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, 355 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 20581 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 (11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20363 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, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20295 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, 802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20300 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, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 19533 times:

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

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18777 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, 2019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18664 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, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18549 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 (11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, 1109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 18257 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, 2436 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 18154 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, 13273 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 18116 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, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 17919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, 2556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 17690 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, 513 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 17508 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 (11 months 4 days ago) and read 17504 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, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 17475 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, 6952 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16937 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.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinebliksem From South Africa, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16937 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, 2556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16847 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, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16775 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, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16754 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 (11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16730 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 onlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16199 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, 2556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16148 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.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

 

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 on "By Make," and then click on "Boeing Company, The." Go compare that to the 777-300ER and then the 787. Or, for a real treat, check out the list for the 727.

So "more problems than any previous model ever encountered"? I think not.  



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16470 times:

The media outlet I work for has enjoyed the DreamLiner moniker very much recently, especially when, after the battery debacle and subsequent groundings, the business editor was able to use the line "Boeing's nightmare run continues with its new DreamLiner passenger jet..."

Personally I've never liked the name DreamLiner, it's as if Seattle/Chicago was trying to get us all to forget about the equally banal SonicCruiser.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15186 times:

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 fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15109 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 27):
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 fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.

You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?


User currently offlineA36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15081 times:

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 aviation. As good as the 787 is and will be, the nickname "Dreamliner" sounds to me stupid and childish! And I personally will never refer to it as such. I will blindly refer to it with name it should have. And that is the Nightmareliner....o sorry I meant the 787-800!   My thoughts are my own

User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14432 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body

I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively  


User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14259 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

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 part on there older brothers, with new additions and tech, but the 78 was new in every way. The first jumbo had a lot of kinks, as did most new aircraft when.

Have you flown in it yet? As the saying goes, it's not what's on the outside that counts. It's the inside customer experience that's the most important thing.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5577 posts, RR: 32
Reply 32, posted (11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13411 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

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 recogniseable brand names in the world, in fact, and much more so than the Airbus designations -- that there was no need to dilute it. It's one of those ridiculous marketing gimmicky names that mean absolutely nothing when you analyse it: unless you're travelling in F or J, or have an entire row of seats to yourself, your flight is hardly likely to be dreamlike, no matter what airline or aircraft you are on.

And, with its problems over the last five years, it's inevitable that it's going to be used against it, with nicknames such as Nightmareliner and worse, as we've seen on these forums.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6911 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13322 times:

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 regularly

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13048 posts, RR: 78
Reply 34, posted (11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12694 times:

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 attention, management wise, was right at the start of the program.
In this I'm referring to the 3 year late entry into service, more than the events of this year.
Remember their absurdly optimistic projections for the flight test effort back then, how they pissed off customers by sometimes being less than straight with them about the problems encountered.

Sadly, it is too late to grow up and drop the name.


User currently offlinePHLapproach From Philippines, joined Mar 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 20
Reply 35, posted (11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12048 times:

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 following us in. I wasn't expecting controllers to start referring to it's name for it's type. I thought it was neat. Caught me off guard.

"United 1209, caution wake turbulance, you'll 8 miles in trail of a Heavy Dreamliner"


User currently offlinePutnik From Serbia, joined Aug 2007, 228 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10977 times:

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 the 787 will be a success in the long run when all teething problems are solved. The size of the aircraft is perfect, economics seems to be as good as expected, we just have to be patient and see this through.



LH504 - we always remember our first :)
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10867 times:

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 hard to stop the name especially from those who only listen to the media who keep calling it Dreamliner.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinelastrow From Germany, joined Dec 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10718 times:

keeping the name Dreamliner for existing aircrafts represents an opportunity for marketing later production blocks / improved version of the plane with a slightly different name (which ever this may be) or some extension. Similar to the "E" or the "X" designation on some later Airbus models. This would mark the difference of having a notably improved aircraft when compared to the firstly delivered versions.

I know that Airbus did not do marketing with "E" or "X" to end customers, but I think among airliners.net fellows this difference is well known.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 39, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10424 times:

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 ago (before the 787 problems), 'acting on impulse,' I asked a couple of my neighbours who were travelling (one on business, one for a holiday) what aeroplane type they were booked on. Neither of them knew........  

I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

[Edited 2013-05-26 05:33:15]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 40, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10270 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):

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 souls were lost. Many people thought BP would change its name and identity after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it was actually the strength of the brand and it's optimistic identity that HELPED save the company after such a massive disaster.

I think the vast majority of the flying public and the aviation community understand the 787 was a huge technological leap forward and thus the teething issues SOMEWHAT understandable, yes, far more than expected. But the Dreamliner moniker is a huge asset to an airline today. If you just look at United, it is the primary driver of innovation for United...an airline in dire need of an image driver. The fact they got 'em first is a big deal for them.

Dreamliner will be the moniker for a long time, but one day, it will just be called a 787 when the aircraft is a very common model. As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

What is interesting is that the world's best selling WB, the 777, doesn't have a "name". But 3 7's may be enough. And if 7 is a lucky number...it sure as hell was good luck for Boeing! (although I have the deepest respect for the 777 creators) Boeing really gets the power of a brand and brilliant branding!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinelastrow From Germany, joined Dec 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10110 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

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 talking ... claiming that he always aims of choosing Boeing over Airbus aircraft, because of their higher cruise speed and therefore arriving some minutes earlier when going inter continental. personally, I would not care for this criterion. however, people are different.  


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10056 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

Great question!    

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?

The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Global Cruiser came out tops among US respondents, and Dreamliner overall. Frankly, to me it is the only decent, easy to say and remember name out of the list, with eLiner a possible second.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/arc...ehind_the_scenes_story_on_nam.html

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
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.

Yes, but was one of four shortlisted by Boeing and put up for public vote.


User currently offlinejustplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8172 times:

The time to kill the name was before it was ever offered as a possible name.


Quoting sankaps (Reply 42):
The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Yes, and none of them were worth spit. I did vote for "Global Cruiser", but only as the least idiotic choice. However, Boeing is ignoring their own history when they try to market a plane with a name. Consider:

Boeing Monomail - 2 built
Boeing Stratoliner - 10 built
Boeing Stratocruiser - 56 built

Yes, they have tried to affix a name to some of their jetliners, as I believe the 707 was once marketed as the "Jet Stratoliner", and they often referred to the 747 as the "Superjet", but they were never used over and above the model number.



"So many planes; so little time..."
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7997 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 40):
As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

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 enthusiasts doesn't really matter. But it helps the industry get a bit of glamour back in advertising.


After 10 years of hard work, the airplane deserves a name. Without the name, people would ask what the hell took so long to design what looks like a slightly improved 767.

[Edited 2013-05-26 09:01:00]

User currently offlineboeingguy26 From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7823 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

Have you seen an A380? That whale makes every bird look good.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7730 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-
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 fuselage is very, very prominent while the Dreamliner logo is tiny in comparison so most observers would be struck by the large 787 logo and might not even notice the Dreamliner logo further back IMO.


User currently offlineokAY From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

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 types with different middle number. I think an additional name creates confusion if anything, and I think they broke a nice tradition. It used to be, that just by introducing a new type, naming it another 7X7 is a Boeing thing, label on its own right for quality. Now, they came up with this "empty" additional name, and quite mess it has become, of course not because of the name, but it does not do the company any good that the additional name has generated some other additional names to the airliner, like screamliner, fireliner etc. If no additional name had been created, these infamous nickames would not excist, either.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
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.

I don't get this argument. "787" tells the public the difference between 787 and the 767/777 etc. Just as 767 tells the difference between 787/777 etc.


User currently offlineDL747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7135 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

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 risky name for such a revolutionary new airliner.

Whenever you try to make such large advances in design, materials and assembly processes simultaneously, there is exponentially more risk that things can go wrong. And they did. Boeing tried to do too too fast and made promises that could not be kept. Bad program management certainly didn't lessen the challenges this aircraft program faced from early on. As a result, their reputation has been significantly damaged. In time it hopefully will recover and the troubles with the 787 will become memories.


User currently offlineRJA321 From Jordan, joined Mar 2009, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6980 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

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 those wings are extraordinary.

As for the phrase 'Dreamliner' I don't think it matters to most passengers, so whether or not Boeing continues to use it will only be mostly relevant to airlines and aviation enthusiasts.



Hurry up, before we all come to our senses!
User currently offlineokAY From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6894 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 40):
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 souls were lost. Many people thought BP would change its name and identity after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it was actually the strength of the brand and it's optimistic identity that HELPED save the company after such a massive disaster.


What is interesting is that the world's best selling WB, the 777, doesn't have a "name". But 3 7's may be enough. And if 7 is a lucky number...it sure as hell was good luck for Boeing! (although I have the deepest respect for the 777 creators) Boeing really gets the power of a brand and brilliant branding![/quote]

I think the vast majority of the flying public and the aviation community understand the 787 was a huge technological leap forward and thus the teething issues SOMEWHAT understandable, yes, far more than expected.

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 on? Dreamliner? isn't that the type that had all those problems in the beginning? If you are in branding, you should know how human mind works.

It is the brand strength of Boeing that will get the 787 out of the mud. Dreamliner has very little brand value as of yet, and even that little has been damaged, quite badly in my opinion.


777 has a nickname, tripleseven. It has not however been created by Boeing, as it used to be that it was their thing to call their products 7X7, in line with their other products. The names tells nothing to an average traveller. This additonal name creates confusion, as one can think, "ok this is 787 Dreamliner. Is there then 787 Worldliner?", for example.

I think Boeing opened Pandora's box by introducing this name. It will have a negative connotation in regards to 787, one that Boeing has to now work out how to get rid of. And that will cost them money, again.

[Edited 2013-05-26 10:25:53]

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 30):
Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body
I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively

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' fuselage girth.

A quick non-exhaustive googling of cabin widths:-
1. A380: 6.58m
2. An124/225: 6.40m
3. 747: 6.10m
4. 777: 5.87m
5. C-5: 5.80m
6. L-1011: 5.79m
7. DC-10: 5.77m
8. IL-86/96: 5.70m
9. MD-11: 5.69m
10. A350: 5.61m
11. A300/A310/A330: 5.28m
12. 767: 4.72m

I did not list the LCF, Beluga & Superguppy as they are special modifications from airliners.
Even if the non-commercial-passenger Antonovs & Galaxy are to be excluded, it is still very far down the line.
In fact, it ranks just above ONLY TWO other WB paxliners. So much for XTRA Wide Body!   



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 51):
In fact, it ranks just above ONLY TWO other WB paxliners. So much for XTRA Wide Body!

XTRA only compared to the original A350 spec and the A330 cabin it was based on.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6645 times:

Quoting okAY (Reply 47):

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 types with different middle number.

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 797 but how about names instead of numerals like the suggested 8X8 or 17X7 or 27X7 or even the recycling of 7X7.
I am imagining a future Boeing world where the airliners they produce are given only alphabet name and not numbers. Therefore, the 787 Dreamliner is the transition by featuring both.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting okAY (Reply 50):

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's the name Dreamliner that is saving its image. All names come with a risk, ALL! Every time a company develops a new name for a big thing the cynics will rename it something bad. Ask a naming professional, I work with a team of 12 and every time we create a new name we always advise the company to name its symbol before the public does it for them: like the "cracked egg" for Jet Aiways or the "cats sphincter" for MetLife!

It is also the only plane in recent history that the average person has heard about. They may not be able to tell the difference from the outside, but it is a very sticky name with the gen pop, and in a good way...it is targeted to them not Boeing talking to itself.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6620 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
XTRA only compared to the original A350 spec and the A330 cabin it was based on.

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 its body is really xtra wide compared to other airliners. I am of the opinion that A is happy to let that be the case, whether or not by design.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 other languages. I used to always love when VARIG was SO proud of their new ones they would say with such virve "sete, sete...SETE!"



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting okAY (Reply 50):
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 on? Dreamliner? isn't that the type that had all those problems in the beginning? If you are in branding, you should know how human mind works.

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 A380. The rest not so much.

A story. I was sitting next to a frequent traveller on some flight, and he was reading an article on the 787 battery problems. We started chatting, and he told me that he was interested in the case, and that on a recent trip, the captain of his flight had pointed out that this new, huge doubledecker 787 was taxing by. Duh. The general public recognises a few icons, and if they read anything about aviation in the newspaper, it gets associated with those icons. If there are other developments besides those icons, the details get lost on them.

Anyway, brands are important in anything people do. Not all brands may be noticed by everyone, but they still matter. I understand very well that Boeing holds on to the good name. And yes, eventually we've forgotten those slight four year delays and burning batteries, and just marvel on all those Dreamliners flying across the world   At least on a.net and among aviation professionals. For others, they are tubes with wings and two engines... the crappy or not so crappy seats the operator has chosen drawing more attention than the aircraft type.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6522 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 54):
All names come with a risk

How very true.
To digress a little, take cars for instance.
Over here, among the dialect-speaking older generation, the Honda Concerto, Alfa Romeo 164 and all Volvo (for example) were not popular as they sound like "business fail", "die all the way" and "losing everything" respectively.
I have also heard that the Mitsubishi Diamante is avoided by Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian speakers as it equate an artificial diamond which could very well also mean fake diamond. Quite the opposite from what the Japanese intended to convey.
Back to topic. No, I believe the Dreamliner will eventually live up to its name and promise after its birth and growing pangs, so no homicide for it name.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
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.

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. Another big deal is that we in BOS finally got a direct Asia route because of the plane, and that's been a 'dream' of mine for years.

The big windows are great, too, but you can get that on an E-jet as well.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
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 those wings are extraordinary.

As for the phrase 'Dreamliner' I don't think it matters to most passengers, so whether or not Boeing continues to use it will only be mostly relevant to airlines and aviation enthusiasts.

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 an ugly looking aircraft. I have thought that the A380 is too short and would look better longer. But I don't really get to fly the A380.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5867 times:

I've always thought the name "Greenliner" would have been more appropriate.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2886 posts, RR: 7
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5851 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-

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 Times article this morning? Interesting reading.


User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

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 not because of the width......


User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5588 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

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......with the rationale that AA DC10s would be scrutinized during inspections better and therefore, would not have any problems.

Quoting A36001 (Reply 29):
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 aviation. As good as the 787 is and will be, the nickname "Dreamliner" sounds to me stupid and childish! And I personally will never refer to it as such. I will blindly refer to it with name it should have. And that is the Nightmareliner....o sorry I meant the 787-800! My thoughts are my own

As for "Dakota" being the nickname for the DC-3......I'm not sure if I like that or not. And Lockheed called more than one of their designs the "Electra", if I recalled correctly.

Constellation and Stratocruiser, really are the only good names, in my opinion.

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
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 those wings are extraordinary.

I don't find either of those planes physically attractive.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 65, posted (11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
Reason being, a few months ago (before the 787 problems), 'acting on impulse,' I asked a couple of my neighbours who were travelling (one on business, one for a holiday) what aeroplane type they were booked on. Neither of them knew........  

I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

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 until they took out the safety instructions card out of the seat pocket. And then even not realised they were flying on an airplane with passengers on two full decks.  .

I guess we are the anomaly who want to know every digit of the aircraft type (and registration) we are flying on.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 54):
All names come with a risk, ALL! Every time a company develops a new name for a big thing the cynics will rename it something bad.

  

Besides that fact, one can have so many dreams, and so many different dreams. Those dreams for sure also apply to the B787, so there is no reason to change the name of the B787 Dreamliner is something else. And it would not catch on with the public anyway imho. The name Dreamliner is fixed to the name B787, and it will stay that way. And hopefully in a very positive way for a long time to come.  .


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1811 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

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 advertised performance metrics, then the battery issue will quickly fade from people's memories.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 61):
I've always thought the name "Greenliner" would have been more appropriate.

I agree, that would have been a great name!


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5577 posts, RR: 32
Reply 68, posted (11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4612 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
I agree, that would have been a great name!

  

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 obvious choice. At least it's self-explanatory. "Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

There were only two more progressions in the series once the 777 was launched, so why change now? It would have made perfect sense to save the name-change to the next aircraft after the 797.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 69, posted (11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4568 times:

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 64):
And Lockheed called more than one of their designs the "Electra", if I recall correctly.

L-10 Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wade Chafe



L-12 Electra Junior


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts



L-14 Super Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © R.A.Scholefield



L-188 Electra


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard



User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 70, posted (11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 67):
I agree, that would have been a great name!

Well it certainly would have been a very fitting name. Sort of like a flying version of the Chevrolet Volt....

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 68):
"Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

I was thinking the same when I first heard the name several years ago.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1519 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

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  



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 72, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
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.
Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
Apart from one return to base flight, the passenger "FLIGHT" experience was and I assume will continue to be "dreamlike".

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 dream like about the passenger experience. That title may go to the A350.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
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..

Lest anybody forget, a huge part of Boeing's early argument for the "Dreamliner" experience was the wider seats. The windows and lower cabin altitude were almost nice-to-haves. It's not like the bigger windows will suddenly make people forget that their in a sardine can jostling for shoulder and elbow space and massaging sore knees.

What's disturbing is that this is happening at launch. At least the 777 had years of a majority of deliveries being 9-abreast. To anybody the slightest bit knowledgeable, I would submit that the A350 is more of a "Dreamliner" for passengers than the 787.


User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2886 posts, RR: 7
Reply 73, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting ual777 (Reply 71):
And the latest member.....

787- Sparky

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".


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11029 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now.

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 crashes early in its career?















A: The Douglas DC-10



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2541 posts, RR: 28
Reply 75, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YTZ (Reply 72):
What's disturbing is that this is happening at launch. At least the 777 had years of a majority of deliveries being 9-abreast. To anybody the slightest bit knowledgeable, I would submit that the A350 is more of a "Dreamliner" for passengers than the 787.

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 say that the A350 is more comfortable than the 787 for passenger comfort. The A350 has not even been flown yet. I think the "knowledgeable" person would submit that you can only judge what actually exists and is in commercial service.....

Also, from what I've read, the A350 cabin is only 5 inches wider than a 787, which should (according to original specs) have 8 abreast seating. The A350 would have 9 abreast seating... Yet it is only 5" wider than a 787 that has 8 across and is in fact 11 inches narrower than a 777, which SHOULD also have 9 abreast seating.

With those numbers, I'm not sure that it's really any more ideal than a 787 with 9 abreast or a 777 with 10 abreast.

And lest we forget who makes the plane uncomfortable - seating arrangements are chosen by the airlines, not Boeing. The problem comes down to airlines who will sacrifice passenger comfort (now even in Business class!) for profits. The days of Pan Am are long gone.

-AA777

[Edited 2013-05-28 11:07:37]

User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6347 posts, RR: 9
Reply 76, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting RJA321 (Reply 49):
The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

The A380 is certainly not beautiful in the eyes of this beholder


User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

"Dreamliner" is meaningless marketing bumpf that has no significance whatsoever to the traveling public, air carriers, travel agents, or anyone but the aviation-obsessed-types that exist around message-boards such as this. The term was likely created specifically to distract airliners.net folk from the more serious issues with the 787.

And I am absolutely serious ..............................................................................................................ly sarcastic.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 78, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3417 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now.

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 crashes early in its career?

"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 referred to as Luxury Liner during that period, not just the DC-10?


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3371 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
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 crashes early in its career?

The DC-10 and the 767-200. It was a marketing name for AA and not the moniker for the airplane.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 80, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 79):
Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
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 crashes early in its career?

The DC-10 and the 767-200. It was a marketing name for AA and not the moniker for the airplane.

And 747-100, 747SP, MD-11, and A300.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ted Quackenbush
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Terry Hale


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AlainDurand
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sunbird Photos by Don Boyd



User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 81, posted (11 months 22 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

The only two aircrafts I can say deserves the title "Dreamliner" would be the original Wright Flyer or the Concorde.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (11 months 22 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

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", and I don't know the reason. (Maybe so many different configurations.
Eastern referred to their wide-bodies as "WhisperLiners" and narrow-bodies were "Whisper Jets".
And American used to call the 747 the "AstroLiner".

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 68):

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 obvious choice. At least it's self-explanatory. "Dreamliner" is like one of those silly names dreamed up by some focus group more concerned with style over substance.

There were only two more progressions in the series once the 777 was launched, so why change now? It would have made perfect sense to save the name-change to the next aircraft after the 797.

I think the 777 was initially called the 7J7........was that correct??


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 83, posted (11 months 22 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Since the 787 is fuel efficient and made of plastic, how about calling it the ValuJet?
Otherwise the Greenliner is most appropriate.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (11 months 22 hours ago) and read 3116 times:

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 as presumptious as "Dream------" was a bad idea. Other iconic names like Constellation, Electra, Caravelle and Concorde didnt ilicit an idea like a "dream" does, it was only a matter of time before any incident on the 787 would be un-cleverly chalked up to the "Nightmareliner" or something like that. It was bad at the the start and its still a terribly silly name and now even worse given the troubles that the 787 has experienced. That said, we ALL know people pay little to no attention to what kind of plane they are on, Dreamliner or otherwise. So what if ANA paints on the plane, it matters not! There are a lot of 737s out there with their model clearly painted on the fuselage "737-900" and so on, nobody (except us) sees or remembers that. Right now if people can remember anything about the 787 its that it has been in the news over the last 5 months because of having been grounded.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 85, posted (11 months 21 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 84):
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 as presumptious as "Dream------" was a bad idea. Other iconic names like Constellation, Electra, Caravelle and Concorde didnt ilicit an idea like a "dream" does, it was only a matter of time before any incident on the 787 would be un-cleverly chalked up to the "Nightmareliner" or something like that. It was bad at the the start and its still a terribly silly name

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.
-The Wright Flyer - for obvious reason, being the first aircraft
-de Havilland Comet - first jetliner
-Boeing 747 - biggest passenger jetliner until the A380
-Concorde - first and only successful SST

Those 4 aircraft are far more deserving of the title 'Dreamliner' than the 787. It's only to make the bean-counters happy and the cost savings will not be passed down to customers, nor will will it lead to better wages for employees.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing the 'dream'.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (11 months 17 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
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 crashes early in its career?

A: The Douglas DC-10

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, nor was it named that by the manufacturer. Very different from the 787 and its Dreamliner name.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11029 posts, RR: 52
Reply 87, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

It is an apt analogy.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 78):
"Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here.

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 plane then developed a bad reputation, and the brand was dropped as a result. Be it a manufacturer or an airline, it is the exact same situation.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):
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,

Sure it was. The fact that people knew the Luxury Liner as the plane with all the problems is exactly why they dropped the name. It is the exact same situation.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):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,
Sure it was. The fact that people knew the Luxury Liner as the plane with all the problems is exactly why they dropped the name. It is the exact same situation.

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 Liner by McDonnell Douglas, and no one other than AA called it that. Out side of AA's customer base and certainly outside the US, no one knew what Luxury Liner referred to, and it was relatively easy to drop the name.

But at the end of the day the name DC10 itself retained a somewhat negative "halo" for much of its career globally.

In the case of the Dreamliner, it is the name officially given to the 787 by Boeing and how it is known globally. May therefore be harder for the 787 to shake off its association with the name Dreamliner. And it is unclear whether a negative halo, if any, belongs just to the name Dreamliner or whether it extends to the name 787 as well.


User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 88):
In the case of the Dreamliner, it is the name officially given to the 787 by Boeing and how it is known globally. May therefore be harder for the 787 to shake off its association with the name Dreamliner. And it is unclear whether a negative halo, if any, belongs just to the name Dreamliner or whether it extends to the name 787 as well.

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 the aviation obsessed (or "fans"). I've encountered enough Flight Attendants that have no idea what plane they are flying or any history or characteristics of such plane, so I'm not concerned about the level of negative association that the general public will bring to it. And, for those that ARE aware and interested, changing the name won't do much - it isn't like you can put the 787 in the witness protection program and hide its history.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (11 months 3 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

Quoting robsaw (Reply 89):
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 the aviation obsessed (or "fans"). I've encountered enough Flight Attendants that have no idea what plane they are flying

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. Therefore the question becomes "do you want to actively hide the fact that the aircraft they are on is a Dreamliner", perhaps by not using that name in the safety card or any other materials on-board, as well as not painting the name externally in the off-chance a pax sees it?

The best outcome of course for Boeing and the airlines is if the aircraft now continues to fly trouble free, and hopefully the public will forget all about the initial years of teething problems and the name is no longer viewed as a potential liability. In the near term though I would not be surprised if the airlines stop promoting the name of the aircraft as prominently as they had done until these problems arose.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (11 months 3 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 87):
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 plane then developed a bad reputation, and the brand was dropped as a result. Be it a manufacturer or an airline, it is the exact same situation.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 88):
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 Liner by McDonnell Douglas, and no one other than AA called it that. Out side of AA's customer base and certainly outside the US, no one knew what Luxury Liner referred to, and it was relatively easy to drop the name.

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 Liners (except the 777, I don't think it ever officially got that title) and all their narrow bodies Luxury Jets (although I think they just stuck with Super 80 for the MD-80s). They dropped the terminology around the turn of the century.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Spoddig
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Heer


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Jenkins
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Lawson [Airplane-Pictures]



User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24109 posts, RR: 23
Reply 92, posted (11 months 2 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 86):
The name Luxury Liner was used only by one airline for the DC10 -- American. And they dropped it after the ORD crash.

No, AA did not drop the name. They dropped the "DC-10" reference and replaced it with "American Airlines" but "American Airlines LuxuryLiner" (replacing "DC-10 LuxuryLiner") remained on the DC-10s until the brand was dropped on all the AA widebodies some years later.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (11 months 2 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
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 crashes early in its career?
Quoting neutrino (Reply 51):
A quick non-exhaustive googling of cabin widths:-
1. A380: 6.58m
2. An124/225: 6.40m
3. 747: 6.10m
4. 777: 5.87m
5. C-5: 5.80m
6. L-1011: 5.79m
7. DC-10: 5.77m
8. IL-86/96: 5.70m
9. MD-11: 5.69m
10. A350: 5.61m
11. A300/A310/A330: 5.28m
12. 767: 4.72m
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 78):
"Luxury Liner" was an AA brand, not the manufacturer's name which is what we're talking about here.

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 in coach. The 787 is 9 abreast with a narrower cabin and 31" pitch in E-.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11029 posts, RR: 52
Reply 94, posted (11 months 1 hour ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 92):
No, AA did not drop the name. They dropped the "DC-10" reference and replaced it with "American Airlines" but "American Airlines LuxuryLiner" (replacing "DC-10 LuxuryLiner") remained on the DC-10s until the brand was dropped on all the AA widebodies some years later.

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 reputation. It can be done again (and my guess is that it WILL!) and 10 years from now, the only people who will peep about it are the super enthusiasts like those of us on this thread. It will be a relic.

like Vistajet.  



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (11 months ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 94):
Ahhhh. You are correct on the history. My bad.

Strangely enough, I had the same mistaken impression of the history of the name as you. We both stand corrected.


User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2886 posts, RR: 7
Reply 96, posted (11 months ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 82):
I think the 777 was initially called the 7J7........was that correct??

No, the 7J7 was something different. It would have been a short/medium range airplane.

The 777 was originally called the 767X.


User currently offlineual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1519 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 73):

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".

I personally find it hilarious.

I have also heard the MD80 at AA called "The Sweaty Eighty" lol



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 98, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA777 (Reply 75):
And lest we forget who makes the plane uncomfortable - seating arrangements are chosen by the airlines, not Boeing.

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 go to a "charter" configuration in Airbus cabins is usually a narrower seat that in the Boeing equivalent. e.g. 9-across in the 787 is 17.2 inch seats. in the 777 10-across is 17"

In the A330/A340, 9-across is 16.5" seats, and in the A350 10-across is about the same, possibly even less.

I'd suggest that this leads to a tight configuration being somewhat more acceptable to mainstream airlines in the Boeing cabins than in Airbus ones..

Rgds


User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 96):
No, the 7J7 was something different. It would have been a short/medium range airplane.

The 777 was originally called the 767X.

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 never called the 767-X.

Similarly, some of the ideas for the 7J7 made it into the 777, but they can't really be directly connected in terms of contiguous design concepts.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 100, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting AA777 (Reply 75):
I don't think its really possible to say that the A350 is more comfortable than the 787 for passenger comfort. The A350 has not even been flown yet. I think the "knowledgeable" person would submit that you can only judge what actually exists and is in commercial service.....

I disagree. There's plenty of information out there on possible configurations. And with the width chosen, it's very unlikely most A350 operators will be deploying the 10-abreast config. Except for a few LCCs. And I actually most LCCs won't even buy the A350...they'll probably go for the 787-10X.

Cabin width was entirely within control of the OEM. And Boeing made it possible for airlines to discomfort their passengers. They deserve the rep that the Dreamliner will get when the general public starts flying this thing. If you think they won't realize that the A350 is more spacious, I think you are underestimating them. The 31" pitch most airlines are using, really won't help either.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2014 posts, RR: 4
Reply 101, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 82):
7J7........was that correct??
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 96):
No, the 7J7 was something different

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 the famous XT, 286 or even 386? But everyone remember the Mac

I'd be interested to see how the name Dreamliner fare in the Far East (China, Japan etc . . .).

bt

[Edited 2013-05-30 12:18:51]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
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