Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-3/8 4000 Lbs Overweight?  
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9487 times:

http://boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf

Looking at the latest airport compatibility brochure for the 787, it appears that Boeing has left out the OEW information from the data table. Looking at the payload range charts and comparing it to the Sept 2005 version it appears that max payload for both has decreased by about 4,000 lbs (~1.8t). Since the weight table indicates that maximum zero fuel weight is the same, and OEW = MZFW - max payload, it would appear the OEW has increased by 4,000 pounds. For the 787-8 that is a ~1.7% increase. It would appear that this OEW increase is leading to a drop in range of ~250-300nm at MTOW for the design passenger capacity range.

Is this the final weight or will Boeing be able to reduce weight further?


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
Is this the final weight or will Boeing be able to reduce weight further?

Expect Boeing to continue to reduce the weight right thru testing.

WorldXplorer


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9263 times:

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 1):
Expect Boeing to continue to reduce the weight right thru testing.

Actually, I just realized the OEWs can't be compared directly, as they were for configurations with different numbers of passengers, with 8Y in the old one and 9Y in the new one.

Looking at -8 cabin layout for 3 class with 9Y seating a total of 237 pax (which is less than the 242 pax quoted on the payload range chart), one can see that a few more heavier premium seats have been added in addition to more Y seats. There appears to be more galley space in economy, and an additional bathroom in first and business class. Also additional supplies will also be need for the extra passengers. All of these things will increase OEW.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4615 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9250 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
All of these things will increase OEW.

Typically the OEW is for a generic aircraft and does not reflect the weight needed to make it passenger ready.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 3):
Typically the OEW is for a generic aircraft and does not reflect the weight needed to make it passenger ready.

The OEW corresponds to a generic configuration. Those configurations are often lighter than what an airline would put into it, but it still takes into account passenger and crew count.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4615 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9086 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
but it still takes into account passenger and crew count.

The way I read your response is that the OEW includes passenger and crew count. Is this what you meant? If not perhaps you should rephrase your response.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9032 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 5):
The way I read your response is that the OEW includes passenger and crew count. Is this what you meant? If not perhaps you should rephrase your response.

By taking into account passenger and crew count, I meant that is was a factor in its calculation. OEW includes personnel required for full operations. It also includes fixtures, like seats, and other items that are determined by passenger capacity count.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8761 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Looking at -8 cabin layout for 3 class with 9Y seating a total of 237 pax (which is less than the 242 pax quoted on the payload range chart), one can see that a few more heavier premium seats have been added in addition to more Y seats. There appears to be more galley space in economy, and an additional bathroom in first and business class. Also additional supplies will also be need for the extra passengers. All of these things will increase OEW.

Interesting catch.. Its amazing that you actually study these things so intensly..

So, what's you thought? Is it a -8 vs. -9 issue, or is there some other weight gain that we have not heard about yet?

I remember there was talk of the 787 being a little over weight (although similar to the 777 at the same stage of development); any update on this?

iwok


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8731 times:

I was just wondering: should it be easier or more difficult to trim weight from an all composite design? You don't have the option of replacing (heavier) metal panels with (lighter) composite ones as you would in a more conventional aircraft.

Any thoughts?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

Quoting Iwok (Reply 7):
Interesting catch.. Its amazing that you actually study these things so intensly..

Well, I had a vague impression that the range-payload curves had changed for the -8 (it changed for the -3 as they appear to have eliminated the extra tanks), with lower range for payload. I was also curious to see if the OEW changed, and saw the numbers were missing from the table. Then I went back to the range payload curve and realized max payload had been lowered. Then I started analyzing the graph.

Quote:
So, what's you thought? Is it a -8 vs. -9 issue, or is there some other weight gain that we have not heard about yet?

I don't see why this has anything to do with the -9. Whether the apparent increase in OEW is due to changes in cabin configuration, or whether they reflect new estimates of what 787 weight will be, or some combination I don't know.

However, if Boeing is going quote a upper and lower bound for capacity and range based on 8 abreast versus 9 abreast seating, I don't see why they shouldn't quote a range for OEW.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 7):
I remember there was talk of the 787 being a little over weight (although similar to the 777 at the same stage of development); any update on this?

iwok

Last fall the talk was something like 1 to 2 metric tons or so, which would be consistent with what I think the OEW increase is. But I have a hard time imagining they did not make further progreess in the last 6 months.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 8):
I was just wondering: should it be easier or more difficult to trim weight from an all composite design? You don't have the option of replacing (heavier) metal panels with (lighter) composite ones as you would in a more conventional aircraft.

I'd assume that the 787 fuselage, being the first large scale application of composites of its kind, was designed with elevated safety margins. These will be gradually reduced once experience starts to build up from early manufacturing and operations.

Generally, it should be easier to reduce weight, because slight variations in the number and orientation of plies don't necessarily have a huge impact on tooling, and tooling requirements are reduced with composites anyway.

Likewise many components of the "more electric" system are expected to benefit form near/mid-term advances in technology, decreasing weight, bulk and cost. For example, future electric power conversion electronics might do away with liquid cooling. Even a later upgrade to all-electric systems is conceivable.

The 787 has to be considered as a moving target perhaps.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Actually, I just realized the OEWs can't be compared directly, as they were for configurations with different numbers of passengers, with 8Y in the old one and 9Y in the new one.

Yes, and the brochure still seems to be incomplete, like they revised it as much as they could for 9Y but didn't get it finished.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 7):
So, what's you thought? Is it a -8 vs. -9 issue, or is there some other weight gain that we have not heard about yet?

I think it is weight gain due to 9Y. For the -8, we are talking 27 more seats, +1 toilet and increased galley. The ranges are cut 300-500nm with 9Y seating vs. 8Y.

The brochure just no longer shows 8Y anymore...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1261 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8644 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 8):
I was just wondering: should it be easier or more difficult to trim weight from an all composite design? You don't have the option of replacing (heavier) metal panels with (lighter) composite ones as you would in a more conventional aircraft.

Any thoughts?

It seems that a few issues with CFRP at the 787 has been dealt with using the AMM-principle (Add More Material) - eg. around doors and where delamination might be the most likely to take place. As better technical solutions than the AMM-principle to these issues are being developed there might be room to reduce the weight of the 787.
Abba


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8621 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Yes, and the brochure still seems to be incomplete, like they revised it as much as they could for 9Y but didn't get it finished.

I don't see why they don't put both in there. After all they are marketing it with a range. Many of the figures are marked 9 abreast. Of course adding 8 abreast figures will increase document size considerably.

And I do have a feeling that this was put out in a rush without a whole lot of proofreading. The same table that lacks OEW information lists the max landing weight for the 787-9 as over 1.5 million ponds (684t), more than 50% greater than the max landing weight of the A388F.  Smile

[Edited 2006-05-28 10:11:33]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8426 times:

Quoting Iwok (Reply 7):
Interesting catch.. Its amazing that you actually study these things so intensly..



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
And I do have a feeling that this was put out in a rush without a whole lot of proofreading.

Perhaps Randy will read this thread and have any obvious errors corrected PDQ.  Smile


User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8384 times:

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 1):
Expect Boeing to continue to reduce the weight right thru testing.

What a bold statement to make! Where is your evidence to supporty it? Oh, sorry, just realised we're talking about Boeing so of course they can have the benefit of the doubt.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8300 times:

How easy would it to reduce the EOW weight of an entirely new plane still under development which is fully design frozen?

I mean: pretty much every screw, every joint, every part of the plane has now been designed in detail, been manufactured already and been tested individually, so I'd expect Boeing to have a very good idea of what a newly assembled 787 will weigh, hence their subtle corrections to the technical documents.

Since nothing has been flight tested yet however, I'd suppose it would be sound judgement not to fiddle around with the 787 design in an ultimate effort to reduce its weight by almost 2 tons before the complete design has been flight tested and proven its structural strenght as it was initially designed.

I thus expect to 787 to be slightly heavier than planned and have a small range penalty because of that... Nothing extremely bad about it, just proof that Boeing, its industrial partners and engineers in general are only human too.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8220 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 16):
How easy would it to reduce the EOW weight of an entirely new plane still under development which is fully design frozen?

I mean: pretty much every screw, every joint, every part of the plane has now been designed in detail, been manufactured already and been tested individually, so I'd expect Boeing to have a very good idea of what a newly assembled 787 will weigh, hence their subtle corrections to the technical documents.

EVERETT, May 21, 2006 -- Boeing announced today that it has reached a major milestone in the design of the all-new 787 Dreamliner. The team has completed 25 percent of the releases required for the program. This means that one quarter of the pieces of information to build parts and tools for assembly have been completed and released to manufacturing organizations for fabrication or procurement.

Releases are the formal documents -- digital models in the case of the 787 program -- that allow purchases to be made, tools to be developed and parts to be built.

"We have seen tremendous progress by our international partners and the Boeing team working on the detailed design of this airplane," said Mike Bair, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "Twenty-five percent release signifies that the largest elements - like fuselage and wing skins - are defined from the tooling requirements to the specific raw material elements."


http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q2/060521a_nr.html


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8186 times:

Thanks for the quick link, Leelaw!

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 17):
The largest elements - like fuselage and wing skins - are defined from the tooling requirements to the specific raw material elements."

The way I read this, it means any serious weight reduction is no longer possible at this stage? Unless of course Boeing and its partners were to target the smaller parts only. In this respect, it would be interesting to know how much of the total weight this 25% release makes up....

[Edited 2006-05-28 11:43:31]

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
The way I read this, it means any serious weight reduction (not talking a few pounds/kilograms, but rather tons like seems to be needed here) is no longer possible at this stage?

Do you see a need to reduce 787 weight by tons ???

If you take a close look at the structural design, it is obvious that it could be made even lighter than it already is, but mostly at the expense of manufacturability, cost and risk. Why would you want to do that unless the competition can build up pressure in terms of payload/range performance?

Whatever, any remaining potential for weight reductions, if needed, can be cashed in with -9 and -10, and then transitioned back to later versions of the -8.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8077 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 8):
I was just wondering: should it be easier or more difficult to trim weight from an all composite design?

I can think of factors that cut both ways. I'm not sure anyone will know the answer with certainty until the first B787 flight.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
I don't see why they shouldn't quote a range for OEW.

I agree. OEW should be quoted as a range. In actual service, OEW varies considerably from airline to airline.

Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 1):

Expect Boeing to continue to reduce the weight right thru testing.



Quoting HS748 (Reply 15):
What a bold statement to make! Where is your evidence to supporty it? Oh, sorry, just realised we're talking about Boeing so of course they can have the benefit of the doubt.

Both Airbus and Boeing have reduced the weight right up through testing. I can't think of any reason why that would not continue to be the case with the B787.


User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7410 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
I'd assume that the 787 fuselage, being the first large scale application of composites of its kind, was designed with elevated safety margins. These will be gradually reduced once experience starts to build up from early manufacturing and operations.

I doubt that very much. Once you certify a configuration and strength test it, I doubt you are gonna start reducing number of plys, etc... here and there.. There is a real effort to leave things alone once this point is reached.


User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7384 times:

Quoting HS748 (Reply 15):
Quoting WorldXplorer (Reply 1):
Expect Boeing to continue to reduce the weight right thru testing.

What a bold statement to make! Where is your evidence to supporty it? Oh, sorry, just realised we're talking about Boeing so of course they can have the benefit of the doubt.

Bold statement....Silly actually, I have never known strength and fatigue testing to every lead to a lighter structure in the end.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7178 times:

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 22):
I have never known strength and fatigue testing to every lead to a lighter structure in the end.

It happens in Japanese automobile design every day. When they find that a part is overengineered, they lighten it.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4615 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7133 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6):
OEW includes personnel required for full operations. It also includes fixtures, like seats, and other items that are determined by passenger capacity count.

The OEW as published by the aircraft manufacturer does not include the items that you list. It is the weight of the aircraft before these items. For a typical 300 seater I believe you must add 20 to 24000lbs.


25 Atmx2000 : From Boeing's 777 AC document: Operating Empty Weight (OEW). Weight of structure, powerplant, furnishing systems, unusable fuel and other unusable pr
26 DfwRevolution : The areas around the doors were reinforced to protect against abrasion and impact, not delamination. Delamination occurs when moisture or contanimati
27 Art : Would this include fuel to fly for 30 minutes? I'm curious about something else. How much unusable fuel is normal? I mean, if you run the tanks dry w
28 Post contains links SunriseValley : Atmx2000.... I do not want to appear to be argumentative but I think the difference between what is defined as OEW in the spec sheets and what is the
29 Atmx2000 : He's modeling what SQ would do, including their use of heavy premium seats, including premium economy.
30 Aeronut : You make great points, but we are talking about automotive and civil engineering industries which is different than aerospace. The design is frozen b
31 Picard : The data in that .pdf contains a few errors, fuel capcity for 787-9 is wrong as is the 787-8 wing span.
32 Widebodyphotog : I just ran into this thread and had to chuckle a bit...The new figures in the ACB leave something to desired, but the performance represents the chan
33 Atmx2000 : Do you have numbers for the adjustments to empty weight Boeing and Airbus use to account for passenger capacity?
34 Post contains links Leelaw : Weight continues to be a focal point. The 787 is about 2% above its targets, although Bair says it is 13-14% "more weight-efficient than anything that
35 SunriseValley : Atmx2000.......... My apologies for questioning your data and Widebodyphotog, thanks for your clarification.[Edited 2006-05-29 02:10:38]
36 Abba : This is a very very good example of a commercial statement that is approaching being nonsense as it would have been very difficult - if not outright
37 DfwRevolution : The fundamental mechanics doesn't change whether we are talking a chasis, a span, or a wing rib. The entire 787 has not been frozen, only about 25% i
38 Zvezda : Not only can be revised if absolutely necessary but would be revised if someone found a large enough weight savings. It would be a strictly commercia
39 Ikramerica : Look, guys, while I'm sure the current weight is higher than the target, you have to understand that this is a brochure that is incomplete and full of
40 Post contains images Iwok : One of the best ways of making any structure stronger is to reduce weight. The less weight you have to support, the less sucseptible the component is
41 Post contains images Keesje : Sharp
42 Widebodyphotog : Ironically enough it looks to be 3,000lbs for the -8 nine abreast to eight abreast. -widebodyphotog
43 DeltaDC9 : Not bold, business as usual. Airbus is doing the very same thing right now with the 380, or are you implying they are not too? And in your world the
44 Atmx2000 : Can you break that down by class?
45 Post contains images 787engineer : Absolutely correct, there are several procedures for initiating change on parts that have already been released. Just because a part has been release
46 Hb88 : Apparently the 787 is 3-4% above weight - which shouldn't be surprising at this stage of the game. I'm not sure I agree. Metal structures being isotro
47 Texfly101 : Yes, and Yes. That's the case and what will happen. The first part of the model design, until validation during testing, will have had some increased
48 Atmx2000 : Where are you getting this number from? I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is above 2%.
49 Boeing7E7 : 1. Extra seats = extra weight. 2. The wing is a smidge heavier, but the aircraft has better airfield performance so something is to be said there. Th
50 Keesje : should have be limited impact, a few hundred pounds. - less seat per passenger - the heavy IFE seatboxes are usually 1 per 3 screens/passengers 2-4-2
51 Widebodyphotog : For the difference in 8a to 9a spec on 787-8 there is the following additions: +9 economy seats +2 business class seats +2 first class seats +1 lav u
52 Rheinbote : I dare to speculate that there will be no heavy seatboxes in the 787 cabin. Imagine wireless IFE and 'plug and play' power supply integrated into the
53 Atmx2000 : Seats still have to support the same weight per passenger. The floor map configuration capacity for the -8 of 237 passengers doesn't correspond to th
54 DAYflyer : 4,000 pounds on an aircraft of this size is not an insumountable obstical. Compared to what Airbus ran into on the A-380 and the amoun of weight reduc
55 Keesje : Contrary to the 787 the A380 will seat fewer then the "typical 555" Based on Widebodies assumptions this would mean a significantly lower OEW for the
56 DfwRevolution : Depends... In most cases, airlines are fitting less than 550 seats because a larger premium cabin which happen to be much heavier (per seat) than eco
57 AirportGal : check your facts.....
58 Khobar : I saw the word "preliminary" - that should answer your question.
59 Widebodyphotog : Lol, the cabin data sheet I have does not correspond to the arrangement in the ACB...another Boeing oversight?...In any case the exit type was change
60 SunriseValley : On another forum our own Dalecary quotes Mike Bair as saying "a weight saving effort is underway because the aircraft is still a couple of percent abo
61 Post contains images Aeronut : You are absolutly correct, design continues to evolve even past design freeze. IT IS EXPENSIVE TO TAKE WEIGHT OUT OF FILLET RADIUS AND WEBS AFTER MON
62 Post contains links Keesje : You were right. If the design empty weight of the 787-8 is lbs 216.5t, the 787 is at this stage 2.5% or about lbs 5.4 tons overweight Now confirmed b
63 Stitch : Well Airbus has said that even with the extra weight the A380 ended up having to carry at delivery, she will still meet her performance targets. So I
64 BoomBoom : Of course, you left out some key information in your "quote", intentionally, no doubt. While Bair admitted the 787 is still about 2.5 percent over it
65 AirMailer : Not that I build airplanes or anything, but I would expect this to be a very likely scenario to play out. (especially since they now have the -10 in
66 Ken777 : If each engine is 500 to 1,000 pounds over target right now then they and the electrical systems will probably offer the greatest potential for weight
67 FLALEFTY : Having been in the aerospace business for nearly 20 years, I'd say being less than 5% over the target weight budget at preliminary design release show
68 Atmx2000 : I estimated the OEW increase from the payload decrease, which was only 4000 lbs, or 1.8t. That is less 0.8% of MTOW, and only around 1.7% of OEW. The
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...
787 First Delivery Date? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 20:22:20 by Eastern023
Thales Turned On By 787 IFE Tests posted Mon Nov 20 2006 19:57:48 by Leelaw
Is The Aeroflot - 787 Deal Back On? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:38:33 by NYC777
First 10 Airlines To Receive The 787? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 19:56:02 by FCAFLYBOY
AF/KLM:1 Common Choice : 787 Or A350XWB posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:39:44 by FCKC
El Al Cancels 8 - 10 X 787 Options posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:29:20 by NYC777
787 Supplier's Building Catches Fire posted Sat Nov 11 2006 03:09:03 by Warreng24
NZ Finish Restructure: Expansion Begins W/ 77W/787 posted Fri Nov 10 2006 17:27:54 by Jimyvr
787 UFO Book Keeping posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:08:21 by Glom
BA And SQ Vie For SUs Lapsed 787 Slots posted Thu Nov 9 2006 10:08:15 by PanAm_DC10