Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
Long term: certain. The 787 fuselage is designed with freight in mind.
Short term: The production line will be busy with passenger variants for a long time.
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2214 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1769 times:
This has been asked many times (myself included) and supposedly members quoting Boeing sources as saying the frame wasn't made to handle higher all-freight weights - enough to make it viable. Now that was before the design fas finalized so maybe things have changed.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 1): Long term: certain. The 787 fuselage is designed with freight in mind.
Short term: The production line will be busy with passenger variants for a long time.
Quoting M404 (Reply 2): This has been asked many times (myself included) and supposedly members quoting Boeing sources as saying the frame wasn't made to handle higher all-freight weights - enough to make it viable. Now that was before the design fas finalized so maybe things have changed.
If Boeing is serious about offering the B-787 to the USAF as their new tanker, they will be coming out with a B-787F design soon. Airbus, who also wants to build the new USAF tanker just recently began designing the A-330F.
USAF will not be interested in a passenger version of any airplane for the new tanker. The airplane will have to start out as a freighter first, to be considered in the compitition.
If Boeing gets the new tanker contract, they have excess production capability in Long Beach to build it and not interfer with a B-787-800/-900/1000 passenger jet production line.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1734 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): If Boeing gets the new tanker contract, they have excess production capability in Long Beach to build it and not interfer with a B-787-800/-900/1000 passenger jet production line.
If a 787 only spends 3 days in the assembly hall in Everett, I'm skeptical that another assembly hall in Long Beach is going to help much. Some vendors are colocating plants in Everett, and their components would have to be flown down to Long Beach. Production rates would have to be raised all through the supply chain either way. Isn't there spare capacity in the big building at Everett, anyway?
Pavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1706 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 1): Short term: rotfl The production line will be busy with passenger variants for a long time.
True. Freighters always come late. Boeing should increase 787 production together with some freighters. Everyone would benefit from it (less pollution, lower operating costs....)
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 4): I'm skeptical that another assembly hall in Long Beach is going to help much. Some vendors are colocating plants in Everett, and their components would have to be flown down to Long Beach.
If the B-787F were to be selected as the new tanker, that would still be cheaper than building the KC-30 in France, then flying it to Alabama for installation of the tanker equipment.
UNDBoeingNut From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 4): Isn't there spare capacity in the big building at Everett, anyway?
Not quite, especially with the 787 taking up the open bay the former refurb line, the only way there is extra room is if the 767 is cancelled and they want to retool that line for the 787 and not something else instead. That would put 3 747 bays then a 787 then 2 777 then a 787. (hey, you could take some of the parking lots and make another line, that would go over great in Everett, besides with the sounds of things there should be quite a few 787s just sitting there completed awaiting certification then to most likely be batch delivered.)
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
Quoting M404 (Reply 2): This has been asked many times (myself included) and supposedly members quoting Boeing sources as saying the frame wasn't made to handle higher all-freight weights - enough to make it viable. Now that was before the design fas finalized so maybe things have changed.
Perhaps then it would be more suitable for companies like Fedex, like they did with the A-380.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting UNDBoeingNut (Reply 7): the only way there is extra room is if the 767 is cancelled
I imagine that if the USAF buys 787 tankers, the 767 will be discontinued.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): If Boeing gets the new tanker contract, they have excess production capability in Long Beach to build it and not interfer with a B-787-800/-900/1000 passenger jet production line.
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 4): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
If Boeing gets the new tanker contract, they have excess production capability in Long Beach to build it and not interfer with a B-787-800/-900/1000 passenger jet production line.
If a 787 only spends 3 days in the assembly hall in Everett, I'm skeptical that another assembly hall in Long Beach is going to help much. Some vendors are colocating plants in Everett, and their components would have to be flown down to Long Beach. Production rates would have to be raised all through the supply chain either way. Isn't there spare capacity in the big building at Everett, anyway?
Well, If Boeing builds a 787 in LGB, it would be at no expence. Since all they do is fly the parts there on a Boeing Beluga, all you need in LGB is a work force and the tools.
You could basically build a 787 anywhere actually. All you need are tools, workers, a hangar, and a paint shop.
Quoting UNDBoeingNut (Reply 7): Not quite, especially with the 787 taking up the open bay the former refurb line, the only way there is extra room is if the 767 is cancelled and they want to retool that line for the 787 and not something else instead. That would put 3 747 bays then a 787 then 2 777 then a 787. (hey, you could take some of the parking lots and make another line, that would go over great in Everett, besides with the sounds of things there should be quite a few 787s just sitting there completed awaiting certification then to most likely be batch delivered.)
Originally, it was 3 for the 747.
Then 4, 1 for 767 and 3 for 747.
Then 6, 1 for 767, 1 for 777, 3 for 747, and 1 empty.
Now, its 2 for 747 (I don't know how), 1 for 767, 1 for 777, 1 for 787, and 1 empty.
Boeing might make the 747-8 on one line, so, in the future, It could be 2 for 777, 2 for 787, 1 for 747, and 1 empty.
(if they create a 787F, and/or 787 tanker, the 767 is pointless.)
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
the problem isn't assembly line space,rate limiting factor is the ability of contractors to feed the assembly line!! eg Alenias present factory cannot make more than 10 fuselage assemblies/month. they would need to build a new building, get new ovens etc, the 6 million $ question is will they??
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, 
certain. The 787 fuselage is designed with freight in mind.
The production line will be busy with passenger variants for a long time.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
