Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 787 Anyones Guess?  
User currently offlineAviation From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 1143 posts, RR: 21
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4711 times:

Hi all,

I think boeing might have overstepped its mark on the 787 however, I state this with meaning. Was it not boeing who pioneered the industry in my thoughts I believe is that boeing have allways been the ones that lead the industry in all its corners, leaps, bounds. So we still have to give it to them after all the 747 in its day was rendered something like the 787 and everyone in the aviation industry were saying "I think they went TOO FAR THIS TIME" but in the end what happed the 747 went on to create a whole new benchmark in the industry and is regarded probably the greatest invention in the history of aviation. Now though as for the 787 we all say the 787's this, that is too far its not going to work and who knows but, maybe boeing will fail or on the other hand maybe boeing will be spot on with the aircraft like the 747 to everyone only time will tell at the moment your guess is as good as mine all we can really so is its 50/50. Also though we must consider its not flying tomorrow boeing still has plenty of time to change something at the last minute.

Tell me your thoughts

So go for it Boeing do your best! (My hat goes off to you!)

Thanks,
Aaron J Nicoli


Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

The old saying was, "An ugly aeroplane SOMETIMES flies well, but a beautiful one ALWAYS does."

I have the feeling that the 787 is going to be something special. Airbus took the middle ground away from Boeing and they had their backs to the wall. They took a failed idea (the 'Sonic Cruiser') and turned the technology into a good project.

I hope it works - because that is what competition in business is SUPPOSED to do, encourage innovation. And, given Boeing's fifty-plus years of experience in the field, they're unlikely to fail in the development/design/production stages.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

I wouldn't be too worried about the 787.

Aerodynamically it will be fine, just an incremental change on current technology.

Extensive use of composites also not a worry. Boeing has heaps of experience with them, from it's military programs.

Systems will be quite radical departures in some areas, but once again Boeing has plenty of experience, and I would not anticipate any show stoppers.

If there is a weak point it will be in the way the craft is manufactured and assembled.This is the most radical step in the whole program. The craft will be assembled in 3 days once they get a go on. The radical new manufacturing processes are the reason Boeing can offer this craft at significantly less dollars than the 350.

Cheers,

Ruscoe


User currently offlineCaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1637 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4537 times:

The 787 isn't really a giant leap in technology.. well not like going from propellors to jet engines at least. Sure there are new composite materials, better aviaonics and engines, a supposedly more spacious innovative cabin with some high tech fancy schmancy comfy things for the passengers as well as longer range and hopefully better economics. They aren't getting you from A to B any faster than before. There will still only be two aisles in a tubular design with forward facing seats in a predictable pattern. The plane has a fin and wings with an engine strapped under each wing. Even the shark like appearance now is gone and the final result will look more traditional. So I don't think this is a huge leap for Boeing if anything just your traditional safe one step up from their previous model of it's category like all aircraft manufacturers seem to do each decade or so. I'm not worried, Boeing will come through with this with flying colours. I too wish them well.

User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting Caribb (Reply 3):
So I don't think this is a huge leap for Boeing if anything just your traditional safe one step up from their previous model of it's category like all aircraft manufacturers seem to do each decade or so.

Absolutely. A 10% lower operating cost 25 years after the 767 is merely a normal evolution.



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 4):
Absolutely. A 10% lower operating cost 25 years after the 767 is merely a normal evolution.

It's 20% more fuel efficient, and it flies much farther too. And the 767 isn't a 25 year old airplane, it's been worked over and over and improved along the time.

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

Quoting Caribb (Reply 3):
Even the shark like appearance now is gone and the final result will look more traditional.

Boeing insisted last week that they would remain, albiet, toned down somewhat.

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 4):
Absolutely. A 10% lower operating cost 25 years after the 767 is merely a normal evolution.

Much of the 787 is, indeed, revolutionary, it simply isn't glamourus. An aircraft that assembles in 1/10 the time of current aircraft doesn't attract the awe of an SST. An aircraft that requires half the maintenance of a current airplane doesn't do much for spotters. Open architecture systems aren't very exciting.

But dollar for dollar, the 787 is about as much performance as has ever been possible. I suppose it's an evolutionary aircraft, but a fleet/network-planning revolution. The market in 2020-2030 will be radically different than 2005 and we will be able to atribute much to the 787.


User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6331 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Boeing don't have to worry about a thing, well apart from Airbus. But I am sure the 787 will do fine and the competition will push both manufactures to build better aircraft.

User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
It's 20% more fuel efficient

...yes, but more importantly, the operating cost of the 787 will be 10% lower, not 20% (albeit this percentage is likely to increase as the fuel price reaches new heights)

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
But dollar for dollar, the 787 is about as much performance as has ever been possible. I suppose it's an evolutionary aircraft, but a fleet/network-planning revolution. The market in 2020-2030 will be radically different than 2005 and we will be able to atribute much to the 787.

The same can already be said about the 767, which opened new possibilities. So again, the 787 is a normal evolution. The 787/A350 will be, for the next two or three decades, what the 767, and to a lesser extent, the 300/310 were the last two decades.

[Edited 2005-04-09 19:18:44]

[Edited 2005-04-09 19:19:57]


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 8):
...yes, but more importantly, the operating cost of the 787 will be 10% lower, not 20%

Why? maintenace is easier and fuel consumption is lower, why would it be 'only' 10%?

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 8):
The same can already be said about the 767, which opened new possibilities. So again, the 787 is a normal evolution. The 787/A350 will be, for the next two or three decades, what the 767, and to a lesser extent, the 300/310 were the last two decades.

You are only looking at capacity/market niche. As DfwRevolution said, it's about over all PERFORMANCE. Cutting costs = more potential profits.

In addition, the extra range combined with lower fuel consumption gives the 787 the possibility to fly between smaller city pairs (point-point theory) more efficiently or even profitably. It does NOT mean airlines will do it, it's just an added flexibility.

You can't just leave the 767/A330 going on forever.

Cheers,
PPVRA
Edit: typo

[Edited 2005-04-09 19:47:25]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 9):
Why? maintenace is easier and fuel consumption is lower, why would it be 'only' 10%?

Boeing can't do much to make labor, which is by far the greatest cost per trip, work for less wages. That's up to the airlines. The only thing Boeing can do is increase the cruise Mach so that the airplane spends less time in the air. The 787 does cruise faster than aircraft it competes with (Mach 0.85) but this is only enough to shave 30-40 minutes off long-haul sectors.


User currently offlineAa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

AA is balking at a order on this bird for the fact that its got a crapload of composite. They are freaked out about their little rudder problem, etc. Don't look for a 787 order for AA in the near future.

Regards.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

Dfw,

I get your point, but that would apply to all aircraft models, 787 or not. In the end, why would the % difference change?

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 9):
Why? maintenace is easier and fuel comsumption is lower, why would it be 'only' 10%

The 10% is from Boeing's own claim btw.

There are a couple of reasons to explain this:

The cost of fuel represents, on average, less than 40% of the TOC of modern aircraft. So, a 20% lower fuel burn rate translates into a 7-8% lower operating cost.

Also, there's the lower maintenance cost but it is wrong to assume that all maintenance costs will be lower. In fact, some part of the aircraft will need more attention (again, as per Boeing's own claims).

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 9):
You are only looking at capacity/market niche. As DfwRevolution said, it's about over all PERFORMANCE. Cutting costs = more potential profits.

In addition, the extra range combined with lower fuel comsumption gives the 787 the possibility to fly between smaller city pairs (point-point theory) more effciently or even profitably. It does NOT mean airlines will do it, it's just an added flexibility.

You can't just leave the 767/A330 going on forever

Perfectly right, but that is a normal development more than two decades after the introduction of the 767!



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 13):
So, a 20% lower fuel burn rate translates into a 7-8% lower operating cost.

Ok, sorry missed that part..makes sense now.

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

Quoting Aa777jr (Reply 11):
They are freaked out about their little rudder problem, etc.

A rudder that broke at 200% it's designed stress threshold.

Quoting Aa777jr (Reply 11):
AA is balking at a order on this bird for the fact that its got a crapload of composite

Try the fact that they are dirt poor

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):

I get your point, but that would apply to all aircraft models, 787 or not. In the end, why would the % difference change?

You are absolutely right, it does apply to all aircraft. Think of this example:

Boeing 767-300ER from DFW-CDG
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $30,000
Maintenance: $20,000
Services: $5,000

Total: $100,000

Boeing 787-8 from DFW-CDG
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $24,000 (20% less)
Maintenance: $13,500 (30% less)
Services: $5,000

Total: $87,000 (13% less than 767)

Since labor prices are fixed and greater than fuel cost (for the time being  Wink ), substantially reducing fuel burn only does so much. Remember that trip cost are a weighted average, so less fuel burn weights against fixed labor cost.

This was the logic behind the Sonic Cruise: reduce the most expensive cost to airlines (labor) by shaving 1-2 hours off some trips. Obviously didn't work out in the end...


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Quoting Caribb (Reply 3):
They aren't getting you from A to B any faster than before



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
but this is only enough to shave 30-40 minutes off long-haul sectors.

that is a HUGE amount of fuel being saved over a period of a year..especially if there are many 787's flying about, which I think will happen..this one of the larger sector of replacements and expansions

Quoting Aa777jr (Reply 11):
Don't look for a 787 order for AA in the near future.

I think AA will eventually go that route when they see many of the other 787 carriers doing well with the plane......

I don't think AA will be ordering any planes in the near future, regardless...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineLockheed1011 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 156 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

NAV20 ,

Well said!
You really know your stuff. It is a pleasure to read your comments
Congrats!  Smile


User currently offlineAviation From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 1143 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

I think all in all the 787 is just the next step in the never ending aviation staircase.

So cheers to all your reply's

Aaron J Nicoli



Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting Aviation (Thread starter):
Tell me your thoughts

Over stepped....Let me know when I can stop laughing.


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 8):
...yes, but more importantly, the operating cost of the 787 will be 10% lower, not 20% (albeit this percentage is likely to increase as the fuel price reaches new heights)

YUL, even if the cost of fuel goes up by 50% the 787 will always be at least 13% cheaper to operate (see below.) If the cost of fuel climbs to 3-5 times higher then the 13% will become more like 20%, and you will not see and 767's in the air at all.

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 13):
The cost of fuel represents, on average, less than 40% of the TOC of modern aircraft. So, a 20% lower fuel burn rate translates into a 7-8% lower operating cost.

Fuel consumption is not the only factor, as many have pointed out. The numbers that you present do not take into account other operating factors.

DFW posted an excellent sample problem for us to analyze...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
Boeing 767-300ER from DFW-CDG
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $30,000 " --- 30% of total trip cost (added by iwok)"
Maintenance: $20,000
Services: $5,000

Total: $100,000

Boeing 787-8 from DFW-CDG
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $24,000 (20% less) " --- 28% of total trip cost (added by iwok)"
Maintenance: $13,500 (30% less)
Services: $5,000

Total: $87,000 (13% less than 767)

Lets assume that the price of fuel climbs by 50%. Then DFW's numbers would come out as follows.
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $45,000 --- 39% of Total trip cost
Maintenance: $20,000
Services: $5,000

Total: $115,00

Boeing 787-8 from DFW-CDG
Labor salary: $45,000
Fuel: $36,000 (20% less) --- 36% of Total trip cost
Maintenance: $13,500 (30% less)
Services: $5,000

Total: $99,500 (13% less than 767)

DFW, hopefully you do not mind if took your numbers and moved them around a little.  Smile

My point here is that as the cost of fuel increases, the relative cost of the fuel will increase and will have a big impact on gross operating margins. In the airline business small advantages in margins can make a big difference in your bottom line, and can also keep you from going under.

Using the numbers above, the 787 will provide its operators with much better flexibility when dealing with fuel cost fluctuations, thereby keeping them competitive and flying.

-iwok


User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1741 times:

Quoting Iwok (Reply 20):
YUL, even if the cost of fuel goes up by 50% the 787 will always be at least 13% cheaper to operate (see below.) If the cost of fuel climbs to 3-5 times higher then the 13% will become more like 20%, and you will not see and 767's in the air at all.

iwok, the 10% is from BOEING!!!! I already mentioned that it was likely to increase as fuel prices soar.



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1622 times:

Have you seen the order book lately? It is already a success and will be a much bigger one that the 767 in fact.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineDaedaeg From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Aviation, what exactly do you mean when you say Boeing went TOO FAR? The 787 didn't just come out of thin air. There is a lot of work and collaboration being put into this airframe on a global scale. I know a lot of folks have had concerns regarding extensive composite use on the 787. Composites(graphite epoxy specifically) is not a new phenomenon for Boeing. Boeing has gained experience in this area through research funding from its commercial, defense and Space divisions. And research from some of the best engineering institutions in the world. Are composite more difficult to fabricate than mettalic alloys? Yes, but it doesn't make it less safe or reliable. Composite materials are used extensively on high performance airframes like the F-22 which undergo greater g-loads than a 787 will ever see. The Space Shuttle replacement(Boeing will be a prime contractor) will also have extensive composite use as well. I don't believe Boeing has gone too far at all. We're at a comfortable stage where these revolutionary and evolutionary developments in technology can be put into good use.


Everyday you're alive is a good day.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
First 10 Airlines To Receive The 787? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 19:56:02 by FCAFLYBOY
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
Virtual Construction Of The 787 posted Tue Nov 7 2006 20:15:06 by NYC777
Where Is The 787-10? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:11:18 by AA1818
Why Did NWA Choose RR For The 787? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 05:45:22 by Scouse
When Will The 787 Be Rolled Out? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 23:27:41 by NYC777
Some Questions Regarding The 787.... posted Mon Oct 23 2006 14:49:56 by Beaucaire
LH And The 787-3 posted Sun Oct 22 2006 19:07:01 by 1337Delta764
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
First To Fly The 787?! posted Fri Sep 22 2006 10:34:15 by FXramper