Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Whats The Chance Of Introducing B787F?  
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Hello all


I was thinking now that Boeing introduce B777F whats the chance of B787F?
Different size of a/c for different size of market.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Long term:  checkmark certain. The 787 fuselage is designed with freight in mind.
Short term:  rotfl  The production line will be busy with passenger variants for a long time.


User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2769 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.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2745 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?


User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2717 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....)


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2697 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.


User currently offlineUNDBoeingNut From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2609 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.)



AE
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2571 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.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2510 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.


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2450 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.)

Well, there are 6 lines at Everett.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Victor Lim



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.)


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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??

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...
Whats The Chance Of Any Airline Having A350 & B787 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 07:44:59 by AirCanada014
Whats The Status Of The Rest Of T2 In CDG Now? posted Tue May 25 2004 07:34:20 by Venezuela747
Whats The Range Of An ATR72? posted Mon Dec 9 2002 06:10:46 by Maiznblu_757
Whats The Status Of The Ex Heavylift Belfast? posted Fri Dec 6 2002 13:36:06 by Hkgspotter1
TF-FIX 757-300, Whats The Name Of This Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 9 2002 11:06:15 by Hkgspotter1
Whats The Name Of The American Eurocontrol? posted Thu Nov 7 2002 20:01:00 by Eham06
Whats The Name Of PH-BXP posted Sat Jun 29 2002 11:34:41 by EHAM06
Whats The Name Of The Aer Lingus Font? posted Wed Feb 27 2002 23:07:41 by Airmale
Whats The Points Of This? posted Sat Feb 9 2002 05:38:26 by Mr AirNZ
Whats The Location Of The Chinese Gov 767-332ER posted Tue May 1 2001 18:31:02 by Hkgspotter1