TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8055 times:
On time, but still overweight. Randy says, "I'm sure you've heard that the airplane is "overweight." Well, most new airplanes at this point in the program are. We have a plan on how to bring the weight down. But the good news is, while the weight's up a little bit, our performance and operating costs assessments are actually better than what we had projected."
I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7955 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2): I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.
The problem is slightly different though, B787 will have a further weight reduction program, and expected to be on target weight by EIS. On top of this, the economic is going to be better than expected.
Pygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 38 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7912 times:
If you promise to carry carry X pax and Y cargo, 5000 miles for 2 cents a mile... You build a plane that carries X pax and y Cargo 5000 miles for 2 cents a mile... How is that not fulfilling you commitments if the OEW goes up 1000 lbs but it takes 1000 less pounds of fuel to do it? You can't look at ony one cost or performance parameter in a vacuum. Look at the whole thing. The point of commercial aircraft is to provide a tool for the airline to make money nothing else. We on A-nut like to pick apart the stats, but in the end you have to look at the whole thing, whether you are an Anut or a Bnut.
BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1868 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7820 times:
What in particular were you wondering about 2010? Both the 787-3 and 787-9 are expected to debut in 2010, but more will not be known about these variants for some time.
Bbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7512 times:
Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 9): Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 5):
It's always a pleasure to read Randy's blog when he's not taking cheap shots at the good guys from Toulouse.
Sorry but can you tell me why the guys at Toulouse are the good ones?
Hopefully he means "fine gentlemen" when he refers to the good guys from Toulouse, and not as in "good guys vs. bad guys". There aren't any bad guys!
I would like to see an example of a cheap shot from Randy, though.
It's probably good for Airbus that Leahy doesn't have a blog.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7470 times:
Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 9): Sorry but can you tell me why the guys at Toulouse are the good ones?
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7111 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): The airlines care far more about CASM than they do about a few percent difference in payload/range performance
I believe that cargo will play an increasingly important role in airline economics. I note with some interest that the replacement of hundreds of 767's with 787's not only increases available seats, it represents a disproportionately large increase in available cargo lift.
It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 3): B787 will have a further weight reduction program, and expected to be on target weight by EIS. On top of this, the economic is going to be better than expected
This is what Airbus has said about the A380. I criticized Airbus for that. Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 7): How is that not fulfilling you commitments if the OEW goes up 1000 lbs but it takes 1000 less pounds of fuel to do it?
I'm not convinced this will prove correct (which is what I said). If it is true, then the operational payload is not effected and I would withdraw my criticism.
Let me be clear: I love airplanes. I want to witness and appreciate the birth of a great airplane. The 707 flew before I was born. I was thrilled by the 747 but really too young to understand it all. I was thrilled by Concorde but it remained a rare sight. Nothing else since has been truly new and inspiring. I am disappointed by the A380...so the B787 is pretty much the object of my best hopes. "Good" isn't good enough. I want great.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7035 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.
Boeing is still on target to deliver the aircraft they have promised airlines. They are still trying to meet their own internal targets and thus over-deliver to airlines.
The likelihood of airlines receiving a 787-8 below what they were promised in 2004 is fairly low at this point. Whether or not Boeing can pull of a 773ER and produce an even more stellar aircraft that originally promised remains to be seen.
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16): Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?
Well, you can do whatever you want.
But the circumstances of the A380 weight issues and the 787 weight issues are very different.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7031 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16): It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.
As far as we know, the 787 is over Boeing's internal weight targets, not the figures guaranteed to airlines, so there should be no loss of performance relative to what has been promised.
Pygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 38 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6951 times:
I will give Boeing the same credit I give Airbus and vice versa... say what ever you want, I will take it with a grain of salt ( okay maybe two for Airbus based on past promises of performance) when it comes out into service, it better do what you said it would. The A340 had issues at EIS. The 773W didn't. I am skeptical of the A380 mostly due to the large production issues (hey it is 2 years late) I am not very skeptical on the 787... but then I work there so I dont have to rely on Anutters for the scoop.
I do appreciate Randy's blog and his takin the high road with his comments.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6778 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16): I believe that cargo will play an increasingly important role in airline economics. I note with some interest that the replacement of hundreds of 767's with 787's not only increases available seats, it represents a disproportionately large increase in available cargo lift.
It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.
It's the same with cargo as with passengers. Cargo operators would be ecstatic to give up 2.5 tonnes of payload capacity to get a 1 or 2% drop in tonne/mile costs.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6768 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16): This is what Airbus has said about the A380. I criticized Airbus for that. Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?
It would be equally fair to concede that maybe the A380's weight problem was business as usual for any airplane program.
Randy B says:
Quote: our performance and operating costs assessments are actually better than what we had projected
Try parsing this sentence... our new projections are better than our old projections. Or is that our new assessments are better than our old assessments? You lost me on the previous PowerPoint slide
Joking aside, it does point out an important property of CASM: direct operating costs include significant slices for maintenance and that pesky monthly payment... it's not just about fuel (and the usual trio of engine, structural and aerodynamic efficiency metrics).
In my opinion, the real challenge of the 787 program will not be flying it, which is due in just 250 days. It will be delivering nearly 200 of them in the first two years after EIS. Keeping the program on schedule right now is no great achievement, when viewed in light of the task they will have to pull off through 2010. I wish them well.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6744 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21): It would be equally fair to concede that maybe the A380's weight problem was business as usual for any airplane program.
It's one thing to be overweight during development and quite another to be overweight during production. The former is business as usual.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9077 posts, RR: 37 Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6715 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16): It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.
According to Carson on Decembrr 6th., quoted in the WSJ, the weight problem is down to 'about 500 pounds.' Carson is no Forgeard, if he says that in public I think we can assume that it's the truth - and therefore that any likely 787 weight problem is now a non-issue:-
"Speaking on a webcast at the Credit Suisse Aerospace and Defense Conference, Carson said Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner is on track to begin test flights next summer. The aircraft is still about 500 pounds too heavy, he said, with excess weight distributed throughout the aircraft. Carson said the fact that the 787 is made of new, lightweight composite material, rather than aluminum, will make it easier for engineers to reduce the total weight of the aircraft."
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12): First flight is scheduled for August 2007. First delivery is scheduled for May 2008.
Entry for the 'Surely NOT?' competition. If Boeing keep to schedule, and there is even one more six-month delay to the A380, the 787 will beat the A380 into service...........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6603 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22): It's one thing to be overweight during development and quite another to be overweight during production. The former is business as usual.
Good point. We'll have to wait until a 787 rolls off the line then, which should be very shortly!
As of last month:
Quote:
"There's some uncertainty here," Bair said when asked how much the 787 may be overweight. He said Boeing has weighed only a small percent of the parts that have so far been made.
25 Radelow: Does Boeing have any history of delivering an aircraft over-weight? It is a 100% honest question FYI. I really don't know the answer.
26 TF39: The 787 won't be overweight. Besides, the real news is the Dreamlifter finally gets a paint job. That plane absolutely rocks!
27 Zvezda: That would take eight more months of delays for the first WhaleJet, not six months. I think Airbus have enough time to sort out the wiring design, in
28 NAV20: As so often lately, Zvezda, depends on how you interpret 'Airbus-speak.' Airbus' 3rd. October statement 'clearly' said:- "The first Airbus A380 serie
29 Zvezda: I expect SQ to put a single WhaleJet in operation on SIN-SYD 1x daily until the 2nd WhaleJet arrives. If it needs to be pulled for MX, a JumboJet can
30 Leelaw: True, nevertheless back in July, Andreas Fehring, vice-president A380 programme management, did make this rather telling comment: Fehring declines to
31 Zvezda: Many small airlines operate single examples of a type over long periods.
32 NAV20: Suppose SIA did start a service with only one aeroplane, Zvezda? The full Kangaroo route is Sydney-Changi-Heathrow. which takes the best part of 24 ho
33 Leelaw: Point conceded, perhaps you'll agree that in the case of SQ it seems to boil down to a "spirit of the law vs. letter of the law" kind of analysis?
34 EI321: What are you refering to? The A300, A310, A320, A320, A330, A340, which one?
35 SSTsomeday: I must say Randy's blog has a cautionary tone to it. He doesn't seem ecstatic about the A/C at this point. He keeps referring to challenges etc., and
36 Atmx2000: It could prove correct for longer routes. In that case payload and presumably revenue is the same, but fuel costs are lower. For shorter routes the i
37 TeamAmerica: I agree that Boeing will meet guarantees. I do not agree that the B787 is overweight only as compared to some unstated internal target. Very simply,
38 BoeingBus: The whole idea for this blog and for the very public information about weight is to pressure Airbus and create a moving target. Boeing is investing a
39 TeamAmerica: Quite true. As I wrote above, I have very high hopes and expectations for the 787. If Boeing can meet or better the weight targets, all of the gains
40 Himself: I think we can point again to the tendancy for airlines to put new aircraft on domestic routes, for training purposes, and assume that the A380 will
41 Hamster: Do they have the parts made already? If so, are they here or all over the world? What is required before they put the frame together?
42 BoomBoom: Which domestic routes exist in Singapore?
43 SSTsomeday: Thank you, that's a very good point, I had been worried/suspicious about what I perceived to be Randy's cautionary tone, however the airlines are pro
44 Radelow: I think Randy is taking note of previous comments made by his colleagues (Boeing and otherwise) and being conservative. It is one thing to say a typic
45 Par13del: This may be a question for the tech forum, but I'll ask it here for general respnses, what is the big math problem with weight? We believe and are imp
46 Wjcandee: Did nobody notice the obvious dig at Airbus's manufacturing problems? Randy basically says that they have modelled the whole manufacturing process and
47 WingedMigrator: How is that a dig at Airbus? I think Baseler has enough tact to understand that Boeing is hardly in a position to brag because, as he rightly says, t
48 Eureka: It isn't necessarily true that a higher operating empty weight or OEW will result in a reduced payload capability. An aircraft design, especially at
49 EI321: WingedMigrator takes a dig at Wjcandee, because Wjcandee took a dig at Randy, because Randy took a dig at Airbus Interesting
50 Zvezda: Of course not all the passengers; not all SQ passengers from SYD are flying onward to LHR. Some are going to MAN. The latter get switched onto a B777
51 NAV20: Apologies, Zvezda - reading back, you did indeed say SIN-SYD. Still can't see much point in using a single aeroplane, though. At a guess, a high prop
52 Zvezda: There are two reasons to do so. 1) SQ are short of Jumbos and can't afford to leave a new airliner parked. 2) It is retaliation against QF for violat
53 PolymerPlane: When Airbus said they have weight problems, A380 has already flown. 787 is still being built. If, 6 months from now 787 still has the weight problem,
54 TeamAmerica: I'll be very pleased when Boeing says it's only 500 lbs. Notably, Randy doesn't mention that figure in his blog. If it was true, and if I was Randy,
55 WingedMigrator: Even in jest, I don't appreciate being quoted out of context. Here are my full words: It might be interesting if transitivity of digs held true. Nice
56 SSTsomeday: If Boeing did not report this statistic, who did? Is it a rumour? Because if it were true, I think Randy would have quoted the figure - because it se
57 Zvezda: I think it was Scott Carson, but I'm running out the door now and don't have time to verify.
58 Leelaw: CHICAGO -December 6, 2006- (Dow Jones) ...Speaking on a webcast at the Credit Suisse Aerospace and Defense Conference, [Scott] Carson said Boeing's n
59 Eureka: Planning the structure for MTOW growth from the beginning is an integral part of future growth planning and in the case of early delivery OEWs as ris
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 136 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
The airlines care far more about CASM than they do about a few percent difference in payload/range performance.
From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 356 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9077 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
