Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18768 times:

The Boeing 787 will be introduced with a range of new of improvements. New technology will be introduced such as a mostly composite airframe, bleed air technology and engine interchange ability.



Question is it this will make it a game changer for its users, the airlines. Boeing and the media tell us so: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=boeing+787+game+changer&meta=

Better first define a "game changer" . We perhaps can define this as having a significant impact on the way airlines operate/compete, or play their "game".

Arguably we can say the Fokker F7, Caravelle, DC3, DC4, Boeing 707, Boeing 747, A300, A380, Bombardier and Embraer RJ´s and probably a few more can be considered game changers. They set new standards and possibilities for airlines and forced other manufacturers to follow suit.

Overall aircraft configuration
Given a few inches/feet the aircraft has identical dimensions and configuration as the A330-200.

Maintenance costs
- Engines seem to be developed along the lines of GE90 and CFM engines. Maintenance costs/shop visit intervals costs will hopefully be better, but likely not much better.
- Component costs will be different, mainly as far as electrics are concerned. Not clear if it will have any cost advantages. Even unlikely IMO.
- Airframe: Boeing promises airframe check intervals will be longer. Costs of inspection & repair not clear yet. Airframe costs are not a major part of total maintenance costs.
- Line Maintenance; Airlines are a bit worried on airframe repair technology on out stations.

Fuel costs
The GenX uses the newest technology from the GE90 series. GE calls it evolutionary. The same goes for the Trent1000. Improvement over the newest CF6 and Trent 700 engines engines will hopefully significant but not revolutionary.

Passenger capacity
Passenger capasity falls right in existing A & B aircraft family’s roughly between 767-300ER and B777-200ER. Not something really different here.

Passenger comfort
Passenger comfort is defined largely by airline specifications. Air pressure and humidity improvements are not expected to make travelling a real new experience for travellers or airlines. 9 abreast seems to be the preferred configuration, narrower then e.g. usual 777 and A340 cabin configurations.

Range capabilities
The B787 offers no significant range capabilities over existing aircraft. Long flights are already flown by similar sized aircraft e.g. CDG-NRT and PHX-NRT by A330s. Routes even further are flown today by 200-250 seat A345s and 772LR´s, but don´t make up a significant part of air travel. Optimal aircraft utilization, limited demand and cost/frequency advantages of hubs play a role.

Speed capabilities
The 787 will offer no significant speed advantages over existing aircraft.

Use by aircraft operators / network developments
Point to point travel and hub oriented operations will likely both continue to develop as they have been for the last 10-15 years. If a city pair can fill a daily flight you can try it. Hubs provide frequencies and economies of scale for thousands of city pairs. I cannot see how the Boeing 787 will influence this over existing types. Network carriers and Leisure / Charters will continue to do what they do, driven by passenger/network demand.

A combinations of all above mentioned factors
Hopefully the combination of above improvements will give airlines a cost saving for their operations. There is however no indication the Boeing 787 offers capabilities / cost reductions that will change airlines or network operations.

So: will the Boeing 787 be the a great aircraft? Yes, hopefully/ probably!
It will be a next step in further optimalization and cost efficiency in the medium / long range segment.

Will the Boeing 787 be a Game Changer? No, why should it?
Sofar there are no indications the 787 (or A350) will have a significant impact on the way the Boeing 787 customers, Network and Leisure Airlines, operate/compete, play their "game". The game is influenced by other factors then the great Boeing 787.

http://www.ab-pr.com/upload/Boeing/Bulten/Northwest%20787-H.jpg

[Edited 2006-03-18 00:01:29]

185 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18746 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Arguably we can say the Fokker F7, Caravelle, DC3, DC4, Boeing 707, Boeing 747, A300, A380, Bombardier and Embraer RJ´s and probably a few more can be considered game changers.

Why not the Boeing 767? It is the most frequently used aircraft across the Atlantic and enabled a whole slew of new routes to open during the 80s and 90s, all while furthering the introduction of ETOPS procedures.

Now, if you agree with the B767, you must include the B787. It will do the same thing and more for the Pacific market and further long-thin hub-point routes.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Hubs provide frequencies and economies of scale for thousands of city pairs. I cannot see how the Boeing 787 will influence this over existing types.

Ugh... 2003 Keesje redux all over again  Yeah sure

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
The game is influenced by other factors then the great Boeing 787.

Yet another hot-sports opinion from Keesje, yet another irrelevant self-serving monoluge from Keesje.

Boeing doesn't build aircraft for the feel-good factor, they sell them to make money. In the last two years, they've done a rather impressive job of doing so. That's what count ...


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18698 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):

Boeing doesn't build aircraft for the feel-good factor, they sell them to make money. In the last two years, they've done a rather impressive job of doing so. That's what count ...

like being the fastest wide-body plane sold in history........and potentially hundreds more to come this year....

the plane might pay for itself off even before it's flight certified........

THAT's a gamechanger..........unlike Leahy's "gamechanger"....which is struggling for sales....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1903 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18698 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Better first define a "game changer" . We perhaps can define this as having a significant impact on the way airlines operate/compete, or play their "game".

Ok, let me take this... Remember late 1970s? Bunch of DC-10s, L-1101s and 747s flying over the Atlantic? Remember when 767-200ER came out and opened a whole bunch of new city pairs with added frequency? Now check this out: You have a bunch of A340s, 777s and 747s flying on transpacific routes, only between major points in Asia and North America. 787 will do to that market what 767 did to transatlantic market in the early 1980s. You will see hub-fragmentation with new Asian routes being open from places like PHL for example, or any "smaller" market anywhere in America/Europe/Asia that is not able to support anything larger than 250-seater right now. Personally I think there will be a whole bunch of new city pairs between places like China and Vietnam, and Europe and North America, it's not unlikely that Japanese carriers will start flying their 787s to places like ATL or DFW or PHL, Vietnamese would go into WAW or PRG or CPH, Chinese would open up many more potential gateways from PRC into USA, giving Beijing or Shanghai some relief... I could go on and on...



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18607 times:

A gamechanger ?

No,but the first airplane which is overhyped BEFORE delivery.

Lots of promises which have to reached.A very hard job for Boeing ( or should i say for all subcontracted companies, because mostly all high-technology and advanced parts will be developed by other companies...)

I still trying to understand how Boeing will reach their target of 2008 EIS.

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18607 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Passenger comfort
Passenger comfort is defined largely by airline specifications. Air pressure and humidity improvements are not expected to make travelling a real new experience for travellers or airlines. 9 abreast seems to be the preferred configuration, narrower then e.g. usual 777 and A340 cabin configurations.

I have been wondering about this as well. Some airlines have already used nine abreast in the Airbus fuselage, who will keep the airlines from using nine in a 787?? I think the decision to make the fuselage somewhat wider than that of Airbus might turn out to be the shot into the own foot.

(Pleeeze Boeing lovers, don't flame me for that. It's just a thought)


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3677 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18597 times:

I would say it is a game changer because it is the first big plane built out of so many composites. Other airplanes used composites before, especially Airbus planes, but none did in such a consequent way.

I would call that a significant change.


User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18551 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
They set new standards and possibilities for airlines and forced other manufacturers to follow suit.

Wow...your definition of a game changer seems to describe the 787 to the dot.

James



Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18519 times:

Although this is not an official payload range diagram it seems pretty well substantiated & typical for this category of aircraft http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/index.html

Thing is, when flying far further then 6000nm with a twin single engined aircraft you start off loading payload. Seatcount goes down to provide ultra long haul flight comfort, cargo vanishes, seat/ trip cost go up, fleet utilization down. http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/payrb.png

There are always 1 stop alternatives via many hubs on either side of the oceans, providing high frequencies, lower prices and prossibly better comfort. So it is a tricky business, a niche market. As sales for A345/777LR learn.

I doubt very much 787´s will be used this way. A think more the <14 hour flights that are 95% of the flights now flown by 767s, a330 / 340/777´s.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Why not the Boeing 767?

I considered it & did not exclude it. The 767 opened twin efficiency & city pairs on the Atlantic but was a reaction on the A300 that proved twin widebody open water operations. Like the A320, technological revolutionairy but not a game changer compared to the 737/MD twins IMO.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1903 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18506 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 5):
I have been wondering about this as well. Some airlines have already used nine abreast in the Airbus fuselage, who will keep the airlines from using nine in a 787?? I think the decision to make the fuselage somewhat wider than that of Airbus might turn out to be the shot into the own foot.

(Pleeeze Boeing lovers, don't flame me for that. It's just a thought)

I have to agree on that one... 3+3+3 with 17 inch seats = bad idea comfort-wise... Airbus still is a winner here... though nothing will beat 787s 2+4+2 in Y... I'm praying that's what CO picked and that's what they'll fly if they decide to open EWR - WAW...



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18506 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer

Baloney !

Keesje : great a-netter , but in denial !  spin 

Halibut


User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 858 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18482 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 4):
No,but the first airplane which is overhyped BEFORE delivery.

Ever hear of a little airplane called the A380??



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineAlaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 905 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18456 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
So: will the Boeing 787 be the a great aircraft? Yes, hopefully/ probably!

I would say YES the 787 WILL be a great aircraft!!!

One reason people aren't as interested in the 787 (in my opinion) is because the A380 is now flying. But with the things going wrong in the testing process and that it will have a late delivery from the original date, I don't think that the A380 is as good as we had all thought.
now I'm not saying that I hate Airbus, or that I'm not going to fly on the A380 or anything. I'm just saying that give the 787 some time and I think that it will be a great addition not only to the airlines that choose to use it, but it will be one of those airplanes that will be around for ages!!!

Cheers-
Kyle H.

P.S. I love the new wing design on the 787!!! now that is some revolutionary stuff right there  Wink



to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18383 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer

Hhmm,
Well it certainly changed Airbus's game plan !  silly 

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...rbus+seeks+cheaper+composites.html

Airbus seeks cheaper composites
Airbus believes low-cost composites will be key to winning the next-generation narrowbody battle with Boeing and plans to invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology.

Halibut


User currently offlineThebry From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Johnny (Reply 4):
A gamechanger ?

No,but the first airplane which is overhyped BEFORE delivery.

Lots of promises which have to reached.A very hard job for Boeing ( or should i say for all subcontracted companies, because mostly all high-technology and advanced parts will be developed by other companies...)

Johnny  

These other companies are "developing" advanced parts to Boeing specifications.

I think another "game changing" aspect of the 787 is the manufacturing process itself. It's extremely diverse, and culminates in most sections arriving fully kitted, and ready for final assembly. Once the parts arrive Washington, it'll take just days to final assemble. Pretty impressive, and game changing in my book.


User currently offlineAndessmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18311 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 4):
No,but the first airplane which is overhyped BEFORE delivery.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
And the A380, what do you call that??

The 787 offers incremental increases in efficiency, across the board, for the overall higher efficiency as compared to similar airplanes.

The big change is the move to composites, a completely different way of manufacturing and maintaining an airplane.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18311 times:

Quoting Halibut (Reply 14):
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer

Hhmm,
Well it certainly changed Airbus's game plan ! silly

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...rbus+seeks+cheaper+composites.html

Airbus seeks cheaper composites
Airbus believes low-cost composites will be key to winning the next-generation narrowbody battle with Boeing and plans to invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology.

Halibut

Exacty correct. And remember that EK just pushed off delivery of their 340-600s.


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3418 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18293 times:

Johnny- I think you confused the 787 with the A380. That is an overhyped plane. Does Airbus think they will still sell 500 of those behemoths? Dream on.......... fight 

User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18233 times:

The B787 is overhyped and lots Airliners.net user trust in the figures Boeing is providing and like it.

The A380 is not overhyped, because IT IS indeed a new class of airplane, but there are mostly negative meanings about it here at A.net.( Two heavy,etc)

To bring it down to two sentences:

If the A380 would be a Boeing,than it would be great for these a.net users.If the B787 would be an Airbus, it would be an airplane with lots of uncertainties ( composites etc...)

It is all only A vs. B.  Wink


Johnny


User currently offlineAndessmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18205 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 19):

Umm...right, if that is what you think. Me, Im in the majority, including those gullible airlines that ordered it.  sarcastic 

The A380 is a new class of airplane?? To some, the Airbus should be classed the SAME as a 747, so lets try to figure out where it stands. If you claim that it is a different class Is it the biggest airplane, by weight, that has ever flown? No, that prize belongs to the An-225. It is the biggest passenger airplane? Yes, but excuse my ignorance for asking what is the new technology being used for it?


User currently offlineGoodmanr From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 297 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18196 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 19):
If the B787 would be an Airbus

...Then it would be great for people like you?

Come on, let's get serious here. I'm tired of reading the same people saying good things about A and bad about B and vice versa. Why can't we all just play nice?



USAirways - Chairmans Gold
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2588 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18180 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Air pressure and humidity improvements are not expected to make travelling a real new experience for travellers or airlines.

Why not? I think this could be significant.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
They set new standards and possibilities for airlines and forced other manufacturers to follow suit.

Hmmm - sounds a lot like the 787 to me.

Quoting Thebry (Reply 15):
I think another "game changing" aspect of the 787 is the manufacturing process itself. It's extremely diverse, and culminates in most sections arriving fully kitted, and ready for final assembly. Once the parts arrive Washington, it'll take just days to final assemble. Pretty impressive, and game changing in my book.

 checkmark 

Quoting Johnny (Reply 4):
Lots of promises which have to reached.

Agreed - if this plane is everything Boeing promises though, then it will most definitely be a "game changer."


User currently offlineAlexchao From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18134 times:

I think only time will tell whether or not the B787 AND the A380 will be game changers.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Arguably we can say the Fokker F7, Caravelle, DC3, DC4, Boeing 707, Boeing 747, A300, A380, Bombardier and Embraer RJ´s and probably a few more can be considered game changers. They set new standards and possibilities for airlines and forced other manufacturers to follow suit.

If those airplanes are game changers, then I think the 777 is also a game changer. We're seeing more and more airplanes go with the twin-engine concept across the transpacific which was previously dominated by the 747.

I think we can all agree that right now is an exciting time for commercial aviation. We're seeing new airplanes enter the market, and the competition will benefit the consumer and airlines.


User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18129 times:

I mst honestly say I agree that the thread starter is right. No game changer apart from helping airlines save money. It won't magically make all operators profitable or change the way we travel. Im sure that it will set new standards, i.e inflight comfort, efficiency and sales levels, but to say game changer I think even if it meets all expectations, will be a bit of an over-statement. I love the 787 and honestly think it will win more market share than anything airbus is currently offering, but I won't say it's a gamechanger.

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 858 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18067 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 19):
The A380 is not overhyped, because IT IS indeed a new class of airplane, but there are mostly negative meanings about it here at A.net.( Two heavy,etc)

A VLA is not a new class of airplane. A 747 can carry many people, and it already established the VLA class. I suppose if you differentiated a "super" jumbo vs. a jumbo...but it's still a jumbo. I'm not trying to flame a A vs. B war, it's just.



That's why we're here.
25 OldAeroGuy : Depends, what kind of game do you want to change?
26 FlyDreamliner : 787 is going to change the game for sure. It will start to take apart the hub and spoke model for international travel. it's going to make flights int
27 Post contains images CptGermany : When I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was that Airbus has been doing this for quite a while in Toulouse for A340/330, A320, A300/310
28 Elvis777 : Hi Keesje! Are you sure you are still impartial to both manufacturers? Cus it sure looks like you have a preference (counting your other posts as well
29 Post contains images Johnny : @ FlyDreamliner A 350 and B787 will offer midsize-lowcost-longrange travel ??? Why? Because they offer lower operating costs than todays midsize airpl
30 Post contains images Electech6299 : Not necessarily a real "new" experience, but quite possibly a more comfortable one. Being that this is my major occupational focus, I am very ancy to
31 Airbazar : To 4 US carriers and little more. With very few exceptions (AC), the rest of the World still prefers the A340/777/747 across the Atlantic. The 767 wa
32 FlyDreamliner : hub to point is what we have now...... with 6,000 miles of range tops on an A330 or 767, they fly hub to point. In markets like the pacific, we might
33 Dynkrisolo : Lemme see. Airbus first thought the 787 was a Chinese copy of the 330. Then Airbus found out by just slapping on the 787 engines on the 330 was not go
34 Post contains images Cruiser : That explains why the 767 is the plane that is most used for crossing the pond today....rrrrriigghhtt!   James[Edited 2006-03-18 03:18:21]
35 Stitch : I'm not sure why an A380 is considered a "game changer" when all it does is carry more people more cheaply. Exactly what the 747 series has done for o
36 Post contains images OlegShv : Gee... I wonder why it was called the Atlantic Cruiser...
37 Khobar : How long does final assembly of the A340/330, A320, A300/310 take? My understanding is that the Boeing assembly time for a comparable aircraft is goi
38 Shenzhen : New Page 1 Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer WHO CARES?     
39 Thebry : Bravo!
40 AndesSMF : And tell me, how many 767s do US carriers use? This is like saying that Boeing shouldnt care about WN cause theyre only an LCC. Those 767 carry more
41 BoomBoom : Why? It makes the 787 more attractive to the airlines who wish to configure it with 9 across and after all, they are the ones who buy airplanes, not
42 RoseFlyer : My take is that the 787 is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. As a plane itself, it isn't bringing any huge scale changes on the order of the Com
43 777ER : And if the B787 was an Airbus then all the Airbus lovers would be jumping for joy, and Keesje wouldn't have started this thread The B787 is a game ch
44 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : You are dead right about that.. Dynkrisolo... I could not put this better my but further to the above I would say the Airbus cheerleaders on this for
45 AirFrnt : Thanks for the Airbus P.R release of the day Keesje. Suprisingly I agree with your point that the 787 is not a game changer. In fact, it simply is the
46 AndesSMF : Or shorter routes with more payload
47 Planemaker : You might be interested in seeing the 767 & 77 range/flt. frequency breakdown... Range (st-miles) : Freq/week (Mar. 13-19 2006) 767 100 - 199 : 113 2
48 Post contains images Tifoso : Great. Tell that to the close to 30 airlines that have 298 Dreamliners on firm order, with another 88 pending. Remind them to talk to Airbus and Boei
49 A319XFW : Does anyone know what is quantified in "Assembly"? For instance does that include function tests, cabin installation and so on? Or is that just fusel
50 Post contains links Tifoso : A319XFW, good question. Went digging, and found this thread on A.net http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2320988. The ans
51 Atmx2000 : Is this for all carriers? I'm surprised that 777 flights outnumber 767 flights. The data with larger bins:
52 Post contains images Johnny : @777ER "And if the B787 was an Airbus then all the Airbus lovers would be jumping for joy, and Keesje wouldn't have started this thread" Exactly ( exc
53 A342 : You are completely right. And nowadays, talking about hubs, looking at a hub as an airline hub ignores the real world situation. They´ve become alli
54 Post contains images A319XFW : Thanks for that find! So 3 days does not sound that radical if it only includes fuselage and landing gear assembly/integration. The major part of fin
55 Madairdrie : As far as the flying public are concerned I dont think either the A380 or the B787 are game changers, as I think they are both a natural continuation
56 Post contains images Glideslope : The Game Changer is Boeing. Not simply the 787. Boeing sees the aviation future in ways Airbus can't even dream about. Sit back and watch as Airbus st
57 CM767 : Keesje one question, you still believe that the 340 is Superior to the 777? Well denying the merits of the 787 would fall in the same category and yo
58 A342 : Believe it or not, LH, a big A340 operator, has managed to raise its profit last year, to something like 600m, despite the high fuel prices. IMO it´
59 Jumbojet : Sounds like Jealousy to me. The plane has yet to be built yet so why not hold off to see if they can deliver what they promise? As far as it being a
60 Boeing767-300 : That is a poor argument, so if LH had a fleet of more fuel efficient 77W then they could have made even more profit based on the leaner burn of the 7
61 A342 : LH is 100% privately owned and they can choose what they want. They could have chosen the 773ER, but opted for the A346. Why ? Because it was the air
62 Boeing767-300 : Commonality as discussed here in the past matters less and less as the fleet increases in size. Granted LH is privately owned but I still say they wi
63 Post contains images Hrhf1 : Keesje, come on. Everyone knows there are a lot of innovations on the 787, that when added up, make an impressive new aircraft from the composites on
64 Post contains images USAF336TFS : Keesje knows, like the rest of us here on a.net that the 787 is in fact a game changer... Had the theory (Smaller aircraft, flying direct, avoiding m
65 CM767 : Of course not acquisition cost count too, but fuel is a bigger factor today, that when LH took the decision, today is a different game all together,
66 BlueSky1976 : The only difference is you can count on the fingers of one hand the airlines who fly A330/A350 in 9-abreast, and you can count on the fingers of mayb
67 Aither : It is a game changer -for Boeing- because it uses fly by wire and way more composites than let's say the 767, will create Boeing commonality, and is u
68 Aither : Maybe you can explain us how smaller the 787 is compared to the A330, the 767 etc. funny too to see airlines criticizing the 787 for being too small.
69 Dougloid : Right on brother-there hasn't been a good AvB rumble in a couple weeks. The game changing aspect will be the production technology and production eng
70 Stirling : To OldAeroGuy (reply #25) Exactly. What is the "Game" we are talking about? To Madairdrie (reply #55) Your post was completely ignored and blown past-
71 Post contains images USAF336TFS : You've taken what my point was out of context, as I was talking about the "bigger picture" scenerios and the respective market outlooks from both maj
72 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Airbus is not the only one to outsource. And which costs are you talking about? Labor unrest? I'm sure you can elaborate on that... PH
73 Jumbojet : Airbus lovers are simply jealous of Boeing. How else do you explain it? If the 787 had lousy sales like the A380 then they would get on Boeing for tha
74 Aither : Many seem to think Airbus do not believe in new direct routes. This is a shame as they should rely more on what the manufacturers are saying rather t
75 Aither : ... and the 787 is completely lousy compared to the A320.
76 Midway2airtran : When airlines start flying these efficently on long-range/overseas city pairs outside their traditional hubs, the B787 will most definitely be a game
77 Post contains images Revelation : DC3 was the definitive game changer. It killed the Boeing 247, and is still being flown today, seven decades after its creation. Comet should have be
78 Aither : Until it happens (eventually) i could not name many long haul routes starting outside the airline hub. There are markets and operational reasons for
79 Art : If the 787 can provide airlines with a tool to dramatically increase profitability in their long haul airline operations (through lower fuel burn, ope
80 Aither : I would of course disagree for the A380 but that's not the subject of this topic. About the 787 making the competition to scramble is not a game chan
81 WingedMigrator : Negative. Most of the composites content of the A380 is CFRP, as in carbon fiber. As an interesting but useless factoid, the A380 contains a higher w
82 Jumbojet : the A320 cant even make it from the east coast to the west coast without having to make fuel diversions with some unfavorable headwinds, yeah, thats
83 Post contains images Iwok : I think that title goes to the 380. Remember the painful antics of the REVEAL ceremony? Orange jumpsuits, 4 heads of state, the infamous "the A380 is
84 Post contains images Lightsaber : The A320 and 737NG were evolutionary aircraft that were game changers in the industry. The fact is as aircraft achieve the range desired and have fewe
85 Post contains links Hrhf1 : Quoting Aither (Reply 80): About the 787 making the competition to scramble is not a game changer criteria. Any new aircraft program makes the competi
86 Ikramerica : While I don't think it changes the game in the same way the 707 or 747, it does change it in the way the 767 did. And you have to lump the A350 with t
87 Post contains images Stitch : If only those who believe that JL and NH buy Boeing products solely because MITI tells them to would comprehend the true situation of those purchases
88 Airbazar : Because American carriers use it and they have the most frequencies. Like I said, other than N.America, hardly anyone has a large fleet of 767's and
89 RoseFlyer : Yes the A380 is using Carbon-fibre reinforced plastics, glass-fibre reinforced plastic and quartz-fibre reinforced plastic extensively in wings, fuse
90 Planemaker : Yes, the data is for all carriers, all scheduled flights. Thank you for putting the effort into calculating the data into "larger bins." It really do
91 Atmx2000 : Not surprising at all, since if an airline wants to maximize utilization of cargo abilities of an aircraft, they will have to fly shorter segments to
92 Post contains links Revelation : You might want to look at this list. I seem to recall both BA and AF flying them across the pond.
93 SparkingWave : Sorry, Keesge, if you argue that the 787 isn't a game changer, then the A380 is certainly not one either. After all, it's just a larger 747 with a fu
94 Tjc2 : Isn't the whole object of developing all this wonderful new technology in the aviation industry to try and carry as many people as possible for as li
95 SparkingWave : There's no slot-restricted market in the world that justifies building one. SparkingWave ~~~
96 Tjc2 : tbh, thats what i was thinking as soon as i had typed...would be quite a sight tho...
97 TristarSteve : BA still flies B767 over the pond, about 10 every day.
98 Post contains images AC773 : Now let me see! Frank Shrontz (then Boeing CEO) craps himself when A320 is released. Then Boeing found that slapping A320 engines and a glass cockpit
99 Wah64d : Quality post in response to Dynkrisolo. This is absolute proof that nomatter how impartial people say they are, they will always view things with som
100 PlaneDane : The 737NG is lighter and carries more. It flies farther, faster and burns less fuel. So, what gap are you talking about?
101 Post contains images Jacobin777 : exactly..take a look at AA's ORD-NGO flight.....they cancelled the route because they lost a key Toyota contract to UA..however, they were doing well
102 WAH64D : Maybe he's referring to the huge gap between the two order books? The 737NG obviously isn't "all that" or it wouldn't be receiving a royal ass kickin
103 Cymro : 787 great aircraft, Game changer? I do not wish to flame but it is neither yet!!. It has the potential to be, but as it has not been manufactured yet
104 BR076 : The general public don't care if it's an A or B , I know I don't, as long as I can get the cheapest price. I see a great future fo the A380 just becau
105 AvObserver : The 737NG is FULLY performance/economics competitive with the A320 family but is does suffer from lack of commonality with wide-body Boeings that the
106 Jseesue : Keesje, This lame and long-winded attempt to use Boeing's words against them quickly backfires. Here's why. While it's true that we don't yet know ho
107 LTU932 : That is not true and you know that. LH has repeatedly said they will not become an operator of aircraft from only one manufacturer. They may have bee
108 Cruiser : Tell that to the companys that have already started to manufacture long lead-time parts for the 787. This plane is now far more than a CAD model at p
109 AvObserver : AGREED, the 757 was HARDLY a disappointment, even though its time (for new orders, anyway) has passed. It didn't have the speed or quite the "hot and
110 Cymro : I understand that but until there is a flying plane to prove the performance claims nobody can tell if it is going to be a great aircraft or not??? I
111 Cruiser : The 787 is far more than a CAD model as you suggested...and it will begin test flights by summer of 2007. Regarding the A350...it is currently a CAD
112 Cymro : I have said any different with regard to the A350 I was commenting on the 787. And until it does fly no one can say it is great, the design and the p
113 Post contains images Jacobin777 : care to explain what these are? sure the only thing which is going to happen to you is you are going to sit with 5 million more people in economy...
114 Art : Naive question here: if the A320 outsells the 737 at lower margins, how come Airbus profits as a percentage of turnover are higher than Boeing's? And
115 AndesSMF : Dude, please, check your sources before making such a blanket statement. I just spent 5 minutes looking at numbers to clearly indicate the bias in yo
116 Khobar : Perhaps different accounting practices. As for the use of the word "rape" with regards to a certain 737 contract, was that how Boeing described it, o
117 Dougloid : I guess it really depends on what you mean by "game". Let's parse. You connect the word "game" with what Boeing customers are doing, i.e., playing th
118 Post contains images Iwok : Interesting the 748i and LH. I just flew SFO-HAJ on Lufthansa and I read the in-flight mag cover to cover. There is a story about a model builder who
119 PlaneDane : Another excellent post, Dougloid. You nailed it.
120 Dynkrisolo : 1. What does this have to do with whether the 787 is a gamechanger or not? 2. Did I say the 320 was not a good design? 3. PlaneDane has pointed out t
121 Shenzhen : Considering that I've never actually been able to see the Airbus margins, how can they be compared. Each time I've looked at EADS, they always show t
122 MD-90 : About 6" of fuselage width.
123 Post contains links Milan320 : Can you enlighten us on what exactly Boeing sees? Well Boeing is outsourcing about 70% of the 787. So by your logic, there should be labour unrest am
124 PlaneHunter : That's not what the other user meant. Though, both models sell quite equally. There are more aspects for operators to take into consideration than on
125 LTU932 : Well said. In the end, it's all about operating and maintenance costs as well as commonality, at least at airlines that are more or less established.
126 Revelation : Boeing originally wanted to make a pure 727 replacement in terms of capacity, with better economy and range, but pressure from Eastern Airlines made
127 Post contains links and images Halibut : DATE:20/12/05 SOURCE:Flight International How Boeing's 787 beat the A350 at Qantas http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ng+triumphs+in+twinjet+tussl
128 Leelaw : IIRC, the decision to go with a larger aircraft in terms of capacity was at least partly based on the theory that the 727 replacement needed to addre
129 Post contains images Tifoso : Yeah right. So, Airbus A380 is going to replace the 787. Do you even know the market segments that they serve. I am skeptical. The CEO mentioned that
130 Art : Comment from customer (Ryanair) was IIRC: "We raped them!" Boeing walks in a US (labour flexible) park; Airbus does not. In particular, labour in Fra
131 Dougloid : Thank ya thank ya verra much. It also occurs to me what's happening here is also interesting because the application of carbon fiber composite techno
132 Glom : I think it is incorrect to say that the 737NG is getting as ass kicking from the A320. Last year, it clearly played second fiddle but did very well in
133 BlueSky1976 : 737-sized SYD-LHR commercial plane (NOT a business jet) will not happen. The reason is simple: the ticket prices would have been so expensive nobody
134 Khobar : So there is no actual proof that Ryanair got any better deal than any other airline. We just have O'Leary's comment. I wonder if Mr. O'Leary has refl
135 Post contains images Astuteman : There was an excellent article in FI edition of 7th - 13th March describing how the Spanish Aerospace industry had come of age (I can't find an elect
136 PlaneHunter : O'Leary doesn't seem to be a guy who is not able to realize what's a great discount and what's none. PH
137 Stitch : While a plane able to fly non-stop between extreme city-pairs like LHR and SYD would save money, most of the data I have been presented show the actu
138 Post contains images Khobar : I'm sure he got what he considered to be a great discount. But there's no actual evidence that whatever discount he got was any better than Boeing of
139 Atmx2000 : Maybe, but the argument that they are at a equivalent technology level when the A350 is coming to market 2.5 to 3 years after the 787 is some what di
140 Post contains images Jacobin777 : notice I said "economically"......fare prices would have to be cheap enough... I also stated the 787..... of course, only time will tell, but I feel
141 Post contains images Airbazar : Oh gee, that's a huge number of flights I'm well aware that BA and AF fly the 767 on a very limited number of trans-atlantic flights. And I still don
142 Planemaker : I will go out on a limb and state that the 787/A350 will definitely not be "game changers." The 787 is, from a 767 operator's perspective, simply a 7
143 Jacobin777 : incorrect, the proposed 787-10 and A359 would almost be comparable to the 777-200ER....
144 Planemaker : Not incorrect. The 787 is Boeing's replacement for the 767.
145 BlueSky1976 : True, but within those 120 minutes operator could save time on having to descent, ATC approach procedure, landing, taxiing, refueling, taxiing again,
146 BoomBoom : What A380 defficiencies are you refering to? The plane hasn't even entered service yet.
147 Post contains links Jacobin777 : If you noticed, I specifically mentioned the 787-10 and A359, which would be comparable to the 777-200ER..... "while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry
148 Atmx2000 : Sure, those routes can't support the frequency that the money laden north Atlantic routes can. Also it should be noted that some of the routes, inclu
149 WAH64D : The 737NG is competitive with the A320 if you believe what Boeing puts on paper. If on the other hand, you look at real world experience, the 737NG h
150 Khobar : Are you suggesting that Airbus's emphasis on the advantage of commonality is mere hype? As for the A320 and it's container capability, how much cargo
151 AvObserver : Khobar mostly answered the cargo part of this, although if you're right about the 737 being unable to carry containers, that's a big drawback. On the
152 Shenzhen : Every EADS report that I've seen, where Airbus division is broken out, has margins reported EBIT excluding any goodwill or exceptionals, therefore I
153 Dougloid : Pressurized vs non pressurized....there is a lot of difference in how the fuselage reacts....they found that out with the Comet, remember? Unpressuri
154 WingedMigrator : Just to amplify Astuteman's earlier post, it's not like Airbus has any aversion to, or lack of experience with, constructing pressurized components o
155 Sllevin : The numbers have spoken. A350: failure A380 failure B787: Success Steve
156 MD-90 : What airline actually requires containers for its A320 series aircraft and actually bought them over the 737 for that reason? Maybe a very, very few.
157 Atmx2000 : Then why did they use GLARE on the A380 fuselage? On the contrary, Airbus is spending many billions of dollars on a new product in the mid range mark
158 WingedMigrator : Ah, just the kind of well-researched, balanced, soundly articulated argument that make this forum such a pleasure to read. Since being offered for sa
159 WingedMigrator : OK, you got me. I should have been more specific by saying reinforced plastics. I find it remarkable to see how much of a fixation there is on GLARE
160 Planemaker : You said that I was incorrect without any basis. The 787 is Boeing's replacement for the 767. The "pending 787-10" is Boeing's reluctant response to
161 LTU932 : Oh come on, you can't compare the A350/787 combo with the A380 and at the same time declare the A350 a failure. This is just a false statement and yo
162 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Ventured theory, considering none of the mentioned aircraft has even entered service yet... PH
163 Post contains images Jacobin777 : once again, you are incorrect.....I specifically mentioned the 787-10, you only mentioned a "generic" 787 (which could be the 787-3/8/9)..you made no
164 PlaneDane : The vast majority of the A380 is definitely not CFRP. The majority of the lower fuselage half of the aircraft is conventional aluminum. The majority
165 Murchmo : Fuel economy isn't just engines. A380 ??? I did'nt know they were in service already...please tell me how they have changed the game...please, i miss
166 Post contains images Astuteman : The GLARE is on the upper fuselage only - out of harm's way. Just to answer that, stresses are stresses. Stresses don't know whether they are caused
167 Planemaker : I'm not arguing... you are because you can't comprehend my simple comment even though you've quoted it a few times... There is nothing incorrect in t
168 Atmx2000 : Of most ground equipment yes. Mishaps could still occur with equipment used for reaching the top surface, like deicing reequipment. Also the top surf
169 Astuteman : Agree. As I say, I don't agree with the decision not to use a composite fuselage on the A350, but I'm not party to the decision making process. I'm n
170 Glom : Okay, with regard to cockpit commonality with the A320 being an advantage, it should be mentioned that the 737NG has a commonality all its own: a comm
171 Post contains images Halibut : Accourding to Airbus just a few years ago, GLARE was the best thing since sliced bread , yet it will not be used on the A350 ? Jacobin777, It was fro
172 Post contains images Rpaillard : Hi all, Sorry to join this topic late. Here is my humble opinion, and I have to say that I’m far from an expert. So in my opinion, the 787 will be a
173 Post contains images Johnny : @Khobar What you are overlooking ? The fact that you are comparing apples with oranges. Compare the figures for the B737-700 and the A319, not the A32
174 Post contains images DAYflyer : Precisely. This is the only game these two play. And to them it is the only one that counts. Boeing has grabed the lead, catching Airbus with it's pa
175 Revelation : The difference is how much better the economics and range are. If at the end of the production run you end up with something with the range and capac
176 Dougloid : I never believed that "turn 'em out like hot rolls" bullshit either. You gotta remember I worked in an airplane factory for four years. It ain't gonn
177 Khobar : That makes the Airbus's cargo capacity look even less competitive, but in checking the pax. count figures (and actual physical length) more closely y
178 Post contains images Jacobin777 : guess your right.........
179 Post contains images Astuteman : As A319XFW pointed out (somewhere), it depends on what's meant by "3 day final assembly". I don't believe that bits of aeroplane go in one end, and a
180 Ken777 : I'm just a simple pax running a one man company (which allows me to call myself a "businessman") so I probably look at game changers differently. For
181 Planemaker : If that is the criteria for an aircraft to be considered a "game changer," then several other aircraft also fall into that category (even though they
182 BAW716 : Keesje, Did we define what the "game" was? There is a lot of factual information in your post; for which I am very pleased. Most posters just make the
183 WingedMigrator : I never claimed it was. Read again please. The A380 structure is 25% composite but only 2% GLARE. My gripe is that everybody seems to focus on that 2
184 SparkingWave : The 787 is already a game changer. Let me jog your memory. Remember when Airbus said they could easily counter the 787 by re-engining the A330 with th
185 Post contains links LTU932 : This topic is getting long to load, so let's continue in Part 2: Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not Game Changer V2 (by LTU932 Mar 20 2006 in Civil Aviat
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...
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer posted Fri Mar 17 2006 23:54:03 by Keesje
Boeing: 787 Distinctive External Look - NOT Gone. posted Tue Apr 26 2005 21:52:01 by DIA
Photo Of Boeing 787 Section Being Transported posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:09:01 by RobK
AA, DL, UA Vie For Boeing 787 Gold Care Contracts posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:13:52 by WorldTraveler
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Break Even No! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:26:50 by Bringiton
SQ, Boeing Sign $4.52B Aircraft Deal posted Mon Oct 2 2006 01:29:07 by AirMailer
Boeing 787-3 For Delta Hawaii Routes? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:30:06 by 1337Delta764
Boeing 787 Progress posted Mon Sep 4 2006 18:03:31 by DTW757
Kawasaki Heavy Mulling 2nd Plant For Boeing 787 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 20:29:44 by NYC777