Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Since it is looking more and more likely that no other carrier will buy the 783 (DL and AA aren't strong contenders in my book), should Boeing offer NH and JL to take compensation and convert 783 orders to the 788? Boeing could still certify the 788 with the blended winglets and reduced range and derate the engines, but is there really a reason to spend all the money to develop an actual 3rd model? I know the fees in Japan are based on weight, but the future value of that cost (compensated) combined with the flexibility the 788s would offer could make up for it.

Any thoughts?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

The fuselage of the -3 is thicker specifically for the high-cycle endurance such a craft might need. It may be that the -8 would do as well, but Boeing didn't seem to think so when they designed the -3.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1):
The fuselage of the -3 is thicker specifically for the high-cycle endurance such a craft might need.

Boeing suggested that they might make the -3 thinner because it will not be carrying the same loads as the heavier 787-8. As of yet, they have not confirmed any intention to thin (or thicken) the 787-3.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

Why? NH and JL each have large orders for the 783 and will probably place follow up orders in the future for the type.....its ideal for the high capacity/short haul mission important to both of these airlines. Boeing built a limited number of 744Ds specifically for this market and is now doing the same with the 783. As for resale value, its likely that JL and NH will fly their 783s for the aircrafts entire useful life, so its probably not a big issue.

And it is possible that other carriers will sign up for the 783..........the 783 does have enough range to cover many many missions and we could see an order from one or more US carriers and/or European carriers as the 783 could be the ideal replacement for the 763A, 753 and the A300. The 783 will be a niche aircraft.....but its a niche that is important to several very important Boeing customers.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

There are other areas of the 787-3 that are optimized for high-cycle operations; I believe the landing gear, to name one. I suspect that Boeing has figured that they will be unlikely to sell many -3's outside of Japan, and have figured accordingly. I'm also quite sure that the Japanese airlines will be buying more of them in future years. After all, they did the same thing for the Japanese with the 747-twice.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4588 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
There are other areas of the 787-3 that are optimized for high-cycle operations; I believe the landing gear, to name one. I suspect that Boeing has figured that they will be unlikely to sell many -3's outside of Japan, and have figured accordingly. I'm also quite sure that the Japanese airlines will be buying more of them in future years. After all, they did the same thing for the Japanese with the 747-twice.

But the 744D is convertible. Can't they do the same with the 788, where you can convert one to the other after a certain number of years, to even out overall cycles?

I don't see the number the two have bought to be sufficient for the type, but I suppose they could earn enough follow-on from them. Not sure about the USA. The 783 lacks about 500nm of range to make it really suitable...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJFK787NYC From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 812 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

Do you guys believe there maybe a market for this plane in CHINA?

User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 892 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Boeing suggested that they might make the -3 thinner because it will not be carrying the same loads as the heavier 787-8. As of yet, they have not confirmed any intention to thin (or thicken) the 787-3.

That was what I thought the plan had been. Decrease the thickness to help decrease weight since the plane doesn't have to haul as much weight. BUt maybe strengthening the gear, to take the extra cycles.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
But the 744D is convertible. Can't they do the same with the 788, where you can convert one to the other after a certain number of years, to even out overall cycles?

I don't see the number the two have bought to be sufficient for the type, but I suppose they could earn enough follow-on from them. Not sure about the USA. The 783 lacks about 500nm of range to make it really suitable...

I got laughed at when I broached this subject many months ago. It would seem that you could derate the engines and make a paper MTOW-adjustment to lower the landing fees for the Japanese airlines (maybe?). The question is how much profit is there to be had, without gaining substantially more orders vs. the extra development/certification costs? Of course, some of the Japanese government financing is contingent on this model. But I have a feeling that Boeing would rather be able to put the resources going into the -3 into a higher MTOW -10. The biggest issue in my mind with the -3 vs. the -8 is that the -3 can fit into smaller gates for domestic ops.

cheers.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

I consider this a real option for some time. The 787-3 will be an expensive sub variant. Even JAl and ANA might be better of with the 787-8 that offers them much more flexibility.

Comparing the 787-3 to the 762/-3, a300/-10 and 757-300 it is suppose to replace it doesn´t seem a very light / efficient aircraft. Many carriers would prefer e.g. 737-900ERs instead that are about half as light / cheap.

Like Airbus delayed the A380-800F to improve the A380 line, Boeing might consider if the manpower / investment put in the 787-3 could be more profitably invested in e.g. a 787-10, a production ramp up or further production optimalization..



[Edited 2007-06-22 23:31:39]

User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

i think boeing will wait and see if someonee like DL and AA order the 783 for domestic routes (DL could use them to replace the 763 non er's) then they will decide if the plane should be canceled, i hope its not because the 783 for domestic use might be the only chance i have to ride it

User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4187 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
i think boeing will wait and see if someonee like DL and AA order the 783 for domestic routes

Delta will buy 787's to replace its international 767 fleet, then shift 767-300ER's to domestic routes. When the 767-300ER's are ready to retire, perhaps Delta will buy some 787-3's. Of course by that time, Delta might just move the 767-400 fleet back to a domestic configurattion. That makes sense considering the 767-400 has about the same passenger capacity as the 787-3 and 787-8. If they ever order 787-3's, it probably wouldn't be for at least a decade.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2953 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Quoting Dank (Reply 7):
I got laughed at when I broached this subject many months ago. It would seem that you could derate the engines and make a paper MTOW-adjustment to lower the landing fees for the Japanese airlines (maybe?).

No laughing matter when Japanee airlines have to pay a ton of money to the government for landing fees based on weight. You are exactly right on weights that it's just a matter of paper work, though the engines aren't necessarily de-rated.
Take for example the Skymark 767-300ERs, they are powered by the GE CF6-80C2B6F which is standard for ERs. They just skyrocket off the runway beacuse of the low t/o weight.

Back to the subject, NH & JL will most likely add to their current orders as they are hinting at replacing the 744Ds and possibly the older 772As next decade with the 783s. With something on the order of 50 aircrafts ordered between NH & JL, the 783 has easily surpassed the order for 744Ds at 19.

Just like the 747SRs, the 744Ds built in the 1990s will most likely go to the chopper when they get retired starting around 2010. JL has already announced that two 744Ds are leaving in 2010.

An interesting question is what will happen to the NH & JL 763s, as these aircraft are up for retirement. JL has announced 767s will start to leave in 2008. Most likely, the older -200s will go first then the domestic -300s. By then, the oldest 763 will be over 22 years old and have a ton of cycles. Will they be converted to cargo use or sent to the scrapper?


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

I think LH could make good use of 783s as a replacement for their A306s, no?

User currently offlineScorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

The other thing is that Boeing have pretty much got the japanese market sewn up with JL and ANA. Why risk alienating some of their best customers and let airbus in the door?

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7135 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Who were the launch customers for the B-787 and what model did they order?
The Japanese domestic aviation market is somewhat unique, they made an inquiry about an a/c to suit their needs, Boeing took on the challenge and designed the 3. Another variant of the same a/c is now selling like hotcakes, somehow the suggestion that they ditch the customer requirements and meet it another way gives a sour taste. I understand all the technical details given, except Keesje idea about the 10. The 8 is not yet flying, the 3 is not yet built and we are talking about not building it to concentrate on another variant which has not yet been offered or bought by anyone, why not concentrate on the customers who have already bought into a product that was offered?
Looking ahead is good, its what forums like this is about, however, we can also look back, and I think in hindsight, Boeing should have designed the 3 with a bit more flexibility, the main sticking point of the 3 when fully loaded is its range. There is a market for a A-300 type , no question, and its not just in Japan, there was, maybe still is, an oppertunity for Boeing to use the 3 to address Japan's market with the A-300 market being a side benefit, without "abusing" the 8. One of the complaints oft given to Airbus was the same fuse being used for so many different market segments, would hate to see Boeing come up with its variant of the same theme.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Since it is looking more and more likely that no other carrier will buy the 783 (DL and AA aren't strong contenders in my book),

Oops...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...chnology/2003757930_airshow22.html

He thinks United and American may buy the short-range version of the 787, the 787-3, for the U.S. domestic market.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Any thoughts?

Open mouth, insert foot?


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Look, it's just an idea that I think Boeing must be considering. 50 total doesn't sound like enough to make it worth it.

Quoting Dank (Reply 7):
But I have a feeling that Boeing would rather be able to put the resources going into the -3 into a higher MTOW -10. The biggest issue in my mind with the -3 vs. the -8 is that the -3 can fit into smaller gates for domestic ops.

That's why I suggested they could certify the 8 with blended winglets. It's fundamentally the same wing with different extensions to provide for 199 foot width and better short range performance.

But if they are all 788s with two wingtips and de-rated engines (which can be changed in 24 hours) then you could imagine the 788 can be converted from one mode to the other in a few days, inside and out. The value in this is to "trade" parts between one each 788D and 788 after 8 years. This "uses up" both aircraft more completely.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Open mouth, insert foot?

What a jerky comment. You must have a lot of friends...

I'm well aware of the rumor article and as I said I don't think it's going to happen. It doesn't mean it's going to happen just because of the article, just like there aren't going to be 20 748i customers just because they were talked to and mentioned by Randy.

Unless Boeing changes the specs of the plane to offer 500nm more range when loaded. Now if they make the plane a true 3000nm jet with a real load, maybe that will change thing. But considering it would be replacing A300 and 764s with more range than that that do longer missions than that, I just don't know. Most carriers don't want to replace one jet with another that is less flexible/useful.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Similar thread here:
Drop 787-3 In Favour Of 787-9, -10? (by Rheinbote Dec 25 2006 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Which is archived...

And I didn't read every post, but the proposal of the OP is to drop the 783 without doing anything about it vs. creating a 788D model that meets many of the 783 requirements (new wingtips, derated engines, "convertibility option" between standard 788, derated MTOW and compensation to the airlines to take them).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Look, it's just an idea that I think Boeing must be considering. 50 total doesn't sound like enough to make it worth it.

When Boeing came up with the 787-3 for the Japanese carriers, they fully understood that the 787-3 would be a niche product and of little interest to most airlines worldwide. The fact that one or more of the US carriers is even considering the 787-3 is a big deal, my guess is that Boeing did not anticipate sales of the type beyond Japan (although the type could be effective in the Chinese domestic market?). I do think that both JAL and ANA will place follow up orders for the type in the future.

Why are you assuming that Boeing does not understand the finances of the 787-3 variant? I think Boeing knew exactly what it was doing with the 787-3: the variant will produce a modest profit but by offering the the short range variant, Boeing locked in two very major customers for the entire 787 family. And, its always possible that other airlines will become interested in the type in the future......US and EU carriers cannot continue to add flights and frequencies on certain routes and, at some point, they may need an airplane like the 787-3 for shorter haul segments. The 787 program is still young, give it time.


User currently offlinePurpleBox From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
US and EU carriers cannot continue to add flights and frequencies on certain routes and, at some point, they may need an airplane like the 787-3 for shorter haul segments. The 787 program is still young, give it time.

Absolutely!

PurpleBox.



Next Flights:STH-ATH-STN (A3), BHX-INV-BHX(BE), LCY-FRA-BOG(LH), EZE-FRA-LHR(LH)
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 12):
I think LH could make good use of 783s as a replacement for their A306s, no?

...only thing is, the derivative isn't likely to get certified for Euro-carrier "consumption" any time soon.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 892 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):
...only thing is, the derivative isn't likely to get certified for Euro-carrier "consumption" any time soon.

And IIRC, LH announced that they weren't interested in it and weren't looking at the -8 (the latter not being a surprise). I think that if Boeing actually thought they might be selling -3s to European carriers any time soon, they would be putting up the money to certify it there.

cheers.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 892 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Unless Boeing changes the specs of the plane to offer 500nm more range when loaded. Now if they make the plane a true 3000nm jet with a real load, maybe that will change thing. But considering it would be replacing A300 and 764s with more range than that that do longer missions than that, I just don't know. Most carriers don't want to replace one jet with another that is less flexible/useful.

I think that last point is important. I have a feeling that UA would be happier at present if some of their 772As were ERs instead, for example. The situation that you see with DL, being able to push 763s between domestic and international when they wanted to shift flying (and it can be done without changing seating if time is critical, but you can go through a minimal cost seating refurb) would be impossible with the current specifications on a -3. ANd you have to think that this issue will be in the back of their minds.

cheers.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Like Airbus delayed the A380-800F to improve the A380 line, Boeing might consider if the manpower / investment put in the 787-3 could be more profitably invested in e.g. a 787-10, a production ramp up or further production optimalization..

I have been saying for a while that Boeing should have gone with the -10 first, and then done the -3 later if there was demand. I think the emergence of the A350XWB has made them take notice.


25 Dutchjet : Boeing launched the 783 when it did because mega-customers ANA and JAL instisted on it. By offering the 783, Boeing was assured that JAL and ANA woul
26 MotorHussy : Has LH still got a need for this size aircraft within Europe now that: a/ competition from other airlines has increased so much; b/ competition from
27 Dutchjet : Interesing question........if LH didnt have a need for a high capcity short haul airliner, why have they held on to their A300s for so long? LH's fle
28 MotorHussy : Right, so you agree with me.
29 Stitch : And thanks to the fatigue resistance of CFRP, these 787-3s may very well serve for decades, making them very economical from a capital cost basis.
30 EBJ1248650 : Lets not count American and Delta out just yet where the 787-3 is concerned. And consider the other U.S. majors might yet find it fits their needs as
31 TISTPAA727 : The 783, without the extra 500 nm range some here have suggested, would be perfect for the Caribbean. Its been discussed a million times - when will A
32 Ikramerica : Why are you assuming I am assuming that? But why are you projecting the market predictions of 2004 onto the reality of 2007? Boeing is 100% on everyt
33 Post contains images Keesje : A smart company doesn't stick to the plan if the customers starts looking the other way. I think the future of the 787-3 lays in the hands of ANA and
34 AeroWesty : Didn't I read somewhere that part of the attraction of the 787-3 over the -8 for intra-Japan flights was the shorter wingspan, 51.5m vs. 58.8m?
35 Post contains images Keesje : What about a range boost or the 787-3? 787-3 : 2,500 - 3050 nm, (4,650 - 5,650 km) 787-8 : 7,650 - 8,200 nm (14,200 - 15,200 km) Make the 787-3 range
36 EI321 : That sounds like it would be a good 757 replacement accross the atlantic.
37 Stitch : The 787-3 has the physical tankage of the 787-8, it just lacks the structure to support those tanks being filled to capacity. There is only a 20,000lb
38 Dutchjet : Because you are suggesting that Boeing, at this late date, drop the 787-3 variant, no other reason. Boeing committed to the 787-3 for one reason: to
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...
Northwest Pilots Offer To Take Pay Cuts posted Sat Oct 29 2005 14:25:21 by KarlB737
Continental To Take Delivery Of Additional Boeing posted Thu Mar 31 2005 17:52:35 by STT757
JL T7 Tries To Take Off With No Clearance posted Tue Mar 1 2005 11:17:12 by Ktachiya
Boeing To Take Back Lead From Airbus In 2004/5? posted Wed Jun 2 2004 20:03:09 by DIA
What Should I Pay For ORD To BIS? posted Thu Apr 29 2004 02:37:26 by Airplanetire
Would You Pay $1,500 To Take Aviation Pictures? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 01:38:36 by As739x
Boeing Wants To Take Over Hawaiian posted Wed Feb 11 2004 23:27:50 by KKMolokai
Tarom To Take On Some Four More NG Boeing 737-700? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 21:59:40 by Connector4you
Air Canada Asks Pilots To Take Pay Cut posted Sat Mar 8 2003 18:26:25 by Canadi>nBoy
UA FA's Offer To Take Pay Cut posted Sun Oct 27 2002 02:58:53 by Sleekjet