Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FI- The 787-9 Is The Killer App.  
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In a sidenote to Jon's blog on the Airbus Dreamliner Dossier, being discussed here..

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4233637/

Jon has produced an article entitled

"My Airbus dossier takeaway: The 787-9 is the killer app"

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...y-airbus-dossier-takeaway-the.html

It's an interesting read, and puts forward a view that I totally agree with (and I reckon Stitch will too  Wink )

That is essentially :-

Quote:
The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 767-200 and 777-200 did not define their respective programs. With the exception of the 757-200, first generation airliners aren't largely produced.

i.e. the first version off the blocks is rarely the most successful, or highest selling (there's one for the A380 sceptics..  Smile ), and subsequent models improve steadily over the initial version.
The 787-9 is expected to be the greatest recipient of lessons learned, and with Boeing having delayed its EIS to 2012 (I believe), I think the 787-9 will come out of the blocks a far better plane than the early 787-8's will be.

I like Jon's summary..

Quote:
I'm willing to bet that the 787 orderbook balance will dash to the nine

 bigthumbsup 

Rgds

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10806 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
Quote:
The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 767-200 and 777-200 did not define their respective programs. With the exception of the 757-200, first generation airliners aren't largely produced.

That rule is not as consistent as it seems if you consider the A320. The most succesfull single generation jet airliner of history still sells in its first generation. The 21 A320-100 that were delivered only for 8 months mostly when the A320-200 was already flying do not really count as a "generation ahead". The A318 and A319 still fly as xxx-100 version.

About the 789 it seems indead that it will be a major improvement that will deliver the promises (not only by a simple MTOW shift but also by a MEW reduction). This will benefit the 788 too. There is a delicate trade-off for 787 customers and especially for Boeing: either start with full power to reduce the backlog now or pick up with full steam production only after the killer-789 is ready.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10773 times:

Does lend credence to Airbus' view that the sweet spot for widebody twins is centred around the A358-size.

It is also one in the eye for all the Cheerleaders who think smaller planes, point to point is where its at.

Bigger is better!  Wink



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10773 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
That rule is not as consistent as it seems if you consider the A320.

Indeed, but it does apply to the a300B2, a330 (-200 sells better thant he -300), DC10 (-30 series was the best seller), DC9 (the MD80 was the best seller), DC8(60 series). He does have a point!



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
This will benefit the 788 too.

I would be amazed if Boeing don't launch a "gen 2" 787-8 sometime after the 787-9 gets into service

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
That rule is not as consistent as it seems if you consider the A320

In retrospect, the A320 really was pretty much a "Bullseye" for Airbus  champagne   Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10543 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
The 21 A320-100 that were delivered only for 8 months mostly when the A320-200 was already flying do not really count as a "generation ahead".

I think the A320-100 and A320-200 can easily be compared with the 737-100 and 737-200.
The A320-100 and the 737-100 were also only produced in short numbers and delivered only to a handful of airlines.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10354 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
The 787-9 is expected to be the greatest recipient of lessons learned, and with Boeing having delayed its EIS to 2012 (I believe), I think the 787-9 will come out of the blocks a far better plane than the early 787-8's will be.

It needs to be. Or else anything what will be left of Boeings credibility will be down the drain. But I'm sure that Boeing knows that only too well, and I'm actually quite confident that the 787-9 will be an amazing plane in all respects.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):


Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
This will benefit the 788 too.

I would be amazed if Boeing don't launch a "gen 2" 787-8 sometime after the 787-9 gets into service

Boeing will steadily improve the 788 to get it close to meeting its original specs. But I'm not counting on a launch of some kind of ULH version, don't think the investment will be worth it - too small of a market.

I still do expect a 787-10 which can compete with the A350-900 though, as soon as they've sorted out the challenges they face with the -9.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10328 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):


Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
This will benefit the 788 too.

I would be amazed if Boeing don't launch a "gen 2" 787-8 sometime after the 787-9 gets into service

A 787-8Adv.  Smile



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10285 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 5):
I think the A320-100 and A320-200 can easily be compared with the 737-100 and 737-200.
The A320-100 and the 737-100 were also only produced in short numbers and delivered only to a handful of airlines.

Very similar indeed (30 built vs. 21. The 732 already flying when the 731 were delivered). I consider the 731 and the 732 as one generation (mainly having a different length).

A problem is that the 737 and A320 designations can't be compared directly. With a 737-X00 the X is specific for a generation and length combination. At Airbus the length is expressed with A318, A319, A320, A321 and the family evolution has no distinct code (that is because it is one generation).
If we speak about generations of the same plane we can say:
- The A320 is not only in its first generation but represents the most succesful generation of one aircraft model as well.
- The 731+732 as first 737 generation are not the most successful 737 family member.

Here is maybe another point: Very old aircraft-families (737 and 747) have naturally sold less of the earlier generations because total sales volume has been low compared with today.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10172 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
With the exception of the 757-200,

IIRC the 757-100 was supposed to be the iitial version, but was dropped as it was too heavy and too close to the size of the 737-400.

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
I think the 787-9 will come out of the blocks a far better plane than the early 787-8's will be.

 checkmark 

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 2):
Does lend credence to Airbus' view that the sweet spot for widebody twins is centred around the A358-size.

It might, but I tend to believe that the A359 is the sweet spot  Smile The A358 might suffer the same fate as the 787

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
I would be amazed if Boeing don't launch a "gen 2" 787-8 sometime after the 787-9 gets into service

Do you think it will be launched as a Gen two, or just that from frame 100 things will be much better  Smile



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10110 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 9):
It might, but I tend to believe that the A359 is the sweet spot

Agreed, both the 789 and a359 promise to be truly fantastic aircraft, especially for the airlines.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 9):
The A358 might suffer the same fate as the 787

I suppose you mean the 788? That remains to be seen, because the a358 will be the second variation of the a350 to EIS, after the a359. So in fact, the a359 is more likely to suffer the same problems as the 788. Who knows, maybe the 358 will follow in the footsteps of the 332, being a shrink from the a333, and sell better than the a359. I doubt it, but who knows...  Wink



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10067 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 3):
a330 (-200 sells better thant he -300), DC10 (-30 series was the best seller

How on earth is the A332 another generation than the A333, and the DC-10-20 another generation than the DC-10-30. They are simple stretches/shortened. Infact DC-10 and MD-
11 don't really support your point, do they?!

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9935 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
The 787-9 is expected to be the greatest recipient of lessons learned, and with Boeing having delayed its EIS to 2012 (I believe), I think the 787-9 will come out of the blocks a far better plane than the early 787-8's will be.

This is generally the case. After all, Henry Ford did not start building Mustangs in 1910; every manufacturer must learn by experience. If you can't find ways to improve a product after actually building it then you shouldn't be building it in the first place. I can't recall a single design that I have done that I didn't look at after it was built and see how it could be improved. The problem is that industries do not exist for the personal satisfaction of designers (much as I would like them to) but to sell products. You have to come to a point where you say that good enough is perfect, and start building and selling it. With airliners you have the additional problem that every change you make after the design is approved involves regulatory approval, which limits the amount of tinkering the manufacturer can afford to do once approval has been given. So it is entirely natural that follow-up versions will be the beneficiaries of all of the insight gained from the original design. With the 787, which is introducing more ground-breaking technology than any plane since the 707 (in my opinion, anyway), this is even more to be expected. Will the lessons learned be applied to a later version of the 788? If they provide enough performance improvement to justify the cost of jumping through the regulatory hoops to implement them, yes. But in the meantime it only makes sense to apply them first to the 789.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9610 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
That is essentially :-

Quote:
The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 767-200 and 777-200 did not define their respective programs. With the exception of the 757-200, first generation airliners aren't largely produced.

Silly me... and here I thought the 777-200ER was the best selling model with 434 orders versus its closest model competitor the 77W with 392. What do I know, though...



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
It's an interesting read, and puts forward a view that I totally agree with (and I reckon Stitch will too,  Wink )

Yes, for a variety of reasons:

  • Being designed by Boeing alone, it should be a more coherent plane then the 787-8, which should help.
  • Being larger, it has better economics.
  • Being later, it should be more effective due to benefiting from performance improvements.
  • Historically, stretches favor widebodies more then narrowbodies.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9508 times:



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 13):

Silly me... and here I thought the 777-200ER

But the 777-200ER was not the first model, the 777-200 was (there's a big difference between them). Those are in such demand that one has been scrapped already.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9442 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 7):
A 787-8Adv.

This kind of makes me wonder why they didn't start with the 787-100 or at least -200. Maybe there has already been a reason discussed. If I were to guess, Boeing wanted to break from tradition.

I don't think this information is necessarily ground breaking. Evolution exists for this reason. One always expects the next version of something to be bigger, better and more efficient than the model it replaces.

BTW, the new Audi A4 has arrived in our showrooms. It's 7 inches larger than the model it replaces. There is also more power and torque, and it gets 10% better fuel efficiency than the old engine.

One word of caution, however, is that the 787 has a lot of firsts in its pocket. I'm expecting this airplane either to be rubbish or brilliant. The smart gambler will put his money on the later but one never knows.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8451 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 15):
(there's a big difference between them)

Obviously there is a difference, but not as drastic as amongst the other models. It was the second model of six that were released in order of earliest to latest: 772, 77E, 773, 77W, 77L,and 77F. My point remains that the order of popularity from most to least is: 77E, 77W, 772, 77F, 773, 772, 77L. This stands very much in opposition to the theory. Now I realize some of those models will surely receive some more orders while the older ones most likely won't. I also realize this is one aircraft family, from one manufacturer. All I'm saying is that the 777 family has been an interesting exception to this rule, that I typically agree with. The situation is very similar with the A340 family, with the A343 being the most popular. Again this is a victim of market timing.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7907 times:



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 17):
This stands very much in opposition to the theory.

I take it your theory is that the larger models get more orders. I was looking at it from the standpoint that later models become more efficient due to design improvements, and hence more desirable. But I don't think that the theory of larger models being more popular really holds water. It certainly doesn't at the small end; the 739 is far from the most popular 737, just as the A321 is far less popular than the others. I think that the A332 is more popular than the A333, although I have not checked the figures. My theory is that every design has an optimum size that makes for the most efficient aircraft, but even that depends on how you want to use it. An aircraft that is very efficient moving a given load over very long range will likely not be as efficient on shorter legs, and if you don't need the range you will be better off with a different one.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6807 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 6):
I still do expect a 787-10 which can compete with the A350-900 though, as soon as they've sorted out the challenges they face with the -9

I thought the increase of MTOW these dossiers acknowledge makes a 10 much less likely, as the re-engineering some of the structural components need to do a double stretch would be uneconomic vs doing Y3.
B should go for a Y3 based on the 787 cross section with a new wing / landing gear (IMHO) and next gen / bigger engines!
Or am I missing something?



Jambrain
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6711 times:

I could see the 787-9 turn into the 767-300. There was a 762 and a 763 but the sweet spot for the 767 family was the 763. The 789 is a great sized plane and the fact that it is coming after the 787-8 means Boeing can apply some new learned lessons to that plane to make it even better. What will be interesting is to see what comes of the 787-3. We haven't heard much about it and only a couple airlines have ordered it. i wonder if boeing will have it lose some weight and become more economical or if they will scrap the 787-3 and have the larger end of the Y1 replace planes like the A300 and 767-300(Non ER)

User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6711 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
I take it your theory is that the larger models get more orders.

That is not my theory, at all. In fact, I have no theory! I was simply saying that it is not always true that latter models of a family receive more orders (as per your theory), as seen in the A340/B777 situation.

That was a rather theoretical discussion, yes? haha



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6531 times:



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 21):

That is not my theory, at all. In fact, I have no theory!

Well, what started this discussion was the observation that it appears that the 789 will be much superior to the 788 because of lessons learned from the 788. I'm not sure where the talk of the most popular version comes in; I consider it more or less irrelevant. As to the 777, the 77E has proved popular because it fills a particular niche better than anything else available. The 77L is more advanced, but few carriers need its range, which is where it excels over the 77E. It is obviously more expensive, and so the 77E continues happily on.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 19):
I thought the increase of MTOW these dossiers acknowledge makes a 10 much less likely, as the re-engineering some of the structural components need to do a double stretch would be uneconomic vs doing Y3.

There are just so many unknowns right now. I've seen the internal presentations to customers on the 787-10 from about 18 months ago and it was a pretty decent plane, to be honest. But all that is now out the window with the state of flux the 787-8 is in and with Boeing going back and doing re-work on the 787-9 design to get it back under control.

With Boeing taking over all design work for the 787-9, that gives them the opportunity to design the 787-10 at the same time. The 777-200ER and 777-300 shared (effectively) the same MTOW and systems. The only real difference is the 777-300 was longer.

Now the 777-300 did weigh 20 tons more and had roughly 10 tons more payload capability which helps explain why her range was some 1500nm less. And while I am dearly hoping the 787-10 does not come in 20t heavier then the 787-9, I do believe her maximum structural payload will be many tons higher, so there is going to be a drop-off in range.

But even if you look at it in a way I would consider pessimistic, it's still going to carry more payload farther then the A330-300 and the A330-300's market is by no means a small one. And then you have the 777-200 and 777-300 customers, as well. So by making the 787-10 a simple stretch, I think Boeing has a great shot at scoring many hundreds of orders for the type even if it doesn't impress the world's A340-300 and 777-200ER customers.

Airbus themselves know this, which is why they are considering making an "A350XWB Regional" that won't weigh any less, but will just have a "paper de-rated" MTOW so it can use less powerful engines to save on the fuel bill a bit.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3138 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5906 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 9):
IIRC the 757-100 was supposed to be the iitial version, but was dropped as it was too heavy and too close to the size of the 737-400.

Was it? I thought I had read that both 757-100 and -200 they were developed simultaneously (as 727 replacements, initially), and that the -200 would come out first because it had more orders (did the -100 have any orders or options at least, even just a few?). I'm not sure that the 737-300 or 400 were in the design process when the 757 was being marketed.

In this sense, the 787-3 might be a parallel comparison -- smaller version, developed and marketed simultaneously, not selling as well, may not even come out if airlines shift orders upward... I'll probably be wrong, but it won't surprise me if it happens.

-Rampart


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 25, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5528 times:



Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 11):
How on earth is the A332 another generation than the A333, and the DC-10-20 another generation than the DC-10-30.

Not a different generation, but a development of the base model, just like the 789 is a development of the 788, which is kind of the point of this thread. These developments of the base model all received more orders than the base model. Also, I was also referring to the DC10-10, not the -20 (which is more commonly known as the -40  Wink)

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 21):
I was simply saying that it is not always true that latter models of a family receive more orders (as per your theory), as seen in the A340/B777 situation.




L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
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...
The 787 Is Jetlag-free posted Mon Feb 5 2007 02:28:29 by Trent1000
A380 Combi The Killer App Airbus Needs? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 20:55:10 by Rabbit
Could Qantas Cancel The 787? posted Thu Nov 27 2008 10:54:06 by Plairbus
Possibility Of Another Delay For The 787 (ATW) posted Fri Sep 5 2008 12:28:17 by Aircellist
Boeing Aero: Preparing For The 787-8 posted Sat Aug 2 2008 19:14:36 by Pmg1704
CO And The 787 posted Thu Jul 31 2008 04:49:02 by NicoEDDF
Qantas And The 787-3 posted Mon Jun 9 2008 04:13:48 by Dkramer7
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
FlightBlogger: "One Year On: The Story Of The 787" posted Tue May 6 2008 02:29:32 by 797charter
Will LAN Use The 787 For MAD-FRA Flight? posted Thu May 1 2008 00:39:53 by LHStarAlliance