Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Would 787 Stand Today In A No-Delay World  
User currently offlineAeroflot001 From Argentina, joined Oct 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

Lets suppose we lived in a perfect world where boeing made all their due dates on time as well as all deleveries and whatnot. Had this been true where would the 787 stand as for current production, deliveries and first flight date*

Ofcourse I am not asking for any specific dates as it would be hard to tell but more or less the month or the quarter of a year. Thankyou very much guys!

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They would be closing on at least 100 787-8 deliveries - probably more. The 787-787-9 would also be preparing to start production next year and I expect the 787-3, as well.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

I'm not sure what the original say 2006 planning was but 2 years ago Pat Shannahan reafirmed 109 woud be delivered by the end of 2009 (now).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/boe...787-schedule-but-says-risks-remain

Further in this article it's clear Richard A also was ignoring red flags at that time (blinded by the rush, as he later admitted)

While management's comments on getting the first aircraft ready for service was "positive and reassuring," according to Teal Group aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, the production ramp-up "is still highly uncertain."

"There was an expectation that they would address that 109 number, and they really didn't," he said.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 894 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

On a related note, by the end of this year there should have been 120 A380s in service.
Now it seems that we might have as few as 25 and will not reach 120 before 2013 or 2014.

*sigh*


User currently offlineThegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6170 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 3):
On a related note, by the end of this year there should have been 120 A380s in service.

Good god even in a healthy economy that seems a bit excessive....



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6115 times:



Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 4):
Quoting Scipio (Reply 3):
On a related note, by the end of this year there should have been 120 A380s in service.

Good god even in a healthy economy that seems a bit excessive....

No it doesnt.

There are many dozens of routes round the world that can accommodate 450 seats once a day on a given citypair. There are several that can do it more than once a day!

Look at LHR

By 2015:

British Airways will have 20+ A380s and be running them all ex-LHR.
We'll see nine from VS all operating ex LHR.
Three a day from SQ. (you need a fleet of six)
Three a day from QF. (you need a fleet of six)
Four a day from EK. (you need a fleet of seven)
Two a day from QR. (you need a fleet of three)
One a day from MH, TG, EY, KE, CZ (you need a fleet of ten)

Thats 61 airframes just tied up doing that. Half the world's "excessive" A380 fleet tied up serving one (very congested) hub? That assumes also that OZ, VA, NH, CX, AI, CA, MU, PK, 9W, JJ and SA do not ever purchase the A380 and operate it to LHR. I'd say at least half of them will buy the A380 by 2015.

Then there's NRT, LAX, JFK, HKG, CDG, FRA, ORD, ICN, AMS, ATL, IAH, MEX etc and all the other congested, slot-restricted mega-hubs that will demand VLA service by 2015.

If we did not have the economic crisis we are in the middle of now (although signs are positive that 2010 will be a better year than people initially thought) then 2015 as above would be more like 2012-13.

People have this idea that the A380 is massive overkill and a huge capacity dump - remember she only seats about 450 in three classes, and some airlines put more than that in their 747s. She costs about the same to run as a 744 as well - its not like she is a fuel guzzler.

Wait for the A389 is all I can say!  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 offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5884 times:

It would have carried the phenomenal success that came from the sales into the real world. Sadly the development was not on par with the sales departement.

The 787 would be:
a. Excellent product that adresses a huge market hotspot (this is true even with the delays)
b. It would be a phenomenal success in developing a ground breaking aircraft
c. It would rule much more on the market
d. The A330 no longer could gain such high attraction
e. It would provide enormous amounts of income for Boeing

b. - e. sadly are no longer true for the time being.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5879 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 5):
Wait for the A389 is all I can say!

Which might be where there is a big difference in the two programs, less room for growth in the 787? I just looked at the specs for the QF A380 I hope to be on come next Friday, thrust of "just" 70k per engine and it really is a lot larger than a 744.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5756 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 5):
Wait for the A389 is all I can say!

Which might be where there is a big difference in the two programs, less room for growth in the 787? I just looked at the specs for the QF A380 I hope to be on come next Friday, thrust of "just" 70k per engine and it really is a lot larger than a 744.

If you look at them next to each other on the tarmac (744 and A388) there isnt a jaw-dropping difference. Its only really apparent in the wing area and tail height views. The 70k thrust donks are something to marvel at though!  Smile

Are you planning on being in Singapore at all buddy? If so, fancy a beer?



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 offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5744 times:



Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 4):
Good god even in a healthy economy that seems a bit excessive....

No. There would have been the need for 120 B747-400BCF ...


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5582 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
The 70k thrust donks

You must have known how close I was to typing donks!

Sorry rushing through to LHR and Europa, so just the get off and get back on again in SIN.

But they do seem to get a lot more value out of the 70Ks on the 380 compared with the 59.5 to 63.3Ks on the 744s?? Goes back to that thread on the relative efficiency of the 380 and its monster wings. But I notice Wiki lists them at a min of 72K whereas Qantas for some reason has the 70.


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

I think so far the elephant in the room has been ignored. The economy. I think it's fair to say that had airlines been forced to pay for the 787s during this past 12 months at least some of the orders would have been deferred/cancelled and things would look worse into 2010. A lot of the early customers planned to put the 787s on new, long, thin routes the 777/747/A380/A345/6 would be too large for. Even in the good times these routes were probably marginal - the airlines were depending on a rising tide lifting all boats and specifically these new services.

What we would probably have seen is airlines "misusing", "abusing" the 787 on relatively short flights, transatlantic and so on and the full capabilities of the 787 over the A330/777 would not have been seen. In a sense the delays are probably a blessing in disguise for Boeing.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineA520 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5415 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 6):
b. It would be a phenomenal success in developing a ground breaking aircraft

"Ground breaking" is probably not the best quality for an aircraft. Soft landings are preferred!


User currently offlineDanimarroquin From Colombia, joined Jan 2005, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

if I,m not mistaken Avianca would be getting their 787's next year , if everything was on schedule . right ??

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4097 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 3):
by the end of this year there should have been 120 A380s in service.



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
There would have been the need for 120 B747-400BCF ...

The order book for the B-787 would have nearly doubled from its peak of 820 airplanes. The B-747-8I would have had an order backlog of just over 110 airplanes and the B-7478F would have some 150 or so orders including from LH, AF, FedEx, and UPS. The A-350 would have also nearly doubled its order book.


User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3803 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 5):
Four a day from EK. (you need a fleet of seven)
Two a day from QR. (you need a fleet of three)

Slight technicality but to run a daily DXB-LHR-DXB you only need one aircraft. So where does the fleet of 7 come from for 4 daily services?


User currently offlineShankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1543 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3432 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 5):
We'll see nine from VS all operating ex LHR

Chris, we'll see pigs fly before nine VS A380's

Back to topic, the biggest impact of an on time 787 would have been less A330's in the worlds skies

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 11):
I think so far the elephant in the room has been ignored

Spot on Brian. The chaos on the Boeing shop floor would have been replaced by chaos in the worlds airline Boardrooms as payments loomed for the Plastic Fantastics rolling out of Seattle



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineLuisKMIA From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Given the economy, deferements, airlines asking for delivery delays immediately comes to mind.

Luis
KMIA


User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2091 times:



Quoting Aeroflot001 (Thread starter):
Lets suppose we lived in a perfect world where boeing made all their due dates on time as well as all deleveries and whatnot. Had this been true where would the 787 stand as for current production, deliveries and first flight date*

Ofcourse I am not asking for any specific dates as it would be hard to tell but more or less the month or the quarter of a year. Thankyou very much guys!

Well, I am sure that Virgin Atlantic would be preparing to replace the 747-400 on the LHR-BOS route. To be honest, I will miss seeing those big, beautiful 747s arriving at Boston's Logan Airport.

See recent videos of VS arrivals that I caught here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDVurrpvnPc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HA95aWDlSM


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...
Where Would Be TWA Today W/o Flight 800 Downing? posted Wed Jul 23 2003 20:50:08 by Delta777Jet
Where Would Canadian Airlines Be Today? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 08:35:17 by RicardoFG
AirTran 737 In LAS Today! [EDIT - No it was an A320] posted Wed Jun 2 2004 03:40:25 by Iowaman
Where Would Aer Lingus Stand? posted Mon May 12 2003 18:04:23 by AMSMAN
Where Does ATL Stand In Terms Of Cargo? posted Tue Mar 20 2001 07:47:32 by WEAPON
Where Would These Airlines Be Today Had They Lived posted Mon Jun 19 2000 04:29:47 by Cody
How Does The UA/US Codeshare Stand Today? posted Fri Sep 25 2009 15:02:24 by Gilesdavies
Looking Like The 787 Won't Fly In June posted Sat Jun 13 2009 11:05:52 by Clickhappy
Where To See A Flying Connie In The US? posted Sat May 30 2009 19:22:10 by DALMD88
Today In 1982, Braniff International Died posted Tue May 12 2009 08:13:31 by Isitsafenow