baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:54 pm

Boeing claims first half of 2008 for 787-8 EIS and a late 2010 EIS for the 787-9. Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?

With several airlines more interested in the 787-9, shouldn't Boeing be more agressive here on the schedule? If the 787-10 is again 2 and 1/2 years after the -9, we are talking an EIS of 2013 for the -10. It would be doing battle with the A350XWB (if that thing ever flies).

Is this really the best Boeing can do on EIS for the larger variants or are they throtling it to hit replacement cycles - i.e. -8 for the 767-200, -9 for 767-300, -10 for 772A/ER?

Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?

I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:01 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?

IIRC the 787-9 configuration would be locked in before the 787-8 Flies for the first time . Regarding why it is EIS'n in 2010 there are several possible reasons the largest of which is the Design cycle , then comes the question of SLOTS which have been taken for the initial years by quite a lot of 787-8 and 787-3 sales , moreover boeing would want to cut some no.s out of the weight safety margins to make the 787-9 better !! There could be other reasons such as the demand curve making it the BEST TIMEFRAME to launch that particular version but I seriously think it has to do more with Design cycle and the delivery slots that boeing was ready to take out from 787-8 to get the 787-9 .
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Or does Boeing want to see how the 787-8 performs in service before it locks down the -9 configuration?



Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
IIRC the 787-9 configuration would be locked in before the 787-8 Flies for the first time .

There are several stages of "locked in" with regard to design. It's a matter of changes in the procedure required in order to change a part. Boeing won't wait for EIS, but they will learn lessons during flight testing of the B787-8 that can be used to optimize the detailed design of the B787-9.
 
keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:34 pm

I don't think 2.5 years is a very long time for a substantially longer and heavier version.

Look at previous aircraft types second versions like the 747-200, 757-300, 767-300 and 777-300 each followed longer after the first version.

I think the -9 design was seriously tweaked (capasity, range) to meet airline demand (QF, SQ). Personally I think the -9 will be the most popular version of the 787.

From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:35 pm

The B787-8 production is full for a few years, compared to the B787-9, considering the B787-9 doesn't have as many orders.. B787-9 could be considered as a certain market aircraft, like the B787-3 compared to the B787-8.

The B787-8 was originally planned to be the first B787 flying and delivery and will be

Looking forward to the launch B787-9 being delivered to NZ.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:03 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Look at previous aircraft types second versions like the 747-200, 757-300, 767-300 and 777-300 each followed longer after the first version.

Yes, but none of these aircraft was launched concurrently with the shorter version, as is the case with the 787-8 and 787-9.

I think a more appropriate comparisson is the 737-100 and 737-200 or the 737-700 and the 737-800 which entered service within 3 months of each other.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5):
I think a more appropriate comparisson is the 737-100 and 737-200 or the 737-700 and the 737-800 which entered service within 3 months of each other.

CFRP provides an opportunity for optimizing each stretch to a degree not practicable with aluminium. Therefore the benefit of waiting until the B787-8 is flying is greater in this case. Anyway, Boeing couldn't offer the B787-9 any sooner even if they were willing to forgo such optimization because all the earlier production slots are sold out.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:26 am

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
With several airlines more interested in the 787-9

Postponing the deliveries for many, many airlines who ordered the 788 and want them yesterday to accommodate the "several" airlines who want the 789 sooner does not sound like good business to me. Not to mention they also need to get the 783 out there for JL and NH.

Not to mention that Boeing has a limited number of test pilots and engineers, etc.

The testing and certification schedule has the 748 between the 788 and 783. IIRC, the 73GER also gets certified between the 788 and 783.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:33 am

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?



Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
With several airlines more interested in the 787-9, shouldn't Boeing be more agressive here on the schedule?

That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? The 787 program is already on an agressive schedule. There isn't such a thing as a "simple stretch" to any airplane, Boeing or otherwise. The 787-8 is the baseline and airlines ordering the -9 know the EIS schedule and should plan accordingly.
That's why we're here.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:39 am

Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

Had Airbus not offered the A350, Boeing would have probably pushed out the 787-900 even further.

Cheers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:41 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..

She similar in size to the A332 and that plane's size hasn't hurt her sales all that much.  Smile

At 8-abreast, she's a perfect replacement for the A332. At 9-abreast, she's a bit less comfortable but offers even better CASM.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:42 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

I think that "dragging their feet" is too strong of a term. The sequence is 787-8, 787-3, and 787-9. It seems that 2.5 years span between the three variants isn't a terribly large amount of time.

BCA also stated a couple of years ago that a big portion of this had to do with customer demand. Customers mostly wanted -8 and -3 first. Ergo, the first couple of year's worth of slots were gobbled up by airlines that wanted those aircraft.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 8):
and should plan accordingly

OT joke, mod, delete at will.

During the Soviet era, in 1986, a guy went to buy a Lada.
He paid his Rubles and the salesman said, "Ok, we'll deliver it in April of 1988". The buyer asked, "In the first or second week of April?".
The salesman replied, "It's 2 years away, what difference does it make?".
The buyer said, "well, the plumber is coming the first week!".

Yea, sometmes you really do have to plan.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small.

ROFL.

Too bad the airlines didn't consult you. Those 300+ 788s sold are going to really hurt their bottom lines for years to come...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

The 787-9 is a greater threat to the A330-300 then it is to the 777-200ER. Also consider that the A330-300 EIS'd at the end of 1993 vs. early 1997 for the 777-200ER and the "replacement window" for the A333 is earlier then the 772ER so Boeing should sell more 787-9s as A333 replacements then 772ER replacements at first.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:14 am

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
Why does Boeing need 2 and 1/2 years to EIS a simple strech?

Maybe because we're also building a 787-3 during that time period?

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
If the 787-10 is again 2 and 1/2 years after the -9, we are talking an EIS of 2013 for the -10

The 787-10 shouldn't take two and a half years. . . more like 1.5-2 years. There's still plenty of time to launch the 787-10 and get it out in 2012.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Boeing dragged their feet with the 787-9 due to the cannabilization of 777-200 sales.

The 787-9 seats 250-290 pax in 3-class depending on whether the airline puts 8-abreast or 9-abreast. The 777-200 essentially starts at 300 pax. The 787-10 is what's going to "cannabilize" the B772.
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:22 am

There could be two reasons for it:

Airline demand not earlier than late 2010.

or

A time margin between the EIS of the -8 and the -9 to have a buffer for unexpected problems which could be avoided at the -9 from the beginning.

Just my 2 cents.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.

Do you think that would be good for the aircraft and airline industry. to have only one option?
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
BCA also stated a couple of years ago that a big portion of this had to do with customer demand. Customers mostly wanted -8 and -3 first. Ergo, the first couple of year's worth of slots were gobbled up by airlines that wanted those aircraft.

Boeing didn't even offer the 787-9 until around the time that Qantas made their order.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The 787-9 is a greater threat to the A330-300 then it is to the 777-200ER. Also consider that the A330-300 EIS'd at the end of 1993 vs. early 1997 for the 777-200ER and the "replacement window" for the A333 is earlier then the 772ER so Boeing should sell more 787-9s as A333 replacements then 772ER replacements at first.

A330-3 is more of a regional airplane, where as the 787-9 is long range. I don't believe Boeing are offering a true replacement for the A330-3, unless you considered the 787-3.

Cheers
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8545
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:58 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..

What you wanted was a Boeing copy of the A330-200.

Boeing didn't arbitrarily define the capacity of the 787-8 or -9. You can bet that the final capacity was made at the consulation of dozens of customers and considerable market research.

Your definition of "small" certainly hasn't stopped the 787-8 from zipping past the larger A332 in sales.
 
AirNZ
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:03 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
I for one would like to see Boeing shut the door on the A330 and A350-8/9 with the 787-9 and 787-10 ASAP.

Any particular reason?
Flown:F27/TU134/Viscount/Trident/BAC111/727/737/747/757/767/777/300/310/320/321/330/340/DC9/DC10/Dash8/Shorts330/BAe146
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 18):
A330-3 is more of a regional airplane, where as the 787-9 is long range. I don't believe Boeing are offering a true replacement for the A330-3, unless you considered the 787-3.

Except the 787-3 has about half the range of the A333.  Smile

True, the A333's competitor is the 777-200A, but the 787-9 is about 25,000lb lighter in OEW and when flying an A333 mission profile can leave tens of thousands (or more) of pounds of unneeded fuel behind.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
The testing and certification schedule has the 748 between the 788 and 783. IIRC, the 73GER also gets certified between the 788 and 783.

Thanks for this info - I hadn't consider that - i.e. how it fits with the other certification programs at Boeing. It makes sense that the 787-9 needs to be slotted in with the other programs.

I still think that the 787-9 and 787-10 are critical for Boeing to fend-off the appeal of an eventual A350XWB that will be going for the meat of the mid-size widebody market. I'd like to see them flyind ASAP.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:00 am

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 17):
Do you think that would be good for the aircraft and airline industry. to have only one option?

Did it hurt the airline industry when the 747 was the only VLA flying for years and years? Did it hurt the airline industry when the 727 was the only mid-range airliner flying for years and years? Will it hurt the airline industry if the A380 is the only 500+seat long range airliner for a couple of decades? Did it hurt the airline industry that the GE-90-110/115 is the only engine in the 100Klbs range?

Of course not. A solid, efficient, well priced product from a single vendor that pushes the envelop is a GREAT thing for the airline industry.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small.

ROFL.

Too bad the airlines didn't consult you. Those 300+ 788s sold are going to really hurt their bottom lines for years to come...

I actually agree with Keesje here. It is clear that Boeing has been scrambling to grow bigger with the 787 ever since launch. They had to increase MTOW of the -9 and are being "pushed" into the -10. Had Airbus executed better and launched the A350XWB as the original response to the 787, Boeing would be scrambling even more.

Ikramerica, the question to ask is: Had Boeing ONLY launched the 787-9 and not the -8, wouldn't they still capture all those 300+ orders plus the 787-9 orders - all that with a single product instead of two? I think so.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 24):
I actually agree with Keesje here. It is clear that Boeing has been scrambling to grow bigger with the 787 ever since launch. They had to increase MTOW of the -9 and are being "pushed" into the -10. Had Airbus executed better and launched the A350XWB as the original response to the 787, Boeing would be scrambling even more.

Hmm.. No... Just because EK and SQ think they need bigger airplanes than the 787 does not mean that 787-8 is not the right size.

EK and SQ AFAIK did not order 767 at all, and yet, It is one of the most successful widebody programs.

So, Yes EK and SQ wants their 787 to be bigger, but there's a lot of market in the smaller airplane class. Just wait until AA and DL start ordering, and more 767s are retired. You'll see how successful 787-8 will become.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:46 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 25):
So, Yes EK and SQ wants their 787 to be bigger, but there's a lot of market in the smaller airplane class. Just wait until AA and DL start ordering, and more 767s are retired. You'll see how successful 787-8 will become.

I have no doubts that the 787-8 will be very successful - I think it already is. I just don't think that the 787-8 would lose many orders if it came in at the size now set for the 787-9 and it would gain a few more at lower expense for Boeing.

Look at AA, CO, DL, UA - they basically stopped ordering 767 (except for the -400 in the case of DL and CO) and started ordering 777s. I think it is clear that they wanted to up-size their mid-sized widebody fleet.

Be that as it may, the 787 in -3, -8, -9, -10 will be an awesome aircraft. I just wonder if -3, -8.5, -10 (3 models vs 4) would not be a more cost effective R&D&P option while capturing essentially the same market.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 22):
Thanks for this info - I hadn't consider that - i.e. how it fits with the other certification programs at Boeing. It makes sense that the 787-9 needs to be slotted in with the other programs.

Planes aren't developed in a vacuum. While Boeing can go through 2 certification programs simultaneously, it becomes costly to have them all in the same stage of testing at once, not to mention the lack of experienced engineers to spread among so many programs. Monitoring multiple 748 test aircraft as well as 783 and 789 test aircraft all at the same stage of testing would be a large burden. Then what happens afterward? Do you lay every one extra you had to hire off?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 25):
Just because EK and SQ think they need bigger airplanes than the 787 does not mean that 787-8 is not the right size.

Exactly. EK and SQ want large planes for their business models. NZ also switched to the 789, and look for QF to take far more 789s than 788s when all is said and done.

But the 788 is strong replacement for the 763 and the A300, planes that need replacing by 2008-2010 for a large number of carriers. But it also brings long range travel into a smaller sized jet, and some carriers (japanese, chinese and USA) see a real value in that. You will also likely see BA take all three (788/9/10).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
have no doubts that the 787-8 will be very successful - I think it already is. I just don't think that the 787-8 would lose many orders if it came in at the size now set for the 787-9 and it would gain a few more at lower expense for Boeing.

Yes, that's exactly why everyone got rid of their 767-200/-300s. What's that, you say? There are still a bazillion of them flying?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
Look at AA, CO, DL, UA - they basically stopped ordering 767 (except for the -400 in the case of DL and CO) and started ordering 777s. I think it is clear that they wanted to up-size their mid-sized widebody fleet.

They stopped ordering
[Edited 2006-10-19 21:52:35]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:58 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
I have no doubts that the 787-8 will be very successful - I think it already is. I just don't think that the 787-8 would lose many orders if it came in at the size now set for the 787-9 and it would gain a few more at lower expense for Boeing.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 27):
But the 788 is strong replacement for the 763 and the A300, planes that need replacing by 2008-2010 for a large number of carriers.

Not having the 787-8 model would probably have hurt as it's really a direct competitor to the A332 and a direct replacement for the 764ER. It's a pretty significant step-up in capacity to the 763ER at 8-abreast, to say nothing of 9-abreast. A 787-9 would be an even larger step up (within about 10% of going to a 777-200).
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:15 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 26):
I have no doubts that the 787-8 will be very successful - I think it already is. I just don't think that the 787-8 would lose many orders if it came in at the size now set for the 787-9 and it would gain a few more at lower expense for Boeing.

Look at AA, CO, DL, UA - they basically stopped ordering 767 (except for the -400 in the case of DL and CO) and started ordering 777s. I think it is clear that they wanted to up-size their mid-sized widebody fleet.

Be that as it may, the 787 in -3, -8, -9, -10 will be an awesome aircraft. I just wonder if -3, -8.5, -10 (3 models vs 4) would not be a more cost effective R&D&P option while capturing essentially the same market.

No, your analysis is wrong. The 767 is not being ordered anymore because it is obsolete (old).

If you "up-size" a "mid-sized widebody fleet", it becomes a large sized widebody fleet. What you say makes to sense.

There is need for planes which seat between 200-300 people. The 787-8 and the 787-9 (and the A350-8) do exactly that.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 24):

I actually agree with Keesje here. It is clear that Boeing has been scrambling to grow bigger with the 787 ever since launch. They had to increase MTOW of the -9 and are being "pushed" into the -10. Had Airbus executed better and launched the A350XWB as the original response to the 787, Boeing would be scrambling even more.

I completely disagree. The 787-8 is exactly the size the airlines wanted. Boeing doesn't arbitrarily decide that since we're replacing the 767 we'll build a replacement that will seat about the same amount of people. Both Airbus and Boeing work closely with the airlines on every new plane and derivative to get the size to where the demand is. That's why there's been so many -8 orders thus far. It's clear that demand in the next 2-4 years will be to replace 762/763/A300/A310s which is why the -8 and -3 are coming first. About 5 years down the road it will be time to replace the older A330s and 764s and by that time the 787-9 will be an established competitor in the market. This is probably also one of the reasons that for the A350XWB the -9 is coming before the -8. I'm not going to try to predict the future by saying which model will sell more. But the idea that the 787-8 is too small and Boeing is scrambling to make the 787 bigger is silly.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:41 am

The 747-8i is larger and longer ranged than the 744 which in turn is larger and longer ranged than the 747-300.

The 787-8 is larger and longer and MUCH longer ranged than the 767.

Cleraly the 787-8 was not meant simply as 767NG. It was meant to open long haul opps on smaller craft. Sure it will also be used on 3500nm runs across the Atlantic and 4500nm runs to South America, but it is defining a totally new mission: 7000nm runs to Asia/Pacific where the 767 didn't thread. In that mission it is replacing/competing with 772ERs and A343s, and even 744s even though it is smaller.

So it is not just about size (seats) - it is also about range and mission.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:47 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small

Have you heard of a once very popular airplane now mostly ageing, aka the 767-300? Do you think they will fly until 2030?
When I doubt... go running!
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:19 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 32):
Cleraly the 787-8 was not meant simply as 767NG. It was meant to open long haul opps on smaller craft. Sure it will also be used on 3500nm runs across the Atlantic and 4500nm runs to South America, but it is defining a totally new mission: 7000nm runs to Asia/Pacific where the 767 didn't thread. In that mission it is replacing/competing with 772ERs and A343s, and even 744s even though it is smaller.

So it is not just about size (seats) - it is also about range and mission.

No its not. The 787 has such long range because it offers flexibility. It gives the airline more options as to where to fly them to. No matter how much more efficient, a 250 seater can't replace (or compete with) a 300 seater.

FYI: the 787-8 seats "210 to 250 passengers" while the 767-300ER seats 218 and the 767-400ER seats 245. The 787-8 could not have been more of a 767/A300 replacement.

The 787-9, which was originally planned to compete with and/or replace the A330-200s. Hence, if Boeing had the EIS of the 787-9 earlier, many A330-200s would still be fairly new.

The 787-10 is recently implemented (will be implemented) into the 787 program to compete with the A350-9 and replace old 777-200s / -200ERs / A340-300s / A330-300s. These planes will be old and prime for replacement right at the time the EIS for the 787-10 (2012) is.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:23 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 34):
No matter how much more efficient, a 250 seater can't replace (or compete with) a 300 seater.

This is another A.net myth that only airplanes of the same size compete with each other and that the replacement for an aging aircraft HAS TO BE the same size. This is simply not so.

747s replaced MANY 707s in the 70s. 767s and 777s replaces many 747s in the 80s and 90s. Even 757s replaced some of the 747 missions over the Atlantic in the past couple of years. Rats, 737s and A320s replaced 747s and DC10s/L1011s for US transcon.

Why can't people get this through their heads? Any aircraft that has the range to fly a mission with good economics is a competitor.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:38 pm

Boeing wants to make sure that they will be on time for the -9. Why would they say late 2008 if they know there is a chance it will be delayed. Better to say 2010 and have it come out in 2009 than say 2008 and have it out in 2009.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:35 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 35):
747s replaced MANY 707s in the 70s. 767s and 777s replaces many 747s in the 80s and 90s. Even 757s replaced some of the 747 missions over the Atlantic in the past couple of years. Rats, 737s and A320s replaced 747s and DC10s/L1011s for US transcon.

747 replaced 707 because of the range. Do you know how many empty seats those 747s carry around? Again, after 767, 777 was available, they replace 747 because of the range. The domestic widebody is being replaced by 737 because of deregulation, nothing else.

Your example proves that smaller is not always worse, hence 787-8.

787-9 and 787-8 has their own respective market, and without either one, Boeing will not have a complete offering to the airline, and in the end will hurt their portfolio. Nuf said.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 34):
No matter how much more efficient, a 250 seater can't replace (or compete with) a 300 seater.

I strongly disagree. If range is sufficient, then a 250 seater of equal efficiency will usually be more profitable than a 300 seater because RASM decreases as size increases.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:46 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 34):
No matter how much more efficient, a 250 seater can't replace (or compete with) a 300 seater.

I strongly disagree. If range is sufficient, then a 250 seater of equal efficiency will usually be more profitable than a 300 seater because RASM decreases as size increases.

You know, according to your theories (not just this one, but everything else I have seen you say in other discussions), every airline in the world should be flying around super fuel efficient 50 seaters. Well, it doesn't work that way. Don't get me wrong, I honestly agree with what you say, but it looks good just on paper. In reality, it is not what airlines do.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:01 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 39):
In reality, it is not what airlines do.

Some do.The largest domestic airline in the US (WN) does not fly anything with more than 137 seats.

The largest airline in the world (AA) with a significant international/long-haul component does not fly anything larger than a 777-200, and domestically it flies virtually all their routes on MD80s, unless you count American eagle withe their scores of RJs.

And these are airlines that work in the most deregulated and the most competitive environment.

You need to read what Zvesda wrote - if range is sufficient and the planes have the same efficiency (CASM), then smaller is usually better. Now it just so happen that for very long routes, it is hard to achieve the same efficiency with something too small, like 50 seats, because of the greater proportion of fuel carried vs passangers carried. Also, most long haul requires first and business class products which require more floor space - so there are practical limits of how small you can go on long haul. I think the 787-8 is probably pretty close to the smallest limit you can have for an 8,000 nm airplane.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:24 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 40):
The largest airline in the world (AA) with a significant international/long-haul component does not fly anything larger than a 777-200, and domestically it flies virtually all their routes on MD80s, unless you count American eagle withe their scores of RJs.

The U.S. majors (for the past 10 years) are not to be taken into account at all when looking at what "profitable" airlines do.

My bottom line point: size (seat count) matters. Try having 10 British Airways 787s from JFK-LHR instead of the normal 10 747/777 from JFK-LHR. Efficient? maybe. Does it work? absolutely not.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:40 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 39):
You know, according to your theories (not just this one, but everything else I have seen you say in other discussions), every airline in the world should be flying around super fuel efficient 50 seaters. Well, it doesn't work that way. Don't get me wrong, I honestly agree with what you say, but it looks good just on paper. In reality, it is not what airlines do.

50 seaters have higher CASM than widebodies despite shorter range -- for several reasons, not least of which derives from spacing between the fan blades and the cowling.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 41):
My bottom line point: size (seat count) matters. Try having 10 British Airways 787s from JFK-LHR instead of the normal 10 747/777 from JFK-LHR. Efficient? maybe. Does it work? absolutely not.

BA have been trending toward smaller airliners on JFK-LHR. I would not be surprised to see them operating B787s on JFK-LHR in the future. I would be surprised to see them operating any 50 seater on JFK-LHR even if they could find one with sufficient range.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:08 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 39):
every airline in the world should be flying around super fuel efficient 50 seaters.

My impression is that the 50 and 70 seat regio's don't have great CASM. WN has found that flying a 737 part full is often the better option.

If the 787-8 is too small, why is the -8 still selling so well, it has logged 65% of the 2006 orders. (and 37 since July 1 vs 22 for the -9). By the July 1 point the backlog was sufficient that no slots for the -8 were available ahead of a -9 slot. So 10 customers since July thought the -8 was the right size for them. Yes B needs to have the -9 and -10 but the -8 was the right one to begin with.

Back on topic, B has the 787-8, the 747-8, the 787-3, and the 787-9 to certify by 2011. It also has to initiate a new production line for different materials than used before. Do you think that maybe, just maybe Boeing wanted to gain experience in doing the CFRP fuselage, seeing the real test results, fix any glitches, fine tune the assembly line and the design. The -9 certification will give them a chance to modify and adapt virturally anything in the plane to "get it right" for both the -8 and -9 as well as the production line.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:14 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 41):
My bottom line point: size (seat count) matters. Try having 10 British Airways 787s from JFK-LHR instead of the normal 10 747/777 from JFK-LHR. Efficient? maybe. Does it work? absolutely not.

But flying 5 747/777 from JFK-LHR along with new routes of 2 787 Boston - LHR, 2 787 Dulles - LHR, 2 787 YYZ, and 2 787 JFK-Edinborough very well could work.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:17 pm

I think it has more to do with market demand and planed growth of the airlines themselves than anything else.
One Nation Under God
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:31 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 41):
My bottom line point: size (seat count) matters. Try having 10 British Airways 787s from JFK-LHR instead of the normal 10 747/777 from JFK-LHR. Efficient? maybe. Does it work? absolutely not.

Wait... What? how do you know it doesn't work? It will work. They will need more capacity yes, but It would still work.

The thing is with JFK-LHR market, it is a restricted market, with only so many slots availabe for those flights. JFK-LHR market is more of an exception rather than the rule. Did you see how many 773ER takes 747 place? Do you know that SQ has less seats on its 773ER than on its 772ER. Sure, you can argue however you like, but the fact is that the bigger market will still be for a smaller plane, rather than large ones.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
airmailer
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:28 am

RE: Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:03 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small.

ROFL.

Too bad the airlines didn't consult you. Those 300+ 788s sold are going to really hurt their bottom lines for years to come...

 checkmark  I couldn't agree more IKR!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
From the start I thought the -8 was a little small. 9 abreast helped, but still..

Keesje,
Why is it always about size with you Europeans?
Can't you ever be concerned about things like environmental impact like Boeing?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: admanager, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], DC1979, Flighty, freakyrat, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], GUYAIR707, j8, knope2001, legacyins, miguelpr91, nikeson13, qf789, Rookinla, TWA772LR, Wraine, wrcairline, Yahoo [Bot] and 285 guests