Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chinese Airlines Down On 787 Performance  
User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15009 times:

Bloomberg News/Flightblogger report that Shanghai Airlines and the other Chinese airlines may back away from the early 788s because of performance issues.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...arly-787-customer-dreamliners.html

This follows the previously reported Aeromexico complaints about range shortfall for the 788.

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14876 times:

It's all well and good, but seems premature without the plane flying. Even if it's heavy, we don't know the actual impact other than estimations. The A380 was heavy and still outperformed, even the test birds. The 787 engines have had 2 extra years to mature during this whole delay debacle...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4679 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
The 787 engines have had 2 extra years to mature during this whole delay debacle...

but have GE and RR actually been doing that much more flying with them ??


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12859 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Observer (Thread starter):
Bloomberg News/Flightblogger report that Shanghai Airlines and the other Chinese airlines may back away from the early 788s because of performance issues.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's all well and good, but seems premature without the plane flying.

Not really. They'll know that the weight is high and that never helps performance. $500/kg is the value of getting out a kilogram that is 'non-value added.'

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
The A380 was heavy and still outperformed

Except with the A380 the engine makers were enthusiastic about beating promise. That isn't the case with the 787 (of course, the 787 engines promised *much* lower fuel burn). The engines have been improved, but I haven't been getting the feedback I normally due when there is going to be a 'surprise' low fuel burn.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14579 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 2):
but have GE and RR actually been doing that much more flying with them ??

They must be doing some...RR went on the record months ago as saying that the delay in the 787 would allow them to get improvements in for first delivery that were originally planned to be much later in the production cycle.

Tom.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14307 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
That isn't the case with the 787 (of course, the 787 engines promised *much* lower fuel burn).

Hasn't GE said the GEnx is doing great in testing, and they are projecting better than promised fuel burn? I understand RR hasn't been doing as well.

Anyway, despite being heavier than planned, the 77W gained 400nm in testing. Boeing does leave room to meet promises in their performance budgeting.

It's my opinion that beyond the first 6 frames, the planes will meet performance without issue, and beyond #20, it will beat it. At least with the GE engines.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14237 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
Boeing does leave room to meet promises in their performance budgeting.

I think this sentence should be "so far Boeing always has left room to meet promises..." - I wouldn't be so sure if this is the case with the 787. When they presented the 7E7 they wanted it to be spectacular - so I am a little doubtful if their promises left much of a wiggle room.

At least when it came to schedule, they certainly didn't....



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14013 times:



Quoting Observer (Thread starter):
Bloomberg News/Flightblogger report that Shanghai Airlines and the other Chinese airlines may back away from the early 788s because of performance issues.

I think that is a convenient excuse at the moment.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Even if it's heavy, we don't know the actual impact other than estimations. The A380 was heavy and still outperformed, even the test birds. The 787 engines have had 2 extra years to mature during this whole delay debacle...

The magnitude of the 788 weight increase at this stage, as I understand it, is greater than what the the A380 had to start with, and in percentage terms, again from what I understand, about double the impact. Unlike the A380, all the delays "so far" on the 788 have been before it has taken flight, the engine manufacturers are not receiving data back from how the engine performs on the actual airframe.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 2):
but have GE and RR actually been doing that much more flying with them ??

"much more", not that I know of, I have been hearing that GE are having problems with the GEnx performance for the 748 as well. Do not forget that have been testing that engine as well as other engines in their family on their test bed, the 787 is not the only engine they are working on.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
The A380 was heavy and still outperformed,

True, but then, in the grand scheme of things, 5 tonnes out of 280 tonnes on the A380 only left a slightly less than 2% gap for the aerodynamic and SFC improvements to bridge (which fortunately they did)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
The magnitude of the 788 weight increase at this stage, as I understand it, is greater than what the the A380 had to start with, and in percentage terms, again from what I understand

Bridging this gap (if it is this size) will be a lot harder.

That said, it's clear that these comments only refer to "early" 787's. There seems to be some acceptance that the first 20 or so 787's may not live up to expectations. A bit of a shame perhaps, but in the grand scheme of things I would have thought it was a relatively trivial issue.
On the basis that they should still be at least as good as an equivalent A330-200, I'm sure they'll find happy homes........
Once these public "negotiations" have finished..  Smile

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
Except with the A380 the engine makers were enthusiastic about beating promise

It also helped that the A380 "blew it's drag figures away" as well.
(blew being a relative term - 1.5%-2% I believe being the order of magnitude of the improvement..  Smile )

Rgds


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12787 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's all well and good, but seems premature without the plane flying.

I agree with you entirely, and 100%!!
However, isn't that what some of us have been saying regarding the many on a.net who have been claiming everything about the 787 as definitive fact......yet it has not flown to remotely establish anything at all. In fairness, one can't reasonably claim it applies one way, but not the other.
As stated, I agree with you completely within your general premise.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12859 posts, RR: 100
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect later 787's to do well. But I have friends working the airframe and... there are real concerns. Ok, engineers always have concerns; so you need to know the personality of each engineer to know how seriously to take the concerns. With the weight, they do not expect to meet promise range. While after the first 20 airframes performance will improve, I'm hearing it will take *more* time than that to even deliver promised range.

Of course, if the wing beats all expectations a la the A388... when range targets are met will be good.

But to say its premature to judge the plane is the same as saying its premature to buy it! Seriously, you can estimate the performance within a few percent at this stage. The engine performance is fairly well known. The weight is known. All that remains is airframe (mostly wing) aerodynamics to prove out.

With the aerodynamics, my rumor mill is very optimistic.  hyper  Of course they won't say numbers...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
Hasn't GE said the GEnx is doing great in testing, and they are projecting better than promised fuel burn? I

GE normally promises fuel burn 4% less than what they know they can achieve. They typically deliver 2% better than promise and then wring out the last 2% in the first few years of the engine's life. But with the 787 the engine makers had to do a far greater leap in efficiency than ever before. GE was *not* able to keep the whole 4% in reserve. I believe GE will deliver promised fuel burn at this point.

With RR... I've heard they're still trying to get to promise (which, IIRC was 1% more fuel burn than GE). And yes, I'm well aware how much each vendor 'shaves' off the engine performance 'just in case' there is a negative engine/wing/nacelle interaction that cannot be fully tested except on the target airframe.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
the 77W gained 400nm in testing.

It helped that the GE-90-115 beat fuel burn by 2%.  Wink If I may nitpick, it took Boeing about 18 months to optimize the aerodynamics to achieve the range. But going from 7440nm to 7880nm was impressive! To the best of my knowledge, all 77W's have been upgraded to this standard.  Smile

Small improvements have grown that to 7930nm in new builds.  faint 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
and beyond #20, it will beat it. At least with the GE engines.

Let's just say I expect it to be a later airframe than #20. Eventually the 787 will beat promise. I'll grant you that.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 8):
only left a slightly less than 2% gap for the aerodynamic and SFC improvements to bridge (which fortunately they did)

2% is a substantial gap. Airlines fight for every percent on long haul aircraft!  box  So for airbus and the engine vendors to do as well as they did on the A380 was amazing. I'll admit I was at first skeptical of all the A380 weight into the wing... but that wing delivered!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
have been hearing that GE are having problems with the GEnx performance for the 748 as well.

'problem' is a relative word. I'm hearing the integrated blade rotor compressor didn't fully deliver the promised improvement in performance. But... they know the fix (and just need time to design/build improved hardware). This is when GE will really pull ahead (until RR puts in an IBR). Now, I'm not that excited about a low pressure compressor IBR. The fuel burn advantage is in the 1% range (maybe a fraction less). But there is also a nice weight savings!

I expect GE to quickly move the IBR low compressor onto the 787 GEnX (certainly before the 789). I'm also hearing that GE has picked up a few tricks from Pratt's fan on the GP7200 and is working on a better fan for the GEnX. (Note, I'm not claiming that the GP7200 fan is more efficient than the GEnX fan, I'm noting that Pratt found a few minor detail improvements for the GP7200 fan that GE realized they hadn't incorporated.) There are many reasons I'm excited about the 789: efficiency, range, CASM

But before you get too excited about GE engines... realize that due to the nature of their design that the RR engines will benefit a lot more from the transition to IBR compressors.  spin  At least on the higher RPM 'booster compressor' of the Trent 1000/Trent XWB. Cleaning up the root aerodynamics matters a lot more at high mach numbers.  hyper  And the GE LPC is not up at the optimal mach number! (No twin spool, except a GTF, ever will be as the fan is already past its optimal mach number.)

Oh, fully on thread, I do think this is public negotiation to try and delay deliveries until demand improves.  Wink

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEbbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11892 times:

This is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. Customers going public on their dissatisfaction with the product is bad form.

What do they do? Scrap the first 21 planes? The composite experiment is turning out to be a very messy composition.

If they had to do it all again, I think Boeing would go back to traditional methods. They have shown a lack of managerial and technical expertise in handling a venture with many partners. Guess we are not all invicible huh?


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
What do they do? Scrap the first 21 planes?

To be fair, I think we've been misled by hype. These will still be VERY good aeroplanes.
I suspect the possibility that they might not be as good as might have been led to expect will disappear in the mists of time (along witrh the "underpromise/overdeliver vs overpromise/underdeliver rhetoric too, one hopes  crossfingers  )

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10):
This is when GE will really pull ahead (until RR puts in an IBR).

I very strongly suspect that RR aren't rolling over and playing dead on the 787......
Watch this space..  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11370 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 8):
A bit of a shame perhaps, but in the grand scheme of things I would have thought it was a relatively trivial issue.

Simply a case of the Chinese trying to get the best deal possible? I cannot imagine Boeing offering ANY compensations until the airplane has actually flown...doesn't that make the whole argument a moot point?

Can't blame them for trying, but it won't work. Like you said, the airplane will be too good.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5307 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11171 times:



Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
What do they do? Scrap the first 21 planes?

Only if we are also going to scrap all A330-200s ever built. Think of an "underperforming" 787-8 as an A330-200 that trades a bit of maximum structural payload for a significant chunk of extra range (or a *much* lower MTOW if derated).

What they do, even in the worst case, is shuffle frames around between customers so that early frames go to less performance-demanding customers and give slightly bigger discounts on those early frames.

Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
If they had to do it all again, I think Boeing would go back to traditional methods.

Hardly. By the end of the 787's reign there will be well over a thousand airplanes -- possibly many more if some of the easily imaginable higher-weight derivatives come to pass. All but a few of those airplanes will deliver on the technology's promises.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30535 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10):
With the aerodynamics, my rumor mill is very optimistic.    Of course they won't say numbers...

I have also been hearing rumblings of wind tunnel and CFD modeling returning "smile-making numbers", even if no specifics or even hints are being given out. True, this isn't an actual full-scale airframe in actual flight, but it still likely trends positive.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 10):
But going from 7440nm to 7880nm was impressive! To the best of my knowledge, all 77W's have been upgraded to this standard.  

Yes, the modifications were able to be retrofitted on all existing airframes.

Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
This is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. Customers going public on their dissatisfaction with the product is bad form.

With respect, we heard the same thing about the A380 and the original A350 with folks here absolutely positive that such comments were going to kill both programs and hand Boeing the commercial aircraft market on a silver platter. Heck, EK just sent Airbus some 46 pages worth of complaints about their initial A380s.

And yet the A380 is in the air, winning orders, and pleasing customers. And the A350 looks like it may become the biggest threat to Boeing Commercial Aircraft since the introduction of the A320.

Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
If they had to do it all again, I think Boeing would go back to traditional methods. They have shown a lack of managerial and technical expertise in handling a venture with many partners.

It is because the plane is not made of traditional materials and in traditional methods that it became one (if not the) fastest-selling commercial airplane family of all time. In hindsight, Boeing should have done one or the other first and not tried to do both at the same time. But then, if they had decided to make the 787 an Al-structure airliner built using Airbus' production methodologies or a CFRP-structure airliner built using Boeing production methodologies, would it have been as popular so quickly? I expect not.

[Edited 2009-03-14 10:12:16]

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12859 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8857 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
I very strongly suspect that RR aren't rolling over and playing dead on the 787......
Watch this space..

Hence why I wrote what I did about mach number and IBR's.  Wink

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8608 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
To be fair, I think we've been misled by hype. These will still be VERY good aeroplanes.

Yes, despite all due criticism, I'd expect "wave one" 787s to improve fuel burn per seatmile by slightly more than 10 percent vs the A330. Not yet game-changing in terms of operating cost, but certainly not bad. If you're nasty though you'd ask how the picture would change by hanging GEnx under the 330's wings.


Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet the A380 is in the air, winning orders, and pleasing customers. And the A350 looks like it may become the biggest threat to Boeing Commercial Aircraft since the introduction of the A320.

...which was botched as well. Guess why there are so few A320-100s, another "wave one".

The difference is that in the past nobody hyped its own product ("game-changer") and technologies ("disruptive") and capabilities ("tap the best talent globally") upfont as much as Boeing did. So in a sense, Boeing created a sword and then fell into it. I still like to think of the 787 as a technology marvel like the V-22 or the F-22. It is not so much the performance which is in question, it is the economics. So far development cost are something like 60% upward of what was planned, but then the 777 was 100% over budget yet it became a success story nevertheless. Time will tell.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8548 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
Yes, despite all due criticism, I'd expect "wave one" 787s to improve fuel burn per seatmile by slightly more than 10 percent vs the A330.

The 788 that was promised does not carry the same payload as the A330, so direct fuel comparisons are somewhat limited in their value.

One would expect a A330 that has 5-10t less payload to use less fuel then a full A330, so one would expect the 788 with the lower payload also to do the same.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12374 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8436 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
...which was botched as well. Guess why there are so few A320-100s, another "wave one".

Using your definition, Boeing must have "botched" the 737 as well.

Frankly, you may have just redefined the word!  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8346 times:



Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 11):
This is a nightmare scenario for Boeing. Customers going public on their dissatisfaction with the product is bad form.

What do they do? Scrap the first 21 planes? The composite experiment is turning out to be a very messy composition.

If they had to do it all again, I think Boeing would go back to traditional methods. They have shown a lack of managerial and technical expertise in handling a venture with many partners. Guess we are not all invicible huh?

I don't think you're going to see Boeing go back to traditional materials or methods. That they've mismanaged this program goes without saying, but composites are the present and the future and that's not going to change. You can't compete by going backwards.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30535 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8161 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
The difference is that in the past nobody hyped its own product ("game-changer") and technologies ("disruptive") and capabilities ("tap the best talent globally") upfont as much as Boeing did.

Fiddlesticks. JL alone used to shoot his mouth off more in a week then Boeing did in a year.  Smile

On the flip side, it would probably be prudent for Boeing to follow JL's advice and just lay low. I haven't heard much from "The Mouth of Airbus" these past six months or so...

And Airbus supporters on this board are just as vocal about the wonders of that company's product as Boeing's are.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
Not yet game-changing in terms of operating cost, but certainly not bad. If you're nasty though you'd ask how the picture would change by hanging GEnx under the 330's wings.

Nothing nasty about that. It's a genuine question. Of course said wings would need to be heavily revised, or even new....  faint 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
And Airbus supporters on this board are just as vocal about the wonders of that company's product as Boeing's are

Try saying anything positive about the A380 on this board. The next act is always to run for cover, or risk being hounded out of the thread - at least that's how it feels......

Evidence also seems to suggest that the "old" A350 might not have turned out to be the "dog" it was widely claimed to be either.

The "Boeing underpromise and overdeliver" and "Airbus overpromise and underdeliver" mantras were law on here until emphatically disproved by the latest programmes....
Hopefully we've collectively learned a bit of humility somewhere down the line

Rgds


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30535 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 22):
Try saying anything positive about the A380 on this board. The next act is always to run for cover, or risk being hounded out of the thread - at least that's how it feels...

It is starting to feel that way about the 787. It's lacking the raw vitriol of the anti-A380 tirades and diatribes, but the emphasis is certainly on negative 787 news and when positive comments or news is presented, immediate counter arguments about it being so late are posted as well as comments about it being overweight, under-ranged, dissed by customers, oversold, overpromised, and overhyped - all of which was part-and-parcel of every A380 thread, so alas, I don't think humility is the lesson that was learned.  Sad


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8017 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
The 788 that was promised does not carry the same payload as the A330, so direct fuel comparisons are somewhat limited in their value.

Reposting my post from the Korean Air order for HGW A332.

For the following analysis, I am applying the AF 2 class A332 seat dimension/configuration.

Now, comparing the updated A332(2 class, 8 abreast Y, 219 seats total) to the initial batch of B788(2 class, 8 abreast Y, 211 seats total) for a 5,200 nm mission(LAX-ICN):

Updated A332 can carry 9,000 lbs. additional cargo, and burns 3000 gallons more fuel. Assuming 50% cargo load factor at $1.50/lb, $2/gallon fuel, and 70% load factor for 8 additional Y seats at $550/seat,

expected additional cargo revenue in favor of A332 each trip is about $7,000, additional passenger revenue is about $3,000/trip, and additional fuel cost of A332 is about $6,000 each trip, and the net advantage to A332 updated is about $4,000 per trip--about $1.2 million annually.

I expect A332 updated to be cheaper than B788 by about $20 million, which translates to $2 million/year lower capital costs in favor of A332. I hope my assumption on price difference is reasonable.

I suspect many airlines will configure the B788 with 9 abreast Y( 2 class, 234 seats total) in which case the operating trip profit advantage shifts to B788 at $2,000 per trip--about $600,000 annually. However, the A332 will still be cheaper as it has a $2 million capital cost advantage.

The operating profit per trip advantage increase to about $4,000 per trip as B788 gets lighter over time and acheives its target OEW.

It seems to me that the updated A332 matches up well against the target B788 on mission lengths less than 5,500 nm, when capital costs are accounted for.


25 JoeCanuck : I really don't understand why it becomes so personal. How many of us really have any stake in either plane? Sure, I have my favorites and I think che
26 Stitch : Because "fan" is a contraction of "fanatic" and fanatics tend to not always behave in a rational manner.
27 Astuteman : It will be interesting to see if the "emphasis on negative" continues when the 787 finally enters service and hits, even beats its numbers...... Reck
28 JoeCanuck : Well I'm a fan and I'm always perfectly rational...regardless of what the voices are saying...
29 Rheinbote : What do you expect? I think the emphasis is on the negative simply because the balance of news still *IS* negative, be it with a positive trend. With
30 Tdscanuck : How so? The last official schedule said first flight by the end of Q2 2009, with certification, delivery, and EIS predicated from that. So far, they
31 Ikramerica : No. That statement is implying that when the plane was ORIGINALLY speced out, Boeing changed their policy and didn't leave room to meet promises. I c
32 Lightsaber : Good point I fully expect the 788 to eventually beat its numbers. Once it has 8,300nm+ of range, it will be an incredible airframe. And it will! The
33 Post contains links and images Zeke : It is ? Seen many a thread where this is not the case, e,g,the flightblogger 787 threads are normally always positive. But to be fair, is any if that
34 LAXDESI : Airbus data shows a 24 seat advantage to A332 over B788(8 abreast Y), which is patently incorrect. A332 will have no more than 15 seat(Y) advantage i
35 Tdscanuck : What's the differential on the capital cost? A 787 is only barely more expensive than a 767...I have a tough time thinking that an A330 is much cheap
36 PlaneInsomniac : Sorry? People are reporting significant new developments about the 787, both positive and negative. What's the alternative - 787 censorship? No, let'
37 Astuteman : Considering it's spec range is 7 600Nm, that would certainly constitute "beating the numbers".... But the A350-800 and -900 won't? I have to say I st
38 Dynamicsguy : There are a few of us around. But it doesn't seem to be those who really have a direct role in either airplane who stick the boot in.
39 RJ111 : Indeed, It's no suprise that one of the biggest transfer hub airports is home to the biggest 767 operator.[Edited 2009-03-16 03:26:49]
40 BestWestern : Very true Thats because those few who really went vitriolic are no longer with us - (self combustion due to rage resulted in boomboom going boomboomb
41 Lightsaber : I didn't say when. I missed the spec range being dropped from 8,000Nm. At that range... not as dramatic of a change. But you know I also believe the
42 Baroque : Hope you and La are correct, as so far it feels a bit like an exceptionally long version of Waiting for Godot. Still, this thread has been great beca
43 Stitch : I'd argue the opposite, actually. Boeing entered this downturn with an order book of nine hundred frames from over 57 customers. Having so many custo
44 LAXDESI : I assumed A332 to be cheaper by $20 million net. I hope someone can confirm this. In any event, A332(HGW) remains competitive against B788(9 abreast
45 Stitch : List for an A330-200 is ~$180 million. List for a 787-8 is ~$165 million, making the 787-8 upwards of $15 million cheaper then an A330-200. For 2007,
46 Ikramerica : This was one reason Boeing pursued the 787 project. They feel they can build it for less. But if you need a plane in the next 2 years, not in 8-10, y
47 FrmrCAPCADET : As I recall the 737 was a kind of afterthought temporary plane as first envisioned. Here is an inexact quote from Boeing executives, and I think it wa
48 LAXDESI : If true, then A332HGW is competitive against target B788(8-abreast Y) only and not B788(9-abreast)--for mission lengths less than 5,500 nm.
49 Stitch : Boeing and Airbus have consistently raised the list price of their planes a few percentage points at a time, the last increase I believe in 2006 or 2
50 Astuteman : Must admit to being surprised at that, although I can see the "NPV" argument supporting the A330 prices. Explains why Airbus's operating margin has h
51 Ikramerica : Well, if you need a plane now (well, before 2011) what are you supposed to do, right? Replacing older 767s or less efficient 772s or A340s for routes
52 Hamlet69 : I completely agree. It might be bad PR, and will surely give the "vitriol" crowd Stitch mentioned earlier more fuel. However, from a program standpoi
53 Ikramerica : One has to wonder when looking at the 787 and China if China actually understood what being a launch customer of an aircraft means, or if they just wa
54 Stitch : I do believe China wanted both the A380 and the 787 in part to showcase at the 2008 Summer Olympics and were likely annoyed that they were unable to f
55 Dano1977 : Sorry for being a numbskull, but what are IBR Compressors and what do they do?
56 Tdscanuck : "IBR" = integrated blade (or integrally bladed) rotor. The whole compressor stage is one piece of metal, unlike conventional construction where you h
57 BestWestern : Unlike VS - who love to be first off the blocks with an order - sonic cruiser, 380 , 346, etc etc
58 Baroque : Hmmm, I wonder how this will pan out in a couple of years once B have figured out how much it actually costs to make a 787 rather than what they esti
59 Stitch : Well it is clear that the first tranche of 787s are going to be much more expensive to build then planned. On the flip side, if they really were sold
60 AirNZ : Yes, you could be correct and it all depends how much value (long term) Boeing puts on it. If they want to play the ego card and flex muscle as you s
61 Zeke : 223 was the Boeing published 3 class seat count for the 788, that was the baseline configuration China Eastern signed up for. China Eastern presently
62 LAXDESI : As per SeatGuru, the above configuration has a total of 259 seats. In any event, to make a real world comparison, one can try to fit the above specs.
63 Zeke : Please let me know what the F/J/Y split would be with the Qatar seat pitch on the 788. Please also remember that the 788 lifts over 5,000 kg LESS tha
64 LAXDESI : It is the same spec. as the Qatar's on A332. That's what an apple to apple comparison is all about. That would certainly add additional cargo advanta
65 XT6Wagon : However they bought in when the 787 was far cheaper in list price. Less than 767 cheap. Now that the 787 has more normal list prices, a "deep" discou
66 Rheinbote : The "not insignificant amount of anecdotal evidence" that reached me noted a street price of $110m versus $120m list.
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...
On Time Performance Of European Airlines. posted Thu May 19 2005 12:28:09 by Jorge1812
EU Cracks Down On Subsidised Foreign Airlines posted Fri Mar 12 2004 23:59:44 by Singapore_Air
On-time Performance Of European Airlines? posted Fri Jan 16 2004 01:41:11 by EZYcrew
American Eagle ATR72 On Time Performance At DFW posted Mon Dec 22 2008 17:39:12 by Shinton
United Airlines Improves On Hedging.. posted Tue Nov 25 2008 06:43:18 by Beaucaire
Boeing Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares
Boeing Insider: F/As On 787/777 Question posted Sun Oct 19 2008 02:30:46 by Speedmarque
Embraer On-line Performance Comparitor posted Tue Jul 15 2008 14:22:20 by PW100
Air India On-time Performance posted Mon Jun 16 2008 10:29:41 by Hawaii12
Airlines Bidding On Government Travel posted Thu May 22 2008 11:38:59 by Panova98