Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"  
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 368 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20917 times:

Now that the 787 is finally returning to the skies, I can't help but feel that the senior management at Boeing would do well to quietly kill off/drop the name "Dreamliner" and simply refer to the aircraft as the 787 going forward. Given the problems in production, long delivery delays, the recent and extensive grounding of the aircraft, the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

Given the history of successful aircraft Boeing has produced that have simply been referred to by their 3 digit type (737, 747, 757, 767, 777, etc) maybe it's time to do the same with the marketing of the 787. The irony of the "Dreamliner" moniker is that it simply reminds everybody of all the difficulties that have plagued the aircraft. Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemaddog888 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20699 times:

Whilst I follow your reasoning and can see some valid logic, I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air. All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity). Apart from one return to base flight, the passenger "FLIGHT" experience was and I assume will continue to be "dreamlike". So I see no reason that Boeing would want to quietly allow the name to fade away. Also from a purely commercial basis, Boeing has - presumably - an awful lot invested in that name just to throw it away.

Julian


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20631 times:

The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now. It would be like Boeing dropping use of the Stratocruiser name after that type's many crashes. That name was much more familiar to the public in the 1950s than Boeing 377.

User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 937 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20636 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

Effective how? Boeing still has more than 800 aircraft left to deliver.

Every since United restarted domestic 787 flying this week we have seen great load factors on the 3 to 4 (depending on the day) 787 flights that we have on the ORD-IAH route. These 3 to 4 787 flights are in addition to our normal flight schedule they did not replace any of the aircraft UA normally uses on the ORD-IAH flights. Last saturday at this time all of our 787's flying ORD-IAH were almost empty while our normally scheduled flights were completely full and/or oversold. Monday and Tuesday most 787s left we plenty of empty seats but as the word got out that the 787 were flying a lot of people who were already going to fly from ORD to IAH began changing their flights from the 737 to the 787. We had passengers stay at ORD 2 to 3 extra hours just to get on a 787 flight to IAH. The only flight that has gone out with a lot of empty seats this week is the787 flight that leaves ORD at 2200 departure arriving into IAH after midnight. That flight is basically filled with employees who want to catch a ride on the 787. United is also seeing high load on the IAH-ORD 787 flights as well, and I'm sure both DEN and LAX are seeing high loads on their domestic 787 flights as well. So while it may seem like the grounding and all the production problems has tarnished the Dreamliner's image from the looks of it most passengers do not care. To have passengers voluntarily change their flight and stay at ORD 2-3 extra hours just to get on a Dreamliner is crazy because on a normal day most passengers try to catch an earlier flight to get out of ORD as quickly as possible. I think in the real world outside of aviation forums like this one the public is glad to see these plane back in the sky and they will do whatever they can to get on a Dreamliner if it is headed to their destination. So I think they should keep the name as it is Boeing 787 Dreamliner.


User currently offlineairdfw From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 19869 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 19113 times:

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 19000 times:

Why would Boeing or anyone else want to kill the name? It helps the general public tell the difference between the 787 and the 767 or 777. We know the difference in detail but much of the general public does not pay that much attention so the "Dreamliner" moniker helps set it apart in their minds. Dropping the name is not going to make any difference to anyone paying attention. The other issue is that they want to try to hype it to the public to goose sales, especially before the A350 gets off the ground. The fact is that the plane has little to directly offer the passenger and from a butt in seat standpoint is inferior to most 777 configurations. It does however offer a lot to the airline, with 777 per seat efficiency with 767 capacity.

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18885 times:

Quoting airdfw (Reply 4):
Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?

First UA international 787 routes are the new DEN-NRT nonstop and one of 3 daily IAH-LHR flights, both starting June 10.


User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18707 times:

It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8370580033_dbae789843_b.jpg
JA813A ANA 787-8 Dreamliner by Brandon Farris Photography


User currently offlineHOmSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18593 times:

If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old, and already has its replacement under development. Yet, Boeing still refers to them as Next Generation aircraft.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18490 times:

I wish the manufacturers would go back to naming their models instead of using numbers. I miss ones like Constellation, Viscount, Caravelle, Comet, Concorde, etc. Yes, I know the Comet ended up being rather infamous but it was still a cool name. Those were so much better than 757, A320, Q400 etc. So if Boeing should drop anything, it should be "787"
In reality, there's as much chance of that as there is of "Dreamliner" fading quietly away. As someone else pointed out, the name is painted on nearly every one in service


User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 9):
If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old

Sorry, but it's still quite relevant to keep the NG designation, due to the hundreds of 737 "classics" still in service.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18255 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

That's up to the airline. What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't. The OEM 787 will be better than the OEM 767 potential wise. It's not like carriers are opting to *not* pressurize the cabin 6,000 feet.. or installing standard-sized windows..

Let's not forget that Boeing's customers are airline, not so much the passengers flying in them.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

Don't all Dreamliners have that? Can be covered up easily, too.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 18026 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't.

OK, so the airlines designed the 787 to be a generous 8 abreast but only so-so but doable 9 abreast aircraft?


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17844 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):

The airlines do have an influence of the design of the aircraft.

I believe in the past, Boeing said they were not expecting the majority of the customers to select the nine-abreast seating like they have, but only the tour operators.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17840 times:

I just prefer not to imagine the bashing it would have been if it was a Russian aircraft (such as the SSJ) grounded for so long and with fire on board... I can't but to be impressed how the majority of comments are clement and hopeful regarding the 787 since the incidents started happening, this actually might be the first topic in a realistic tone by the author, my regards...

User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3103 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17811 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

But that's not Boeing's fault. If the airline decides to squeeze in tons of seats into a 3-4-3 configuration, it most certainly isn't a Dreamliner, but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17273 times:

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

That....and JL and NH heavily market the aircraft here as the "dreamliner" itself, instead of the 787. Seriously, killing the name would kill off a huge brand which has a following here in Japan, even despite the incidents. I'm going to HND today and my buddies said to expect a huge crowd on top of T2 when the 787 arrives from CTS marking the return to commercial service for NH.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinebliksem From South Africa, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe that the name Dreamliner is great and is here to stay. The name has caught the attention and imagination not only of the industry but importantly also passengers. It is a refreshing departure from the boring and mostly confusing combinations of letters and numbers designating the offerings of different manufacturers. Boeing would do well to name their future models.   

User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17183 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.

OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...
As far as impact of the innovations on the passengers in concerned, please don't tell me it's the larger windows and higher cabin pressure. The passenger in 39E won't even see the window and what will be the real life cabin pressure remains to be seen.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17111 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...

It is just a marketing name...it can mean whatever Boeing wants it to be based on the context. For airlines they pitch the aircraft's innovation and efficiencies and for the public they pitch the improved passenger experience.

It is marketing, that is all. Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.


User currently offlineRottenRay From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17090 times:

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity).


No, they haven't been "very very" serious.

Most have been at the nuisance level.

Please, cite ONE instance where a 787 was in "serious" or imminent danger (as in uncontained engine failure, etc) and then we can take your statement seriously.


User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17066 times:

The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made in what i'm concerned and probably the least attractive for me as a passenger to fly into. There was so much hype about this plane, but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 16535 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

I am glad we all done share the same opinion on aviation, otherwise it would be boring.


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 16484 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made

I guess we will have to agree to disagree   While the Dreamliner isn't the Queen Of The Skies (for me the definition of a beautiful aircraft), it's very, very far from ugly. But I realize that beauty is in the eye of the be(er)holder.


25 Post contains links and images ghifty : Oh, really? Take a look at this database, then: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage Go to "Current ADs," click
26 motorhussy : The media outlet I work for has enjoyed the DreamLiner moniker very much recently, especially when, after the battery debacle and subsequent grounding
27 bristolflyer : For me the term Dreamliner is typical American braggadocio. Kinda like proclaiming 'the US is the greatest county in the world'. Let them carry on foo
28 Polot : You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?
29 Post contains images A36001 : The only aircraft that should be allowed the honour of a "nickname" is the Constellation. That is one classic aircraft from a classic era in time for
30 Post contains images AirlineCritic : I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively
31 flyingthe757 : It's a new make of aircraft totally so it's a given there would be more issues then other aircraft. The 747-400s and 777 and 737 are all based in par
32 Braybuddy : And before any of them ever flew on it, which is strange. Boeing have such a strong and recognisable brand in the 7X7 series -- one of the most recog
33 aerorobnz : It will fade once there are heaps in service. It stays because at the moment they are still relatively rare and most airports don't have 787s regularl
34 GDB : I always thought it was a bloody stupid, baby-ish, Disney like name. Though with hindsight maybe a warning about where all too much of Boeing's attent
35 PHLapproach : I just jumpseated on one operating the LAX-IAH redeye on the 25th and Houston Approach and Tower both refered to us as a "Dreamliner" to other redeyes
36 Putnik : It turned out to be more of a nightmare than a dream for many people involved so the Dreamliner moniker should be silently dropped. However, I believe
37 brilondon : I agree. Dreamliner is not what I think of when you mention the 787, although the 747 is still known as the Jumbo Jet. Once you name something, it is
38 lastrow : keeping the name Dreamliner for existing aircrafts represents an opportunity for marketing later production blocks / improved version of the plane wit
39 Post contains images NAV20 : I'll have to look up some marketing research on any preferences among the general public for different makes of airliner. Reason being, a few months a
40 VC10er : I totally agree. It is actually the brand strength of the 787 "Dreamliner" that will help it overcome the horrible initial problems. Thank God no sou
41 Post contains images lastrow : that is certaily true for the persons who fly one or two times a year. However, giving the opposite example: I have heard a business traveller talkin
42 Post contains links and images sankaps : Great question! The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely ■Dreamliner ■
43 justplanesmart : The time to kill the name was before it was ever offered as a possible name. Yes, and none of them were worth spit. I did vote for "Global Cruiser", b
44 Flighty : Now it looks like "piling on," but I agree. Dreamliner is something the public has heard about, and the public likes. How it sounds like to enthusias
45 boeingguy26 : Have you seen an A380? That whale makes every bird look good.
46 Post contains links art : http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8370580033_dbae789843_b.jpg I have to say that when you look at the photo, the 787 logo near the front of the fusel
47 okAY : I never understood why they creted the name Dreamliner and not continued on the old path of just calling it 787 as they have called all the other type
48 DL747400 : The Dreamliner has thus far been more like the "Bad Dreamliner" for Boeing and airlines alike. From the beginning, this to me always seemed like a ri
49 Post contains images RJA321 : I agree. The currently available 787 is short and just plane ugly The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and th
50 okAY : A common air traveller does not understand the technological advances in 787. Their thinking goes as far as to maybe think "what aircraft type am I o
51 Post contains images neutrino : As in POS? Anyway the so-called XWB is a gross misnomer & misrepresentation as it is way down the pecking order of (pax & cargo) airplanes' f
52 sankaps : XTRA only compared to the original A350 spec and the A330 cabin it was based on.
53 neutrino : It could be that they are bridging the naming of the future Boeing liners after the current 7X7 series. Much have been speculated on numbers after 79
54 VC10er : Well, I disagree naturally. However, yes, if there are more big problems, and their may, I am sure then Dreamliner will be a liability. Right now, it
55 neutrino : Yes, to you, me and other folks "in the know" but to the vast majority of the travelling public it is very likely to convey the mistaken impression i
56 VC10er : I don't think "triple seven" rises to the level of a name. It's just a shorter way to say "seven, seven, seven" Also, I love "seven, seven, seven" in
57 Post contains images AirlineCritic : Some travellers know what plane they are on. I suspect the ones that are widely known in the general public are the Concorde, Jumbo jet (747) and the
58 neutrino : How very true. To digress a little, take cars for instance. Over here, among the dialect-speaking older generation, the Honda Concerto, Alfa Romeo 16
59 dfambro : Having done NRT-BOS on the 787, the higher humidity was very noticable, and it convinced me that the pressure and humidity difference is a big deal.
60 brilondon : If you ever get the chance to walk the length you will realize the length is quite deceiving from the outside. I also disagree about the A380. It is
61 Superfly : I've always thought the name "Greenliner" would have been more appropriate.
62 BoeingGuy : I still love that SJC photo. Are you going to be out there on June 1 to get some good photos of the resumption of NRT-SJC? Did anyone see the Seattle
63 FreshSide3 : I saw pictures of its maiden voyage, and it didn't look all that wide. And certain airlines are buying it to replace their 747s? Certainly hope it's
64 FreshSide3 : I had this neighbor, a few decades ago, after the American DC10 crash in Chicago, that preferred to book his flights on AA using a DC10 via ORD......
65 Post contains images EPA001 : I have had multiple experiences like the ones you are describing. Even on my first A380-flight some people were not aware that they were on the A380
66 EricR : No need to change or drop the name Dreamliner. People have short memories. Assuming the battery issue is fixed and the plane lives up to its advertise
67 sankaps : I agree, that would have been a great name!
68 Post contains images Braybuddy : I still don't understand why Boeing would want to water-down their classic 7X7 designation, but if they really, REALLY wanted to, this would be an ob
69 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : L-10 Electra View Large View MediumPhoto © Wade Chafe L-12 Electra Junior View Large View MediumPhoto © Alexander Watts L-14 Super Electra View Lar
70 Superfly : Well it certainly would have been a very fitting name. Sort of like a flying version of the Chevrolet Volt.... I was thinking the same when I first h
71 Post contains images ual777 : Many pilots at UA call aircraft the following: 737- Guppy 747- Whale 777- The Triple A319/20- Le Bus/Fifi And the latest member..... 787- Sparky
72 YTZ : With the configuration chosen by most airlines and the likelihood that this aircraft may be used on longer routes than the 767, there will be nothing
73 BoeingGuy : Hmmm, not sure I like the connotation of that one. I like Fifi. That's funny. I heard that AA crews called the F100 the "Barbie Dream Jet".
74 D L X : I don't think it is ever too late. Quick: what jet was originally called "Luxury Liner" but lost this moniker quietly after a couple high profile cra
75 AA777 : While I agree that the passenger arrangements in coach are atrocious at best...for pretty much any airline... I don't think its really possible to sa
76 bobnwa : The A380 is certainly not beautiful in the eyes of this beholder
77 robsaw : "Dreamliner" is meaningless marketing bumpf that has no significance whatsoever to the traveling public, air carriers, travel agents, or anyone but th
78 Viscount724 : "Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here. And, if not mistaken, weren't all AA widebodies r
79 brilondon : The DC-10 and the 767-200. It was a marketing name for AA and not the moniker for the airplane.
80 Post contains images Viscount724 : And 747-100, 747SP, MD-11, and A300.
81 Superfly : The only two aircrafts I can say deserves the title "Dreamliner" would be the original Wright Flyer or the Concorde.
82 FreshSide3 : Lufthansa called the original 737 the "air bus" before the Airbus company started. Some United flight attendants refered to the 747-100 as the "Z", an
83 Superfly : Since the 787 is fuel efficient and made of plastic, how about calling it the ValuJet? Otherwise the Greenliner is most appropriate.
84 woodsboy : It was a terrible name from the beginning, I always thought that if this thing ever has any problems or god forbid, a crash, having named it something
85 Superfly : My thoughts exactly. Also, the 787 can't do anything special that existing airliners can't. It's not faster nor bigger than anything already flying.
86 sankaps : The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash. Was never widely known as that,
87 D L X : It is an apt analogy. I think that is a distinction without a difference. The point was that the public was made aware of a branding on a plane, that
88 sankaps : Indeed, that is why AA dropped the name, as I noted in my post. My observation was just that the DC10 was never officially given the name Luxury Line
89 robsaw : The vast majority of the public will still have no association whatsoever with either Dreamliner or 787, so again I say it is an issue primarily for
90 sankaps : I agree most pax have no idea what plane they are flying on. However I think a fair number of pax have heard of the 787 Dreamliner and its problems.
91 Post contains images Polot : AA didn't dropped the name after the crash, just the DC-10 title, and Luxury Liner wasn't DC-10 specific. They called all their wide bodies Luxury Li
92 Viscount724 : No, AA did not drop the name. They dropped the "DC-10" reference and replaced it with "American Airlines" but "American Airlines LuxuryLiner" (replac
93 AADC10 : Compared to the UA 787, the AA DC-10 "Luxury Liner" really had better seating. In the 1970s they had 8 abreast seating and I think 36" to 38" pitch i
94 Post contains images D L X : Ahhhh. You are correct on the history. My bad. Yet still, it does show that there is a history of dropping the name of a plane associated with a bad
95 sankaps : Strangely enough, I had the same mistaken impression of the history of the name as you. We both stand corrected.
96 BoeingGuy : No, the 7J7 was something different. It would have been a short/medium range airplane. The 777 was originally called the 767X.
97 ual777 : I personally find it hilarious. I have also heard the MD80 at AA called "The Sweaty Eighty" lol
98 Post contains images astuteman : But the manufacturers choice of cabin width does absolutely play into that decision. When you look at the cabin widths of the two manufacturers, to g
99 robsaw : Nope. The 767-X concepts were pitched to airlines but those concepts were dropped RESULTING in the decision to go with a new design 777. The 777 was
100 YTZ : I disagree. There's plenty of information out there on possible configurations. And with the width chosen, it's very unlikely most A350 operators wil
101 bikerthai : When I think of the 7J7, I picture dual un-ducted fan in the tail mounted engine configuration. As for the Dreamliner name . . . Who here remember th
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...
Is It Time To Use The Big F Word On Here! posted Sun Mar 16 2008 09:07:37 by YamahaR1
Time To Call The A340 A Failure? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 11:18:56 by MrComet
Time To Revive The 7J7 Program? posted Thu May 5 2005 07:19:55 by Zippyjet
PHX Time To Kill Question posted Wed Jan 26 2005 19:28:27 by 7E72004
"Open Skies" To Kill The A380? posted Thu Jun 26 2003 04:17:53 by CX747
Time To Kill At LHR posted Wed Aug 28 2002 22:07:11 by Shlomoz
777-300! My First Time To Hear The Loud Reverse! posted Mon Aug 19 2002 16:47:43 by Hamad
When Is The Best Time To Start The Engines? posted Thu Jul 4 2002 06:06:09 by Hamad
Time To Close The Curtains posted Sun Jun 9 2002 00:37:04 by ILUV767
ET To Fly The Dreamliner To GIG/GRU posted Fri May 17 2013 11:52:21 by af086