okobjorn
Topic Author
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:42 pm

787-100 787-200 Etc

Sat May 12, 2012 9:52 pm

Have searched the forum and internet for this, but have not found an answer. Perhaps you A-netters will know:

Why is the 787 called -800, -900 and -1000? Why not start at -200 allowing for a shrink but also allowing for several NG, NEO and MAX etc versions like the 737?

I see the -300 existing in the early stages of development, but it is quite a leap to go to -800 for the first production. No one will ever buy a -400 after this.
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sat May 12, 2012 10:12 pm

As I understand it, it's mostly a marketing thing...Boeing decided that airlines would see a 787-200 to be inferior to a 787-400 or something like that.

Here's an article that IMHO does a decent job of describing this epidemic in general terms (this issue is by no means limited to the 787 or to commercial aviation)...

http://www.economist.com/node/21552214
ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sat May 12, 2012 10:23 pm

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):

Why is the 787 called -800, -900 and -1000?

It's not. It's the -8, -9, and -10. Those aren't shorthand, those are the actual designations.

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):
Why not start at -200 allowing for a shrink but also allowing for several NG, NEO and MAX etc versions like the 737?

It's all arbitrary. As long as you don't start with 1 you can go either direction. Going past -9 is no issue (Boeing is already talking about a 787-10 and Airbus is already committed to the A350-1000).

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):
I see the -300 existing in the early stages of development, but it is quite a leap to go to -800 for the first production. No one will ever buy a -400 after this.

They'll buy a -400 if it's the right airplane for their business. These are not the types of decisions that airlines make based on arbitrary numbers.

Tom.
 
Horstroad
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sat May 12, 2012 10:41 pm

one question to that. not to the 787, but the 737

we have had the original (-100, -200) and the classic (-300 - -500) and we have the next generation (-600 - -900)
why don´t boeing continue this pattern with the MAX (-1000, 1100 and 1200) but names them 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19065
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sat May 12, 2012 10:59 pm

8 is also a lucky number in Chinese (it sounds like the word for "wealth" or "prosper"). I expect that's at least partly explains A380-800, 747-8, 787-8 etc.

On the other hand, several numbers are unlucky, especially 4 which sounds like the word for "death". Some buildings in HKG apparently have no floors with 4 in the number, much like many hotels in North America and Europe have no floor numbered 13, and why many aircraft have no seat row numbered 13.

Cathay Pacific's HKG-YVR-JFK flight has long been CX888, and AC's HKG-YVR fliight is AC8 (inherited from CP when it was CP8).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 12:40 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
On the other hand, several numbers are unlucky, especially 4 which sounds like the word for "death".

Which nonetheless didn't stop Asian airlines from ordering shedloads of 747-400s.  
Quoting horstroad (Reply 3):
one question to that. not to the 787, but the 737...

Likely to align the new models with Boeing's new numbering schema as well as tie into the 787's numbering schema.



Boeing did announce the 747-500X and 747-600X and stated they would build an even wider 747-700X if the market warranted it. So in a way, "8" was the next available number for the 747, but I do expect it was chosen for the same reasons the 737 MAX is -7 / -8 / -9.

I've also heard the "8" in A380 was for the dual passenger decks.
 
flyPBA
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:10 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 7:10 am

the 787-8 was so designated because it was originally expected to be used by Chinese airlines during the Beijing Olympics and 8 is a lucky # for Chinese.

As for why the 737-Max7/8/9 are named such ... that is because the 737 Max variants are just improved versions of the existing 737-700/800/900ER where as the 737-300/400/500 etc were basically completely new aircraft (as compared to the 737-100/200)

If the 787 is anything to go by ... the 737-Max7/8/9 might not have Boeing customer codes either (i.e. there is only the 787-8 ... not 787-846)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 8:57 am

8 represents 8000nm, the "gold standard" in aircraft range set by the A346 and 77W (close enough). Same with -800. The Chinese lucky number garbage is just that. Garbage. Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.

787 was chosen because it was the next in the series.

A380 was chosen for some reason someone else might know. 2x the A340? Enough room so that even if Airbus makes an A360 and A370, the A380 will still be the largest aircraft with the biggest number?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
iFlyLOTs
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:45 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 12:24 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
8 represents 8000nm, the "gold standard" in aircraft range set by the A346 and 77W (close enough). Same with -800. The Chinese lucky number garbage is just that. Garbage. Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
A380 was chosen for some reason someone else might know.

I thought I remember reading somewhere (Airways mag. maybe?) that Airbus was actually really close to naming the A380-800 the A388-800 because the number 8 is so lucky in Asian cultures. But maybe I'm dreaming about this.
"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 12:32 pm

An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).
 
iFlyLOTs
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:45 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 12:48 pm

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 9):
An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).

My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707
"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817


I believe the 8xx series is reserved for satellites. The 6xx is open except for Bomark numbers and the 9xx is open except for hydrofoils, and the lunar rover..
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 3:16 pm

While we're on the topic, when is NW getting rid of the DC9s?

Cheers
Coal
Nxt Flts: MI RGN-SIN | SQ SIN-RGN-SIN | CX SIN-HKG-PVG | SQ PVG-SIN
 
Gingersnap
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:09 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 6:05 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.

It's more to entice airline management, as oppose to making pax feel a bit better about flying the thing.
Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707

I Vote for Roman numerals! That would look cool...

DCCLXXXVII - VIII = 787-8   
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 6:37 pm

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707...

The SST started life as the Boeing 733. There was also the four-engined, triple aisle Boeing 763 concept.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
747-8
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing did announce the 747-500X and 747-600X and stated they would build an even wider 747-700X if the market warranted it.

Correct.

Quoting flyPBA (Reply 6):
If the 787 is anything to go by ... the 737-Max7/8/9 might not have Boeing customer codes either (i.e. there is only the 787-8 ... not 787-846)

Actually both the NH and JL versions of the B-787 carry the customer codes.

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 9):An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707

I think they will add the 800 series to jet powered aircraft too, but it will be the B-808, B-818, B-828, etc.

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
I believe the 8xx series is reserved for satellites

No it is not. Boeing's satellite division expanded when the bouth Hughes Satellites. So there numbering system is all over the place, including in the 700 series, 600 series, and 300 series.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/programs.html

Airbus skipped over the (then) A-350, A-360, and A-370 series to name the A-380, so they could use the number "8", and they began the sub-model series with "800", all to hope to get the lucky Chinese number. But they have actually sold more A-380s to the ME, and then in the EU, than they have in China.

Airbus eventually used the designation model number A-350, and will probably eventually use A-360 and A-370 model numbers, too. But will the trend of beginning the sub-model designations with "8" or "800"? Probably not, as this is just a fashion and marketing trend right now.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Sun May 13, 2012 11:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
No it is not. Boeing's satellite division expanded when the bouth Hughes Satellites. So there numbering system is all over the place, including in the 700 series, 600 series, and 300 series.


Of course you're correct.. I was looking at an old book..

well that muddies that... maybe numeric-alpha combinations like Boeing's drawing system.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 3:58 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 12):
While we're on the topic, when is NW getting rid of the DC9s?

Not until Delta/Northwest gets their 787's and then retires them...the crew of that last 787 needs to get home on something and it's going to be a DC-9.

Tom.
 
hz747300
Posts: 1911
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 7:15 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Some buildings in HKG apparently have no floors with 4 in the number, much like many hotels in North America and Europe have no floor numbered 13, and why many aircraft have no seat row numbered 13.

Apparently? Haha, my apartment block in Wan Chai has no "4" numbered floors, and no 13. The elevator goes to 31, but technically we are four floors shorter.

I wondered the same myself about the 787 numbering. It seemed to be odd, but I thought they did it because it was the 787. Didn't they at one time offer the 787-3, which was to be a high density design for regional trips around Asia (I pictured the type of works that CX does with its non-ER 773s.
Keep on truckin'...
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 8:53 am

It's all a bit Spinal Tap really, starting at 800 or 8 is the equivalent of the amp going up to 11...

I remember the marketing drivel that said the initial A380 would be the 800 because the aircraft would be fully developed on launch, which wasn't exactly correct, and the initial 787-8 is hardly the definitive plane either.

By contrast the A320s (apart from the early 100) have all been 200s, and thus been massive flops, only selling several thousand  
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
qf002
Posts: 3097
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 11:31 am

It's much like mobile data service naming... 3G is now seen as old and slow, so everyone (at least in the US, certainly not here in Australia) has been rebranding it as 4G. In most cases (ie except for true 4G), the speed, service, purpose and technology are all the same, but the technology these days is not moving as quickly as the general public demands.

Sticking an -8 where there used to be a -100 makes the product sound advanced, and ahead of its times... It is also important when considering the perception of the aircraft in comparison to competitors. Airbus labelled the A380-800 based on the full length 2 story passenger cabin (ie the two parts of the 8), and apparently based on Asian superstition. Boeing could hardly then come out with a measly little and horribly outdated sounding -100/-200 family...
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 1:08 pm

Besides the 737-800, which is completely normal evolution after the -600 and -700, the first aircraft with an out of order "8" was a very fogotten one, the A340-8000. This combined the -200 body with the -300X wind and engine and was the first airliner to reach a non stop 8000 miles range at full load. So here the 8 stood for 8000 miles range. I have the impression that this inspired A and B to use the 8 to signal very long range capability.


Needless to say here that the A340-8000 was lucky in that sense that the only aircraft ever built found a home somewhere in Arabia after having waited for the price 10 years in the nice city of Hamburg....
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2176
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 2:16 pm

My pet peeve with some of the Boeing computing system is the way it sort numbers.

In sorting "dash numbers" you some system will place -1,-10,-100,-1000 before -8 etc.

I wonder if this and how old legacy databases handle sorting impacts why Boeing went away from the old -XXX and to the new -X etc scheme.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Fabo
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:30 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 2:49 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 22):
Sticking an -8 where there used to be a -100 makes the product sound advanced, and ahead of its times...

But... but.... 100 is more than 12 times the 8!
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787-100 787-200 Etc

Mon May 14, 2012 3:01 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
I wonder if this and how old legacy databases handle sorting impacts why Boeing went away from the old -XXX and to the new -X etc scheme.


bet you're correct.. even back in the 60's we were having trouble with the "military" numbering system. Military in quotes because that's what they called it and I have no conformation the military was similarly screwed up, though a lot of our retired military managers were. We always had fun finding things because new hires thought 1 was followed by 2 instead of 10...
It did make it easier to sort IBM punch cards ....