Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?  
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7946 times:

Boeing claims first half of 2008 for 787-8 EIS and a late 2010 EIS for the 787-9. Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?

With several airlines more interested in the 787-9, shouldn't Boeing be more agressive here on the schedule? If the 787-10 is again 2 and 1/2 years after the -9, we are talking an EIS of 2013 for the -10. It would be doing battle with the A350XWB (if that thing ever flies).

Is this really the best Boeing can do on EIS for the larger variants or are they throtling it to hit replacement cycles - i.e. -8 for the 767-200, -9 for 767-300, -10 for 772A/ER?

Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?

I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.


Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7939 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?

IIRC the 787-9 configuration would be locked in before the 787-8 Flies for the first time . Regarding why it is EIS'n in 2010 there are several possible reasons the largest of which is the Design cycle , then comes the question of SLOTS which have been taken for the initial years by quite a lot of 787-8 and 787-3 sales , moreover boeing would want to cut some no.s out of the weight safety margins to make the 787-9 better !! There could be other reasons such as the demand curve making it the BEST TIMEFRAME to launch that particular version but I seriously think it has to do more with Design cycle and the delivery slots that boeing was ready to take out from 787-8 to get the 787-9 .


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7913 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?



Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
IIRC the 787-9 configuration would be locked in before the 787-8 Flies for the first time .

There are several stages of "locked in" with regard to design. It's a matter of changes in the procedure required in order to change a part. Boeing won't wait for EIS, but they will learn lessons during flight testing of the B787-8 that can be used to optimize the detailed design of the B787-9.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

I don't think 2.5 years is a very long time for a substantially longer and heavier version.

Look at previous aircraft types second versions like the 747-200, 757-300, 767-300 and 777-300 each followed longer after the first version.

I think the -9 design was seriously tweaked (capasity, range) to meet airline demand (QF, SQ). Personally I think the -9 will be the most popular version of the 787.

From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11846 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7887 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The B787-8 production is full for a few years, compared to the B787-9, considering the B787-9 doesn't have as many orders.. B787-9 could be considered as a certain market aircraft, like the B787-3 compared to the B787-8.

The B787-8 was originally planned to be the first B787 flying and delivery and will be

Looking forward to the launch B787-9 being delivered to NZ.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7842 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Look at previous aircraft types second versions like the 747-200, 757-300, 767-300 and 777-300 each followed longer after the first version.

Yes, but none of these aircraft was launched concurrently with the shorter version, as is the case with the 787-8 and 787-9.

I think a more appropriate comparisson is the 737-100 and 737-200 or the 737-700 and the 737-800 which entered service within 3 months of each other.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7624 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5):
I think a more appropriate comparisson is the 737-100 and 737-200 or the 737-700 and the 737-800 which entered service within 3 months of each other.

CFRP provides an opportunity for optimizing each stretch to a degree not practicable with aluminium. Therefore the benefit of waiting until the B787-8 is flying is greater in this case. Anyway, Boeing couldn't offer the B787-9 any sooner even if they were willing to forgo such optimization because all the earlier production slots are sold out.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
With several airlines more interested in the 787-9

Postponing the deliveries for many, many airlines who ordered the 788 and want them yesterday to accommodate the "several" airlines who want the 789 sooner does not sound like good business to me. Not to mention they also need to get the 783 out there for JL and NH.

Not to mention that Boeing has a limited number of test pilots and engineers, etc.

The testing and certification schedule has the 748 between the 788 and 783. IIRC, the 73GER also gets certified between the 788 and 783.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7575 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?



Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
With several airlines more interested in the 787-9, shouldn't Boeing be more agressive here on the schedule?

That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? The 787 program is already on an agressive schedule. There isn't such a thing as a "simple stretch" to any airplane, Boeing or otherwise. The 787-8 is the baseline and airlines ordering the -9 know the EIS schedule and should plan accordingly.



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7555 times:

Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

Had Airbus not offered the A350, Boeing would have probably pushed out the 787-900 even further.

Cheers


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29680 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7555 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..

She similar in size to the A332 and that plane's size hasn't hurt her sales all that much.  Smile

At 8-abreast, she's a perfect replacement for the A332. At 9-abreast, she's a bit less comfortable but offers even better CASM.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

I think that "dragging their feet" is too strong of a term. The sequence is 787-8, 787-3, and 787-9. It seems that 2.5 years span between the three variants isn't a terribly large amount of time.

BCA also stated a couple of years ago that a big portion of this had to do with customer demand. Customers mostly wanted -8 and -3 first. Ergo, the first couple of year's worth of slots were gobbled up by airlines that wanted those aircraft.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 8):
and should plan accordingly

OT joke, mod, delete at will.

During the Soviet era, in 1986, a guy went to buy a Lada.
He paid his Rubles and the salesman said, "Ok, we'll deliver it in April of 1988". The buyer asked, "In the first or second week of April?".
The salesman replied, "It's 2 years away, what difference does it make?".
The buyer said, "well, the plumber is coming the first week!".

Yea, sometmes you really do have to plan.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small.

ROFL.

Too bad the airlines didn't consult you. Those 300+ 788s sold are going to really hurt their bottom lines for years to come...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29680 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

The 787-9 is a greater threat to the A330-300 then it is to the 777-200ER. Also consider that the A330-300 EIS'd at the end of 1993 vs. early 1997 for the 777-200ER and the "replacement window" for the A333 is earlier then the 772ER so Boeing should sell more 787-9s as A333 replacements then 772ER replacements at first.


User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7447 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?

Maybe because we're also building a 787-3 during that time period?

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
If the 787-10 is again 2 and 1/2 years after the -9, we are talking an EIS of 2013 for the -10

The 787-10 shouldn't take two and a half years. . . more like 1.5-2 years. There's still plenty of time to launch the 787-10 and get it out in 2012.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

The 787-9 seats 250-290 pax in 3-class depending on whether the airline puts 8-abreast or 9-abreast. The 777-200 essentially starts at 300 pax. The 787-10 is what's going to "cannabilize" the B772.


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

There could be two reasons for it:

Airline demand not earlier than late 2010.

or

A time margin between the EIS of the -8 and the -9 to have a buffer for unexpected problems which could be avoided at the -9 from the beginning.

Just my 2 cents.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7383 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.

Do you think that would be good for the aircraft and airline industry. to have only one option?


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7331 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
BCA also stated a couple of years ago that a big portion of this had to do with customer demand. Customers mostly wanted -8 and -3 first. Ergo, the first couple of year's worth of slots were gobbled up by airlines that wanted those aircraft.

Boeing didn't even offer the 787-9 until around the time that Qantas made their order.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The 787-9 is a greater threat to the A330-300 then it is to the 777-200ER. Also consider that the A330-300 EIS'd at the end of 1993 vs. early 1997 for the 777-200ER and the "replacement window" for the A333 is earlier then the 772ER so Boeing should sell more 787-9s as A333 replacements then 772ER replacements at first.

A330-3 is more of a regional airplane, where as the 787-9 is long range. I don't believe Boeing are offering a true replacement for the A330-3, unless you considered the 787-3.

Cheers


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 7257 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..

What you wanted was a Boeing copy of the A330-200.

Boeing didn't arbitrarily define the capacity of the 787-8 or -9. You can bet that the final capacity was made at the consulation of dozens of customers and considerable market research.

Your definition of "small" certainly hasn't stopped the 787-8 from zipping past the larger A332 in sales.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 7235 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.

Any particular reason?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29680 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 7207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 18):
A330-3 is more of a regional airplane, where as the 787-9 is long range. I don't believe Boeing are offering a true replacement for the A330-3, unless you considered the 787-3.

Except the 787-3 has about half the range of the A333.  Smile

True, the A333's competitor is the 777-200A, but the 787-9 is about 25,000lb lighter in OEW and when flying an A333 mission profile can leave tens of thousands (or more) of pounds of unneeded fuel behind.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7140 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
The testing and certification schedule has the 748 between the 788 and 783. IIRC, the 73GER also gets certified between the 788 and 783.

Thanks for this info - I hadn't consider that - i.e. how it fits with the other certification programs at Boeing. It makes sense that the 787-9 needs to be slotted in with the other programs.

I still think that the 787-9 and 787-10 are critical for Boeing to fend-off the appeal of an eventual A350XWB that will be going for the meat of the mid-size widebody market. I'd like to see them flyind ASAP.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7122 times:

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 17):
Do you think that would be good for the aircraft and airline industry. to have only one option?

Did it hurt the airline industry when the 747 was the only VLA flying for years and years? Did it hurt the airline industry when the 727 was the only mid-range airliner flying for years and years? Will it hurt the airline industry if the A380 is the only 500+seat long range airliner for a couple of decades? Did it hurt the airline industry that the GE-90-110/115 is the only engine in the 100Klbs range?

Of course not. A solid, efficient, well priced product from a single vendor that pushes the envelop is a GREAT thing for the airline industry.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7110 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small.

ROFL.

Too bad the airlines didn't consult you. Those 300+ 788s sold are going to really hurt their bottom lines for years to come...

I actually agree with Keesje here. It is clear that Boeing has been scrambling to grow bigger with the 787 ever since launch. They had to increase MTOW of the -9 and are being "pushed" into the -10. Had Airbus executed better and launched the A350XWB as the original response to the 787, Boeing would be scrambling even more.

Ikramerica, the question to ask is: Had Boeing ONLY launched the 787-9 and not the -8, wouldn't they still capture all those 300+ orders plus the 787-9 orders - all that with a single product instead of two? I think so.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
25 PolymerPlane : Hmm.. No... Just because EK and SQ think they need bigger airplanes than the 787 does not mean that 787-8 is not the right size. EK and SQ AFAIK did
26 Baron95 : I have no doubts that the 787-8 will be very successful - I think it already is. I just don't think that the 787-8 would lose many orders if it came
27 Ikramerica : Planes aren't developed in a vacuum. While Boeing can go through 2 certification programs simultaneously, it becomes costly to have them all in the s
28 N328KF : Yes, that's exactly why everyone got rid of their 767-200/-300s. What's that, you say? There are still a bazillion of them flying? They stopped order
29 Stitch : Not having the 787-8 model would probably have hurt as it's really a direct competitor to the A332 and a direct replacement for the 764ER. It's a pre
30 Kaitak744 : No, your analysis is wrong. The 767 is not being ordered anymore because it is obsolete (old). If you "up-size" a "mid-sized widebody fleet", it beco
31 787engineer : I completely disagree. The 787-8 is exactly the size the airlines wanted. Boeing doesn't arbitrarily decide that since we're replacing the 767 we'll
32 Baron95 : The 747-8i is larger and longer ranged than the 744 which in turn is larger and longer ranged than the 747-300. The 787-8 is larger and longer and MUC
33 YULWinterSkies : Have you heard of a once very popular airplane now mostly ageing, aka the 767-300? Do you think they will fly until 2030?
34 Kaitak744 : No its not. The 787 has such long range because it offers flexibility. It gives the airline more options as to where to fly them to. No matter how mu
35 Baron95 : This is another A.net myth that only airplanes of the same size compete with each other and that the replacement for an aging aircraft HAS TO BE the
36 Boston92 : Boeing wants to make sure that they will be on time for the -9. Why would they say late 2008 if they know there is a chance it will be delayed. Better
37 PolymerPlane : 747 replaced 707 because of the range. Do you know how many empty seats those 747s carry around? Again, after 767, 777 was available, they replace 74
38 Zvezda : I strongly disagree. If range is sufficient, then a 250 seater of equal efficiency will usually be more profitable than a 300 seater because RASM dec
39 Kaitak744 : You know, according to your theories (not just this one, but everything else I have seen you say in other discussions), every airline in the world sh
40 Baron95 : Some do.The largest domestic airline in the US (WN) does not fly anything with more than 137 seats. The largest airline in the world (AA) with a sign
41 Kaitak744 : The U.S. majors (for the past 10 years) are not to be taken into account at all when looking at what "profitable" airlines do. My bottom line point:
42 Zvezda : 50 seaters have higher CASM than widebodies despite shorter range -- for several reasons, not least of which derives from spacing between the fan bla
43 JayinKitsap : My impression is that the 50 and 70 seat regio's don't have great CASM. WN has found that flying a 737 part full is often the better option. If the 7
44 JayinKitsap : But flying 5 747/777 from JFK-LHR along with new routes of 2 787 Boston - LHR, 2 787 Dulles - LHR, 2 787 YYZ, and 2 787 JFK-Edinborough very well cou
45 DAYflyer : I think it has more to do with market demand and planed growth of the airlines themselves than anything else.
46 PolymerPlane : Wait... What? how do you know it doesn't work? It will work. They will need more capacity yes, but It would still work. The thing is with JFK-LHR mar
47 Post contains images AirMailer : I couldn't agree more IKR! Keesje, Why is it always about size with you Europeans? Can't you ever be concerned about things like environmental impact
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...
Why Is The Pilot & Copilot Sitting In Wrong Seat? posted Mon Oct 10 2005 19:49:19 by FlygMolinaFmly
Why Is The IAE V2500 So Successful On The A320? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 16:45:08 by TheSonntag
Why Is The Letter "I" Omitted In Seat No's? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 14:05:12 by Bluepoole
Why Is The DC9 Not So Great. posted Sun Nov 3 2002 19:15:48 by BR715-A1-30
Why Is The DHC-8 So Popular In The Caribbean? posted Sun Jun 27 2004 06:18:35 by Flybyguy
Kenya Airways Is The 787 In Their Future? posted Sat Oct 15 2005 18:27:05 by Georgiabill
Why Is The Dash8 More Popular In The Caribbean posted Wed Aug 17 2005 20:41:36 by 8B775ZQ
Why Is The UK So Popular For Aircraft Maintenance posted Fri May 13 2005 14:46:00 by R3500vdp
Why Is The US Airline Industry In Such Big Trouble posted Thu Jan 6 2005 21:09:18 by Cedarjet
Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330? posted Mon Jul 19 2004 09:48:25 by A380900