ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:07 am

Since it is looking more and more likely that no other carrier will buy the 783 (DL and AA aren't strong contenders in my book), should Boeing offer NH and JL to take compensation and convert 783 orders to the 788? Boeing could still certify the 788 with the blended winglets and reduced range and derate the engines, but is there really a reason to spend all the money to develop an actual 3rd model? I know the fees in Japan are based on weight, but the future value of that cost (compensated) combined with the flexibility the 788s would offer could make up for it.

Any thoughts?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:13 am

The fuselage of the -3 is thicker specifically for the high-cycle endurance such a craft might need. It may be that the -8 would do as well, but Boeing didn't seem to think so when they designed the -3.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8657
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1):
The fuselage of the -3 is thicker specifically for the high-cycle endurance such a craft might need.

Boeing suggested that they might make the -3 thinner because it will not be carrying the same loads as the heavier 787-8. As of yet, they have not confirmed any intention to thin (or thicken) the 787-3.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:27 am

Why? NH and JL each have large orders for the 783 and will probably place follow up orders in the future for the type.....its ideal for the high capacity/short haul mission important to both of these airlines. Boeing built a limited number of 744Ds specifically for this market and is now doing the same with the 783. As for resale value, its likely that JL and NH will fly their 783s for the aircrafts entire useful life, so its probably not a big issue.

And it is possible that other carriers will sign up for the 783..........the 783 does have enough range to cover many many missions and we could see an order from one or more US carriers and/or European carriers as the 783 could be the ideal replacement for the 763A, 753 and the A300. The 783 will be a niche aircraft.....but its a niche that is important to several very important Boeing customers.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5022
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:27 am

There are other areas of the 787-3 that are optimized for high-cycle operations; I believe the landing gear, to name one. I suspect that Boeing has figured that they will be unlikely to sell many -3's outside of Japan, and have figured accordingly. I'm also quite sure that the Japanese airlines will be buying more of them in future years. After all, they did the same thing for the Japanese with the 747-twice.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
There are other areas of the 787-3 that are optimized for high-cycle operations; I believe the landing gear, to name one. I suspect that Boeing has figured that they will be unlikely to sell many -3's outside of Japan, and have figured accordingly. I'm also quite sure that the Japanese airlines will be buying more of them in future years. After all, they did the same thing for the Japanese with the 747-twice.

But the 744D is convertible. Can't they do the same with the 788, where you can convert one to the other after a certain number of years, to even out overall cycles?

I don't see the number the two have bought to be sufficient for the type, but I suppose they could earn enough follow-on from them. Not sure about the USA. The 783 lacks about 500nm of range to make it really suitable...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jfk787nyc
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:59 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:05 am

Do you guys believe there maybe a market for this plane in CHINA?
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Boeing suggested that they might make the -3 thinner because it will not be carrying the same loads as the heavier 787-8. As of yet, they have not confirmed any intention to thin (or thicken) the 787-3.

That was what I thought the plan had been. Decrease the thickness to help decrease weight since the plane doesn't have to haul as much weight. BUt maybe strengthening the gear, to take the extra cycles.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
But the 744D is convertible. Can't they do the same with the 788, where you can convert one to the other after a certain number of years, to even out overall cycles?

I don't see the number the two have bought to be sufficient for the type, but I suppose they could earn enough follow-on from them. Not sure about the USA. The 783 lacks about 500nm of range to make it really suitable...

I got laughed at when I broached this subject many months ago. It would seem that you could derate the engines and make a paper MTOW-adjustment to lower the landing fees for the Japanese airlines (maybe?). The question is how much profit is there to be had, without gaining substantially more orders vs. the extra development/certification costs? Of course, some of the Japanese government financing is contingent on this model. But I have a feeling that Boeing would rather be able to put the resources going into the -3 into a higher MTOW -10. The biggest issue in my mind with the -3 vs. the -8 is that the -3 can fit into smaller gates for domestic ops.

cheers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9086
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:18 am

I consider this a real option for some time. The 787-3 will be an expensive sub variant. Even JAl and ANA might be better of with the 787-8 that offers them much more flexibility.

Comparing the 787-3 to the 762/-3, a300/-10 and 757-300 it is suppose to replace it doesn´t seem a very light / efficient aircraft. Many carriers would prefer e.g. 737-900ERs instead that are about half as light / cheap.

Like Airbus delayed the A380-800F to improve the A380 line, Boeing might consider if the manpower / investment put in the 787-3 could be more profitably invested in e.g. a 787-10, a production ramp up or further production optimalization..



[Edited 2007-06-22 23:31:39]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:30 am

i think boeing will wait and see if someonee like DL and AA order the 783 for domestic routes (DL could use them to replace the 763 non er's) then they will decide if the plane should be canceled, i hope its not because the 783 for domestic use might be the only chance i have to ride it
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:47 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
i think boeing will wait and see if someonee like DL and AA order the 783 for domestic routes

Delta will buy 787's to replace its international 767 fleet, then shift 767-300ER's to domestic routes. When the 767-300ER's are ready to retire, perhaps Delta will buy some 787-3's. Of course by that time, Delta might just move the 767-400 fleet back to a domestic configurattion. That makes sense considering the 767-400 has about the same passenger capacity as the 787-3 and 787-8. If they ever order 787-3's, it probably wouldn't be for at least a decade.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2570
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:33 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 7):
I got laughed at when I broached this subject many months ago. It would seem that you could derate the engines and make a paper MTOW-adjustment to lower the landing fees for the Japanese airlines (maybe?).

No laughing matter when Japanee airlines have to pay a ton of money to the government for landing fees based on weight. You are exactly right on weights that it's just a matter of paper work, though the engines aren't necessarily de-rated.
Take for example the Skymark 767-300ERs, they are powered by the GE CF6-80C2B6F which is standard for ERs. They just skyrocket off the runway beacuse of the low t/o weight.

Back to the subject, NH & JL will most likely add to their current orders as they are hinting at replacing the 744Ds and possibly the older 772As next decade with the 783s. With something on the order of 50 aircrafts ordered between NH & JL, the 783 has easily surpassed the order for 744Ds at 19.

Just like the 747SRs, the 744Ds built in the 1990s will most likely go to the chopper when they get retired starting around 2010. JL has already announced that two 744Ds are leaving in 2010.

An interesting question is what will happen to the NH & JL 763s, as these aircraft are up for retirement. JL has announced 767s will start to leave in 2008. Most likely, the older -200s will go first then the domestic -300s. By then, the oldest 763 will be over 22 years old and have a ton of cycles. Will they be converted to cargo use or sent to the scrapper?
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:14 pm

I think LH could make good use of 783s as a replacement for their A306s, no?
 
scorpy
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:26 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:29 pm

The other thing is that Boeing have pretty much got the japanese market sewn up with JL and ANA. Why risk alienating some of their best customers and let airbus in the door?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:11 pm

Who were the launch customers for the B-787 and what model did they order?
The Japanese domestic aviation market is somewhat unique, they made an inquiry about an a/c to suit their needs, Boeing took on the challenge and designed the 3. Another variant of the same a/c is now selling like hotcakes, somehow the suggestion that they ditch the customer requirements and meet it another way gives a sour taste. I understand all the technical details given, except Keesje idea about the 10. The 8 is not yet flying, the 3 is not yet built and we are talking about not building it to concentrate on another variant which has not yet been offered or bought by anyone, why not concentrate on the customers who have already bought into a product that was offered?
Looking ahead is good, its what forums like this is about, however, we can also look back, and I think in hindsight, Boeing should have designed the 3 with a bit more flexibility, the main sticking point of the 3 when fully loaded is its range. There is a market for a A-300 type , no question, and its not just in Japan, there was, maybe still is, an oppertunity for Boeing to use the 3 to address Japan's market with the A-300 market being a side benefit, without "abusing" the 8. One of the complaints oft given to Airbus was the same fuse being used for so many different market segments, would hate to see Boeing come up with its variant of the same theme.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:09 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Since it is looking more and more likely that no other carrier will buy the 783 (DL and AA aren't strong contenders in my book),

Oops...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...chnology/2003757930_airshow22.html

He thinks United and American may buy the short-range version of the 787, the 787-3, for the U.S. domestic market.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Any thoughts?

Open mouth, insert foot?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:52 am

Look, it's just an idea that I think Boeing must be considering. 50 total doesn't sound like enough to make it worth it.

Quoting Dank (Reply 7):
But I have a feeling that Boeing would rather be able to put the resources going into the -3 into a higher MTOW -10. The biggest issue in my mind with the -3 vs. the -8 is that the -3 can fit into smaller gates for domestic ops.

That's why I suggested they could certify the 8 with blended winglets. It's fundamentally the same wing with different extensions to provide for 199 foot width and better short range performance.

But if they are all 788s with two wingtips and de-rated engines (which can be changed in 24 hours) then you could imagine the 788 can be converted from one mode to the other in a few days, inside and out. The value in this is to "trade" parts between one each 788D and 788 after 8 years. This "uses up" both aircraft more completely.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Open mouth, insert foot?

What a jerky comment. You must have a lot of friends...

I'm well aware of the rumor article and as I said I don't think it's going to happen. It doesn't mean it's going to happen just because of the article, just like there aren't going to be 20 748i customers just because they were talked to and mentioned by Randy.

Unless Boeing changes the specs of the plane to offer 500nm more range when loaded. Now if they make the plane a true 3000nm jet with a real load, maybe that will change thing. But considering it would be replacing A300 and 764s with more range than that that do longer missions than that, I just don't know. Most carriers don't want to replace one jet with another that is less flexible/useful.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:13 am

Similar thread here: Drop 787-3 In Favour Of 787-9, -10? (by Rheinbote Dec 25 2006 in Civil Aviation)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:18 am

Which is archived...

And I didn't read every post, but the proposal of the OP is to drop the 783 without doing anything about it vs. creating a 788D model that meets many of the 783 requirements (new wingtips, derated engines, "convertibility option" between standard 788, derated MTOW and compensation to the airlines to take them).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Look, it's just an idea that I think Boeing must be considering. 50 total doesn't sound like enough to make it worth it.

When Boeing came up with the 787-3 for the Japanese carriers, they fully understood that the 787-3 would be a niche product and of little interest to most airlines worldwide. The fact that one or more of the US carriers is even considering the 787-3 is a big deal, my guess is that Boeing did not anticipate sales of the type beyond Japan (although the type could be effective in the Chinese domestic market?). I do think that both JAL and ANA will place follow up orders for the type in the future.

Why are you assuming that Boeing does not understand the finances of the 787-3 variant? I think Boeing knew exactly what it was doing with the 787-3: the variant will produce a modest profit but by offering the the short range variant, Boeing locked in two very major customers for the entire 787 family. And, its always possible that other airlines will become interested in the type in the future......US and EU carriers cannot continue to add flights and frequencies on certain routes and, at some point, they may need an airplane like the 787-3 for shorter haul segments. The 787 program is still young, give it time.
 
purplebox
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:43 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
US and EU carriers cannot continue to add flights and frequencies on certain routes and, at some point, they may need an airplane like the 787-3 for shorter haul segments. The 787 program is still young, give it time.

Absolutely!

PurpleBox.
Next Flights:LHR-BOG,BOG-GYE,MDE-BOG-PTY,PTY-BOG-CTG,SMR-BOG-LHR - all on AV
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:18 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 12):
I think LH could make good use of 783s as a replacement for their A306s, no?

...only thing is, the derivative isn't likely to get certified for Euro-carrier "consumption" any time soon.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):
...only thing is, the derivative isn't likely to get certified for Euro-carrier "consumption" any time soon.

And IIRC, LH announced that they weren't interested in it and weren't looking at the -8 (the latter not being a surprise). I think that if Boeing actually thought they might be selling -3s to European carriers any time soon, they would be putting up the money to certify it there.

cheers.
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Unless Boeing changes the specs of the plane to offer 500nm more range when loaded. Now if they make the plane a true 3000nm jet with a real load, maybe that will change thing. But considering it would be replacing A300 and 764s with more range than that that do longer missions than that, I just don't know. Most carriers don't want to replace one jet with another that is less flexible/useful.

I think that last point is important. I have a feeling that UA would be happier at present if some of their 772As were ERs instead, for example. The situation that you see with DL, being able to push 763s between domestic and international when they wanted to shift flying (and it can be done without changing seating if time is critical, but you can go through a minimal cost seating refurb) would be impossible with the current specifications on a -3. ANd you have to think that this issue will be in the back of their minds.

cheers.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Like Airbus delayed the A380-800F to improve the A380 line, Boeing might consider if the manpower / investment put in the 787-3 could be more profitably invested in e.g. a 787-10, a production ramp up or further production optimalization..

I have been saying for a while that Boeing should have gone with the -10 first, and then done the -3 later if there was demand. I think the emergence of the A350XWB has made them take notice.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:57 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 24):

I have been saying for a while that Boeing should have gone with the -10 first, and then done the -3 later if there was demand. I think the emergence of the A350XWB has made them take notice.

Boeing launched the 783 when it did because mega-customers ANA and JAL instisted on it. By offering the 783, Boeing was assured that JAL and ANA would buy lot and lots of 787s....in all different variants. Is that so difficult for everyone to understand? Boeing never anticipated that the 783 would sell in large numbers like the 788 or 789, but the 783 variant was of vital importance to 787 launch customer ANA and to JAL.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 12):
I think LH could make good use of 783s as a replacement for their A306s, no?

Has LH still got a need for this size aircraft within Europe now that:

a/ competition from other airlines has increased so much;
b/ competition from a smarter and faster European rail network has evolved;
c/ there is more point-to-point flying using smaller craft and secondary airports;
d/ there is the advent of the LCC?

I don't think there is and I feel LH believe the same.

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:55 am

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 26):
Has LH still got a need for this size aircraft within Europe

Interesing question........if LH didnt have a need for a high capcity short haul airliner, why have they held on to their A300s for so long? LH's fleet is cutting-edge, but the ""out-of-style"" A300s continue to fly intra-German routes and some European regional services. Yet, LH has not ordered a replacement for the A300s......LH has looked at everything from the 753 to various A330Lite proprosals and has not placed an order. And, it seems that LH also has little interest in the 783, so one must cconclude that LH will NOT replace its A300s with another widebody and will instead replace the A300s with A321s in the future.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 27):
so one must cconclude that LH will NOT replace its A300s with another widebody and will instead replace the A300s with A321s in the future.

Right, so you agree with me.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23504
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:14 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3):
NH and JL each have large orders for the 783 and will probably place follow up orders in the future for the type.....its ideal for the high capacity/short haul mission important to both of these airlines.

And thanks to the fatigue resistance of CFRP, these 787-3s may very well serve for decades, making them very economical from a capital cost basis.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Since it is looking more and more likely that no other carrier will buy the 783 (DL and AA aren't strong contenders in my book), should Boeing offer NH and JL to take compensation and convert 783 orders to the 788? Boeing could still certify the 788 with the blended winglets and reduced range and derate the engines, but is there really a reason to spend all the money to develop an actual 3rd model? I know the fees in Japan are based on weight, but the future value of that cost (compensated) combined with the flexibility the 788s would offer could make up for it.

Any thoughts?

Lets not count American and Delta out just yet where the 787-3 is concerned. And consider the other U.S. majors might yet find it fits their needs as well. Too soon to put aside an airplane when at least one airline has shown an interest and might buy even more for itself after its initial batch has been delivered.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
tistpaa727
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 5:23 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:39 am

The 783, without the extra 500 nm range some here have suggested, would be perfect for the Caribbean. Its been discussed a million times - when will AA replace the A300 - but one has to think, will they abuse the 788 (if they go Boeing)? They keep a sub-fleet for Caribbean as it is already, why not for the 783? Can't find the runway length needed for the 783 but I know that can be a limiting factor in some of the Caribbean airports.
Don't sweat the little things.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:30 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
Why are you assuming that Boeing does not understand the finances of the 787-3 variant

Why are you assuming I am assuming that?

But why are you projecting the market predictions of 2004 onto the reality of 2007? Boeing is 100% on everything they predict. I do think they thought they'd have more interest in the 783. The fact LH ruled out both the 783 and 788 out of hat is likely surprising to them. The fact that China ordered so many 787s already but no 783s is likely surprising to them. So what you project and what happens don't always correspond.

Quoting Dank (Reply 23):
The situation that you see with DL, being able to push 763s between domestic and international when they wanted to shift flying (and it can be done without changing seating if time is critical, but you can go through a minimal cost seating refurb) would be impossible with the current specifications on a -3. And you have to think that this issue will be in the back of their minds.

Exactly. It's not just current uses, it's future uses. DL is sending the 764 across the atlantic. Not what they bought them for. They are sending the 757 across the atlantic, as are AA, NW and CO. Not what any of them bought them for. The 783 doesn't offer the flexibility to do such things. For American carriers which have such fluid route patterns in a 20 year period, the flexibility is more important than a compact nation like Japan which has various fixed stage routes that won't be changing any time soon.

Quoting TISTPAA727 (Reply 31):
The 783, without the extra 500 nm range some here have suggested, would be perfect for the Caribbean.

AA has, in the past, used their A300s for other things. While they are currently put into the caribbean, this is partly because they didn't pan out for the other tasks. Just because AA is currently doing something doesn't mean that they want to continue to do it.

757s didn't start out flying the atlantic. A300s have flown the atlantic. Why wouldn't AA want an airliner with the flexibility to be used in a different capacity when needed?

Why wouldn't AA, for example, buy 788s only and then eventually put the newer 763s into the caribbean and dump the A300s? There are a lot more options than just a one for one swap between the A300s and brand new airframes with a limited future use and little to no resale value...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9086
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:17 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
Boeing is 100% on everything they predict. I do think they thought they'd have more interest in the 783. The fact LH ruled out both the 783 and 788 out of hat is likely surprising to them. The fact that China ordered so many 787s already but no 783s is likely surprising to them. So what you project and what happens don't always correspond.

A smart company doesn't stick to the plan if the customers starts looking the other way.

I think the future of the 787-3 lays in the hands of ANA and JAL. If they make the renewed flexibility / resale value analizes Boeing might not be the one to stick to the contracts..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:44 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
should Boeing offer NH and JL to take compensation and convert 783 orders to the 788?

Didn't I read somewhere that part of the attraction of the 787-3 over the -8 for intra-Japan flights was the shorter wingspan, 51.5m vs. 58.8m?
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9086
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:42 pm

What about a range boost or the 787-3?

787-3 : 2,500 - 3050 nm, (4,650 - 5,650 km)
787-8 : 7,650 - 8,200 nm (14,200 - 15,200 km)

Make the 787-3 range 4500-5000 nm without raising the OEW to much might make it look better to a lot of airlines.

It would give it medium range (e.g. transatlantic) capabilties and improves its range at max payload (filled cargo hold).

It would offer 787-3 advantages (able to fit NB gates) lighter OEW, better take-off / landing performance but additionaly give it the additional range to fly e.g. North South America, Leisure operation from Europe, Intra asia etc.. markets were e.g. the a330-300 proves so succesfull.



The more I think about this approach the better it feels.. Go Boeing! Save the 787-3, put back those tanks & give it another 1500nm range! I'll send Udvar-Hazy a mail, when is his next speech?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
What about a range boost or the 787-3?

787-3 : 2,500 - 3050 nm, (4,650 - 5,650 km)
787-8 : 7,650 - 8,200 nm (14,200 - 15,200 km)

Make the 787-3 range 4500-5000 nm without raising the OEW to much might make it look better to a lot of airlines.

It would give it medium range (e.g. transatlantic) capabilties and improves its range at max payload (filled cargo hold).

It would offer 787-3 advantages (able to fit NB gates) lighter OEW, better take-off / landing performance but additionaly give it the additional range to fly e.g. North South America, Leisure operation from Europe, Intra asia etc.. markets were e.g. the a330-300 proves so succesfull.

That sounds like it would be a good 757 replacement accross the atlantic.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23504
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:09 pm

The 787-3 has the physical tankage of the 787-8, it just lacks the structure to support those tanks being filled to capacity.

There is only a 20,000lb OEW difference between the 787-3 and 787-8. I don't know how much additional structure would need to be added to allow it to carry sufficient fuel, but that Boeing left four model numbers open between the -3 and -8, perhaps we will indeed see a higher MTOW variant based on the 787-3...
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Should Boeing Pay NH/JL To Take 788s Instead?

Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
Why are you assuming I am assuming that?

Because you are suggesting that Boeing, at this late date, drop the 787-3 variant, no other reason. Boeing committed to the 787-3 for one reason: to keep their loyal Japanese airline customers happy and to provide a plane that is tailor made for their needs; and while it would be very nice indeed for Boeing if other airlines signed up for the 787-3, Boeing's financial decision to build the 787-3 was based solely upon the need of the Japanese carriers; and its my guess that the development costs for the 787-3 variant are adequately covered by the firm orders now on the books for the type. Also note that by offering the 787-3, JAL and ANA purchased other variants of the 787 and, most importantly, ANA launched the program. In the future, more 787-3s will probably be ordered by ANA and JAL, and maybe some other airlines.......the 787 family will probably be in production for the next 25 years, so there is lots of time. Someone will compare the 787-3 to the 764 or 753 (which also sold in limited numbers), but there is one big difference, the 787-3 is being introduced early in the life of the 787 program while the 764 and 753 came near the end of those respective programs.

Lastly, another reason that Boeing went with the 787-3, an airplane that Boeing knew would have limited appeal, is to protect itself against Airbus making a big sale to either JAL or ANA. Airbus, for years, has been proposing many different A330 "Lite"" variants with the large capacity/short range market in mind.....the proposals never matured into orders but if Airbus saw an opportunity to sell a good number of airplanes in Japan, the A330 Lite would be back.

Regards.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos