Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Boeing 787-3, Gone Or Winter Sleep?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13226 times:

After JAL converted 787-3 orders to 787-8 in May 09, now ANA has also converted orders. On Boeing.com the 787-3 can no longer be selected as Model Series, although it's specs can still be found.

Although there has been no official communication from Boeing on termination of the program, I guess the Boeing 787-3 as originally offered / sold is now gone.

Some will argue it was still somehow a good idea (tempting the Japanese to launch). looking at the early days (troubles to convince airlines in '04, a hype afterwards) a wonder if it that made much difference.



I think it is a wise decision by Boeing and its customers. Better call it a day before a weak product starts consuming major resources that can be used better. Not entirely unexpected too. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/3496727

The 787-3 was IMO much to heavy for short flights & to short ranged for inter regional flights.

Still I believe there is a market for short/medium haul high capasity aircraft. Just cutting of the wings & removing some tanks from a good long haul aircraft proved a bad solution.

Maybe Boeing will continue it's efforts to fill the gab with it's "Light Twin" study, something optimized for the not insignificant middle market (say <300 seat < 6 hours), covering continents & connecting mass populated areas.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 13005 times:

Something has to happen to the 787-3 program. Since it has been such a slow seller, I believe that Boeing will have to decide the fate of the 787-3 soon. It has failed to attract much interest. Either Boeing will just let the 787-3 get terminated, or they will optimize it even better for short haul (Less than 3000Nm) or they will go after the A333 range. Maybe a smaller wing and a shorter fuselage to replace the 767-200? A 787-3 with the same range would effectivly kill the A333 on the medium haul marked. Stitch have launched his idea for a 787-7, and I like his idea.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30402 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect the program is dead, though I did hypothesize that it might morph into an A330-300 competitor using the 787-9 body.

It's easy enough for NH and JL to just replace 772s, 77Es and 773s with 787-8s and 787-9s with paper de-rated MTOWs to reduce airport fees. They can also have RR and GE adjust the engine controls to de-rate the thrust to reduce wear and tear to reduce maintenance costs.

They can also buy additional 767s for ICAO Category D gates, or just rebuild the terminals to Code E status to allow the 787 to be used. Or maybe the lack of gate spacing will finally convince the Japanese government to close the older airports and force NH and JL to operate out of all the new ones they have been building in cities like Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya.


User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 321 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12530 times:

Seems/sounds like the program is dead even though no official announcement has been made. Probably best for Boeing since they need to focus resources on the 787 and 748 and then combine that will the need to update/tweak/clean sheet the 737 and 777. Even if there is no 783 there is plenty to do for Boeing!


Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineMogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12478 times:

more like winter sleep

time and again, it's been clear that boeing is VERY willing to create a subdesign of only 50 planes just for the Japanese domestic market (which is highly unique).

it won't cost that much to convert a wind-tip extension back to a blended one...remove some fuel tanks, derate the whole thing, and wallla.... 787-3

sure the resale value is zero, but neither JL nor NH ever intend of selling these anyway.... they just milk them to death then send them to a desert


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12451 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Better call it a day before a weak product starts consuming major resources that can be used better.

Very well put. This makes good sense in their current position. Although I don't think Boeing is in "money trouble" per se, I don't think they want any more losses attributed with the 787.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Maybe Boeing will continue it's efforts to fill the gab with it's "Light Twin" study, something optimized for the not insignificant middle market (say <300 seat < 6 hours), covering continents & connecting mass populated areas.

This is an interesting question because there are so many possibilites. I'm thinking a stretch to 207 ft...two versions could come out of this an ER and an LR.

What are the current 783 orders (if any) and are we for certain the variant will be cancelled?



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30402 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 5):
What are the current 783 orders (if any) and are we for certain the variant will be cancelled?

NH and JL have both converted all of their 787-3 orders to 787-8s.

Boeing's official stance is that work on the 787-3 will happen "after the 787-9 enters service", but I expect privately they worked with NH and JL to convert the orders and drop the program.

NH have said they expect to receive the last of their 787s in 2017. Those final planes would probably have been their 787-3 order (assuming Boeing starts development in 2014-2015). I'm not sure where JL's planes were, but I expect they would have been delivered between 2018 and 2020. So both carriers were probably looking at the better part of a decade between when they originally planned to get them and when they actually would. At that point, probably easier to just "recycle" their early 787-8s for domestic use and put the new birds with a half-decade's worth of Block Point improvements incorporated in them on the international missions.

[Edited 2010-01-08 09:02:37]

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1851 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12350 times:

Here's my take on it: say goodbye to 787-3. Say hello to the revived 787-10. This would make much more sense. Although I'd hate to see "short" 777 go...

Oh well, at least there will always be the revamped 777-300NG.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12026 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 7):
Here's my take on it: say goodbye to 787-3. Say hello to the revived 787-10. This would make much more sense. Although I'd hate to see "short" 777 go...

Oh well, at least there will always be the revamped 777-300NG.

 checkmark  a 'simple' 787-10, just a stretch of the -9, would make a good business case IMO. One lesson learned from the recent success of the A330-300 is that you don't necessarily need the same range as the competition has. That's also one of the reasons the 777-200ER doesn't sell any more: the 333 can perform 10 hour missions without much restriction, but does it way more efficiently. So, all Boeing has to do is make the 787-10 more efficient than the A350-900: lower fuel consumption, more pax... Not impossible, although range will be sacrificed.

And a 787-10 would look absolutely stunning too  Smile

As for a 777-300ER NG: If it can be within 5% of the A350-1000's efficiency, there could be a business case. It could have an amazing payload/range. But development won't come cheap.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30402 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have long said Boeing could do worse than launch the 787-10 as a simple stretch of the 787-9 and I believe such a plane would not suffer the fate of the 777-300 or 767-400ER in the marketplace.

As noted, the A330-300 has grown to the point it pretty much covers much of the 777-200ER's market niche. Yes, the 77E still has the legs on the A333 by about 2000nm and will lift more payload, but if you're flying 10,000km or less, it's very tough to beat the A330-300's economics.

And this is where the 787-10 could shine, in my opinion. It would offer a larger passenger cabin and significantly more cargo hold volume than the A330-300E along with lower fuel burn. The A333/772/773 replacement market alone is well over 500 frames and just adding two more fuselage plugs to the 787-9 should be both cheap and easy. I think Boeing is leaving billions on the table if they don't develop the -9 and -10 in parallel and launch them together in 2014-2015.


User currently onlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11774 times:

After gaining in experience, confidence and introducing more and more improvements, why not relaunch a much lighter 787 derivate, not only for the Japanese market, furthermore for all high density domestic markets, especially in North America and Europe. Lufthansa for one needs a better A300 replacement (than actually A321). I still think a suitable 787 derivate would be an excellent plane for short and mid-range operations.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30402 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just don't think a short widebody is the answer, anymore. The long narrowbodies have become so efficient at moving people ≤2500nm that a widebody just can't offer compelling economics - especially when it would be a shrink.

Yes, a widebody moves more people, but airlines find a way to make do with more frequencies. The majority of LHR's daily movements are narrowbodies, I believe, even though the airport is held up as the Poster Child of runway and gate slot constraints.

I admit to still being surprised there is still such a thriving widebody shuttle service in Japan with how good the shinkansen is, but I expect as the trains continue to increase in speed, the desire to fly will continue to lessen.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11610 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I admit to still being surprised there is still such a thriving widebody shuttle service in Japan with how good the shinkansen is

If not mistaken, the world's busiest air route in number of passengers is still Tokyo-Sapporo (HND-CTS), a 90 minute flight. I believe the fastest rail service requires 2 changes of trains and takes 10 to 11 hours.

[Edited 2010-01-08 13:20:31]

[Edited 2010-01-08 13:21:01]

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11358 times:

Randy reacts on his blog http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

On another issue, you may have noticed reflected on our orders Web site that our good customer ANA has opted to convert their 787-3 orders into other models. Simply put, getting aircraft into their hands for earlier delivery was a better solution for them.

As a result there are no longer any 787-3 orders in the backlog. Going forward, we’ll continue to assess the market viability of the -3.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10941 times:



Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
After gaining in experience, confidence and introducing more and more improvements, why not relaunch a much lighter 787 derivate, not only for the Japanese market, furthermore for all high density domestic markets, especially in North America and Europe. Lufthansa for one needs a better A300 replacement (than actually A321). I still think a suitable 787 derivate would be an excellent plane for short and mid-range operations.

Right now Boeing has the best of both worlds, they don't have to spend the time and money to build the -3 and they were able to keep all of NH and JL's orders. The real question will be: is there a big enough market for a smaller derivate to provide enough NEW orders to make it worth it? Otherwise, it's not worth it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6792 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

Since the only airlines even remotely interested in the 783 have jumped ship, it makes no sense whatsoever to build it. It will join the A380F and the MD-12 in the ranks of "might have been." It really didn't make that much sense anyway; the extra development costs were not worth the marginal improvements in utility for short range routes.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10783 times:

I suspect that the 787-3 program is dead for now, I think the money and time that was invested on the (3) model should be spent improving and speeding up the 787-8 and 9 models and launching the 787-10 as a viable competitor to the A350-900.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 867 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10404 times:



Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 4):
it won't cost that much to convert a wind-tip extension back to a blended one...remove some fuel tanks, derate the whole thing, and wallla.... 787-3

The 787-3 was actually to have more differences to the -8 than most people realise. I can't go into detail because I've never seen it reported publicly.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 5):
Although I don't think Boeing is in "money trouble" per se, I don't think they want any more losses attributed with the 787.

Money's pretty tight for the 787 program at the moment.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8307 times:

IMHO this is the end of the 783, at least in it's current form. The Japanese were the only airlines interested anyway.

There's now also a Flight Global article about the NH conversion.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.../08/336950/ana-abandons-787-3.html



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 offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7959 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
On another issue, you may have noticed reflected on our orders Web site that our good customer ANA has opted to convert their 787-3 orders into other models. Simply put, getting aircraft into their hands for earlier delivery was a better solution for them.

There's an article in Seattle Times as well
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2010746944_boeing09.html

"It's a question of resources and priorities," said Yan Derocles, an aerospace analyst at Oddo Securities in Paris.

The truth is that the empty weight of the baseline 787 design has grown to a point where a clipped-wing down-gauged version is no longer viable. Not for the airlines as the limited improvement over 767 short-range economies does not justify the price tag. Not for Boeing, as the limited market appeal does not justify the cost of clipping and down-gauging.

That's why both customers converted their orders to "standard" 787's that can be "abused" for domestic operations but while doing so at least retain the capability to be employed on long-range routes as well. That also allows for some life-cycle management in terms of of cycle versus hour accumulation.

And, like Stitch has pointed out, the 787-8s can be re-certified for lower MTOW to reduce landing fees, which is an important cost factor in Japanese domestic ops.

This leaves the door open for a "true" A300/767 short-range widebody replacement. Maybe a re-engined A330-300? Maybe the next Chinese project after the C919?


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7769 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
They can also buy additional 767s for ICAO Category D gates, or just rebuild the terminals to Code E status to allow the 787 to be used. Or maybe the lack of gate spacing will finally convince the Japanese government to close the older airports and force NH and JL to operate out of all the new ones they have been building in cities like Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya.

If we are to speculate. How about making a 767NG? According to Flightbloggers new article on the 787-3 the 767-300ER with winglets competes very well against the 787-3. If Boeing offered the same GEnx engine as they have on the 747-8, used many of the more efficient systems developed for the 787 and perhaps even the same cockpit we could have a winner? At 90 tonnes it has a low cost for medium haul routes. Perhaps the NG should be stretched a bit so it was offered as a 767-250ER, and a 767-350ER?

Here is the article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...na-closes-the-order-book-on-t.html



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days ago) and read 7753 times:



Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 4):
more like winter sleep

How about similar to an iguana in Florida, aka a kamikaze iguana?

Someone should open a book between the 783 and the A380F. You could run another on the 787-10 and the 389 I suppose.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days ago) and read 7680 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20):
If Boeing offered the same GEnx engine as they have on the 747-8, used many of the more efficient systems developed for the 787 and perhaps even the same cockpit we could have a winner?

The A330 has a modern cockpit and a fly-by-wire flight control system right away. Adding 787 systems like 5000psi hydraulics and electric motor pumps/compressors to a 767 (or any other older generation aircraft) as an afterthought would be quite expensive, for little or no performance benefit in the short-range operations context.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7544 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I have long said Boeing could do worse than launch the 787-10 as a simple stretch of the 787-9

How will Boeing's recent decision to use the standard -8 wing on the -9 rather than a larger wing impact the option of a further stretch to the -10 using the same wing?

If the -10 will need a bigger wing than the -8 and -9, it will be rather less "simple" a stretch!


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8928 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7519 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
On another issue, you may have noticed reflected on our orders Web site that our good customer ANA has opted to convert their 787-3 orders into other models. Simply put, getting aircraft into their hands for earlier delivery was a better solution for them.

As a result there are no longer any 787-3 orders in the backlog. Going forward, we’ll continue to assess the market viability of the -3.

That seems to indicate a timing problem more than a demand problem for the specification of the -3. I'd guess a delay of a few years is the best hope for the three, but then Airbus is a wild card. . . they could come up with something.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Stitch : It wouldn't since the 787-10 would have the same MTOW as the 787-9, just trading range for capacity.
26 Frigatebird : Airbus would only have to re-engine the A330-200 and -300, and a 767NG would be toast...
27 OyKIE : Some systems may not be worth it, but switching from cables to more fiber would really lighten up the plane. For operations between 2500Nm-4000Nm the
28 Rheinbote : What order of weight savings do you expect?
29 Tdscanuck : What price tag? A 767-400ER and a 787-8 cost the same. That's not what the customers said. According to both Boeing and ANA said it was because they
30 Rheinbote : Right, but an existing 767-300ER that continues to operate means no additional expenditure at all. Why toss an already paid airplane and buy a new on
31 Stitch : Considering the 787-3 hasn't even been designed yet, neither NH nor JL can really say anything about the plane's performance, much less lack thereof.
32 OyKIE : It depends. If Boeing goes through all the trouble of making the 767 a FBW plane with fiber bus and fewer set of cablers it could shave of some weigh
33 Rheinbote : Customers are regularly briefed on the progress of their orders. In case performance estimates or any other characteristics deviate significantly fro
34 A342 : The thought of a 764ER with GEnx -2B engines somehow intrigues me. Even if nothing else is changed, it should yield a nice improvement in terms of CAS
35 Stitch : Yes, but the 787-3's performance has yet to be defined because it has yet to be developed. It's unlikely to be any worse than the "Mk. I" model they
36 Astuteman : The shorter span of the 787-8's adversely impacts induced drag (whilst saving a bit of weight). The 787-10's MOTW might be the same, but it will have
37 Post contains links Rheinbote : The true contract value was not disclosed. http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/press/2004/040426.html "The total value of the order is approximately ¥
38 Cosmofly : Boeing can instead make a 787-5 which can serve a lot more routes. The major advantage is its ability to fit into existing 767 gates A plane that can
39 Revelation : Agreed, but Stitch was always comparing list prices: and he's making the presumption that if list price rose, so did the actual price, which probably
40 Post contains images Keesje : As launch customer ANA probably did NOT pay the list price, to state it mildly. I think no airline wants to be sole operator of a type. I think ANA h
41 Revelation : Indeed! But no one here knows what they did pay! Stitch just used the rise in list prices to make the point that actual prices must have rose in the
42 Post contains images Rheinbote : In other words, you agree that ANA probably did NOT pay list price. In other words, you agree they DID pay list price.   But that's irrelevant, the
43 FriendlySkies : United was the launch customer for the 767, ANA has only launched the 787.
44 Post contains links Cosmofly : There is no more 787-3 on order. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...na-closes-the-order-book-on-t.html
45 Keesje : Well, for the 767BCF Standarizing the 787 wing, axing the 787-3, now IMO, going forward, they should continue to assess the market viability of the -
46 Revelation : C'mon, everyone here knows no one pays list for airliners except perhaps governments, so let's try to re-read things with this in mind, okay? I think
47 Stitch : Clearly, NH didn't pay list price. Nobody pays list price and we all know that. Any one of us could walk into Boeing's Sales Office tomorrow and order
48 Tdscanuck : Gotcha. I thought you were comparing purchasing a new 767-300ER to a 787. Yes, that was "in the press." I don't talk directly to ANA, JAL, or Boeing
49 SEPilot : The 747 and 767 use the same engine, and they are putting the GEnx on the 747, so I would think they could shoehorn it onto the 767.
50 Stitch : The GEnx-2B67 is larger than the CF6-80. That being said, Boeing had planned to put larger diameter engines on the 767-400ERX...
51 Tdscanuck : Yes, but they re-winged the 747-8, and the 747 sits a lot taller than the 767. Tom.
52 Astuteman : If for no other reason than the bit that Boeing is responsible for isn't the full scope contained in the list price anyway.... Rgds
53 A342 : The CF6-80C has a fan diameter of 93in (2.36m), while the GEnx -2B stands at 105in (2.7m). Now I don't know how the total diameters compare (no TCDS
54 NicoEDDF : Lufthansa for one doesn't need any A300 replacement at all. They actively decided to phase out the whole A306 fleet with all being sold already. The
55 Post contains images Rheinbote : Yes, but the question whether ANA got the 787-8 at the same price as their 787-3 is irrelevant. Stitch started out with the claim that ANA paid list
56 JohnClipper : Just remember that when the 757 and 767 came out, Boeing offered both a 757-100 and 767-100. Both were D.O.A. and never built. You run it up the flagp
57 Post contains images Keesje : Maybe LH replaced the A300 with A321 because they had no choice. "Just adding another frequency (slot, aircraft, crew, connections, gate etc etc) ain
58 Joost : Do they? What's the problem with the 321s? I highly doubt LH will order 787-3s or any other short-haul high-capacity aircraft anymore. With the advan
59 Keesje : Yes, 15 times daily or more as we speak between those domestic city pairs and AMS, LHR, CDG and a few more. And LH are not the only ones flying them.
60 Stitch : I did no such thing, sir, but at this point that conversation is off-topic to this thread so let's just drop it, shall we?
61 Rheinbote : Yes, let's violently agree
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...
Travel Service Order The Boeing 787-8 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 11:18:20 by PanAm_DC10
Northwest Signs Up For The Boeing 787! posted Sun May 8 2005 12:05:42 by Putsky
The New Design For The Boeing 787. posted Mon May 2 2005 21:21:12 by 747400sp
Where Are The Boeing-orders Gone? posted Mon Aug 4 2003 18:27:34 by Stefandotde
What Happened To The Boeing 787? posted Mon Nov 20 2000 04:20:40 by Ahlfors
Video Of The New Boeing 787 Window Shades posted Wed Jun 24 2009 07:45:14 by GetYourFlyx
Great Quality Boeing 787 On The Move Video posted Sat Jan 3 2009 05:05:01 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Or Airbus A350 Documentary? posted Mon Jul 9 2007 03:39:33 by N231YE
787 Interior Pics Off The Boeing Site. posted Sun Jul 8 2007 04:51:53 by Mike89406
Boeing Completed The First 787 Verticle Stab posted Tue Mar 13 2007 05:06:01 by Clickhappy