BrettFromCLT
Topic Author
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:43 pm

Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:34 am

http://www.boeing.com/randy/

Not a whole lot of new info but a good read. Can't wait for rollout!

(my first topic!)
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:44 am

The main news is that the B787 program remains on schedule.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:58 am

On time, but still overweight. Randy says,
"I'm sure you've heard that the airplane is "overweight." Well, most new airplanes at this point in the program are. We have a plan on how to bring the weight down. But the good news is, while the weight's up a little bit, our performance and operating costs assessments are actually better than what we had projected."

I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:16 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.

The problem is slightly different though, B787 will have a further weight reduction program, and expected to be on target weight by EIS. On top of this, the economic is going to be better than expected.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:17 am

It's always a pleasure to read Randy's blog when he's not taking cheap shots at the good guys from Toulouse.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:18 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.

As long as her CASM is on target, I imagine the airlines will be forgiving.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
As long as her CASM is on target, I imagine the airlines will be forgiving.

 checkmark  The airlines care far more about CASM than they do about a few percent difference in payload/range performance.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:23 am

If you promise to carry carry X pax and Y cargo, 5000 miles for 2 cents a mile... You build a plane that carries X pax and y Cargo 5000 miles for 2 cents a mile... How is that not fulfilling you commitments if the OEW goes up 1000 lbs but it takes 1000 less pounds of fuel to do it? You can't look at ony one cost or performance parameter in a vacuum. Look at the whole thing. The point of commercial aircraft is to provide a tool for the airline to make money nothing else. We on A-nut like to pick apart the stats, but in the end you have to look at the whole thing, whether you are an Anut or a Bnut.

in the end the market decides not us.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:36 am

nice shot of the 787 in landing config. looks hot
They're not handing trophies out today
 
columbia107
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:42 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:38 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 5):
It's always a pleasure to read Randy's blog when he's not taking cheap shots at the good guys from Toulouse.

Sorry but can you tell me why the guys at Toulouse are the good ones?
In God we trust
 
Werkur767
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:26 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:46 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1):
The main news is that the B787 program remains on schedule

Is that for 2010?
First flights or the deliveries?

Which airline is the launcher?

Werner from GRU
Werkurspotter
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting Werkur767 (Reply 11):
Which airline is the launcher?

ANA was the launch customer in April 2004

Quoting Werkur767 (Reply 11):
First flights or the deliveries?

It would appear to be both

Quoting Werkur767 (Reply 11):
Is that for 2010?

What in particular were you wondering about 2010? Both the 787-3 and 787-9 are expected to debut in 2010, but more will not be known about these variants for some time.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting Werkur767 (Reply 11):
Is that for 2010?
First flights or the deliveries?

First flight is scheduled for August 2007. First delivery is scheduled for May 2008.

Quoting Werkur767 (Reply 11):
Which airline is the launcher?

NH are the launch customer.
 
Rbgso
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:15 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:57 am

I was somewhat disappointed in the "Dreamlifter" color scheme. It doesn't look bad, just average IMHO. Not that it really matters.

Can't wait to see this baby in the air!
 
bbobbo
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:18 am

Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 9):
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 5):
It's always a pleasure to read Randy's blog when he's not taking cheap shots at the good guys from Toulouse.

Sorry but can you tell me why the guys at Toulouse are the good ones?

Hopefully he means "fine gentlemen" when he refers to the good guys from Toulouse, and not as in "good guys vs. bad guys". There aren't any bad guys!

I would like to see an example of a cheap shot from Randy, though.

It's probably good for Airbus that Leahy doesn't have a blog.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:26 am

Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 9):
Sorry but can you tell me why the guys at Toulouse are the good ones?

Does there have to be bad ones?

NS
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
The airlines care far more about CASM than they do about a few percent difference in payload/range performance

I believe that cargo will play an increasingly important role in airline economics. I note with some interest that the replacement of hundreds of 767's with 787's not only increases available seats, it represents a disproportionately large increase in available cargo lift.

It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 3):
B787 will have a further weight reduction program, and expected to be on target weight by EIS. On top of this, the economic is going to be better than expected

This is what Airbus has said about the A380. I criticized Airbus for that. Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 7):
How is that not fulfilling you commitments if the OEW goes up 1000 lbs but it takes 1000 less pounds of fuel to do it?

I'm not convinced this will prove correct (which is what I said). If it is true, then the operational payload is not effected and I would withdraw my criticism.


Let me be clear: I love airplanes. I want to witness and appreciate the birth of a great airplane. The 707 flew before I was born. I was thrilled by the 747 but really too young to understand it all. I was thrilled by Concorde but it remained a rare sight. Nothing else since has been truly new and inspiring. I am disappointed by the A380...so the B787 is pretty much the object of my best hopes. "Good" isn't good enough. I want greatairplane 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:47 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):

It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.

Boeing is still on target to deliver the aircraft they have promised airlines. They are still trying to meet their own internal targets and thus over-deliver to airlines.

The likelihood of airlines receiving a 787-8 below what they were promised in 2004 is fairly low at this point. Whether or not Boeing can pull of a 773ER and produce an even more stellar aircraft that originally promised remains to be seen.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?

Well, you can do whatever you want.

But the circumstances of the A380 weight issues and the 787 weight issues are very different.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:50 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.

As far as we know, the 787 is over Boeing's internal weight targets, not the figures guaranteed to airlines, so there should be no loss of performance relative to what has been promised.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:14 pm

I will give Boeing the same credit I give Airbus and vice versa... say what ever you want, I will take it with a grain of salt ( okay maybe two for Airbus based on past promises of performance) when it comes out into service, it better do what you said it would. The A340 had issues at EIS. The 773W didn't. I am skeptical of the A380 mostly due to the large production issues (hey it is 2 years late) I am not very skeptical on the 787... but then I work there so I dont have to rely on Anutters for the scoop.

I do appreciate Randy's blog and his takin the high road with his comments.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:36 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
I believe that cargo will play an increasingly important role in airline economics. I note with some interest that the replacement of hundreds of 767's with 787's not only increases available seats, it represents a disproportionately large increase in available cargo lift.

It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.

It's the same with cargo as with passengers. Cargo operators would be ecstatic to give up 2.5 tonnes of payload capacity to get a 1 or 2% drop in tonne/mile costs.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:43 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
This is what Airbus has said about the A380. I criticized Airbus for that. Can I in good conscience not criticize Boeing for the same?

It would be equally fair to concede that maybe the A380's weight problem was business as usual for any airplane program.

Randy B says:

Quote:
our performance and operating costs assessments are actually better than what we had projected

Try parsing this sentence... our new projections are better than our old projections. Or is that our new assessments are better than our old assessments? You lost me on the previous PowerPoint slide

Joking aside, it does point out an important property of CASM: direct operating costs include significant slices for maintenance and that pesky monthly payment... it's not just about fuel (and the usual trio of engine, structural and aerodynamic efficiency metrics).

In my opinion, the real challenge of the 787 program will not be flying it, which is due in just 250 days. It will be delivering nearly 200 of them in the first two years after EIS. Keeping the program on schedule right now is no great achievement, when viewed in light of the task they will have to pull off through 2010. I wish them well.

(edit spelling)

[Edited 2006-12-16 05:44:20]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:49 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):
It would be equally fair to concede that maybe the A380's weight problem was business as usual for any airplane program.

It's one thing to be overweight during development and quite another to be overweight during production. The former is business as usual.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:01 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
It is unclear how far overweight the B787 actually is. If it is on the order of 2.5 tons, that is a substantial loss of available payload.

According to Carson on Decembrr 6th., quoted in the WSJ, the weight problem is down to 'about 500 pounds.' Carson is no Forgeard, if he says that in public I think we can assume that it's the truth - and therefore that any likely 787 weight problem is now a non-issue:-

"Speaking on a webcast at the Credit Suisse Aerospace and Defense Conference, Carson said Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner is on track to begin test flights next summer. The aircraft is still about 500 pounds too heavy, he said, with excess weight distributed throughout the aircraft. Carson said the fact that the 787 is made of new, lightweight composite material, rather than aluminum, will make it easier for engineers to reduce the total weight of the aircraft."

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061206-708505.html?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
First flight is scheduled for August 2007. First delivery is scheduled for May 2008.

Entry for the 'Surely NOT?' competition. If Boeing keep to schedule, and there is even one more six-month delay to the A380, the 787 will beat the A380 into service...........  Smile
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:14 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
It's one thing to be overweight during development and quite another to be overweight during production. The former is business as usual.

Good point. We'll have to wait until a 787 rolls off the line then, which should be very shortly!  Wink

As of last month:

Quote:

"There's some uncertainty here," Bair said when asked how much the 787 may be overweight. He said Boeing has weighed only a small percent of the parts that have so far been made.
 
radelow
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:07 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:34 pm

Does Boeing have any history of delivering an aircraft over-weight? It is a 100% honest question FYI. I really don't know the answer.
 
tf39
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:53 pm

The 787 won't be overweight. Besides, the real news is the Dreamlifter finally gets a paint job. That plane absolutely rocks!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:02 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
If Boeing keep to schedule, and there is even one more six-month delay to the A380, the 787 will beat the A380 into service.

That would take eight more months of delays for the first WhaleJet, not six months. I think Airbus have enough time to sort out the wiring design, install the correct wiring on the first frame, get an airworthiness directive for the empennage cracking, test the brakes at MTOW, figure out how to inert the fuel tanks or get a waiver, and get a revised type certification. Ten months should be enough time, right?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:30 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27):
That would take eight more months of delays for the first WhaleJet, not six months. I think Airbus have enough time to sort out the wiring design, install the correct wiring on the first frame, get an airworthiness directive for the empennage cracking, test the brakes at MTOW, figure out how to inert the fuel tanks or get a waiver, and get a revised type certification. Ten months should be enough time, right?

As so often lately, Zvezda, depends on how you interpret 'Airbus-speak.' Airbus' 3rd. October statement 'clearly' said:-

"The first Airbus A380 series aircraft will be delivered in the second half of 2007. In 2008 Airbus plans to deliver 13 aircraft."

So, on the face of it, only a single A380 will be delivered in 2007. SIA are unlikely to put a single aeroplane into service, they'll need at least two, preferably three. On Airbus' own forecast, only one will be delivered in 2007. Meanwhile, knowing Boeing, they're likely to hit their target of first 787 deliveries in May 2008. I make that a maximum gap of five months, not eight?

Anyway, as I said, it remains in the 'Surely NOT?' category for now. But some real fun discussions on these threads if it ever looks like actually happening.  

[Edited 2006-12-16 10:31:38]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:57 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 28):
So, on the face of it, only a single A380 will be delivered in 2007. SIA are unlikely to put a single aeroplane into service, they'll need at least two, preferably three.

I expect SQ to put a single WhaleJet in operation on SIN-SYD 1x daily until the 2nd WhaleJet arrives. If it needs to be pulled for MX, a JumboJet can be substituted.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:01 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
expect SQ to put a single WhaleJet in operation on SIN-SYD 1x daily until the 2nd WhaleJet arrives. If it needs to be pulled for MX, a JumboJet can be substituted.

True, nevertheless back in July, Andreas Fehring, vice-president A380 programme management, did make this rather telling comment:

Fehring declines to say when the second SIA aircraft will be ready for delivery, but hints it will not be too far behind the first, pointing out that an airline needs "a minimum of two" when introducing a new aircraft model into service.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...The+race+to+rewire+the+Airbus.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:41 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 30):
Fehring declines to say when the second SIA aircraft will be ready for delivery, but hints it will not be too far behind the first, pointing out that an airline needs "a minimum of two" when introducing a new aircraft model into service.

Many small airlines operate single examples of a type over long periods.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:49 pm

Suppose SIA did start a service with only one aeroplane, Zvezda?

The full Kangaroo route is Sydney-Changi-Heathrow. which takes the best part of 24 hours. Are they going to switch all the passengers to a 747 for the Changi-Heathrow leg? Or alternatively take their single A380 on to Heathrow - which would mean only about two-and-a-half full through A380 SYD-LHR-SYD return services per week, and even that only if the single aeroplane stays 100% serviceable?

[Edited 2006-12-16 12:59:23]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:01 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 31):
Many small airlines operate single examples of a type over long periods.

Point conceded, perhaps you'll agree that in the case of SQ it seems to boil down to a "spirit of the law vs. letter of the law" kind of analysis?
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:29 pm

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 19):
( okay maybe two for Airbus based on past promises of performance)

What are you refering to?

The A300, A310, A320, A320, A330, A340, which one?
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:56 am

I must say Randy's blog has a cautionary tone to it. He doesn't seem ecstatic about the A/C at this point. He keeps referring to challenges etc., and then says, in so many words, "but let's focus on the good stuff." I wonder why HE didn't stipulate just 500 pounds overweight, if that is the case, since that sounds like a trifle. Mine is just an emotional reaction, but if I were a customer, his demeanor in this last blog would make me nervous. It sounds something like damage control. Certainly not the same bravado of calling the 747-8 "the shape of the future."
I come in peace
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
I'm not convinced this will prove correct (which is what I said). If it is true, then the operational payload is not effected and I would withdraw my criticism.

It could prove correct for longer routes. In that case payload and presumably revenue is the same, but fuel costs are lower. For shorter routes the issue is more problematic, as fuel weight reductions won't likely be enough to bring payload back to desired levels, but fuel cost reduction lower operating costs so not as much revenue payload will be needed.

Of course this all assumes that payload numbers aren't revised upwards. If MTOW ends up being higher without any further increase in OEW, then payload on shorter routes could remain the same, with lower fuel costs.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:07 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
Boeing is still on target to deliver the aircraft they have promised airlines. They are still trying to meet their own internal targets and thus over-deliver to airlines.



Quoting B2707SST (Reply 18):
As far as we know, the 787 is over Boeing's internal weight targets, not the figures guaranteed to airlines,

I agree that Boeing will meet guarantees. I do not agree that the B787 is overweight only as compared to some unstated internal target. Very simply, if the guarantee number was the only relevant figure then Boeing would not mention the overweight issue in a blog like this.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
It's the same with cargo as with passengers. Cargo operators would be ecstatic to give up 2.5 tonnes of payload capacity to get a 1 or 2% drop in tonne/mile costs.

Of course they would. I'm saying I doubt a 1-2% drop in costs will be realized if the aircraft is that much overweight. Randy's exact words are "our performance and operating costs assessments are actually better than what we had projected". How much better? We won't really know until it flies.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 37):
Very simply, if the guarantee number was the only relevant figure then Boeing would not mention the overweight issue in a blog like this.

The whole idea for this blog and for the very public information about weight is to pressure Airbus and create a moving target. Boeing is investing additional resources to improve the bird, even after the customer performance targets are met.

This only makes it hard for Airbus to sell the A350, as the 787 performance numbers are a moving target.

At the same time, ANA, or any other airline for that matter, have not publicly adressed any concerns. That is a very good indication. Additionally, the momentum has not stopped for the 787...


Cheers
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 38):
This only makes it hard for Airbus to sell the A350, as the 787 performance numbers are a moving target.

Quite true. As I wrote above, I have very high hopes and expectations for the 787. If Boeing can meet or better the weight targets, all of the gains in performance are pure advantage and they will have an aircraft that Airbus will find very difficult to match. I'm looking for greatness from Boeing.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
himself
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:00 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 32):
The full Kangaroo route is Sydney-Changi-Heathrow. which takes the best part of 24 hours. Are they going to switch all the passengers to a 747 for the Changi-Heathrow leg? Or alternatively take their single A380 on to Heathrow - which would mean only about two-and-a-half full through A380 SYD-LHR-SYD return services per week, and even that only if the single aeroplane stays 100% serviceable?

I think we can point again to the tendancy for airlines to put new aircraft on domestic routes, for training purposes, and assume that the A380 will be flying thusly until the 2nd or 3rd one is delivered.
 
hamster
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:08 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:38 am

Do they have the parts made already? If so, are they here or all over the world? What is required before they put the frame together?
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:01 am

Quoting Himself (Reply 40):
I think we can point again to the tendancy for airlines to put new aircraft on domestic routes, for training purposes, and assume that the A380 will be flying thusly until the 2nd or 3rd one is delivered.

Which domestic routes exist in Singapore?  Wink
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 38):
At the same time, ANA, or any other airline for that matter, have not publicly adressed any concerns. That is a very good indication. Additionally, the momentum has not stopped for the 787...

Thank you, that's a very good point,

I had been worried/suspicious about what I perceived to be Randy's cautionary tone, however the airlines are probably being kept abreast of the A/Cs evolution and challenges, right?

None of them are making any negative, public comments about the weight issue or anything else for that matter regarding the 787; unlike how many airlines were very vocal about their displeasure with early versions of the 350.

Is this Randy just being typically conservative and prudent in his blog?
I come in peace
 
radelow
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:07 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:11 am

I think Randy is taking note of previous comments made by his colleagues (Boeing and otherwise) and being conservative. It is one thing to say a typical marketing-hype comment such as the 747-8 is the shape of the future. It is an entirely different thing to say that a plane with be on budget, on weight, on schedule. Props to Randy for maintain a consistency of conservancy in his blog. I think it does great justice to Boeing in general.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:25 am

This may be a question for the tech forum, but I'll ask it here for general respnses, what is the big math problem with weight? We believe and are impressed by both OEM's when they give us performance stats from models etc, about CASM, RASM, fuel burn, engine sfc all before the a/c flies, yet somehow, they can never seem to get the weight right, am I missing something or being too simplistic? Has there ever been an a/c when in modeling and early construction they tell us that we are under weight?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5159
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:27 pm

Did nobody notice the obvious dig at Airbus's manufacturing problems? Randy basically says that they have modelled the whole manufacturing process and caught mistakes that would have been expensive to fix once production began. Hilarious. He also references the fact that Boeing is uinsg cool computer tools from Dassault. The people who make CATIA. Which Airbus did not have installed uniformly across its design/build groups. These are interesting little digs. I hear you, Randy.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:33 pm

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 46):
Randy basically says that they have modelled the whole manufacturing process and caught mistakes that would have been expensive to fix once production began.

How is that a dig at Airbus? I think Baseler has enough tact to understand that Boeing is hardly in a position to brag because, as he rightly says, they have yet to get to the hard part-- the production ramp-up. Like I said above, the real proof will be in delivering nearly 200 frames by 2 years after EIS.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 46):
He also references the fact that Boeing is uinsg cool computer tools from Dassault.

Boeing uses the same CATIA package as Airbus... yawn. Again, I'm having trouble reading between the lines for a dig at Airbus for using incompatible versions thereof.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 46):
These are interesting little digs. I hear you, Randy.

Perhaps you are hearing yourself in your little echo chamber?  biggrin 
 
Eureka
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:02 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:07 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
I didn't accept this argument with the A380 and won't accept it with the B787. Overweight means lost revenue opportunities and greater costs than necessary, even if costs are less than expected. If the weight issue is not resolved, Boeing is saying "you can't carry as much as we would like, but it will cost you less to carry what you can." I'm not at all convinced that this works out to an economic advantage in the real world.

It isn't necessarily true that a higher operating empty weight or OEW will result in a reduced payload capability. An aircraft design, especially at the 787's stage of development, will have the flexibility to have increases in the maximum takeoff, landing and zero fuel weights. This will permit the payload capacity to remain the same or even be increased despite a higher OEW. If takeoff field length performance can be kept acceptable or improved at higher takeoff weights the block fuel performance can usually be maintained within 1% of that assuming the originally projected OEW.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Randy On 787 Progress

Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:34 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 47):
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 46):
These are interesting little digs. I hear you, Randy.

Perhaps you are hearing yourself in your little echo chamber?

WingedMigrator takes a dig at Wjcandee, because Wjcandee took a dig at Randy, because Randy took a dig at Airbus  Smile Interesting