Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
380-425 Seat 787  
User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9434 times:

Boeing's Scott Carson talked about a 380-425 seat 787 at the Dubai Air Show. Jon Ostrower and Scott Hamilton have interesting reads here http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...heres-been-a-good-amount.html#more and here http://leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn112007.pdf .

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9399 times:

Something tells me there will never be a 380-seat Boeing 787 (nor a 787-seat Airbus A380)  Wink

sPh


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can see no reason for Boeing to go that high with the -10.

If Boeing wants to build a 787HGW, then the more logical choice (at least to me) would be to launch a 69m 787-10 with around 328 to 370 seats and a 75m 787-11 with around 370 to 405 seats.

However, as Scott Hamilton noted, a 75m 787-11 might very well be a "stretch too far". While the CFRP structure can be reinforced with less material then if it was made of Al, which helps it from suffering the issues the A340-600 does, it's still a mighty-long plane.

Boeing might very well be better off going to a 10 or 11-abreast Y3 which could firmly stake out the ground above the A350-1000 as well as offer more capacity (and lower CASM) then the A350-900 instead of a 787-10HGW and 787-11.

[Edited 2007-11-20 07:45:50]

User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

if they really want to build a 787-11 it needs to be wider in diameter and not longer, it could still use the 787 technology but scaled up to be wider and hold more pax and still be around the same length as the -9 or -10 version. It almost seems like Boeing is going to try and merge the Y2 and Y3 categories together. The 787-10 could technically become the 772NG if the range works out but they really should make the -10 and -11 wider like the 777 and build a plane specifically for those seat ranges with all the 787 technology

User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8830 times:

I sat down with Addison Schonland and Scott Hamilton of AirInsight, LLC this morning to record a podcast about the 787-10.

http://airinsight.podomatic.com/entry/2007-11-20T08_36_10-08_00



Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

I still hold the believe that Boeing should do a "half-new" aircraft to replace the 777-200/300.
I think the B787 should be stretched to a 70m -10 and a 76m -11.
Note the B777-300 is 73.25m in length.
I think the stiffness/strength/weight efficiency provided by CFRP (2nd generation at that) should allow Boeing to be near the 777-300 length without weight problems with the B787 cross-section.

I would propose:
B787-1000 with 300-340 seats (8-9 abreast Y) << 70m
B787-1100 with 340-380 seats (8-9 abreast Y) << 76m
Both these would make extensive use of the baseline aircraft:
Airframe
>Nose
>Cross-section
>Rear-end
>Fin
>Stabilizer
>Nose Landing Gear
Systems
>Systems architecture
>Hydraulic system
>Electrical system
>Flight control system
>Cabin system
>Cockpit instrumentation
Certification
>Grandfather rights for fuselage/tail/systems
Flight crew
>Same type rating for flight crew
>Same training for cabin crew

Both would benefit from the following being new
Airframe
>Totally new Mach 0.85 wing
>6-wheel MLG
>Wing-to-fuselage fairing
>Structure for MTOW to allow both -10 and -11 to do 8200nm
Engine
>New engine based on the Trent-XWB technology standard which is 1/2 a generation better than GEnX

I introduce a bigger step between the -9 and the -10 to help improve the (hypothetical) numbers for the penalty of having to carry a 6-wheel MLG.
Later if the market demands the -11 MTOW and structure can be put onto the -10 fuselage to create a B787-10LR (9000nm).
Another benefit of a bigger gap between -9 and -10 is (if required) the -10 MTOW and structure (Wing & MLG included) can be put onto the -9 to create the B787-9ULR, 9500nm, LHR-SYD with 200 business/Y+ seats, maybe!

I think this option could be done for $5-6B ($6-7B with both LR and ULR) where as a totally new design would cost $12B+ in the 2015-2018 time frame.
It has extensive commonality with the current -8 & -9 and thus reduces the costs to the airlines.
Time to market should be a little faster aim for 2015.
By designing new wing and engines you change the components that contribute to 95% of the performance.
B787/A350 fuselage cross sections are both very efficient. Bigger cross-sections (B777 & B747 aft fuse included) result in a lot of fresh air being flown around. Bigger cross-sections don't become efficient until you get to double deck triple/quad aisle (B747 forward fuse/A380). A simple measure is fuselage circumference/seat


Thoughts!

[Edited 2007-11-20 11:54:22]

User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Open question, is Airbus given the advantage with Boeing selecting a cross section smaller than the 777?


Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting IAD787 (Reply 6):
Open question, is Airbus given the advantage with Boeing selecting a cross section smaller than the 777?

Likely not, in that the spun-CFRP barrel should not need significant (read "heavy in weight") reinforcement even if pushed out to 75m.

While the A350 has a bit more shoulder room, in terms of actual seat width, an A350 only offers an additional three-tenths of an inch. This is essentially unnoticeable.


User currently offlineEXTspotter From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8396 times:

I think you'll find this is a special variant of the 787-9 for FR's new transatlantic services, (3-4-3 all Y), less galley space and 29 inch pitch. Then maybe 380 could fit, either that or wait till Corsair buys a few!


AF BE BY FR MV PD SZ U2 VZ DHC6, 8-3/4Q, 732/8, 763ER, A319, A380
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8381 times:



Quoting IAD787 (Reply 4):
I sat down with Addison Schonland and Scott Hamilton of AirInsight, LLC this morning to record a podcast about the 787-10.

http://airinsight.podomatic.com/entry/2007-11-20T08_36_10-08_00

..thanks.. thumbsup  Smile



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8366 times:



Quoting Sphealey (Reply 1):
(nor a 787-seat Airbus A380)

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a 800+-seat A380 in the future. A A389 with a high density config should be able to do that.

Quoting EXTspotter (Reply 8):
a special variant of the 787-9 for FR's new transatlantic services, (3-4-3 all Y)

Oh. My. God. An absolutely terrifying thought. I will have nightmares tonight.  Smile

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8134 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If Boeing wants to build a 787HGW, then the more logical choice (at least to me) would be to launch a 69m 787-10 with around 328 to 370 seats and a 75m 787-11 with around 370 to 405 seats.

What, a 787-11 thread and Zvezda has not yet called in?  Wink

Scott Hamilton mused the 787 may be 'too much' of a point-design. I'd wager that it rather is a well balanced design devised around the -8, the -9, and 'simple stretch' -10 staying within the confines of the -9's MTOW. A 'doube-stretch' 787-11 would be a folly as much as the 340-600 is.

My bet is that the 350 will be bracketed by the 787-8/9/10 from below and an all-new Y3 from above. The 787-10HGW is nothing but a scarecrow to move the 350-1000 as far as possbile into Y3 territory. Whatever, Boeing doesn't have to make a move until the 350 is carved in stone.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
Scott Hamilton mused the 787 may be 'too much' of a point-design. I'd wager that it rather is a well balanced design devised around the -8, the -9, and 'simple stretch' -10 staying within the confines of the -9's MTOW. A 'doube-stretch' 787-11 would be a folly as much as the 340-600 is.

Well a 787-11 could not reasonably be built on the current frame unless Boeing wants a 777-300 replacement and the total sales for that model were only 60 and the last was ordered over three years ago.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
My bet is that the 350 will be bracketed by the 787-8/9/10 from below and an all-new Y3 from above.

Yup. It would be a perfect pincer maneuver:

787-9 and 787-10 bracketing the A350-800.
787-10 and Y3-100 bracketing the A350-900.
Y3-100 and Y3-200 bracketing the A350-1000.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6597 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing might very well be better off going to a 10 or 11-abreast Y3 which could firmly stake out the ground above the A350-1000 as well as offer more capacity (and lower CASM) then the A350-900 instead of a 787-10HGW and 787-11

A question: what would be the advantages of building all-new aircraft where "heavy" (literally) upgrade of existing one would work? "HGW-zing" of 787 is way cheaper than all-new Y3, 350 has nothing that is not doable on 787 (that is, they are of about the same size and technology), hence is absolutely capable to directly address larger 350. Y3 would make sense for larger capacity, but not for one that 787 can reasonably cover. Plus, 330/787/350 cross section looks to be the one with the least waste of space.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RIX (Reply 13):
A question: what would be the advantages of building all-new aircraft where "heavy" (literally) upgrade of existing one would work?

With a 10 or 11 abreast seating in Y, the Y3-100 and Y3-200 could carry more folks then a 787-10 or 787-11 in a smaller package. Even though the 787's structure should scale to 69m and 75m, there will be some penalties in doing so. Also, shorter planes improve airport compatibility, though the A350XWB itself will be quite long (67m and 74m), so a long 787 won't be any more of an imposition on airports that handle A350s.


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5975 times:



Quoting IAD787 (Reply 6):
Open question, is Airbus given the advantage with Boeing selecting a cross section smaller than the 777?

If the 350 could have done 10x wide, then yes. However, since the 350 is limited to 9x wide, then they are essentially the same plane.

-iwok


User currently offlineSKA380 From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5211 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
which helps it from suffering the issues the A340-600 does,

What issues does the A340-600 suffer from?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4322 times:



Quoting IAD787 (Reply 6):

Open question, is Airbus given the advantage with Boeing selecting a cross section smaller than the 777?

As others have stated, the A350 right now can't do 10Y in anything less than charter configuration. the 777 right now can do 10Y with seats that while not a full 17.2", is "passable" with a custom outer seat.

While I personally think a 787HGW is the proper way to go, It might be possible to get a better 10Y config in a 777NG if they can thin out the sidewalls. More expensive but possible given the round fuselage would be thinning the floor beams and lowering the floor. 10Y at 17.2" would dramatically change the seat mile costs compared to 9Y.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4055 times:



Quoting SKA380 (Reply 16):
What issues does the A340-600 suffer from?

I don't know if it actually suffers from any issues inreality but it is very long for it's width and care has to be taken with weight distribution as it can become nose heavy otherwise leading to poorer fuel consumtion.

Plane diameter Length Ratio

A346 5.28m 75.5m 14.3
B773 5.86m 60.6m 10.3
B753 3.54m 54.5m 15.3

Obviously there is a balance to be found somewhere between diameter and length the thinner and longer a fuse is the better the aerodynamics are (less frontal area) but the more unstable and less use the interor is. A very short and fat airline wouls have good stability but appalling aerodynamics so it's a balance in the middle.

It'd be interesting if the 757-300 suffers from the problem that the A346 is rumoured to have?


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3767 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Y3-100 and Y3-200 could carry more folks then a 787-10 or 787-11 in a smaller package

- that's the point, "more folks". That would make sense as a lower end of a whole different capacity range. Which (the whole range) may also be covered by larger/heavier 787 and 10 abreast, possibly slightly more stretched, upgraded 777. The upper end would be still left void, but that is the one approaching VLA which is hardly a hot seller. While 787 can be expanded to cover current 777 segment, and 777 itself to be shifted to where 744 is, being a "twin monopoly" there. BTW, that may be exactly what BA means by "something more radical" from Boeing (may also be heavy 78A, or both).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SKA380 (Reply 16):
What issues does the A340-600 suffer from?

Because of the length of the fuselage compared to the diameter, Airbus was forced to add a not insignificant amount of additional structural reinforcement to the fuselage which added a not insignificant amount of weight. So, like the A345, she is "heavy" for her size and that eats into the payload (passenger, cargo, and fuel) she can carry. So she is not as capable as she could be.

CFRP does not require as much material to reinforce it for the same loads as Al does, plus the material is lighter then Al and the larger cabin diameter of the 787 means less reinforcement is required. So while a 787-10 and (especially) a 787-11 would be "heavy" for their size, it would be not nearly as high in terms of a payload penalty percentage as it was for the A340-600.

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 18):
It'd be interesting if the 757-300 suffers from the problem that the A346 is rumored to have?

There would be some penalty, I am sure, but the 757-300 stretch was not as great from the baseline 757-200 as the A340-600's was from the A340-300. What hurt the 757-300 was her lower range, since MTOW could not be raised enough to allow for sufficient fuel load to match the 757-200.


User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2715 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
My bet is that the 350 will be bracketed by the 787-8/9/10 from below and an all-new Y3 from above. The 787-10HGW is nothing but a scarecrow to move the 350-1000 as far as possbile into Y3 territory. Whatever, Boeing doesn't have to make a move until the 350 is carved in stone.

 checkmark 

I think Boeing's best bet is all an new Y3 by 2018, at which point they will have an advantage over Airbus. Until then, even with the 777X, Boeing will be taking it on the chin. Boeing neeeds to be very aggressive with the 788/9 to make up the difference, an advantage they may keep for quite a while. I am one of those that believe the 787 will maintain a technical advantage over the life of the 787/350 airframes as long as the engine technologies stay even. So Airbus has about 3 to 5 years (the difference between A3510 and Y3 EIS) to lead the 777 sized market.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1335 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2648 times:



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 21):
I think Boeing's best bet is all an new Y3 by 2018,

If Boeing does that then Airbus will make a brand new 320 with the new engines available by then - or (knowing that the A320 is doing very well indeed over the 737 and knowing that the 320 still have more potential for further improvements than the 737due to its newer design ) - make the A350 a little sister as technology by then will make it possible to get performance better than the 787.

This game is a little bit like chess - you make a move and by the same token you also weaken yourself and open yourself for attack. Boeing went for the 330 and is now going to loose the 777. Overall Airbus seems to be in the strongest position due to the 320 doing so very well indeed so that they better than Boeing can afford to keep status quo in the single isle market.

Abba


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Abba (Reply 22):
If Boeing does that then Airbus will make a brand new 320 with the new engines available by then...
This game is a little bit like chess - you make a move and by the same token you also weaken yourself and open yourself for attack.

Boeing will likely have the 737RS ready before Airbus can have the A320RS ready, but I wonder if Boeing might hold off on deploying it in order to prevent Airbus from revising it after the 737RS enters service to try and position it better.

On the flip side, even with Airbus constantly following Boeing's lead, the Boeing product still does very, very well. The 737NG has kept general pace with the A318-A320 and the 747, 757, 767, and 777 families have outsold the A380, A330 and A340 families as well as the A321.

So Boeing may feel the initial replacement market for the 737RS would be so strong they could easily secure 2000+ orders within twelve months of program launch which would mean even if Airbus makes the A320RS "better", the 737RS will be guaranteed a positive program RoI, regardless.

Quoting Abba (Reply 22):
Boeing went for the 330 and is now going to loose the 777. Overall Airbus seems to be in the strongest position due to the 320 doing so very well indeed so that they better than Boeing can afford to keep status quo in the single isle market.

It will be interesting to see what the margins on those A320 sales are. Again, while I am not implying in any way, shape, or form that Airbus sold any of those frames at a loss, I would doubt the margins on the majority of them are better then a few percentage points. Of course, with that volume, even 4-5% margins will bring in a bunch of money.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1335 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2523 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Boeing will likely have the 737RS ready before Airbus can have the A320RS ready,

They might - however, it is nevertheless Boeing that will have the most to gain if they can change the situation in the SI segment. Sure, the 737 is doing ok. But the 320 is doing better. So here Airbus can well afford to wait untill Boeing moves and tail them with a few years - in particular as Airbus is now updating the 320 so as to minimise as much as possible the advantage an 737RS might have over their product. There are obvious advantages to be the second mover!

So let us look at the WB.

Untill the 380 Airbus had essentially only one competing aircraft in this segment - the 330/340 can be seen as one aircraft in two variations. Sure there was the 300/310 but as a short range WB this was a niche aircraft if there ever was one!

Boeing on the other had had a full line up: the 767 (with the 757), the 777 and the 747. The 767 was the one that was having most problems so Boeing went to replace that while at the same time updating the 747 to compote primarily as a freighter (and as an also run as the intercontinental that hasn't been exactly successful).

Doing the 350 makes for a very interesting situation:

if Boeing goes for the Y3 and put it in between the 777/350 and the 380 Airbus can go for the 787. And as the 787 is the first composite aircraft there are possibly room for quite some improvements! This will leave Boeing in a difficult situation with only one dominant model while Airbus is having a strong line up of with its newer 787 competitor, the 350 and the 380. Boeing will have a 777 also run, a 787 also run, a Y3 as their only state of the art aircraft. The 747 finally gone by then.

As to timing: Airbus might well be able to begin definition and development of a new frame by the time the 380 and the A400 are both up and running rather than when the 350 is out of the door. This might be about the same time as Boeing is ready - or shortly thereafter.


25 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...these arguments sound nice and pretty but don't hold any water because at the end of the day, since both Boeing and Airbus (EADS) are publicly tra
26 Stitch : The trick is, how much is each sale bringing in? Again, I firmly believe Airbus is not selling A320s at a loss, but they are likely discounting deepe
27 Justloveplanes : Airbus has already ceded the 788 sized market to Boeing in the near term. If it tries to go for it with the A320NG, it will again leave the bottom en
28 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....Boeing is going to be waiting to see the final specs for the A350-1000 before making any types of commitments with the B787/Y3, etc....so for now
29 XT6Wagon : It looks like Airbus has ceded the 788 and 789 markets entirely for a long time to come. Airbus has proven its only capible of having 2 balls in the
30 Abba : Possibly - even if neither you nor I know for sure. And their ability to discount deeper might be that their methods of manufacturing the 320 is usin
31 HawkerCamm : In fact Airbus have placed the A350-800 between the 788 & 789 with comparable fuel burn per seat. Stretching to the A350-900 fuel burn per seat impro
32 Stitch : The 737's moving assembly line is more modern and optimized then the "old-style" static production line A320s are built on. Airbus does build the A31
33 Post contains links and images Rheinbote : see Tom Enders' speech of today to the Hamburg work council... http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,519021,00.html Outstanding orders
34 XT6Wagon : I don't think Airbus was told, so much as grabbed off the street, taken into a back alley and beaten nearly to death in time to change the A350 plans
35 Rheinbote : With hindsight, a thoroughly modernized A330 with new engines, advanced alloys and a new interior might have been a 'more appropriate' idea than the 3
36 Tdscanuck : The 737NG production line was designed in the 90's. It is considerably more advanced than the A320 line (except the line in China). How you figure? T
37 Rheinbote : More appropriate if you have a look at the situation Airbus is in. Airbus could have expected to sell a number of them, say, in the high hundreds at
38 Rheinbote : The main A318/319/321 FAL in XFW is a flow line very similar to that of the 787. I think the XFW operation is even more advanced than Renton as secti
39 Stitch : But did they not offer just that with the final non-XWB A350? Though you are correct in noting that it had scored 182 orders and likely would have sc
40 RIX : - but they are doing it well, aren't they? Not moving ahead in mid-size twin market, already several years behind competitor in introducing technolog
41 Tdscanuck : It's true that they're taking some risk by changing industrial setup while retooling the company and going through a currency crunch...but from big r
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...
Same Day Flts On 787 And 380 posted Wed Jul 18 2007 06:17:19 by Qantas787
Thai Premium Economy Seat Maps / Future 787 posted Fri Apr 6 2007 18:48:19 by Justloveplanes
NW 787 Seat Layout posted Fri Oct 20 2006 14:41:51 by MSPGUY
787 Seat Maps posted Mon Jul 31 2006 17:39:39 by COERJ
No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt/Lavatory Signs On 787 posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:44:09 by 1337Delta764
Updated 787 Range & Seat Counts posted Thu Nov 17 2005 20:29:01 by DAYflyer
AA And 787 And 380 posted Fri Nov 11 2005 16:22:27 by FlyMeToTheMoon
787 Seat Plan posted Mon Oct 3 2005 02:13:51 by Trex8
Any 787 Seat Maps Out Yet? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 19:30:22 by Boeing Nut
QF's 501 Seat A-380? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 04:36:40 by ChiGB1973