems. We started chatting, and he told me that he was interested in the case, and that on a recent trip, the captain of his flight had pointed out that this new, huge doubledecker 787 was taxing by. Duh. The general public recognises a few icons, and if they read anything about aviation in the newspaper, it gets associated with those icons. If there are other developments besides those icons, the details get lost on them.

Anyway, brands are important in anything people do. Not all brands may be noticed by everyone, but they still matter. I understand very well that Boeing holds on to the good name. And yes, eventually we've forgotten those slight four year delays and burning batteries, and just marvel on all those Dreamliners flying across the world   At least on a.net and among aviation professionals. For others, they are tubes with wings and two engines... the crappy or not so crappy seats the operator has chosen drawing more attention than the aircraft type.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-26 11:25:10 and read 6958 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 54):
All names come with a risk

How very true.
To digress a little, take cars for instance.
Over here, among the dialect-speaking older generation, the Honda Concerto, Alfa Romeo 164 and all Volvo (for example) were not popular as they sound like "business fail", "die all the way" and "losing everything" respectively.
I have also heard that the Mitsubishi Diamante is avoided by Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian speakers as it equate an artificial diamond which could very well also mean fake diamond. Quite the opposite from what the Japanese intended to convey.
Back to topic. No, I believe the Dreamliner will eventually live up to its name and promise after its birth and growing pangs, so no homicide for it name.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: dfambro
Posted 2013-05-26 12:49:00 and read 6858 times.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
please don't tell me it's the larger windows and higher cabin pressure. The passenger in 39E won't even see the window and what will be the real life cabin pressure remains to be seen.

Having done NRT-BOS on the 787, the higher humidity was very noticable, and it convinced me that the pressure and humidity difference is a big deal. Another big deal is that we in BOS finally got a direct Asia route because of the plane, and that's been a 'dream' of mine for years.

The big windows are great, too, but you can get that on an E-jet as well.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-26 13:13:06 and read 6754 times.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
I agree. The currently available 787 is short and just plane ugly
  

The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

As for the phrase 'Dreamliner' I don't think it matters to most passengers, so whether or not Boeing continues to use it will only be mostly relevant to airlines and aviation enthusiasts.

If you ever get the chance to walk the length you will realize the length is quite deceiving from the outside. I also disagree about the A380. It is an ugly looking aircraft. I have thought that the A380 is too short and would look better longer. But I don't really get to fly the A380.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-26 19:11:17 and read 6303 times.

I've always thought the name "Greenliner" would have been more appropriate.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-05-26 19:25:54 and read 6287 times.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

I still love that SJC photo. Are you going to be out there on June 1 to get some good photos of the resumption of NRT-SJC?

Did anyone see the Seattle Times article this morning? Interesting reading.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: FreshSide3
Posted 2013-05-26 22:10:38 and read 6032 times.

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

I saw pictures of its maiden voyage, and it didn't look all that wide. And certain airlines are buying it to replace their 747s?
Certainly hope it's not because of the width......

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: FreshSide3
Posted 2013-05-26 22:26:21 and read 6024 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

I had this neighbor, a few decades ago, after the American DC10 crash in Chicago, that preferred to book his flights on AA using a DC10 via ORD......with the rationale that AA DC10s would be scrutinized during inspections better and therefore, would not have any problems.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 29):
The only aircraft that should be allowed the honour of a "nickname" is the Constellation. That is one classic aircraft from a classic era in time for aviation. As good as the 787 is and will be, the nickname "Dreamliner" sounds to me stupid and childish! And I personally will never refer to it as such. I will blindly refer to it with name it should have. And that is the Nightmareliner....o sorry I meant the 787-800! My thoughts are my own

As for "Dakota" being the nickname for the DC-3......I'm not sure if I like that or not. And Lockheed called more than one of their designs the "Electra", if I recalled correctly.

Constellation and Stratocruiser, really are the only good names, in my opinion.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
I agree. The currently available 787 is short and just plane ugly
The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

I don't find either of those planes physically attractive.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-27 07:45:09 and read 5584 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
Reason being, a few months ago (before the 787 problems), 'acting on impulse,' I asked a couple of my neighbours who were travelling (one on business, one for a holiday) what aeroplane type they were booked on. Neither of them knew........  

I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

I have had multiple experiences like the ones you are describing. Even on my first A380-flight some people were not aware that they were on the A380 until they took out the safety instructions card out of the seat pocket. And then even not realised they were flying on an airplane with passengers on two full decks.  .

I guess we are the anomaly who want to know every digit of the aircraft type (and registration) we are flying on.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 54):
All names come with a risk, ALL! Every time a company develops a new name for a big thing the cynics will rename it something bad.

  

Besides that fact, one can have so many dreams, and so many different dreams. Those dreams for sure also apply to the B787, so there is no reason to change the name of the B787 Dreamliner is something else. And it would not catch on with the public anyway imho. The name Dreamliner is fixed to the name B787, and it will stay that way. And hopefully in a very positive way for a long time to come.  .

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: EricR
Posted 2013-05-27 09:48:43 and read 5392 times.

No need to change or drop the name Dreamliner. People have short memories. Assuming the battery issue is fixed and the plane lives up to its advertised performance metrics, then the battery issue will quickly fade from people's memories.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-27 10:45:30 and read 5292 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 61):
I've always thought the name "Greenliner" would have been more appropriate.

I agree, that would have been a great name!

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Braybuddy
Posted 2013-05-27 14:14:59 and read 5048 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
I agree, that would have been a great name!

  

I still don't understand why Boeing would want to water-down their classic 7X7 designation, but if they really, REALLY wanted to, this would be an obvious choice. At least it's self-explanatory. "Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

There were only two more progressions in the series once the 777 was launched, so why change now? It would have made perfect sense to save the name-change to the next aircraft after the 797.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-27 14:35:38 and read 5004 times.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 64):
And Lockheed called more than one of their designs the "Electra", if I recall correctly.

L-10 Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wade Chafe



L-12 Electra Junior


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts



L-14 Super Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © R.A.Scholefield



L-188 Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-27 17:50:08 and read 4795 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
I agree, that would have been a great name!

Well it certainly would have been a very fitting name. Sort of like a flying version of the Chevrolet Volt....

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 68):
"Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

I was thinking the same when I first heard the name several years ago.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ual777
Posted 2013-05-27 20:16:39 and read 4641 times.

Many pilots at UA call aircraft the following:

737- Guppy
747- Whale
777- The Triple
A319/20- Le Bus/Fifi




And the latest member.....

787- Sparky  

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-05-28 09:04:49 and read 4299 times.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
Whilst I follow your reasoning and can see some valid logic, I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.
Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
Apart from one return to base flight, the passenger "FLIGHT" experience was and I assume will continue to be "dreamlike".

With the configuration chosen by most airlines and the likelihood that this aircraft may be used on longer routes than the 767, there will be nothing dream like about the passenger experience. That title may go to the A350.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
That's up to the airline. What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't. The OEM 787 will be better than the OEM 767 potential wise. It's not like carriers are opting to *not* pressurize the cabin 6,000 feet.. or installing standard-sized windows..

Lest anybody forget, a huge part of Boeing's early argument for the "Dreamliner" experience was the wider seats. The windows and lower cabin altitude were almost nice-to-haves. It's not like the bigger windows will suddenly make people forget that their in a sardine can jostling for shoulder and elbow space and massaging sore knees.

What's disturbing is that this is happening at launch. At least the 777 had years of a majority of deliveries being 9-abreast. To anybody the slightest bit knowledgeable, I would submit that the A350 is more of a "Dreamliner" for passengers than the 787.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-05-28 09:34:19 and read 4231 times.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 71):
And the latest member.....

787- Sparky

Hmmm, not sure I like the connotation of that one.

I like Fifi. That's funny.

I heard that AA crews called the F100 the "Barbie Dream Jet".

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-05-28 10:54:25 and read 4093 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now.

I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?















A: The Douglas DC-10

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: AA777
Posted 2013-05-28 11:06:09 and read 4026 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 72):
What's disturbing is that this is happening at launch. At least the 777 had years of a majority of deliveries being 9-abreast. To anybody the slightest bit knowledgeable, I would submit that the A350 is more of a "Dreamliner" for passengers than the 787.

While I agree that the passenger arrangements in coach are atrocious at best...for pretty much any airline... I don't think its really possible to say that the A350 is more comfortable than the 787 for passenger comfort. The A350 has not even been flown yet. I think the "knowledgeable" person would submit that you can only judge what actually exists and is in commercial service.....

Also, from what I've read, the A350 cabin is only 5 inches wider than a 787, which should (according to original specs) have 8 abreast seating. The A350 would have 9 abreast seating... Yet it is only 5" wider than a 787 that has 8 across and is in fact 11 inches narrower than a 777, which SHOULD also have 9 abreast seating.

With those numbers, I'm not sure that it's really any more ideal than a 787 with 9 abreast or a 777 with 10 abreast.

And lest we forget who makes the plane uncomfortable - seating arrangements are chosen by the airlines, not Boeing. The problem comes down to airlines who will sacrifice passenger comfort (now even in Business class!) for profits. The days of Pan Am are long gone.

-AA777

[Edited 2013-05-28 11:07:37]

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2013-05-28 11:11:52 and read 4027 times.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

The A380 is certainly not beautiful in the eyes of this beholder

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: robsaw
Posted 2013-05-28 14:48:40 and read 3918 times.

"Dreamliner" is meaningless marketing bumpf that has no significance whatsoever to the traveling public, air carriers, travel agents, or anyone but the aviation-obsessed-types that exist around message-boards such as this. The term was likely created specifically to distract airliners.net folk from the more serious issues with the 787.

And I am absolutely serious ..............................................................................................................ly sarcastic.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-28 15:31:07 and read 3852 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now.

I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?

"Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here.

And, if not mistaken, weren't all AA widebodies referred to as Luxury Liner during that period, not just the DC-10?

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-28 15:51:15 and read 3805 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?

The DC-10 and the 767-200. It was a marketing name for AA and not the moniker for the airplane.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-28 16:12:41 and read 3761 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 79):
Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?

The DC-10 and the 767-200. It was a marketing name for AA and not the moniker for the airplane.

And 747-100, 747SP, MD-11, and A300.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ted Quackenbush
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Terry Hale


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AlainDurand
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sunbird Photos by Don Boyd

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-28 18:34:39 and read 3600 times.

The only two aircrafts I can say deserves the title "Dreamliner" would be the original Wright Flyer or the Concorde.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: FreshSide3
Posted 2013-05-28 18:36:24 and read 3605 times.

Lufthansa called the original 737 the "air bus" before the Airbus company started.
Some United flight attendants refered to the 747-100 as the "Z", and I don't know the reason. (Maybe so many different configurations.
Eastern referred to their wide-bodies as "WhisperLiners" and narrow-bodies were "Whisper Jets".
And American used to call the 747 the "AstroLiner".

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 68):

I still don't understand why Boeing would want to water-down their classic 7X7 designation, but if they really, REALLY wanted to, this would be an obvious choice. At least it's self-explanatory. "Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

There were only two more progressions in the series once the 777 was launched, so why change now? It would have made perfect sense to save the name-change to the next aircraft after the 797.

I think the 777 was initially called the 7J7........was that correct??

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-28 18:51:34 and read 3584 times.

Since the 787 is fuel efficient and made of plastic, how about calling it the ValuJet?
Otherwise the Greenliner is most appropriate.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: woodsboy
Posted 2013-05-28 19:23:59 and read 3551 times.

It was a terrible name from the beginning, I always thought that if this thing ever has any problems or god forbid, a crash, having named it something as presumptious as "Dream------" was a bad idea. Other iconic names like Constellation, Electra, Caravelle and Concorde didnt ilicit an idea like a "dream" does, it was only a matter of time before any incident on the 787 would be un-cleverly chalked up to the "Nightmareliner" or something like that. It was bad at the the start and its still a terribly silly name and now even worse given the troubles that the 787 has experienced. That said, we ALL know people pay little to no attention to what kind of plane they are on, Dreamliner or otherwise. So what if ANA paints on the plane, it matters not! There are a lot of 737s out there with their model clearly painted on the fuselage "737-900" and so on, nobody (except us) sees or remembers that. Right now if people can remember anything about the 787 its that it has been in the news over the last 5 months because of having been grounded.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-28 20:24:25 and read 3495 times.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 84):
It was a terrible name from the beginning, I always thought that if this thing ever has any problems or god forbid, a crash, having named it something as presumptious as "Dream------" was a bad idea. Other iconic names like Constellation, Electra, Caravelle and Concorde didnt ilicit an idea like a "dream" does, it was only a matter of time before any incident on the 787 would be un-cleverly chalked up to the "Nightmareliner" or something like that. It was bad at the the start and its still a terribly silly name

My thoughts exactly.
Also, the 787 can't do anything special that existing airliners can't. It's not faster nor bigger than anything already flying.
-The Wright Flyer - for obvious reason, being the first aircraft
-de Havilland Comet - first jetliner
-Boeing 747 - biggest passenger jetliner until the A380
-Concorde - first and only successful SST

Those 4 aircraft are far more deserving of the title 'Dreamliner' than the 787. It's only to make the bean-counters happy and the cost savings will not be passed down to customers, nor will will it lead to better wages for employees.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing the 'dream'.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-29 00:11:53 and read 3361 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?

A: The Douglas DC-10

The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash. Was never widely known as that, nor was it named that by the manufacturer. Very different from the 787 and its Dreamliner name.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-05-29 08:24:42 and read 3110 times.

It is an apt analogy.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 78):
"Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here.

I think that is a distinction without a difference. The point was that the public was made aware of a branding on a plane, that plane then developed a bad reputation, and the brand was dropped as a result. Be it a manufacturer or an airline, it is the exact same situation.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):
The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash. Was never widely known as that,

Sure it was. The fact that people knew the Luxury Liner as the plane with all the problems is exactly why they dropped the name. It is the exact same situation.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-29 09:26:02 and read 3034 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash. Was never widely known as that,
Sure it was. The fact that people knew the Luxury Liner as the plane with all the problems is exactly why they dropped the name. It is the exact same situation.

Indeed, that is why AA dropped the name, as I noted in my post. My observation was just that the DC10 was never officially given the name Luxury Liner by McDonnell Douglas, and no one other than AA called it that. Out side of AA's customer base and certainly outside the US, no one knew what Luxury Liner referred to, and it was relatively easy to drop the name.

But at the end of the day the name DC10 itself retained a somewhat negative "halo" for much of its career globally.

In the case of the Dreamliner, it is the name officially given to the 787 by Boeing and how it is known globally. May therefore be harder for the 787 to shake off its association with the name Dreamliner. And it is unclear whether a negative halo, if any, belongs just to the name Dreamliner or whether it extends to the name 787 as well.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: robsaw
Posted 2013-05-29 13:21:16 and read 2844 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 88):
In the case of the Dreamliner, it is the name officially given to the 787 by Boeing and how it is known globally. May therefore be harder for the 787 to shake off its association with the name Dreamliner. And it is unclear whether a negative halo, if any, belongs just to the name Dreamliner or whether it extends to the name 787 as well.

The vast majority of the public will still have no association whatsoever with either Dreamliner or 787, so again I say it is an issue primarily for the aviation obsessed (or "fans"). I've encountered enough Flight Attendants that have no idea what plane they are flying or any history or characteristics of such plane, so I'm not concerned about the level of negative association that the general public will bring to it. And, for those that ARE aware and interested, changing the name won't do much - it isn't like you can put the 787 in the witness protection program and hide its history.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-29 13:50:31 and read 2812 times.

Quoting robsaw (Reply 89):
The vast majority of the public will still have no association whatsoever with either Dreamliner or 787, so again I say it is an issue primarily for the aviation obsessed (or "fans"). I've encountered enough Flight Attendants that have no idea what plane they are flying

I agree most pax have no idea what plane they are flying on. However I think a fair number of pax have heard of the 787 Dreamliner and its problems. Therefore the question becomes "do you want to actively hide the fact that the aircraft they are on is a Dreamliner", perhaps by not using that name in the safety card or any other materials on-board, as well as not painting the name externally in the off-chance a pax sees it?

The best outcome of course for Boeing and the airlines is if the aircraft now continues to fly trouble free, and hopefully the public will forget all about the initial years of teething problems and the name is no longer viewed as a potential liability. In the near term though I would not be surprised if the airlines stop promoting the name of the aircraft as prominently as they had done until these problems arose.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-05-29 14:09:44 and read 2763 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
I think that is a distinction without a difference. The point was that the public was made aware of a branding on a plane, that plane then developed a bad reputation, and the brand was dropped as a result. Be it a manufacturer or an airline, it is the exact same situation.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 88):
Indeed, that is why AA dropped the name, as I noted in my post. My observation was just that the DC10 was never officially given the name Luxury Liner by McDonnell Douglas, and no one other than AA called it that. Out side of AA's customer base and certainly outside the US, no one knew what Luxury Liner referred to, and it was relatively easy to drop the name.

AA didn't dropped the name after the crash, just the DC-10 title, and Luxury Liner wasn't DC-10 specific. They called all their wide bodies Luxury Liners (except the 777, I don't think it ever officially got that title) and all their narrow bodies Luxury Jets (although I think they just stuck with Super 80 for the MD-80s). They dropped the terminology around the turn of the century.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Spoddig
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Heer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Jenkins
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Lawson [Airplane-Pictures]

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-29 14:35:52 and read 2746 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):
The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash.

No, AA did not drop the name. They dropped the "DC-10" reference and replaced it with "American Airlines" but "American Airlines LuxuryLiner" (replacing "DC-10 LuxuryLiner") remained on the DC-10s until the brand was dropped on all the AA widebodies some years later.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-05-29 15:08:36 and read 2704 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile crashes early in its career?
Quoting neutrino (Reply 51):
A quick non-exhaustive googling of cabin widths:-
1. A380: 6.58m
2. An124/225: 6.40m
3. 747: 6.10m
4. 777: 5.87m
5. C-5: 5.80m
6. L-1011: 5.79m
7. DC-10: 5.77m
8. IL-86/96: 5.70m
9. MD-11: 5.69m
10. A350: 5.61m
11. A300/A310/A330: 5.28m
12. 767: 4.72m
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 78):
"Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here.

Compared to the UA 787, the AA DC-10 "Luxury Liner" really had better seating. In the 1970s they had 8 abreast seating and I think 36" to 38" pitch in coach. The 787 is 9 abreast with a narrower cabin and 31" pitch in E-.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-05-29 16:00:35 and read 2648 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 92):
No, AA did not drop the name. They dropped the "DC-10" reference and replaced it with "American Airlines" but "American Airlines LuxuryLiner" (replacing "DC-10 LuxuryLiner") remained on the DC-10s until the brand was dropped on all the AA widebodies some years later.

Ahhhh. You are correct on the history. My bad.



Yet still, it does show that there is a history of dropping the name of a plane associated with a bad reputation. It can be done again (and my guess is that it WILL!) and 10 years from now, the only people who will peep about it are the super enthusiasts like those of us on this thread. It will be a relic.

like Vistajet.  

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-05-29 16:52:11 and read 2608 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 94):
Ahhhh. You are correct on the history. My bad.

Strangely enough, I had the same mistaken impression of the history of the name as you. We both stand corrected.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-05-29 17:07:47 and read 2595 times.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 82):
I think the 777 was initially called the 7J7........was that correct??

No, the 7J7 was something different. It would have been a short/medium range airplane.

The 777 was originally called the 767X.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: ual777
Posted 2013-05-29 17:42:05 and read 2553 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 73):

Hmmm, not sure I like the connotation of that one.

I like Fifi. That's funny.

I heard that AA crews called the F100 the "Barbie Dream Jet".

I personally find it hilarious.

I have also heard the MD80 at AA called "The Sweaty Eighty" lol

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-29 21:49:52 and read 2441 times.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 75):
And lest we forget who makes the plane uncomfortable - seating arrangements are chosen by the airlines, not Boeing.

But the manufacturers choice of cabin width does absolutely play into that decision.   

When you look at the cabin widths of the two manufacturers, to go to a "charter" configuration in Airbus cabins is usually a narrower seat that in the Boeing equivalent. e.g. 9-across in the 787 is 17.2 inch seats. in the 777 10-across is 17"

In the A330/A340, 9-across is 16.5" seats, and in the A350 10-across is about the same, possibly even less.

I'd suggest that this leads to a tight configuration being somewhat more acceptable to mainstream airlines in the Boeing cabins than in Airbus ones..

Rgds

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: robsaw
Posted 2013-05-30 10:51:34 and read 2221 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 96):
No, the 7J7 was something different. It would have been a short/medium range airplane.

The 777 was originally called the 767X.

Nope. The 767-X concepts were pitched to airlines but those concepts were dropped RESULTING in the decision to go with a new design 777. The 777 was never called the 767-X.

Similarly, some of the ideas for the 7J7 made it into the 777, but they can't really be directly connected in terms of contiguous design concepts.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-05-30 11:45:11 and read 2178 times.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 75):
I don't think its really possible to say that the A350 is more comfortable than the 787 for passenger comfort. The A350 has not even been flown yet. I think the "knowledgeable" person would submit that you can only judge what actually exists and is in commercial service.....

I disagree. There's plenty of information out there on possible configurations. And with the width chosen, it's very unlikely most A350 operators will be deploying the 10-abreast config. Except for a few LCCs. And I actually most LCCs won't even buy the A350...they'll probably go for the 787-10X.

Cabin width was entirely within control of the OEM. And Boeing made it possible for airlines to discomfort their passengers. They deserve the rep that the Dreamliner will get when the general public starts flying this thing. If you think they won't realize that the A350 is more spacious, I think you are underestimating them. The 31" pitch most airlines are using, really won't help either.

Topic: RE: Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-05-30 12:16:59 and read 2153 times.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 82):
7J7........was that correct??
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 96):
No, the 7J7 was something different

When I think of the 7J7, I picture dual un-ducted fan in the tail mounted engine configuration.

As for the Dreamliner name . . .

Who here remember the famous XT, 286 or even 386? But everyone remember the Mac

I'd be interested to see how the name Dreamliner fare in the Far East (China, Japan etc . . .).

bt

[Edited 2013-05-30 12:18:51]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/