Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
1st 787-10 Shows Up In Boeing Presentation  
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19628 times:

A smidge longer than the 777-200 and grouped with it in the capacity chart:

Page 24

http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/exec_pres/Capetown_CMO.pdf

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19516 times:

I find Page 9 interesting as well (Projections of the aircraft needed over the next 20 years)

Single aisle comes in at a whopping 61%, so there's your Y1. Twin aisle is 23% (787/smaller Y3) 747 and larger comes in at the least with 3% (747-8I).
And surprisingly RJ is listed at 13%. It really appears Boeing is aknowledging that there is a market for RJs, and they could possible get involved.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Thread starter):
A smidge longer than the 777-200 and grouped with it in the capacity chart:

Looks like it is going to be a long one. Nearly the same length as the 777-300.

And I'm guessing the 747-8 in that chart is before the extra stretch that was recently announced?


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5758 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19475 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 1):
Looks like it is going to be a long one. Nearly the same length as the 777-300.

Well it has to be longer since it is narrower than the 777 it will have to be longer in order to have the same capacity of the 772ER.

Randy probably included the the -10 because they maybe very, very close in getting the launch order for the -10 if not already have it in hand.

[Edited 2006-09-29 16:31:27]


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19425 times:

Hi,

Thanks for your post, that's a very interesting PDF!

That said, this guy really needs some help to photoshop pictures and logos Big grin

Raphael


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19353 times:

Boeing claim on page 37 that Airbus have a 90 tonne gap in their freighter lineup, while omitting the A330F. Naughty, naughty.

User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19256 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Naughty, naughty.

That was also my reaction, at a glance. But it's basically true now. The A330F is still a project, and we don't have any more news since July.

Anyway, this PowerPoint is some sort of celebration for Boeing, the bias is evident!


Raphael


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5758 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19148 times:

Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 5):
Anyway, this PowerPoint is some sort of celebration for Boeing, the bias is evident!

Uh it's a Boeing presentation. Do you think that an Airbus presentation is not biased?



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19087 times:

Hi

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 6):
Uh it's a Boeing presentation. Do you think that an Airbus presentation is not biased?

YES! Of course! And that was my point (not very clear, that's right). It is marketing. The marketing is the same, worldwide  Wink

Raphael


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18993 times:

I think they're using past numbers to sell the future, which I think is flawed.
Take a look at the graph on page 5 against the one on page 7. At some point frequency and non-stop will have to stagnate and the only way to keep up with demand is to increase airplane size. There's no way in hell that NIMBY's all over the World will continue to allow growth of airport infrastructure. If you can't increase the size of your airport and the number of runways, the only way to keep up with supply is by increasing the size of the airplane. And we're not even talking about curfews yet. Just you wait until people living around places like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, SYD, start demanding tighter airport curfews.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5758 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18994 times:

Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 7):
YES! Of course! And that was my point (not very clear, that's right). It is marketing. The marketing is the same, worldwide

Very true. Randy is head of marketing at Boeing. He's doing his job. Remember or marketing people will skew numbers to make themselves look good.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18936 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 8):
At some point frequency and non-stop will have to stagnate and the only way to keep up with demand is to increase airplane size. There's no way in hell that NIMBY's all over the World will continue to allow growth of airport infrastructure. If you can't increase the size of your airport and the number of runways, the only way to keep up with supply is by increasing the size of the airplane. And we're not even talking about curfews yet. Just you wait until people living around places like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, SYD, start demanding tighter airport curfews.

You're missing the point. Fragmentation is the bypassing of airports like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, and SYD.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18834 times:

Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 5):
That was also my reaction, at a glance. But it's basically true now. The A330F is still a project, and we don't have any more news since July.

No one can buy one yet, therefore it doesn't really exist. Airbus isn't offering and hasn't launched yet, have they? I am certain they will, but when you're putting together a marketing plan, you don't include anything you don't have to...a product that has been talked about might as well not exist from that viewpoint. It'd be a little like Airbus talking about Y1 in their A32X pitches to customers.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4434 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18751 times:

Again on page 21, it claims a gap under 330-200, from 241 seats to 200. Which is the same gap for the 787-8, right?

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18693 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
You're missing the point. Fragmentation is the bypassing of airports like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, and SYD.

I believe that the 787 (and other aircraft with similar design philosophy) will not just permit hub-skipping. It will allow flights from point-hub-point flying for many new destinations, rather than point-hub-hub-point flying, which is common for many longer journeys.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18676 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 1):
I find Page 9 interesting as well (Projections of the aircraft needed over the next 20 years)

Single aisle comes in at a whopping 61%, so there's your Y1. Twin aisle is 23% (787/smaller Y3) 747 and larger comes in at the least with 3% (747-8I).
And surprisingly RJ is listed at 13%. It really appears Boeing is aknowledging that there is a market for RJs, and they could possible get involved.

You need not look further then the pie chart next the one where you quote the potential number of frames.

Whilst the 747 and larger only represents 3 percent of the number of frames, it represents 10 percent of the potential market (dollar value) . The exact opposite is true for the regional jets... 13 percent of the frames, yet only 4 percent of the market value.

Most would chase the 10 dollar value vs the 4 percent, which is very much subsidized.

Cheers


User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18588 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 8):
At some point frequency and non-stop will have to stagnate and the only way to keep up with demand is to increase airplane size. There's no way in hell that NIMBY's all over the World will continue to allow growth of airport infrastructure. If you can't increase the size of your airport and the number of runways, the only way to keep up with supply is by increasing the size of the airplane.

This is true. But also consider the current percentage of flights in RJ's and A319/73G sized airplanes.

How much of the current "congestion" would disappear tomorrow if the airports implemented a landing fee system that made RJ flights impractical? A lot of the increase in airplane size would be at the far lower end of the spectrum.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 17722 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
You're missing the point. Fragmentation is the bypassing of airports like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, and SYD.

They're not mutually exculsive. At domestic level yes to some extent but not so much at intercontinental level. You'll be hard pressed for find non-stop service from CMH to anywhere in Europe or Asia, non-stop. Let me know when you any study that says hub passenger number will decrease in the next 25 years. It doesn't exist, because it ain't gonna happen. Moreover, the hub and spoke system is till the most effective for large carriers so you're not going to see that go away anytime soon.

That's the flaw in Boeing's marketing message. It's one sided, they only talk about the increase in point-to-point service and fail to address the increase in hub passenger traffic which will continue to increase as well.


User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17363 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Thread starter):

This is a very good read,lots of info, this is the sort of thing i like.

well done.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17293 times:

A good read, and it is interesting that the 787-10 was included and discussed. I think it is significant that they are including the airframe in this presentation. I also think it is important to note that the 777-200 is still in the presentation as well.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17229 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Boeing claim on page 37 that Airbus have a 90 tonne gap in their freighter lineup, while omitting the A330F. Naughty, naughty.


Naugthy like your nickname for A380 - Whalejet?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16907 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16):
That's the flaw in Boeing's marketing message. It's one sided, they only talk about the increase in point-to-point service and fail to address the increase in hub passenger traffic which will continue to increase as well.

Must be why that pesky 787 just isn't selling then.

Seriously, let go of the past.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 8):
Take a look at the graph on page 5 against the one on page 7. At some point frequency and non-stop will have to stagnate and the only way to keep up with demand is to increase airplane size. There's no way in hell that NIMBY's all over the World will continue to allow growth of airport infrastructure. If you can't increase the size of your airport and the number of runways, the only way to keep up with supply is by increasing the size of the airplane. And we're not even talking about curfews yet. Just you wait until people living around places like ORD, LAX, JFK, LHR, FRA, NRT, SYD, start demanding tighter airport curfews.

The 787 is 60% quieter than existing widebodies and you really need to wrap your head around market fragmentation. The 787 will open new markets, allow existing routes to remain and still permit growth.

[Edited 2006-09-29 19:58:37]

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16854 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 1):
Looks like it is going to be a long one. Nearly the same length as the 777-300.

That is going to be a monster aircraft. I can't see them actually doing the "a.net rumored" -11. It would be longer than a 773 and nearly impossible to turn.

BUT what a fantastic sight to see. Especially for us lucky devils at KPAE.  Wink



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 16029 times:

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 21):
That is going to be a monster aircraft. I can't see them actually doing the "a.net rumored" -11. It would be longer than a 773 and nearly impossible to turn.

A B787-11 would be about one foot shorter than the A340-600.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 16029 times:

Randy's Blog discusses this:

Quote:
For example, in 1990, all nonstop, long-haul service out of Johannesburg was to Europe, with 28 frequencies to just six cities. And at that time 100% of those departures from Johannesburg Airport were on Boeing 747s.

Now, looking at Johannesburg today, there are six times as many frequencies, and three times as many city-pairs.

In 2006 you can fly from Johannesburg directly to multiple cities in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and South America.

As you would expect, these flights are being served with smaller airplane types that can now fly long distances point-to-point, such as the 777 and 767, A330 and A340. In fact, only about a third of the scheduled international flights from Johannesburg today are served by the 747.

And since 1990 the average airplane seating size per departure for long-hauls from JNB has dropped from 365 to 318 seats.

http://www.boeing.com/randy/


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15826 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 23):

The problem with that specific example is that South Africa still had no overflight rights for most of the entire African continent...so their options for direct flights were severely limited by range and cost. It's like saying: "On Sept 12th, 2001, you could fly to only a fraction of the airports in North America than you can today. The growth has been ASTRONOMICAL!"

Sure it's true...but it's ignoring the practical and political realities of that time.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
25 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Open skies, etc. has been continuing that trend...
26 Incitatus : Some good points about the prospects for the A380, but at the same time Boeing is promoting the 777/787 as a team. Once the 787 is flying, the 777 wil
27 BoomBoom : This caught my eye. On page 21, the footnote says: Note: The 777s are shown with two seating configurations. The first number represents a premium eco
28 Zvezda : TG also use 10 abreast seating in their B777s.
29 BoomBoom : Okay--but that's far from "standard".
30 Rheinbote : There has been a 787-10X in Boeing presentations for quite a while, along with the 777-200X...
31 NASCARAirforce : Doesn't Boeing risk cannibalizing its 777-200 orders when the 787-10 comes out? Why should an airline still order a 777-200 when the 787-10 will offer
32 Beech19 : I'm just curious where you got pretty specific facts about an aircraft that doesn't exist... even on paper. We don't truely even know how large the 7
33 Antoniemey : If they already had 777-200s and need more before the 787-10 would enter the market or need more than they could get of the 787-10 within a specific
34 Post contains images MCIGuy : Indeed, the Flash animation on the intro to the Dreamliner site shows what is obviously a -10. The pic shows a plane way too long to be a -9.
35 Beech19 : Yes... a very important point no one should forget. Its always better to canabalize your own product than have the business stolen away from you by a
36 FlyDreamliner : That's what, a 17" width seat? Standard on the 747 is 17.2", which is the standard on many widebodies. At 9 abreast, 777 Y seats are over 18" wide, w
37 Post contains links Ikramerica : Why wouldn't they? They want to gauge interest compared to the 772, so they have to present it to customers and take questions. Even the 748i is 10dB
38 BoomBoom : What I meant was, that with only two carriers using it, 10-abreast is not a standard 777 configuration.
39 Columbia107 : Well not so naughty as the A380 does look like a whale.
40 Post contains images Zvezda : The main reason why an airline might still order a B777-200ER is that it is available about 4 years earlier than the B787-10. Please check again. Boe
41 MCIGuy : I thought I read a statement by a Boeing official saying there'd never be a 787-11. I remember their saying it was too long of a stretch to be structu
42 Beech19 : Not trying to be argumentative or anything but i'm local to Boeing and have been following the 787 especially very closely. Do you have anything that
43 Boeing7E7 : Not any available to the public.
44 Hamster : When will we see one of these for real like the 380's they are testing now?
45 Johnny : Boeing is using old images from the A350.It looks like the old version based on the A330... Bad work,Randy!!!!
46 Cobra27 : Really, does whale have rollse royces and all those windows? Whale is a beautiful peacuful animal, but to call A380 whale is insult. Only Zvezda does
47 MCIGuy : I'm not sure why it was deleted the first time, but the current schedule is for rollout 5/07 and first flight 8/07. The -10 model hasn't officially b
48 Alessandro : Cobra, I do as well, I think whales are graceful animals.
49 Remford : You know, it just struck me, as unfashionable as it may be to say so, that regardless of which proves to be the ultimate dominate family, the simple f
50 Cobra27 : Anyway it is not an official nickname like F-16 falcon or something. Sometimes there was even a ban for calling A380 Whalejet
51 Post contains images MCIGuy : Well in the Western World, we're accustomed to saying essentially anything we like without fear of reprisal. I guess it's different in former Soviet
52 MauriceB : Oke.... Might be ugly (and yes i like Boeing way more), but Airbus builded a great plane , it has better performance than the current 747's, and alth
53 KSUpilot : While the -10 seems to be the limit for a 787-stretch, what about a skrink from the -3 to a -2, in order to replace the 757-300?
54 Zvezda : Why do you say that? A B787-11 would be slightly shorter than the A340-600.
55 Cobra27 : The -10 version hasn't been launched yet, but will most probably be in the future. And where did you hear about -11 version?
56 KSUpilot : Well right now it seems to be the limit, who knows what could happen down the road.
57 Zvezda : It's speculation. I'm just pointing out that it's possible. If Boeing revise the landing gear so that B787 MTOWs can exceed about 560,000 lbs (probab
58 BandA : I know offtopic but the MD-11F looks pretty sharp in boeing livery. What a beautiful bird.
59 Post contains images Beech19 : When has there ever been an MD-11 in Boeing livery? Even after Boeing took over production they still had it in McD's "house colors." I could be wron
60 BandA : It is just a photoshop image... but looks neat. I was referring to an image in the presentation linked to by the original posted. I also doubt there
61 Centrair : On page 37...its in pre-dreamliner livery. Not the best drawing though... I find it interesting that this presentation is heavily focused on Africa.
62 Columbia107 : Ah Cobra, but I consider the A380 a beautiful animal (read machine) whose features can be compared to a whale.
63 Post contains images Zvezda : It became much more attractive when they painted it! I'm looking (increasingly far) forward to flying it.
64 Boeing7E7 : It's the hub bypass that changes the game. Airline A runs all it's flights from EWR to LHR. With an A380, airline A still runs it's flights from EWR
65 474218 : When where the noise test ran?
66 Boeing7E7 : They were run at the factory. Both GE and RR have had engine runs that have confirmed engineer predicted noise levels and they are using additional te
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...
787-10 Moved Up To 2010? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 06:09:44 by AeroWesty
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
Emirates In Negotiations For Up To 50 787-10 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:27:35 by Terryb99
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
Boeing 787 Production Ramp Up Decision : June posted Mon May 22 2006 23:51:16 by Keesje
United Dreaming Big, As In Boeing 787 posted Wed Apr 19 2006 14:05:39 by Leelaw
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE