Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The 788 Everything Boeing Proclaimed?  
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 395 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20950 times:

If it is (which I suspect it is), are many carriers going to jump ship from the 350XWB in hopes of getting a secure order in on an aircraft that actually exists?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20914 times:

Actually many airlines are converting their 787-8 to the 787-9.


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20868 times:

I would be more interested in the experience gathered over the years it has been flying about its systems. Was bleed less air a good idea or not. Old threads on this site has many say its a bad idea. I kind of like the idea of going electric.

How about the composite fuselage, any experience in this area?


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20876 times:

As it stands now, I don't think the currently delivered 787's are "as Boeing initially claimed it would be",
they are too heavy, engines aren't on spec and they lack promised range AFAIK.

but

As production moves forward I'm certain that it'll get closer too spec and eventually possibly even be better than
initially promised , knowing the history of former Boeing projects.

However

As for you second remark, I fail too see why suddenly all current A350 would cancel their orders and go for the
787 instead, nothing says it won't be , in time, equally good or maybe even better in some aspects than the 787.
Also I don't see how Boeing could even manage to double its output seeing how they are already struggling as it is.



[edit post]
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20389 times:

It isn't now, but it will be...eventually. Jon is reporting that by aircraft 63, the aircraft will no longer require finished work...dare we hope...?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ork-on-mid-60s-line-number-367370/

[Edited 2012-01-25 16:43:17]


What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 4):
It isn't now, but it will be...eventually.

And when it is perhaps some A350-800 customers might defect to the 787-8 and 787-9. But the A350-900 and, especially, the A350-1000 won't be under threat.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20107 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Is The 788 Everything Boeing Proclaimed?

In terms of specs, not yet but hopefully it will be. In terms of how Boeing envisions 787 may change the face of aviation, the jury is still out. So far most of the 787s in operation are like super 767s. New routes operated by 787 tend to be between a superhub and a secondary hub.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
are many carriers going to jump ship from the 350XWB in hopes of getting a secure order in on an aircraft that actually exists?

Unless 350XWB runs into trouble that is...787esque from now, I doubt this will be happen. 787 and 350XWB are designed for different missions. This is evident from the many orders from airlines that will eventually operate both types. As to the advantage of "a secure order in on an aircraft that actually exists", firstly airlines have never shied away from ordering planes that do not yet exist; secondly there is very limited, if any, slots available for 787 before the mid-second half of this decade anyway; thirdly, A350XWB does exist, although obviously not yet in one piece.


User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 20041 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 1):
Actually many airlines are converting their 787-8 to the 787-9.

Actually most have not (at least not yet).


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 19972 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
If it is (which I suspect it is), are many carriers going to jump ship from the 350XWB in hopes of getting a secure order in on an aircraft that actually exists?

Swapping now from a confirmed A350 slot to a 787 variant puts you from the middle of one long queue to the back of an even longer one. It makes no sense....


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7394 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 19893 times:

I don't believe it will ever be the miracle cure-all pill for airlines that Boeing has made out from the beginning it is.

User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19796 times:

I think even Boeing pulled back from their vision of the plane enabling point to point flying.

The 787 will accelerate what the 767 started (and doesn't get nearly enough credit for); fragmentation. It should do to the Pacific what the 767 did to the Atlantic.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19749 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 9):
don't believe it will ever be the miracle cure-all pill for airlines that Boeing has made out from the beginning

Aside from all the bells and whistles for us passengers, I think Boeing touted three main benefits from using the 787 series:
1. More fuel efficient than current aircraft in its size;
2. Less maintenance; and
3. Ability to open up and run profitably a number of secondary point-to-point routes (oh like say SAN to CDG perhaps??? Okay I'm just hoping upon hope there).

Even with its love handles, the 787 is still more fuel efficient than older models. We won't know about maintenance issues for awhile I suppose. Already some of the airlines are announcing point to point routes (JAL's NRT - BOS for instance)

So it seems to me that, yeah the plane will do what Boeing says it will do.

Being the eternal optimist that I am, I am hoping that the 787 becomes a frequent sight in San Diego and that a lot more international and exotic destinations open up for us long suffering folks down here at the bottom of the state!


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19733 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 10):
I think even Boeing pulled back from their vision of the plane enabling point to point flying.

How so?


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19684 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 9):
I don't believe it will ever be the miracle cure-all pill for airlines that Boeing has made out from the beginning it is.

Cure-all pill? I don't recall Boeing ever calling it that.

They only said it would make it easier for *smaller* airlines to venture into international territories. It's basically 767 sized with a 777's range. It's supposedly easier to fill a 767 than a 777, and that's what the 787 originally aimed to do, create newer opportunities for smaller airlines (and allow for more routes at the larger ones), no?



Fly Delta Jets
User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19456 times:

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that it (788) isn't up to spec NOW but look at the other Boeing lines as they progressed (Minus the delays and cost over-runs). The 777 started as just a larger and newer 767. Its now evolved into ALMOST the best selling widebody of all time. I say give it time to blossom and you'll see an awesome aircraft.   

User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18540 times:

It's too early to say.

User currently offlinedavidkunzVIE From Austria, joined Mar 2007, 431 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18428 times:

Considering that Boeing concentrated on marketing the 787 as a "newaircraft(.com)", I think they succeeded.

Seriously, though, the 788 will probably face the fate of the 342, the 77A and the A320-100 (albeit not as radically as the latter). It will be a step towards a mature and very capable airplane, but the current form will not be the most successful incarnation.



DH3 DH4 CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 F70 732 733 734 73G 738 752 762 763 772 742 743 319 320 321 333 343
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8658 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18049 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
If it is (which I suspect it is), are many carriers going to jump ship from the 350XWB in hopes of getting a secure order in on an aircraft that actually exists?

Why would they do that when they can get A332's which are becoming just as capable as the 788, and they can get those a lot sooner and for less money?


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18046 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 6):
So far most of the 787s in operation are like super 767s.

Well, there is only a handful of 787 in operation with ANA, and they are in test phase with intra-Asia flights. Hardly their final mission.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 6):
New routes operated by 787 tend to be between a superhub and a secondary hub.

Yes, like that promised JL NRT-BOS route for instance.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
Already some of the airlines are announcing point to point routes (JAL's NRT - BOS for instance)

Sorry to say, but this is a hub-to-hub route, and no more.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 18):
Sorry to say, but this is a hub-to-hub route, and no more.

I wasn't aware BOS was a JL hub.  

Seriously, I imagine it is a OneWorld hub, but even there, it appears that it was not a "rich" enough hub to support performing the route with a 767 or 777. But evidently the 787 is efficient enough to support services.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16498 times:

Quoting davidkunzVIE (Reply 16):
Seriously, though, the 788 will probably face the fate of the 342, the 77A and the A320-100 (albeit not as radically as the latter).

The 787-8 has to date 555 orders, and is still receiving orders for the type. (last order only 2 months ago)

The A/C you mentioned... 137 Total.

A320-100 = 21
A340-200 = 28
B777-200 = 88

That's greater than 400% more orders! And counting  

Hell, you could add the A345/6 and it would still be more than 200%. And in fact you could add the entire A340 program to the A320-100 and 77A totals and you would still be 69 frames short of the 787-8 orders...

Quoting davidkunzVIE (Reply 16):
It will be a step towards a mature and very capable airplane, but the current form will not be the most successful incarnation.

That is good news for the program, I would think? You sell more of your larger more expensive models... I can't see where that is a downside...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2973 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16458 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
But evidently the 787 is efficient enough to support services.

Evidently? Service hasn't started yet. What is "evident" is that JL thinks they can make the route work with a 787. But history is full of routes that airlines thought would work, and then didn't. I guess we will see after a year or two.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinedavidkunzVIE From Austria, joined Mar 2007, 431 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15671 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 20):
The 787-8 has to date 555 orders, and is still receiving orders for the type. (last order only 2 months ago)

The A/C you mentioned... 137 Total.

True, but as was said before, some of these orders are likely to be converted to bigger models.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 20):
That is good news for the program, I would think? You sell more of your larger more expensive models... I can't see where that is a downside...

I never said it was!  



DH3 DH4 CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 F70 732 733 734 73G 738 752 762 763 772 742 743 319 320 321 333 343
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8658 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13637 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Seriously, I imagine it is a OneWorld hub, but even there, it appears that it was not a "rich" enough hub to support performing the route with a 767 or 777. But evidently the 787 is efficient enough to support services.

BOS is not even a focus city for AA any longer, let alone a OW hub.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 21):
What is "evident" is that JL thinks they can make the route work with a 787.

It is also "evident" that JL didn't think they could make it work with a 767 or a 777, as they did not try service with either plane. So the 787 has given an airline the confidence to open up a new route - which is one of the goals for the program.   



Quoting airbazar (Reply 23):
BOS is not even a focus city for AA any longer, let alone a OW hub.

Again, then it appears that the 787 has opened up a new hub-to-point route, which is one of the goals of the program.   


25 UALWN : I fully agree. Well, I would imagine the real goal of the program is to allow the operation to be profitable... Hub-to-point routes are the vast majo
26 flyingAY : Seriously though, you can't only look at the plane type as the only reason for a new route. AY just opened a new route to CKG from HEL with an A330 a
27 airbazar : That was part of Boeing's marketing but we all know that that is not really how network carriers operate. The vast majority of long haul flights rega
28 HNL-Jack : Perhaps, there is even a bigger question concerning the 787 and it's success. There seems to be a completely different strategy particularly noticeabl
29 Post contains images Rheinbote : During th earnings call on the 25th it was said that 1. About 70-85 787 and 747-8 will be delivered in 2012 2. Two thirds of the 787 deliveries in 20
30 tdscanuck : It all depends on exactly when the rate breaks are. There are combinations of 2.5/month, 3.5/month, and 5/month that will give you a 4 per month aver
31 Rheinbote : I assumed 6 months at 2,5 plus 6 months at 3,5 with a ramp to 5 end of the year, i.e. effective for early 2013, in line with what the CEO and CFO des
32 Stitch : As to the current production rate, LN50-53 averaged 14 days between start of final assembly. Not including holidays, Boeing needs to have a 787 start
33 Post contains images Rheinbote : Stitch, basically what you and Tom say makes more sense that what was provided as guidance at the earnings call. - Average production rate of 4 per mo
34 XT6Wagon : Production and Deliveries are two different things. Even in a mature line they can be quite different. Some customers want more than one frame at thi
35 tdscanuck : That's way too short between leaving the FAL and delivery...paint takes almost a week and the test flights and customer flights typically take more t
36 Post contains links dynamicsguy : I don't have anything more recent, but from the 787 Production Thread Part 1, reply 51 quoting NYC777: If you consider the manufacturing days only (b
37 trent900 : The same could be said for the 788. Will airlines become 'fed-up' with the 788 and jump to the A350? I dont think so. Whoevers chosen the aircraft fo
38 BD338 : As I see it... a) Way too early in airline ownership lifetime to say if the 787 in general is a huge success or not for them or what it's optimum miss
39 cosmofly : What I admire most are the trail blazing courage and risks that brought us numerous leaps in technologies. Granted that many paid a dear price and wer
40 tdscanuck : The pressurization altitude makes a *big* difference for most on long haul flights (this isn't 787 unique, it shows up on A380's and biz jets too). I
41 Daysleeper : I’d say no, not yet at least. Being over-weight and with slightly underperforming engines it’s not achieving the fuel savings Boeing advertised, w
42 tdscanuck : This is a key point...it's can sometimes be misleading to compare the 787 against Boeing's own predictions when you're talking about market success.
43 Daysleeper : This is also a key point, you cant get it right now. It remains to be seen how competitive the frames being delivered right now will be against the A
44 tdscanuck : It's got better aerodynamics, better engines, and it's only heavy *relative to its spec*. How could it not be competitive on fuel burn for overlappin
45 Daysleeper : I just said competitive, I wasn't specifically referring to fuel burn. With the 787 that means absolutely nothing. As I've said, in time it is obviou
46 Post contains images AngMoh : The whole point is that you can't get it right now and neither the A350 unless you placed your order 8 years ago. The only efficient jets you can ord
47 tdscanuck : That really depends what you mean by "right now." There is a pervasive, and absolutely wrong, belief that OEM's fill their production lines up from f
48 rheinwaldner : You are grasping far too much figures that are published by Boeing to get a consistent and comprehensive picture. Other than that the intelligentsia
49 Arniepie : Interesting you say this Tdscanuck, Normally production planning indeed foresees the posibility of extra production slots in between existing ones. H
50 Daysleeper : I was under the impression that airline contracts are defined by dates not line numbers. So for example if an Airline had ordered back in 2005 for a
51 Post contains links Unflug : For German speaking members - a report about the first 787 long distance flight to Frankfurt went online today in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: http://www
52 JayinKitsap : We will need in service experience of 3 to 4 years and possibly over 120 flying to really be able to start evaluating: a) All electric architecture (n
53 Post contains links and images fpetrutiu : EVERETT, Wash., Jan. 27, 2012 – The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been honored with the “Aircraft of Legend” Award presented by the Living Legends o
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 Is The First Built Boeing 767? posted Thu Dec 25 2008 00:44:45 by Boeingdotcom
What Is The Root Of Boeing's Sale Success In 2005 posted Tue Mar 22 2005 17:40:09 by Columbia107
What Is The Matter With Boeing? posted Tue Jun 8 2004 01:57:16 by Tasha
Why Is The Boeing 747-8i Selling So Poorly? posted Fri Jun 18 2010 16:57:40 by keesje
Is The Boeing 727-22 A 727-200? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 00:04:18 by DeltaAVL
This Is The Boeing Week Thread! posted Sun Jul 1 2007 08:13:53 by RootsAir
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke
Is The NW Boeing Order In Jeopardy? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 15:57:48 by KLMA330
What Is In Store For Boeing At The Paris Air Show posted Tue May 10 2005 18:31:34 by Columbia107
Is The Air India Deal With Boeing Completed? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 17:11:39 by Georgiabill