Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787-9 Entry Into Service Delayed To 2013  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39875 times:

It would seem that Boeing continue to struggle with 787 schedule. If Airbus manages to keep the EIS of the A350-900XWB, then it will nearly enter service at the same time as the 787-9.  Wow!

ANZ's first 787-9 delayed by 12 more months.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...7-9-delayed-by-12-more-months.html

Air New Zealand, which is launch customer for the Boeing 787-9, has revealed that first deliveries of the stretch variant have slipped by another 12 months to early 2013 - more than two years later than had been originally scheduled.

The Star Alliance carrier was the first to commit to the larger -9 variant of the 787 and has eight on firm order. It originally expected its first around the end of 2010, but the programme has seen several delays.

ANZ had been informed in April that first delivery had been pushed back to early 2012. It says Boeing has just confirmed a further delay that will push back delivery by a full year, to 2013.

"Boeing has confirmed a further 12-month delay could be expected with the first 787-9 to be delivered to Air New Zealand in the first quarter of 2013," says the airline. The carrier adds that it "continues to progress compensation discussions".


Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
199 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 1428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39845 times:

Any update on the first flight (787-8)

User currently offlineArabAirX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39845 times:

This is nothing new.

Although Boeing's press release didnt mention it, since the delay news on Dec 11, VS and ANZ had stated in the media and Boeing confirmed that the 787-9 would enter service in 2013.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q4/081211a_nr.html

“We were originally due to get them in early 2011 and wouldn’t be surprised if we now don’t get them until 2013,” said Paul Charles, Virgin Atlantic’s director of communications while speaking to Reuters. (Source)

It seems that there are some skeptics on the A350, Doug McVitie being one:

Link

"McVitie also questions whether Airbus has fully frozen the A350 design, as it says it has. "They are not there" and some design decisions are likely going to stretch well into this year, he expects."

Has Airbus given a full press release on the design freeze?


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39798 times:



Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
more than two years later than had been originally scheduled.

Makes sense, IIRC the 788 is delayed by the same timeframe.

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
If Airbus manages to keep the EIS of the A350-900XWB, then it will nearly enter service at the same time as the 787-9.

It would be a real coup for Airbus if they manage this. It can erase the whole fiasco with the original a350 (which many have forgotten already anyway).



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 onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 2):
Although Boeing's press release didnt mention it, since the delay news on Dec 11, VS and ANZ had stated in the media and Boeing confirmed that the 787-9 would enter service in 2013.

Now it is officially confirmed, but nobody is surprised by this official announcement. Personally I think it is very sad that the B787 program got into such a mess. But the poorest execution of program management is what got Boieng there. I am also very sorry for the people who are probably working their ass of and hear so much negative talk about delays, under performance, etc, etc.

Let just hope that the beautiful new bird will finally fly this year and that the flight test and certification program runs smooth and without negative incidents. We will have to wait and see though if this will be the case.

As I wrote in some other thread before: The -900 version of A350-XWB, if it itself does not suffer any delays, will introduced almost simultaneously to the market with the B787-9. Who would have thought that 2-3 years ago? It will be a very interesting time to watch!


User currently offlineBoeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39719 times:



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 2):
It seems that there are some skeptics on the A350, Doug McVitie being one

Considering the A380 and 787 delays, it doesn't come as much of a surprise to read about people being sceptical.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39704 times:



Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...7-9-delayed-by-12-more-months.html

Air New Zealand, which is launch customer for the Boeing 787-9, has revealed that first deliveries of the stretch variant have slipped by another 12 months to early 2013 - more than two years later than had been originally scheduled.

I actually think this is good news in the sense that Boeing could have announced a 3 month slip now, followed by another 3 month slip later, followed by... Announcing a futher delay to 2013 seems more sensible to me - especially if that includes a reasonable allocation of time for contingencies.

Am I right in thinking that the 789 and A358XWB are now due to enter service about the same time?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12887 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 39640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 2):
It seems that there are some skeptics on the A350, Doug McVitie being one:

It always needs to be remembered that Mr McVitie is a bitter, ex-empoyee of Airbus.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 39210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We all need to take into account the fact that Boeing only has so many production slots available to them.

Weeks ago I publicly wondered if, even if the 787-9 design was ready to put into production in 2012, would Boeing actually have any slots available to build one considering the backlog of 787-8s they need to complete?

So if it's an issue of Boeing not having slots, then they can use the "free time" they have to keep improving the plane's design and make it better before they start building it.

And it is one more reason for Boeing to start developing the 787-10 in parallel with the 787-9, IMO.

[Edited 2009-01-10 07:39:06]

User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 39031 times:

It says in the article that: Air New Zealand had originally expected its first 787-9 in late 2010.
So ... is it safe to say that the B787-9 is now delayed by atleast 2 and 3 months?
And this is all before flight testing.
 expressionless 

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
If Airbus manages to keep the EIS of the A350-900XWB, then it will nearly enter service at the same time as the 787-9. Wow!

This is actually possible now. Could it even EIS before the B787-9?


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 38994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
This is actually possible now. Could it even EIS before the B787-9?

A lot is possible at this stage. But the B787-8 will for sure enter service before the B787-9 and the first A350-XWB, the -900 version. Unless a total catastrophe on the B787 program happens. I for one do hope that this catastrophe will never happen, actually all the bad publicity lately is a small catastrophe for the B787 program on its own!


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 38970 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
Could [the A350-900] even EIS before the B787-9?

It seems possible, but still unlikely. Airbus are still clinging to a 2013 EIS for the A350, while critics are claiming 2015 and airlines and leasing companies are expecting 2014. We'll have to wait and see. Personally, I'm expecting 2014 but still hoping for 2013.

Where in the 787 and A350 production queues are the SQ orders? Originally, SQ were to start receiving 787s in 2011 and A350s in 2012. Clearly neither will happen.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 38954 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8):
It always needs to be remembered that Mr McVitie is a bitter, ex-empoyee of Airbus.

I agree he's an ex employee. But why do you say he is "bitter"? Or...is this just your opinion?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 38813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
So ... is it safe to say that the B787-9 is now delayed by atleast 2 and 3 months? And this is all before flight testing.

It might be a bit overreaching to assume the 787-9 is late because of problems with the design.

As I noted, Boeing has hundreds of 787-8s they are currently contractually committed to building and delivering before the first 787-9, so it may be an issue of no production slots available prior to 2013.

And with ~500 orders for the A350, even if it does EIS in 2013, new customers would still be looking at the near-side of 2020 for delivery if they ordered today. So even if the 787-9 doesn't EIS until the A350-800 in 2014, 787-9 customers will still get their birds sooner.

[Edited 2009-01-10 09:25:38]

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 38536 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
It says in the article that: Air New Zealand had originally expected its first 787-9 in late 2010.
So ... is it safe to say that the B787-9 is now delayed by atleast 2 and 3 months?

That is correct, from an official Boeing press release, NZ were initially to receive their first aircraft in 2010.

"Air New Zealand was the second airline to order the 787, placing its initial order for two airplanes in 2004. The following year, Air New Zealand ordered two additional Dreamliners. The first of the airline's 787s will be delivered in 2010."

from http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070219c_nr.html

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
and airlines and leasing companies are expecting 2014.

The only "airlines" that has mentioned 2014 recently is EK, and the EK A350XWB aircraft were ALWAYS due to have an EIS with EK in 2014

From the official EK press release dated 11 November, 2007

"The agreement with Airbus comprises firm orders for 50 A350-900s and 20 A350-1000s, plus 50 options for the A350-900s. The first A350 will be delivered to Emirates in 2014."

from http://www.emirates.com/english/abou...ws/news_detail.aspx?article=265695

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
SQ were to start receiving 787s in 2011 and A350s in 2012.

How could SQ receive the A350XWB in 2012 when the A350XWB EIS is 2013 ?

Show me the press release that says they ordered the A350XWB with a delivery time frame of 2012, as Airbus and SQ say 2013. I am sure you know the difference between a LOI and an order, the SQ order was signed in June 2007.

From the official Airbus press release

"Singapore Airlines signs contract for 20 A350 XWB
22 June 2007

Singapore Airlines has signed a contract for the purchase of 20 A350-900 XWBs to meet its requirements on medium to long-range routes across the Asia-Pacific region from 2013 onwards. This order, which firms up the Letter of Intent placed in July 2006, represents another major commitment to the expansion of the airline’s Airbus fleet, which is already destined to include 19 A380s and 19 A330s."

From the SQ 2007/2008 annual report http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...estor/annual/SIA_AnnReport0708.pdf

"Singapore Airlines places firm orders for 20 new generation Airbus A350-900 XWBs, with options for another 20. Deliveries for the twin-engine aircraft are expected from 2013."

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):

It might be a bit overreaching to assume the 787-9 is late because of problems with the design.

I agree, I read this article was in AW&St today, "Boeing Rules Out 787 Window Change" from http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...%20Window%20Change%20&channel=comm

They said

"Boeing plans to complete firm design configuration of the stretched 787-9 version in the second half of 2009, but to save weight, it will not be restoring window positions lost as a result of fuselage join issues."



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 38354 times:

Do we really think that an aircraft can go from concept to full production in less then 10 years? With the A380, a new aircraft, I did not expect to see it before it was finally rolled out. The A350 has yet to make it off the drawing board and thus I doubt if we will see it before 2014.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 38021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
Airbus are still clinging to a 2013 EIS for the A350

Clinging?
I'm still waving goodbye to 2008, and Airbus are "clinging" to a LATE 2013 EIS?  scratchchin 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
while critics are claiming 2015

Critics? You mean that madman McVitie?

As far as I'm aware, the only CUSTOMERS who have commented (EK) are still expecting their birds in 2014, as contracted

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 17):
The A350 has yet to make it off the drawing board and thus I doubt if we will see it before 2014.

Mmmmm
Makes you wonder what we should make of this...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
"Boeing plans to complete firm design configuration of the stretched 787-9 version in the second half of 2009

So let me get this straight....
The 787-9 will have over a year less between design freeze and EIS than the A350, and yet we're all focussing our "worries" on the A350's EIS?
Can I assume you're equally, or more, worried about the 787-9's revised EIS?

There's no guarantee the A350 won't be late into service, but from my seat, the nay-sayers seem to be lining up their targets way too soon in the process. (Just like they did on the A380). Risky.
Personally, I don't intend to shoot "until I see the whites of their eyes"....

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 37427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Brilondon (Reply 17):
Do we really think that an aircraft can go from concept to full production in less then 10 years?

I should hope so. The commercial aerospace market may not move at a rabbit's pace, but it also doesn't move at a turtle's, either.

While the A3XX looked like the A380 from the late 1990's, turning that into an actual working airplane did not really begin in earnest until 2001. Sure, they laid out a lot of the details before they formally launched the program (as Boeing had done with both Yellowstone and the 7E7 before they launched it), but Airbus was not going to spend billions on a concept until they knew it was going to enter the market.

Full-scale EIS for the A380 was planned for 2006, as I recall, which means a roughly five-year gestation. The A330 and A340 also had around a six-year gestation, as did the 777. So four years for the 787 was aggressive, but not necessarily reckless at the time Boeing announced it. And if it had been a traditional Al airliner built and designed in the traditional Boeing way, chances are good it would be in revenue service today.

Airbus themselves felt they could get the Al A350 into the air in under five years. As the plane became CFRP like the 787 and added new systems and features, that EIS was pushed back later and later until it was about six. Then they scrapped it and went with the A350XWB and a gestation period of about seven years.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 37364 times:



Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
If Airbus manages to keep the EIS of the A350-900XWB, then it will nearly enter service at the same time as the 787-9. Wow!

If, yes. What I read today about the A400M does not boost my confidence into Airbus' ability to keep EIS targets.

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
It says Boeing has just confirmed a further delay that will push back delivery by a full year, to 2013.

Four years from toady. Four more years to catch up some delay, four more years to add some delay.

I have to say, the 787 still seems to have problems. Here is a pic of the prototype from early December.

http://paineairport.com/kpae1575.htm

Questions: Why are the main landing gear doors not closed? What is all that cable-stuff hanging out of the wings. Why are the engines open at the sides? What does it look like on the inside? And why on earth is the tail only a skeleton?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 18):
Personally, I don't intend to shoot "until I see the whites of their eyes"....

I totally agree with you, but past/current experiences with new planes create some skepticism. However, there is no sign yet that the A350 will be late. Its time-frame has been calculated carefully and Airbus certainly has learned from the A380/A400M problems.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 37230 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
I agree, I read this article was in AW&St today, "Boeing Rules Out 787 Window Change" from http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...=comm

"The loss of a window in the forward Section 41/43 join is not considered a major setback as this is close to the 'door two' galley and lavatory block which does not need one."

That is true for the -8. But the blanked out window position is nowhere near a door with the -9 and even less so with the -10. See this image:

http://www.boeing.jp/website_25/pages/page_26922/images/img_1.jpg


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 37118 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
But the B787-8 will for sure enter service before the B787-9 and the first A350-XWB, the -900 version.

I actually don't think there's anything "for sure" about it, nor can anything at all be taken for granted on the 787 programme.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
It seems possible, but still unlikely. Airbus are still clinging to a 2013 EIS for the A350, while critics are claiming 2015 and airlines and leasing companies are expecting 2014. We'll have to wait and see. Personally, I'm expecting 2014 but still hoping for 2013.

On what basis, or grounds, are you supposing this considering it is 4 years in the future. Other than being dramatism (especially seeing as it's a thread about the 789) I'd hardly call that "clinging"

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 17):
Do we really think that an aircraft can go from concept to full production in less then 10 years? With the A380, a new aircraft, I did not expect to see it before it was finally rolled out. The A350 has yet to make it off the drawing board and thus I doubt if we will see it before 2014.

Your doubt is based on what exactly though?



I still fail to quite understand why so many are posting their own personal opinions/doubts about the A350 in a thread which is supposedly related to the Boeing 789.
Am I missing something here, or is a good way to take attention of the thread title itself?


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5793 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36850 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 22):
I actually don't think there's anything "for sure" about it, nor can anything at all be taken for granted on the 787 programme.

That could be said for any program. Are you implying that there is doubt that the 787-8 will fly before the A350? You mention dramatism - I think this is a perfect example.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 22):
I still fail to quite understand why so many are posting their own personal opinions/doubts about the A350 in a thread which is supposedly related to the Boeing 789.
Am I missing something here, or is a good way to take attention of the thread title itself?

Are you new?  Smile

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 36601 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
I read this article was in AW&St today, "Boeing Rules Out 787 Window Change" from http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...=comm

This issue was covered by Airbus in their internal powerpoint presentation of October last year.

http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo89/slz396/787_fuselage_issues.jpg

Seems like Airbus senses the pulse pretty well on the issues currently troubling the 787...

In their powerpoint presentation, Airbus also put forward an interesting conundrum:
Boeing was expected to feed back improvements from the -9 into the -8 to help it meet its performance targets; with the -9 being officially delayed, it now looks like Boeing has a serious dilemma to resolve:
-) either it does all it can to ramp up production of the baseline 787-8 and then the number of low-value wave one 787-8s will be much larger than originally expected;
-) it "waits" for the expected improvements from the -9 while the average delay on the 787-8 keeps snowballing.

[Edited 2009-01-10 14:12:09]

User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 37067 times:

Didn't AA order this version the "9 series"? I wonder how this would affect AA deliveries. I guess they'll have to hang on to those 763s for a while longer. Too bad...but not surprising.

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 37009 times:



Quoting Brilondon (Reply 17):
Do we really think that an aircraft can go from concept to full production in less then 10 years? With the A380, a new aircraft, I did not expect to see it before it was finally rolled out. The A350 has yet to make it off the drawing board and thus I doubt if we will see it before 2014.

Why not? Aircraft used to get developed without a hitch - the 777 is a prime example, as is the A330 and A340. No huge cockups there.

This 'no one can build an aircraft' is a very new concept, and I think its become prevelent because people dont want their favourite manufacturers to be so incompetant.

When Airbus cocked up the A380, there were a great many laughs, jeers and generally derision - Airbus couldnt make an aircraft, they were incompetant and lost a lot of confidence from their customers. Many people were relying on Boeing to continue with their near perfect score and follow on from their 777 success - the 787 was going to be the dream come true airliner program. They would show Airbus how to build aircraft.

And now here we are with the A380 delayed, the 787 delayed, the A400M delayed, various Boeing military aircraft delayed....

The only saving grace is that they are all delayed for different reasons. Which means that you cannot say the next project will be delayed, because theres no correlation between them.

So ignore the naysayers with regard to the A350XWB program at the moment, they dont have anything to go on at the moment. Airbus has 18 months penciled in for the flight test program, and a lot of slack elsewhere. They could probably afford to lose 6 months or more over the next 4 years and still make the planned EIS of 'late 2013'...


25 WingedMigrator : I guess in the aerospace world, going over budget by double digit percentages is no longer considered a "cock up".... regular old business as usual.
26 Scbriml : I've yet to read a single positive comment by McVitie about Airbus since he became an "independent" analyst. As far as Airbus is concerned, the glass
27 Stitch : You are assuming the -9 is delayed due to the design being "bad" and needing another year to be "fixed". If it's delayed because they don't have any
28 Post contains links Rheinbote : There is a correlation. It may have something to do with an industry-wide lack of skills - not just at A or B. Part of it is due to pure demographics
29 LY777 : Are you sure that the A350 won't be delayed, too? I wouldn't be surprised if the A350 enters in service in 2014/2015... Let's wait and see...
30 Mariner : Nobody can be "sure." But I'm not sure what that has to do with the 787 delays. mariner
31 Rheinbote : I think it would be unwise to start the detail design of a stretch version without having ground and flight test data of the baseline version on hand
32 Stitch : I don't see why it would, to be honest. It's not like the 787-9 is a radically different plane. We're talking 777-200 to 777-300 here, not 777-200 to
33 Scipio : I thought that Boeing itself has said that the finalization of 787-9 design work will need to await flight test data from the 787-8. Airbus, on the o
34 Rheinbote : Not at all. Any new aircraft design is based on certain assumptions. It is inevitable e.g. that some of the structural loads assumptions are going to
35 Stitch : Well based on what Boeing's wind-tunnel and CFD data has told them, aero performance is above what they expected it to be, so maybe the first tranche
36 MarcoPoloWorld : Or, perhaps more precisely - disgruntled. Let's hope he doesn't go postal then!
37 NorthstarBoy : Sorry to sound naive, but what's stopping boeing from basically producing both the 787-8 and 9 simultaneously? the 747 line is pretty much dead for th
38 PITIngres : Upstream (supplier) delays and issues, probably. I don't pretend to know doodely about 787 production issues, but it sounds to me like it would take
39 Zeke : Fairly common, access to a lot of systems (esp hydraulics) is made there in a lot of aircraft. Soe aircraft use that as a point to have the external
40 Astuteman : I personally don't see "the A350 beating the 787-9 into the air" as being a key issue in this. Their issues surely have to be a) getting the 787-9 ri
41 Slz396 : So it is confirmed now that 'anything today' actually just means the 767 for Cogan? Can somebody point out to this gentleman that the absolute refere
42 Post contains links Jambrain : What are the current 767 vs 332 numbers? iirc the fuel burn per seat distance was from http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_lh_mission_dataset.gif
43 Keesje : " target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...=comm I saw the article too. The deletion of the forward window is downplayed by Boeing / sayi
44 Post contains images EPA001 : Actually by not mentiong the A330, he acknowledges just that fact. It is a bit sorry, but not uncommon not to mention your biggest competitor which s
45 Rheinbote : Interesting, do you have a quote (sorry, you know I hate being asked for quotes myself). On the other hand: Is this a lapse by Tom Cogan or a foresha
46 Trex8 : haven't Boeing compared the 747-8 to the A380, so why would they care about not mentioning the A330 in this situation? I'm pretty sure in a AWST arti
47 Stitch : The 787 does not have to be 20% better then the A330 to sell, just as the A350 doesn't have to be 20% better then the 777 to sell. It would be great i
48 Rheinwaldner : 787 slots is one of the rarest things on this planet. On the other hand does the present weight of the 788 urgently need the design improvements of t
49 JoeCanuck : Indeed. Considering that the 787 started out using the minimum amount of material Boeing thought they needed and had to add it to achieve the require
50 FlyingAY : I think it's safe to assume that if LH or BA want the A350, there are slots available earlier than 2020. Just as Boeing had 787 slots for AA.
51 Rheinwaldner : CFRP development does not stand still. You know my CFRP fuselage thread. I can really imagine that Airbus has a better CFRP design in the +5..10% ran
52 Slz396 : I don't know if you know, but you are actually refering to a general phenomenon of industrial and technological evolution first discribed by Jan Mari
53 JoeCanuck : Of course there are improvements over time but Airbus hasn't been the sole user of CFRP in airplanes until now...Boeing has been using it for some tim
54 Moo : You forget that Airbus have been joining major aircraft sections like Boeing is doing with the 787 ever since the A320 - its a solved issue as far as
55 StickShaker : Airlines don't necessarily wait for 20 years to replace aircraft. The age at which they roll over their fleets is often determined by financing arran
56 Keesje : Agreed. On top of that the metal based supply chain hasn't been waiting what happens but also is worrking on improvements. Better materials and cheap
57 Slz396 : Indeed, but not because Airbus will relocate their windows or close some off like Boeing is doing, but because the joints aren't going to located nea
58 Rheinwaldner : Yes but when you observe the behaviour of the market as a whole (which must be the no1 driver behind offering new aircraft types) you can see somethi
59 Astuteman : I suspect the issues we are discussing are far more wide-reaching than how each company "uses CFRP". I'd still maintain that the advantages of CFRP f
60 Rheinwaldner : This is true of course. It relativises the weight gaps. Another factor could be that the 787 excels the A330 in performance while the A350 and the 77
61 Art : Mmmm... how far is China from Europe? I know the A320 is a much smaller aircraft than the 787 but an awful lot of large assemblies will need to be mo
62 Brilondon : If I have to ignore the naysayers of the A350XWB then should we not also then ignore the naysayers of the B787 program? The way things are going and
63 Trex8 : IIRC they go by sea
64 Stitch : You do realize that Airbus' figures are just what they expect(ed) the plane to deliver based on some computer models, just as Boeing's original 20% i
65 Moo : It entirely depends on what those naysayers are saying, because there is currently plenty of evidence to suggest the 787 program isn't in calm waters
66 Trex8 : I really think military projects, from either OEM, should not be considered a factor in their perfromance of civilian projects. Lets face it, are the
67 Zvezda : If there were a 787-10 available, most 777-200ER operators would be ordering it or A350s to replace them. Whether or not the 777-200ERs have been ful
68 Stitch : Why? People claimed Boeing's experience with military CFRP projects would mean smooth-sailing for the 787. It didn't. Now people claim Airbus' experi
69 Slz396 : Airbus ships long distance to China by ship... Boeing ships long distance to Seattle by plane... I am more convinced than ever that Boeing's decision
70 Moo : Are people, genuine people who are worth listening to rather than armchair engineers, actually saying that?
71 Slz396 : The A400M is late mainly because its engine isn't ready; this has absolutely nothing to do with Airbus or EADS, but everything with the political dec
72 Virgin747LGW : agreed, im sure that some who are blaming Airbus for the A400M delays excused Boeing when the 747 had a short delay because of problems with the P&W
73 JayinKitsap : On the A400M, by the Airbus positioning it appears the engines are being supplied by a subcontractor that was picked for them, but still a subcontrac
74 Zeke : With the billions and billions of dollars of investment, both directly by Boeing and also indirectly by the various governments, you end up with an a
75 Post contains links Jambrain : Does anyone know how much of Bs problems on 787 are down to new software tools not delivering on the promise? Zeke do you have any more up to date fi
76 Rheinbote : We positively know that A took a close look at the 787 in technical terms, but given that they are subject to the same financial market pressure as B
77 Revelation : Then we shouldn't blame Boeing because Vought has let them down? Why's that? Airbus could have refused the contract, or had it restructured, if they
78 Astuteman : Even if the "naysayer" is Boeing themselves? The issue as I see it is that Airbus are "clinging" to 2013, but people still insist on saying the progr
79 FrmrCAPCADET : Haven't both the 787 and 350 shown range reductions due to reconfiguring to 9 abreast as opposed to the original 8?
80 Stitch : The A350XWB was always presented with nine-abreast seating, so the range reductions Airbus have published should not be due to that. Boeing also publ
81 Zvezda : In the 787 case, one of the reasons for being late was the very limited availability of special fasteners that were necessary only because of the CFR
82 Tdscanuck : If that were the case, there'd be no A350XWB, because they could have just strapped new engines to the A330 like Airbus originally wanted to. The mai
83 Post contains links Zeke : As we already know, the comparable 767 is actually lighter and more structurally efficient than the 787-3, if you could actually raise the gear and f
84 Tdscanuck : I'm not sure that makes any difference...the inlet is designed to decelerate the incoming air at cruise speed anyway, so the engine isn't actually re
85 AirNZ : Perhaps so, but by the above you are clearly only assuming that Airbus will do what Boeing did by using the bare minimum amount of material to start
86 Pygmalion : This is inaccurate. Boeing did not redesign the window at the join because it found a weakness. That was designed out BEFORE any production part was
87 Tdscanuck : Because all airplanes obey the same physical laws and design principles. To be competitive, you must be as light as possible. That means you reduce t
88 Astuteman : As it happens, Airbus have done just that. It was declared as 2.2 tonnes. The primary cause was cited as lightning protection, echoing one of the 787
89 Jambrain : How much of the performance of the dreamliner has been compromised by the sonic cruiser design hang over? I know myself how engineers get their minds
90 StickShaker : Agree 100% - prevailing market conditions can often dictate fleet replacement timing rather than whether the aircraft are fully amortized. QF were re
91 JoeCanuck : It's an Airbus product. That's where the euro stops. Just as Boeing has been lambasted for their 2 year delay, most of which can be laid at the feet
92 Rheinwaldner : Recently the view could be a bit blurred. Downgrading the spec is a phenomena which almost exclusively can be found on the 787. For all other aicraft
93 Post contains links Keesje : Well the upcoming story on the A400M: The FTD cited sources which said the current version of the A400M can carry only 29-30 tons of material, instea
94 Slz396 : Very interesting discussion: let me summarize it. Nothing indeed, but it gives Stitch a straw to cling on to in every discussion about the 787. By loo
95 Zvezda : Rheinwaldner, perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but it seems you are observing that fleet replacement often happens on a roughly 20-year cy
96 Rheinwaldner : No, to make my conclusions I deliberately exclude any assumptions what airlines do. From the overall market behaviour I derive expected sales in airc
97 Brilondon : I posed it in a question so don't get all defensive about it. I agree with you. There has been no evidence of the A350XWB slipping in terms of their
98 EPA001 : That is a very interesting summary! I think I do agree upon most statements you made Slz396. But there is another way of looking at it. I see a parra
99 NorCal : Boeing subcontractors still could have taken the panel approach and assembled the panels together into barrels, stuffed them, and the shipped them to
100 Revelation : You seem to be hanging your entire argument on this, yet you are presuming facts not in evidence. Just becase we see an A400M sitting on the tarmac i
101 Tdscanuck : There's some, it's just not the main benenfit. How do we know it's overbuilt? I suspect it's designed to the same margin as normal airliners, but I a
102 Zvezda : I thought the WhaleJet's wings substantially incorporate CFRP. No?
103 Astuteman : Which I'm inclined to attribute to an improved predicted L/D (weight going up, thrust going down...) Genuine question... The complete A380 from the r
104 Trex8 : and Vought subcontracted the rear pressure bulkhead for the 787 to a German EADS factory so maybe B still have some issues with that structure!
105 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Well, Boeing does manage to build the CFRP wing for the B-2. That is a fairly sizeable part.[Edited 2009-01-13 13:20:37] http://www.boeing.com/defens
106 Astuteman : It would. Thanks Must admit to feeling that the "who does CFRP better" arguments get an "infant school" feel about them at times on here...... Rgds
107 OldAeroGuy : Agreed. And it should be the B-2. My mistake, now corrected.
108 Astuteman : Mind you, is the B2 wing as big as an A380 tail? Rgds
109 JoeCanuck : If you listen to the engine manufacturers, they claim that the delays have been caused by Airbus. Who to believe, eh...? How long did Airbus claim th
110 Tdscanuck : The ribs are CFRP...as far as I know, the spars, skins, and stringers are metal. The center box is also mostly CFRP, I think. Well, Boeing was buildi
111 Zvezda : I would say the ribs are a substantial part of the wing.
112 Astuteman : I don't think Airbus ever claimed that. It would seem to be an extraordinarily silly thing to when icorporating more composites into the A380 than an
113 Zvezda : It's not exactly what Airbus claimed. They repeatedly claimed that CFRP was not a suitable material for fuselage construction -- or something very si
114 Post contains links JoeCanuck : http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn032806.pdf "The A350 is, Leahy says, closer to the A380 technology and a brand new type certificate—not a
115 Tdscanuck : In the sense that they're big parts, yes. Of the structural parts though, they're the least substantial part of the wing and, by far, the simplest to
116 Dynamicsguy : If you think that then maybe you should visit where I work then - we are part of Boeing Fabrication Division and we build plenty of CFRP parts for th
117 Post contains links Revelation : Maybe you are thinking of the following? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/255066_airbus10.html
118 Post contains links Keesje : Maybe; 'If you start to look at the various loads on composites [in an all-composite fuselage], it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.'Current compos
119 Astuteman : Must admit I'm struggling like hell to see how these two translate into:- Rgds
120 Stitch : To my knowledge, they never said that CFRP was unsuitable. What JL said was building an A330-200 out of CFRP instead of Al would save 500kg of weight
121 JoeCanuck : Perhaps I should have used the word "fuselage" rather than "airline" but since everybody knows Airbus had been using composites including carbon fibr
122 Zvezda : See the quote Keesje found (in the reply just above yours). There doesn't seem to be so much lost in translation from "unsuitable" to "unsuitable."
123 Post contains images Rheinbote : 'The whole tailcone' comes down to the last 3 meters  [Edited 2009-01-14 10:55:42]
124 Astuteman : True. The translation from "fuselage" to "airliner" would seem to suffer a bit more in the "loss" department, though, wouldn't you think? Sorry Joe.
125 Prebennorholm : "...different reasons???" Don't think so. It is more likely that both Airbus and Boeing around the mid 90'es were badly hit by "Boston Disease" as wa
126 Tdscanuck : If that were consistently true, you wouldn't use composites on things that get hit a lot, like nacelles, trailing edge devices, and gear doors. Yet t
127 JoeCanuck : Most in here know that but way back, when Airbus was spinning the first 350 against the 787, it seemed a big deal. I can barely remember back in this
128 Scipio : Fair points, but I think the problem is more fundamental and less connected to decision-makers' educational background. The basic problem is short-te
129 Prebennorholm : Rdscanuck and JoeCanuck are talking apples and oranges here. Nacelle covers, ailerons, gear doors and such are easily replaced. Then the damaged comp
130 Dynamicsguy : That's what heat blankets are for. How big a hole do you think would take months to repair?
131 Tdscanuck : Although replacement is always an option, those are large and expensive parts (especially nacelles, and particularly T/R's). Replacement is the last
132 Post contains links and images Rheinwaldner : One would assume because both replacement or autoclave repairs are not even an option in case of the fuselage. Which means Prebennorholm has a point.
133 Dynamicsguy : Out of interest, do you know how that damage was repaired? Whether that size of hole is in an aluminium plane or a composite plane it would be a reas
134 Rheinwaldner : I only know that the plane flew again. I have never repaired an aircraft thus I am cautious with statements. I assume original parts (or reconstructe
135 Zvezda : I think I already answered that. I probably should have put fuselage in bold italics in the earlier post.
136 Tdscanuck : It's true that replacement and autoclave are not likely options for a fuselage repair, but they're the absolute last options you'd ever want to appro
137 JoeCanuck : I'll be very surprised if fixing CFRP is much different than fixing fibreglass. Big rigs and boats are fixed all the time with no reduction in strengt
138 Pygmalion : Large scale repairs are not that big a deal. You can lay up a barrel section on the original mandrel without having to build a whole barrel. With auto
139 Tdscanuck : It's basically the same. The resin system has a whole lot more to do with the repair method than the fiber. From a repair point of view, CFRP and fib
140 JoeCanuck : Once composite is cured, it basically becomes inert so any composite can probably patch it in a pinch...or metal, for that matter...though why would
141 Rheinwaldner : Ok, you have me convinced! I can not counter those arguments. I am quite curious how it turns out in reality. My prediction once was: The first 787 wr
142 Zeke : That is assuming the $$$ would be spent in developing a new inlet. That sentence contradicts itself. While the number of parts sold maybe small, it i
143 Revelation : But not having hydraulics in the gear legs (and in the fuselage as well) also saves the customer on maintenance costs (since hydraulic lines are subj
144 Keesje : I think Fuselage repairs now are done by dozens of shops all around the world. Removing the plating cutting damagers stringer and ribs, engineering n
145 Stitch : It will be interesting to see where the actual A350 MEW numbers when Airbus releases them track to the original estimates Airbus claimed. Airbus' ori
146 Zeke : Was it really show me where they said that !!!!
147 Post contains images Stitch : It was reported in an issue of Flight Global quoting Airbus on their target empty weight for the A350X-900. I admit it struck me as too low, but sinc
148 Zeke : Airbus do not use MEW, they use MWE Now you are confusing yourself, OEW should not be compared with MEW/MWE, OEW includes a cabin/galleys, MEW/MWE is
149 Viscount724 : I don't see the complication. At typical 60 inch-plus seat pitches in longhaul J class products these days, each row of seats usually has 2 to 3 wind
150 Stitch : Yeah, WingedMigrator likes to call me on that too. But the fact is, I use the terms and data the OEMs provide me and Boeing and Airbus don't use comm
151 Rheinbote : Actually, the definitions in use at A and B for MWE/MEW do not match. B's MEW includes the seats, A's MWE doesn't. To name just one difference.
152 Post contains links Keesje : In the past Widebodyphotog used to take typical "brochure" seatcounts and base seatcounts, CASM, RASM, structural efficiency etc. on them. (e.g. Boei
153 Stitch : I believe Boeing's OEW - Operating Empty Weight - which is what their Airport Planning guides list include not just the seats, but also galleys and l
154 AirNZ : With all due respect, I would suggest you do some checking first as the facts are very much in evidence that the delay of the A400 has nothing to do
155 Rheinbote : By the market. Customers were fully convinced of the 'black' 787 concept and were no longer willing to buy a 'silver' aircraft.
156 Revelation : We know that Airbus says the cause of the delay is the engines, but we don't know if there are other things that could also be delaying the aircraft.
157 JoeCanuck : Exactly. They can blame anybody they like the planes aren't called the Alcoa 787 or the Europrop 400. If you can't take responsibility for what goes
158 Nomadd22 : I wonder if people are forgetting the aluminum and CFRP panel samples and the hammer Boeing sales carried around to answer the worries potential custo
159 Keesje : I did use the hammer and to the Boeing guy I thought the panel was delaminated, he thought not. Ten I witnessed a repair with a patch. The guy had th
160 JoeCanuck : I imagine most work would be done out of the wind.
161 Tdscanuck : It's not contradictory...structural parts are a pretty small part of the OEM spares business because they're mostly fabricated locally for repairs. C
162 Zeke : It is contradictory, when on one hand you are saying maintenance costs will have a large reduction becuase of the composite fuselage, and then say at
163 Tdscanuck : The OEM doesn't pay for structural maintenance, and they don't supply many of the repair parts for it. Structural maintenance is a significant cost f
164 Zeke : My experience has been that spares are expensive, so are the boxes they come in. The sort of spares I had in mind are obtained directly from the manu
165 Post contains links Tdscanuck : Absolutely true. OK, now I see where our disagreement is coming from. Everything you've listed is a non-structural part (the winglet is sort of a gre
166 Rheinbote : I think that's not part of the 787 design yet. Are you sure?
167 Zeke : I have a number of times, just have a think about what you need to do for a tail strike, it may even involve a complete replacement of the rear press
168 JoeCanuck : Unfortunately, most of these questions won't be answered until the 787 enters service. The FAA seems ok with electric brakes, or at least will have to
169 PITIngres : Not necessarily true. There's no intrinsic reason why you can't multiplex the signals for all the seats along the line, on one bus. Aside from the me
170 Nomadd22 : Mike Sinnett said that the seats would still just plug into the tracks without having to mess with wires after they gave up the wireless IFE. He claim
171 Tdscanuck : I'm not sure if it's in the final design, no. It's been talked about and, back in the 2005/2006 timeframe they said it would be there, but I haven't
172 Nomadd22 : That might have been true when Nixon was president. I know Boeing is using twisted pair, but if you want to you can send high speed data down just ab
173 Post contains links JoeCanuck : BBD is currently doing flight testing of electric brakes; http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospa...ses/details?docID=0901260d8005a7da An A340 has also b
174 Pianos101 : From the patent drawing you show it doesn't seem like the seat track itself has power/data running through it, but rather a bus that is attached to t
175 Tdscanuck : I agree that they don't appear to be using the track structure as a conductor...the track seems to be supporting several conductor "rails" that the s
176 Pianos101 : That I can definitely see; I just wanted to clarify (or be clarified). It the track was energized itself dealing with the splices between sections wo
177 Post contains links Zeke : "The IFE wires will now run to each seat through the adjacent seat track using similar housings developed for the power supply. “In the end we did
178 Tdscanuck : That's not how I read it, but there isn't enough data that I can find to tell what they're actually doing. I read it as they're running data down "ra
179 Astuteman : FWIW the Airbus 2007 GMF quotes the same figure.. Rgds
180 Zeke : IMHO you have a lot of would have problems with interference if you ran data down rails, data wires are normally twisted and/or shielded or they use
181 Nomadd22 : The mesh in the fuselage makes it more like a Faraday cage than a solid aluminum shell would. Plenty of wavelengths pass through a solid metal shell
182 Post contains links Zeke : "Advanced composite materials, including solid carbon fiber laminate used in the aircraft wing and fuselage, will make up about 50 percent of the con
183 Nomadd22 : Guilty of missing the Thales statement. I was mostly speculating and figured they'd be using Ethernet. But the long crosstalk speech is irrelevant. Yo
184 Tdscanuck : But, compared to actually repairing a brake, the MEL paperwork is shorter. Hence, reduced maintenance delays. That was what the schematic showed. Tha
185 Zeke : Nope, applying an MEL is more than just a "little" bit of paperwork, first you need to investigate the problem, see if it can be fixed in time. Only
186 BoeingVista : TDM, why? Multicast is a far more efficient solution if you are using pure IP. Its impossible to TDM up a rail with any meaningfull bandwidth BTW, th
187 Nomadd22 : I Before you chuckle at other people you might want to find out what multicasting is, and read the statement. I wasn't talking about sending anything
188 BoeingVista : Ethernet at least 802.3 is not TDM, technically its CDMA/CA (Collision Detection Multiple Access Collision Avoidance) only one user can speak at a ti
189 Nomadd22 : Any time you send multiple data streams by letting one device talk at once, it's a type of TDM. You're total ignorance of what multicasting is, and cu
190 BoeingVista : TDM ie time division multiplexing is well defined and it not what you say it is I know PoE specs off by hart not a cut an paste job You have a single
191 Rheinbote : The data isn't sent down the seat tracks, neither is the power. There's a data wire entering each seat column, from there connection is established vi
192 Nomadd22 : You kinda lost me there. Are you saying there's some sort of active component in the floor between each row that sends a separate cable to each seat?
193 BoeingVista : Yep, thats how I'd do it You really don't get it do you? Thats OK but dont attack people who actually design and build these kind of systems. Why mus
194 Tdscanuck : I didn't say it's a "little" bit of paperwork, so I'm not sure who you're quoting. I just said it's less paperwork than actually repairing the brake
195 Nomadd22 : I'm not sure how fine that mesh is, but anything smaller than about 1/4" grid should block out most of the sub 6ghz noise that could cause problems w
196 Rheinbote : No active component in the floor. It's like this: .. . R .. . R .. . R .. . R .. . R .. . R RRR .RRR .RRR S S__S S__S S__Feed Line TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
197 Nomadd22 : Thanks Rheinbote. I guess that would make changing pitch a little more interesting, but not too bad. Even if the routers didn't allocate bandwidth a g
198 Zeke : You don't just say the brake is inop lets MEL it, you need to do the correct procedure to troubleshoot the problem so you know what MEL that could be
199 Nomadd22 : The plane will still have a common ground well connected to the mesh or it wouldn't work. Keeping EMI down will be more complicated because the groun
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...
A380 Entry Into Service (EIS) Reliability - 99% posted Wed Jun 29 2005 09:34:08 by Astuteman
How To Hack Into A Boeing 787 posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:41:01 by WepaMan
787 First Flight Delayed To 1Q2009 posted Wed Oct 8 2008 17:09:31 by Observer
PrivatAir Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Jan 17 2008 01:52:23 by PanAm_DC10
Aeroflot To Buy Airbus A350, Boeing 787 posted Tue Jul 24 2007 20:14:19 by Aeropiggot
Aeroflot To Buy 22 Boeing 787's posted Thu Jun 7 2007 01:16:46 by Dallasnewark
Lcal Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Mar 29 2007 11:21:42 by PanAm_DC10
Travel Service Order The Boeing 787-8 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 11:18:20 by PanAm_DC10
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
747 And 777 Entry Into Commercial Service posted Sun Feb 19 2006 06:07:13 by SATX
Aeroflot To Buy 22 Boeing 787's posted Thu Jun 7 2007 01:16:46 by Dallasnewark
Lcal Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Mar 29 2007 11:21:42 by PanAm_DC10
Travel Service Order The Boeing 787-8 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 11:18:20 by PanAm_DC10
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
747 And 777 Entry Into Commercial Service posted Sun Feb 19 2006 06:07:13 by SATX
Boeing Confirms 787 EIS Will Be Delayed posted Tue Nov 30 2010 13:59:02 by scbriml
Boeing 747-8F Delayed To Mid-2011 posted Fri Oct 1 2010 02:51:00 by Chiad
Boeing 787-8 Limited To 250 Seats posted Thu Jul 22 2010 05:51:13 by 328JET