Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Acknowledges 787 To Miss Spec Performance  
User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 32512 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...oeing-acknowledges-787-to-mis.html

He says "over time" they'll be able to get to 8,000nm but he can't say when.  

From Jon Ostrower's FlightBlogger:

FlightBlogger: A question about the payload range performance of the 787. At what point are you going to be able to deliver a 787 that flies fully 8,000nm, fully fueled and with full payload?

Jim Albaugh: Well right now if you look at the airplanes that we're going to deliver we meet the missions that our customers have put in place for us to meet. Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not going to meet the spec, but I think we'll be able to meet what our guarantees are. And you got to remember, the first airplanes are going to be a little heavy, there are a lot of things that we're going to do to clean the airplane up, a lot of things to do with the engine manufacturers, and I feel pretty comfortable that over time we'll be able to get to the numbers that you just quoted. When that date's going to be, I can't tell you.

110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31747 times:

Not too surprising considering that their focus have been to deliver them to customers while they still have them.

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7134 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31717 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Thread starter):
the first airplanes are going to be a little heavy

So they can't make their originally marketed missions...

Quoting jreuschl (Thread starter):
He says "over time" they'll be able to get to 8,000nm but he can't say when.

...and they will also not meet their original fuel burn projection since that is explicitly tied to weight.


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31712 times:

How would this affect the 787-9? What is the first production number for the -9?


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 31670 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Thread starter):
Boeing Acknowledges 787 To Miss Spec Performance

...for a "spec" they haven't been claiming for awhile, really ever since customers started asking for 9Y en masse. All of their materials within the last couple years are claiming a full pax range of 7650 nm for the -8. Kind of surprised Albaugh didn't push back harder.


User currently offlinepetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 31514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brons2 (Reply 3):
What is the first production number for the -9?

First B787-9 should be LN139 (ZB001) destined for Air New Zealand.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30897 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 31177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That the initial planes will not meet the marketing spec has been a given for some time now. What's important is that the planes still appear to be able to meet the guarantees they wrote into the contracts and that airline customers will be able to perform the missions they purchased the planes for in the first place.

So bad news, but not something that will lead to compensation payments for performance misses nor give customers a reason to cancel because they can't use the plane as planned.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3492 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 30807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

off the top of my head I can not think of any new plane that met every desired spec, as defined by the public relations people, right out of the box... even ones that were prototyped... There are too many variables and the accumulation of variables (like tolerances) is seldom in the manufacturers favor. once in a while a system may exceed the the baseline, however those are rarities.

Quoting FBWless (Reply 1):
Not too surprising considering that their focus have been to deliver them to customers while they still have them.



a comment by Boeing management was that no sales have been lost due to the delay, those cancellations were primarily related to shifting market and route requirements, and financial fluctuations... now cynics will debate that because they know better.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 30699 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
airline customers will be able to perform the missions they purchased the planes for in the first place.

At a considerable fuel penalty.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
So bad news, but not something that will lead to compensation payments for performance misses nor give customers a reason to cancel because they can't use the plane as planned.

Indeed it is bad news, but as you say, hardly unexpected. I don't think I'd be massively impressed if I was a bean counter at ANZ or ANA though. Short of a free re-engining operation, those birds are going to cost lots more than planned over their design life.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 30587 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 8):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
airline customers will be able to perform the missions they purchased the planes for in the first place.

At a considerable fuel penalty.

I would think fuel burn is one of the performance metric, along with range and payload, that Boeing has to meet.


User currently offlinetomrob17 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 30172 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
off the top of my head I can not think of any new plane that met every desired spec, as defined by the public relations people, right out of the box...

completely agree. optimism thrives in the airline industry



Flight is the only truly new sensation that men have achieved in modern history ~ James Dickey
User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 30173 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 9):
I would think fuel burn is one of the performance metric, along with range and payload, that Boeing has to meet.

Of course. My post is not a dig at Boeing, I'm just very glad that we're not too far from revenue service.

The contractual minimum performance promises are obviously far short of advertised specification, or there would be financial penalties for fuel burn, payload and range on the first deliveries.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30897 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 29997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 8):
At a considerable fuel penalty.

Those who chose Rolls-Royce will see a higher fuel burn penalty than those who chose GEnx, due to both the scale of the initial miss and Rolls needing two (if not three) PiPs to match/exceed the planned SFC while GE will at least meet it with their first PiP and may even exceed it.

Still, even with whatever fuel penalty is in effect, they will burn less fuel than if they were using A330-200s per the Piano X projections.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 11):
The contractual minimum performance promises are obviously far short of advertised specification, or there would be financial penalties for fuel burn, payload and range on the first deliveries.

That seems to be par for the course for the industry - always hold back a bit to cover your butt if you do miss, or make you look better than planned if you hit.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 29971 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):

Fair points, well put. Thank you.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4818 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28813 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 8):
Indeed it is bad news, but as you say, hardly unexpected. I don't think I'd be massively impressed if I was a bean counter at ANZ or ANA though. Short of a free re-engining operation, those birds are going to cost lots more than planned over their design life.

ANA yes, Air NZ... no... Remember that by the time the 789 is built all those improvements to the 787 program should be in place meaning that the 789 is at its weight target (its only a stretch over the 788 after all).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2431 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28646 times:

I can't believe what a nightmare this aircraft has been for Boeing compared to the 777.


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6601 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 28607 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
GE will at least meet it with their first PiP and may even exceed it.

I'm not sure I can agree with that, reading this article : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hird-genx-improvement-package.html

It's not clearly stated what improvement will the PiP1 give (if it's even known), but considering they're working hard on PiP2 and studying PiP3, and that the same PiP1 on the GEnx-2B is not enough, I come to the conclusion that the GEnx-1B will be on spec at one point in the future, but not soon enough for quite a number of planes.

And those PiP look extensive (and surely expensive) !

PIP1 : a revised low pressure turbine (LPT), the revision increases the blade, vane and nozzle count after weight-saving reductions in these areas reduced performance

PIP2 : aerodynamic improvements to the high pressure compressor (HPC)



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3492 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 28543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 16):
I can't believe what a nightmare this aircraft has been for Boeing compared to the 777.


neither can the whiz kids at Boeing after all their contempt for any concerns generated by those with more than 10 years seniority...

what's the line about those who don't know the history are bound to repeat it...

[Edited 2011-03-14 18:26:08]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 28401 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 14):

"Trust but verify" is a mantra too, but that didn't happen either. Of course, the mantra doesn't specify when the overdelivering needs to occur. This, while slightly disappointing, wasn't exactly unexpected and as long as we aren't talking MD-11 like shortfalls, the program should be okay,

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 16):

I'd have to think that doubling the budget might count as a nightmare.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 28184 times:

Yeah the 777 was a nightmare too, in its own way. But lets be realistic - any time you're talking about a $10bn industrial project, you're bound to not sleep well anyway.

I think they might should design the next one with protractors, slide rules, and easels.

NS


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30897 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 28126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 8):
Short of a free re-engining operation, those birds are going to cost lots more than planned over their design life.

As I understand it, all 787 operators who receive Trent 1000s with the "Package A" PiP will be upgraded at a future date to an engine with the "Package B" PiP. "Package B" is expected to reduce the SFC miss to 1% or less. Rolls expects the Trent 1000-J, which will enter service on the 787-9, is expected to have SFC at least 1% better than spec.


Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):
I'm not sure I can agree with that, reading this article : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hird-genx-improvement-package.html

It's not clearly stated what improvement will the PiP1 give (if it's even known), but considering they're working hard on PiP2 and studying PiP3, and that the same PiP1 on the GEnx-2B is not enough, I come to the conclusion that the GEnx-1B will be on spec at one point in the future, but not soon enough for quite a number of planes.

Per an Aviation Week & Space Technology article from 11 December 2009, PiP 1 for the GEnx fully addresses the fuel-burn miss. PiP2 is designed as a general improvement, not as a fix.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30897 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gigneil (Reply 19):
Yeah the 777 was a nightmare too, in its own way. But lets be realistic - any time you're talking about a $10bn industrial project, you're bound to not sleep well anyway.

I think they might should design the next one with protractors, slide rules, and easels.

I'm currently halfway through a book titled Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers which was based on a ten-year study (1996-2006) of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, including interviews with 1000 employees at all levels, 500 of whom were with the company across all ten years of the study.

One of the things they found was the large technological shifts implemented at Boeing in the 1990's as part of the 777 and 737NG programs and the integration of Lean Manufacturing and Quality Control projects had mixed results with the staff. Surprisingly, younger line and engineering workers and managers appeared to adjust more poorly to these changes than older staff.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3492 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Surprisingly, younger line and engineering workers and managers appeared to adjust more poorly to these changes than older staff.



the older staff knew what wasn't working and knew that many of the changes although startling, resolved long dormant issues. the whiz kids arriving didn't understand the existing processes and were terrified of this new stuff that was contradictory to what the learned in college... plus they had come to save us old farts and we were ahead of them..

still there were blunders and botched process changes... we had engineers (who are good in their field) trying to write manufacturing plans and unable to communicate simply and briefly... a two sentence task became 3 pages... mostly irrelevant..

the other thing that was hard was the golden handshake that saw too many good managers leave without having groomed successors..

anyway back to topic.. if the PR page says 8000 miles with full load and fuel, how many airlines actually have city pairs that they could not serve if the range was only 7800 miles... .. and how many needed 8200 mile range.. so missing the PR goals may not be a problem for the airlines at all.


User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25628 times:

from this article
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-787-performance-spec-albaugh.html

The following paragraph is "kind of" interesting:
Quote:
"Mike Bair, who currently heads Boeing's 737 advanced development effort, said in a recent interview that the 787 would achieve "high teens in terms of fuel burn" advantage over the 767 and "high single digits in terms of cash operating costs," but adds: "It would've been higher, but we decided to trade some of that currency for payload range, so to give the airlines an opportunity to work the revenue side of the equation."

This was in comparison to the 767, so again, how does it compare to the A330?
Is it safe to say that whoever ordered the A330 in the last 1-5 years made the right choice?



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30897 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Centre (Reply 23):
This was in comparison to the 767, so again, how does it compare to the A330?

Leeham.net did a Piano X* study in March of 2009 comparing the 787-8 to the A330-200 with a 51,000 pound payload** over 6000nm.

If the 787-8 was at spec OEW and spec SFC, the projection was that it would burn 20% less fuel on said mission. If the 787-8 was 20,000 pounds overweight (it isn't) and if SFC was higher by 4% (it won't be), the 787-8 would still have been projected to burn 9% less fuel.

Reports say the heaviest 787-8's are 5,000 pounds overweight and if they have RR Trents, will miss SFC by 2%. Using those numbers, the 787-8 was projected to burn 15% less fuel.


* - Piano X is the publicly-available version of Piano, an aircraft analysis tool used by many aerospace companies, including Boeing and Airbus.

** - An A330-200 can lift more than 51,000 pounds of reveue payload over this distance.


25 XT6Wagon : The A330 has been successful not by costing less than a 767 (it costs more). It has done well by providing airlines more revenue and more routes aval
26 LAXDESI : From the linked article in post#23: Quote: Originally designed to fly 14,200km to 15,200km with a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 219,540kgs (484,000
27 Stitch : Boeing's own OEW data has risen about 10,000 pounds (from 110mt to 115mt), however I've been hearing statements that the actual overweight condition
28 LAXDESI : You may be rights as the linked article in reply 23 suggests that Boeing is using 242 seats(3-class) as the capacity in discussing the MTOW creep to
29 zeke : I think that is a fair assessment, that comparison is more valid for an airline that does not already operate the A330. Airlines operating the A330 a
30 ferpe : If your estimates are correct (and you are probably close) it is a bit curiouse that the 787 advantage is not larger, it is 2 generations younger (ba
31 Post contains images lightsaber : Exactly. There is guarantee and then there was the marketing. As long as guarantees were met, there are no penalties to pay. It is. The question is w
32 Post contains images Centre : Excuse my ignorance, and back again to the same statement from Mike Bair himself: But doesn't the A330 already achieve that, or close to it, in compar
33 Stitch : I understand that. But if Boeing's own OEM configuration has added more seats, which appears to be the case with the 787, than that should logically
34 milesrich : This whole story sounds like the saga of the Convair 990, and British airplanes like the Trident. Boeing better get busy.
35 LAXDESI : The piano X default number for OEW is 114,532(242 seats 3-class), which is 4,532 kg higher than the OEW as per wiki( for 224 seats, 3-class). So some
36 faro : Wasn't it announced some time last year that the 787 had better aerodynamic efficiency than planned? What happened to that efficiency gain -apart from
37 LAXDESI : Playing around with Piano X, and assuming a payload of 41,000 kg(max. for 788, with it being 10,000 lbs heavier than wiki spec with engine sfc at spe
38 shankly : Believe me, its not as bad as the Trident and VC-10 which were very capable aircraft killed by arogant primary customers, niche marketing, government
39 parapente : Reply 32. "Excuse my ignorance, and back again to the same statement from Mike Bair himself: Quoting Centre (Reply 23): said in a recent interview tha
40 CharlieNoble : Boy, if I had the access to interview top Boeing managers I hope I would not have asked an asinine question like this. First, most if not all commerc
41 Post contains images md80fanatic : Well ... they can always blame it on the MD contingent.
42 incitatus : Is there a list of airlines that have selected 8-abreast and 9-abreast?
43 nomadd22 : I doubt if anybody else had a problem understanding what Jon was asking and find it highly unlikely you have 1/16th his knowledge on the subject. He'
44 imiakhtar : It's already here. I believe the first 238 ton bird was for KE reg HL8227 delivered a few weeks ago
45 airbazar : This misses something very important. Hardly anyone is flying airplanes of that size on 6000nm routes. In my opinion a better comparison would have b
46 LAXDESI : Here's an example using 5,000nm range and 41,000 kg payload: Assuming newer engines on 788 have 10% better sfc than the engines on A332, the newer ai
47 zeke : I think that is an invalid assumption. The technology in the 787 engines is not 10% better, in fact Boeing senior design manager were quoted years ag
48 nomadd22 : Thanks zeke. I never quite had those terms down right. I know people improperly use them interchangably a lot.
49 LAXDESI : If it is only 5%, then the B788 airframe(and system, material etc.) delivers nearly 13% improvement over A332. Not bad. I wonder if the 797 would ach
50 Post contains images tistpaa727 : Classic! I am not going to disagree with you here, Jon has amazing access to Boeing and is often (and wrongly) vilified for being too pro-Boeing. But
51 Post contains links and images zeke : It is not 13% either, its "only" 15% better than the 767 (which is a lot). Cost is one side of the equation, which even Airbus acknowledges the 787 h
52 dimik747 : I think it is perfectly natural for an aircraft no to reach the targets that were MARKETED at the start of production. As we saw with the 777, the 772
53 LAXDESI : The chart shows A332 with a 24 seat advantage over B788, which is hard to believe. Here's a more likely scenario based on some real world examples: A
54 AirNZ : Of course it will be debated by a lot of people other than what you describe as 'cynics', and I would strongly propose that they will indeed 'know be
55 seabosdca : Any analysis that shows the A332 having more capacity than the 788 at similar density has to be based on 8Y for the 788. The 788 will overwhelmingly
56 LAXDESI : Even then, the A332 advantage is in single digit and not the 24 seats that the Airbus chart is suggesting.
57 goblin211 : Honestly, I'm not surprised because Boeing just isn't delivering their planes like they used to. I mean, after all, I don't think they had these kinds
58 kanban : the assumption is that they had already programmed in those delays and were trying to hide them... and their real goal was to sell off 767 slots and
59 Stitch : Data I have seen says the 787-8's fuselage is 42.29 m and the 787-9 is 48.39m. As you noted, Airbus gives the A330-200 cabin length as 45m. Also, tha
60 Post contains links zeke : It is, the 223 seats was an advertised 3 class configuration from Boeing. Even today the ACAPS is showing a 3 class long range configuration of 224 s
61 Aesma : Well, my article is one year and two months newer than yours, when PiP1 has actually been tested (not in flight yet, mind you), and some problems see
62 LAXDESI : The overall fuselage length of A332 is about 1m longer than that of B788. I wonder why the 788 should have a cabin length that is about 3m shorter. D
63 Post contains links LAXDESI : I was just attempting to get a sense of fuel burn for a similar payload. Here's a thread where I compare the A332 to B788, taking into account the hi
64 Stitch : Then PiP1 should be able to get it at or below 1% and PiP2 would then put it better than planned. Again, the GEnx2B already has a number of the chang
65 LAXDESI : Why are you looking at marketing configurations. Why not respond to a real world example that I laid out in reply #53. Did I miss anything? Do you ha
66 Post contains links PPVRA : Haven't seen this anywhere, sorry if it's a repost. Looks like Boeing is going for (unofficially) late July as first delivery: http://www.flightglobal
67 mham001 : Last week, a financial report I saw somewhere claimed fuel costs were running just over 40% now and also varies with flight length.
68 Post contains links zeke : No 787 is in service, it is not a "real world" example. What you have expressed is your opinion, which I respect, however it is not is not "real worl
69 LAXDESI : It is much better than non-comparable marketing numbers you want to use from the Airbus graphic. How many airlines use these marketing numbers? Does
70 LAXDESI : deleted as it was a double post.[Edited 2011-03-15 19:44:23]
71 Post contains links mham001 : "globally". I'm sure you understand that that percentage will vary dramatically between short hops and long range flights. Ryanair or Southwest with
72 tdscanuck : So Jon should have known better, and CharlieNoble beat me to it: I'm not aware of *any* commercial large airliner that can be at both full fuel and f
73 Post contains images astuteman : The pianoX analysis that I saw on those numbers gave the design range with 242 seats as 7 630Nm (pretty much what Boeings spec is, funnily enough) We
74 zeke : It may very well have for some when comparing them between airlines, in other cases the 788 may have a 80 seat advantage over an A332, it really depe
75 LAXDESI : 6-8% improvement in operating profits is greater than the net profit at most airlines. Thanks for catching my mistake. I have some adjustment files t
76 LAXDESI : B77W has a floor area of 365 m^2 and A350 has a floor area of 350 m^2, so the seat numbers used are reasonable for a first order comparison. I have a
77 Post contains images Baroque : Actually my first reply to this was more polite being written from a prone position having suffered a fainting fit similar to that of Astuteman but a
78 speedygonzales : IIRC, the highest MTOW A321, without ACTs, can have both full fuel and full payload, and still have MTOW to spare. However, I don't think anyone woul
79 burkhard : The number I know makes the 788 cabin 2.7 m shorter than the A332, which is three rows or 24 pax.
80 CharlieNoble : All I 'wannabe' is living in a world where top people in government, industry etc. don't have to constantly answer technically (or logically) flawed
81 LAXDESI : Is there a source I can look up. Thanks. If your number is correct, at 9 abreast it would make up the loss of three rows. I am certainly puzzled that
82 Post contains links speedygonzales : Nose to center of first door: A332: 5,85m B788: 6,30m Nose to center of last door: A332: 45,63m B788: 43,56m Difference: A332: 39,78m B788: 37,26m (-
83 LAXDESI : Thanks for the numbers and the source. I plan to spend some time looking up the sources to see if the space between the nose to the center of first d
84 Revelation : Not sure of the point of the statement. I'm sure plenty of conservative airlines did buy A330s three years ago, the aircraft has had a wonderful and
85 kanban : what the heck do comparisons with the A330 have to do with the topic?.... We don't know exactly how great the miss will be and we don't know if it eve
86 Post contains links and images solnabo : Anyone read this article in SeaTimes w Udvar-Hazy? This wont be a problem for 787 once the prodution is up n running, there will be many more orders f
87 mham001 : Of course, the question is, how does he know this, has he analyzed Boeing's books?
88 airbazar : Sorry, airlines are in the business of making money and ULH is not a money making business no matter how efficient the aircraft may be. In my humble
89 LAXDESI : In the linked article above, there is some interesting comment on 788 weight. Would Boeing be able to increase its structural payload as it attempts
90 Stitch : Boeing themselves say the 787 program is not yet in a forward-loss position, so that implies the number of orders they have and the contracted delive
91 Post contains images EPA001 : I do not think I have created an EPA sheet for your Jeep. . But jokes aside for the rest I can not totally agree with what you are saying since airli
92 kanban : fair enough, glad you have a sense of humor .....if we all agreed why have a discussion forum...? life would be boring as (well the phrase is "hell",
93 Post contains images SEPilot : That would be the lawyers' fault for allowing anything that stupid to be put on paper. But as to the economics of the A330 vs. the 787; from the figu
94 LAXDESI : For some reason the list price for B788($185 million) is about $15 million lower than A332(as per wiki). I am sure the net price difference is closer
95 Post contains images EPA001 : But do not forget the A330 has improved dramatically over the years, and there are even more upgrades under way to be introduced with 2-3 years. Airb
96 SEPilot : One of the advantages of CFRP construction is supposed to lower cost of construction. While the cock-ups have caused this to not yet be realized, I h
97 AAExecPlat : I read this thread and many others like it with great amusement. I think the reality and the background to this issue is far wider-reaching and pervas
98 kanban : just like somebody who steps onto an elevator, says loudly, you're all wrong and exits on the next floor... please start a thread on the socio/econom
99 tdscanuck : How is that "mis-use"? Aircraft are purchased by airlines to make money. Very very few aircraft provide the most return on investment when operated a
100 BMI727 : ...especially considering that Boeing and Airbus use many of the same subcontractors. The truth is that there is far more that unites Boeing and Airb
101 kanban : I know, we trained Airbus interns in Renton for years... yes the companies do some thing differently, I liked their assembly /docking processes bette
102 Post contains images bikerthai : My first lead had a stint as a Boeing paid Engineer exchange at an Airbus Plant in Germany. It helped that his last name was germanic bikerthai
103 ckfred : I remember when Boeing was getting the 777-200 certified, UA had a clause in its contract that the plane had a maximum empty weight. If the plane weig
104 kanban : new planes always have a problem being too heavy... however the question must be asked "too heavy to what criteria?" there can be the engineers estim
105 Post contains images astuteman : And all those titanium fasteners on the 787 are cheap as chips, and the huge capital investment required for all the CFRP work, and the overheads and
106 Post contains images bikerthai : You'll be surprised on mow many titanium fasteners we use on an aluminum airframe. Gosh, you'll be surprised how many titanium fasteners we used on a
107 kanban : sorry, that's one I can not translate . That said... yes they have done a good job... I studied their processes when looking at world class manufactu
108 Post contains links and images astuteman : Repayable Launch Investment ("Launch Aid" to you starry stripey guys ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiLpy9DoJjc Hope this helps..... Rgds
109 SEPilot : My point is that riveting aluminum airliner hulls is extremely labor intensive. While I realize that a lot of it has been automated, there still rema
110 astuteman : I don't disagree my friend. I guess I'm just putting in the context that there's a heap more to building an airliner than the rivets..... Airbus move
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...
A.P.: Boeing Acknowledges 787 Problems posted Sun Jul 16 2006 21:52:21 by CWFan
Boeing Market 787 To MEA posted Mon May 8 2006 18:35:36 by Raffik
Boeing 767 NG To Fill 787-3/767 Gap <5000NM posted Tue Jan 12 2010 02:23:37 by Keesje
How Boeing Delivers The 787 To Its Customers? posted Mon Apr 23 2007 21:17:36 by EA772LR
Could Boeing Reopen LGB To Build More 787? posted Tue Apr 3 2007 04:34:22 by AA787823
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
Boeing Switches Workers To 787 posted Sat Aug 5 2006 17:40:28 by BoomBoom
Boeing Unveils Plans To Reduce Drag/Weight On 787 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 14:59:26 by Leelaw
Boeing Change7E7 To 787 To Accomodate The Chinese? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 19:10:15 by Captaintim
Airbus Answer To New Boeing "787", posted Sun Dec 22 2002 01:40:18 by Keesje