I know it sold well.
However Airbus sold A330-300s while Boeing sold B787-8s.
I wonder if Boeing should have early focused on the -9, leaving the -8 business to A330-200.

Only with the -9 Boeing got it right finally. AFAIK today's -8 is a shortened -9. What is really different from their plans is that the short range model -3 is almost forgotten about today. It could cover much of that famous NMA market but seems to be too expensive to build? A custom short range wing could have brought it back into the game. However they preferred to close one final assembly.

No, it was a great success. It isn't just the 422 orders that the 787-8 got directly. Lots of customers that started out with the 787-8 eventually expanded with 787-9s. Following airlines started out with the 787-8, only expanding with the -9 later on. There is no guarantee that they would have gone for the 787-9 if that was the smallest version on offer:

Qatar Airways - 30x 787-8 and 30x 787-9
LOT - 8x 787-8 and 9x 787-9
Ethiopian Airlines - 19x 787-8 and 10x 787-9
Avianca - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
All the TUI airlines - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
Norwegian - 8x 787-8 and 29x 787-9
Biman Bangladesh - 4x 787-8 and 2x 787-9

Then you'd also have lost a number of airlines that needed a smaller type and couldn't justify 2 types. Who's to say BA would not have gone for a mix of A330-200s and -300s if Boeing didn't offer the 787-8? For all we know, they actually need the smaller type. There are lots of airlines where that could have been the case, like United, American Airlines, JAL, ANA, Singapore Airlines/Scoot, Qantas group etc. That would have impacted even the 787-10.

VSMUT answered the question perfectly. Nothing left to be said. It WAS and is a success!

It's the 762 of its day. Never going to set the world on fire, but useful to have for many operators. It has sold well, and blocked off a lot of potential business for Airbus.

I understand the premise of the OP but agree there probably is a genuine niche for the -8, from my experience of flying on the 787-8 on BA flights eg Seoul and Toronto, neither of these routes require a first class product, and are quite thin at certain times of the year, so an efficient jet carrying just 35J and 179Y* is probably perfect, every seat filled profitably even on a Tuesday in February

* 154 World Traveller and 25 World Traveller Plus

The -8 was the result of the result of the original planned role of the 787 as a 767 replacement. With 8-abreast seating the -8 would in capacity be very close to a 767-300, but with much more range and cargo volume. The role of the 787 has changed of course, mainly because it became a 9-abreast plane, clearly a step above the 767.

Obviously the biggest mistakes Boeing were not so much the specific versions, completely messing up the early production had a much bigger impact on the 787 program and the company as a whole. In hindsight you could indeed argue that they should focused earlier on 787-9, but obviously they did not plan that the program would be delayed so much. Therefor the planning for the 787-9 was also pushed backwards and would have launched much earlier. Because of the delays it was probably deemed to risky and expensive to change everything again and focus more on the 787-9 (and -10) instead. That decision came only after the customers showed that they were much more interested in the current 787-9.

Maybe you could say that their mistake was that they did not see the 787 as the replacement for 777-200. But obviously the 777-200ER was still selling when the 787 was launched, it was the 767 that took the most hits from the competition, the A330.

I think the 787 is a good example of a large project that became a victim of changed market during it's development years, especially with all the delays. At the end of the day Boeing did get it right though with the 787-9. It's not been for nothing that this was the best selling single model of any wide-body plane in recent time.

Other than obvious things like length, thrust and weight, what are the differences between the -8 & -9?

Momo, very good post.

American Airlines has 22 787-8s with more on order

Sokes wrote:

However Airbus sold A330-300s while Boeing sold B787-8s.

That's not really true, the A330 is a much older design than the 787. The A330 entered service in 1994, the 787 in 2011. That's a 17 year gap!

Initially the A330-200 competed against the 767-300/400 and the A330-300 competed against the 777-200(LR/ER). There was no mentioning of a 787 at the time.

When it was time for Boeing to replace the 767, they looked at what made the A330 so successful. Basically the A330-200 was one size up from the 767, with a slightly wider fuselage accommodating more passengers. So they developed the 787 with more or less the same fuselage width. Initially only the 787-8, which was designed to compete with the A330-200. The 787-9 is a stretched 787-8 designed to compete with the A330-300.

And it was a success. The old A330 design couldn't compete with the new 787, which was way more efficient. That's what caused Airbus to upgrade the A330 to the A330neo, which is the A330-800 and 900. Those are the true competitors to the 787-8 and 9.

T54A wrote:

Other than obvious things like length, thrust and weight, what are the differences between the -8 & -9?

That depends on when you're asking, or more accurately, when the 788 in question was constructed.

As noted in the thread's second post: today's 788 has significantly higher commonality with the 789 than previously, especially in the parts behind the wing area.

Early 788s were quite different:

• Early 788 horizontal stabilizer was a 3 component construct, instead of the current 2 used in all 789s/78Xs and new 788s
• Lacked the hybrid laminar-flow control system on the leading edges of both rear stabilizers
• Different environmental control system
• Lacked the 789's redesigned and lightened section 41 (area immediately behind the cockpit)
• Lacks the 789s weight reduction in the area immediately above the strengthened wingbox
• Lacked the 789's revised vent stringer design
• Shorter trucks on its landing gear, to incorporate smaller tires and different brakes
• Fewer flap settings than would be available on the 789
• etc

All of this of course, in addition to the obvious lengthening, wing box strengthening, higher thrust, larger tires/brakes, and higher MTOW available on the 789.

VSMUT wrote:

No, it was a great success. It isn't just the 422 orders that the 787-8 got directly. Lots of customers that started out with the 787-8 eventually expanded with 787-9s. Following airlines started out with the 787-8, only expanding with the -9 later on. There is no guarantee that they would have gone for the 787-9 if that was the smallest version on offer:

Qatar Airways - 30x 787-8 and 30x 787-9
LOT - 8x 787-8 and 9x 787-9
Ethiopian Airlines - 19x 787-8 and 10x 787-9
Avianca - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
All the TUI airlines - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
Norwegian - 8x 787-8 and 29x 787-9
Biman Bangladesh - 4x 787-8 and 2x 787-9

Then you'd also have lost a number of airlines that needed a smaller type and couldn't justify 2 types. Who's to say BA would not have gone for a mix of A330-200s and -300s if Boeing didn't offer the 787-8? For all we know, they actually need the smaller type. There are lots of airlines where that could have been the case, like United, American Airlines, JAL, ANA, Singapore Airlines/Scoot, Qantas group etc. That would have impacted even the 787-10.

The problem with a combination fleet of 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft is the spares commonality, only 30% of the spares are common.
The spare parts commonality between the 787-9 and -10 is 95%.
Boeing is already trying to lower the high production cost of the 787-8, see : https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/01/34422/
This has also been discussed here : viewtopic.php?t=1451193

747classic wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

No, it was a great success. It isn't just the 422 orders that the 787-8 got directly. Lots of customers that started out with the 787-8 eventually expanded with 787-9s. Following airlines started out with the 787-8, only expanding with the -9 later on. There is no guarantee that they would have gone for the 787-9 if that was the smallest version on offer:

Qatar Airways - 30x 787-8 and 30x 787-9
LOT - 8x 787-8 and 9x 787-9
Ethiopian Airlines - 19x 787-8 and 10x 787-9
Avianca - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
All the TUI airlines - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
Norwegian - 8x 787-8 and 29x 787-9
Biman Bangladesh - 4x 787-8 and 2x 787-9

Then you'd also have lost a number of airlines that needed a smaller type and couldn't justify 2 types. Who's to say BA would not have gone for a mix of A330-200s and -300s if Boeing didn't offer the 787-8? For all we know, they actually need the smaller type. There are lots of airlines where that could have been the case, like United, American Airlines, JAL, ANA, Singapore Airlines/Scoot, Qantas group etc. That would have impacted even the 787-10.

The problem with a combination fleet of 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft is the spares commonality, only 30% of the spares are common.
The spare parts commonality between the 787-9 and -10 is 95%.
Boeing is already trying to lower the high production cost of the 787-8, see : https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/01/34422/
This has also been discussed here : viewtopic.php?t=1451193

That’s production commonality, which is different from spare parts commonality. Having different tails, for example, is a production difference that raises cost for Boeing, but not as big of a deal for airlines because they are not routinely changing their 787’s tail and keeping spare ones in their inventory.

747classic wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

No, it was a great success. It isn't just the 422 orders that the 787-8 got directly. Lots of customers that started out with the 787-8 eventually expanded with 787-9s. Following airlines started out with the 787-8, only expanding with the -9 later on. There is no guarantee that they would have gone for the 787-9 if that was the smallest version on offer:

Qatar Airways - 30x 787-8 and 30x 787-9
LOT - 8x 787-8 and 9x 787-9
Ethiopian Airlines - 19x 787-8 and 10x 787-9
Avianca - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
All the TUI airlines - 13x 787-8 and 8x 787-9
Norwegian - 8x 787-8 and 29x 787-9
Biman Bangladesh - 4x 787-8 and 2x 787-9

Then you'd also have lost a number of airlines that needed a smaller type and couldn't justify 2 types. Who's to say BA would not have gone for a mix of A330-200s and -300s if Boeing didn't offer the 787-8? For all we know, they actually need the smaller type. There are lots of airlines where that could have been the case, like United, American Airlines, JAL, ANA, Singapore Airlines/Scoot, Qantas group etc. That would have impacted even the 787-10.

The problem with a combination fleet of 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft is the spares commonality, only 30% of the spares are common.
The spare parts commonality between the 787-9 and -10 is 95%.
Boeing is already trying to lower the high production cost of the 787-8, see : https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/01/34422/
This has also been discussed here : viewtopic.php?t=1451193

As opposed to, say, a fleet made up of the A330-200 and 787-9?

Even with all those differences, there are still massive savings to find. You can run the same pool of pilots across the entire fleet, not so easy if you run the A330 and 787 in parallel. I'm pretty sure maintenance is much easier and simplified if you stick to one type, even with all those differences. Onboard product is kept consistent.

Many early 787-8 operators fly them because that was the plane Boeing made first and they wanted the 787 NOW, not later. If it was too small they didn't care, when the 787-9 arrived many -8 orders were flipped to the -9. The 787-9 became the standard Dreamliner with the -8 becoming a niche machine for smaller routes and 767 replacements.

My company operates a mix of -8's and -9's and they seem to be happy about the -8.

Of course, the -9 is the sweet spot and all the new airframes (and possible future deliveries if we survive the COVID crisis) are -9's, but the -8 has its advantages as well:
- its DOW is some 10 tonnes lighter and the fuel burn for a given payload is slightly lower (on order of 3-4%)
- it still has a heckload of range, enabling to fly form Europe to anywhere in the world, except maybe Australia and NZ
- on the very edge of the payload-range (ie. when fuel-limited) it can actually take more payload than the -9 (this is academic only, because no one does 8500Nm sectors with ~90 pax on board - but with low payload the -8 can actually fly slightly farther than the 9)
- it still can take a lot of cargo
- it can go to some airports where the -9 can't go (eg. it can do a 180 turn on a 45m runway, whereas the -9 can't, requires a lower RFFS category, etc.)

In the current climate, with low loads, when the extra capacity of the -9 is not needed, the -8 is probably cheaper to operate...

I think the -8 was a good starting point in to the 787 family for many operators where the -9 is too much plane.

I can take the example of airlines in my part of the world such as Kenya airways where they don’t need a larger plane for the NBO to JFK route etc.

Also in light of the pandemic and lower pax numbers where a lot of airlines probably feel that their larger aircraft have too much capacity and the higher flight cost attached to that. I believe the -8 really came in to its own with Qatar Airways during this period.

Furthermore I bet that we ll see more orders for the type going forward from airlines looking to replace A330-300’s etc. It could still be a while before demand picks up again so why buy a larger aircraft when there is no guarantee that they will be filled when the -8 is available with low trip costs?

From 1997 till 2007 a lot of B777-200ER were delivered, from 2004 B777-300ER were delivered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

B787 were delivered in quantity from 2012, from 2016 mostly -9s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

I believe Boeing didn't want to sell the -9 as it would have competed with the B777-300ER.
The -8 competed with the A330-200.
Wise choice?
That's what deferred production cost makes me wonder.
Can a -8 be sold profitable with the A330-200 as competitor?

Sokes wrote:

From 1997 till 2007 a lot of B777-200ER were delivered, from 2004 B777-300ER were delivered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

B787 were delivered in quantity from 2012, from 2016 mostly -9s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

I believe Boeing didn't want to sell the -9 as it would have competed with the B777-300ER.
The -8 competed with the A330-200.
Wise choice?
That's what deferred production cost makes me wonder.
Can a -8 be sold profitable with the A330-200 as competitor?

The -9 does not compete that much with the 777-300ER. They are not even close in size. 787-9s were in fact sold to complement the 77Ws on order/in fleet.

The -9 only entered service in summer 2014, and like all new variants of any aircraft there is initial limited availability as production slots for the new variant is limited some to take into account any issues or delays that may occur.

Boeing needs to do a "Cabin Flex" on the 787-8 like airbus did on the 321 and reconfigure/remove some doors. 8 main cabin doors eats up way to much floor space on a plane as small as the -8 in low density configurations that legacy airlines use. Just seems like there could be some optimization in that area.

Boeing was on the record back then to sell a new 787-8 for not more than a maxed out 767(-300ER). I seem to remember some 767 list price back then of up to 146 Mio. Dollars?
The 787 can't have been so profitable at that price given the cost overruns they had and all the new technology installed.

Airbus kept the pressure by continuing their old and cheap A330ceo and developing the newer A330neo and A350... ruining the A380 in the process.

Tkt96 wrote:

Boeing needs to do a "Cabin Flex" on the 787-8 like airbus did on the 321 and reconfigure/remove some doors. 8 main cabin doors eats up way to much floor space on a plane as small as the -8 in low density configurations that legacy airlines use. Just seems like there could be some optimization in that area.

I don’t think there is much room for flexibility there. I believe the distance between the front door and any overwing exit Boeing could add is greater than regulations allow, ditto between the rear exits and any over wing exits. So Boeing would still need the current L/R 2 and 3 exits. The A332 has the same door layout.

747classic wrote:

The problem with a combination fleet of 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft is the spares commonality, only 30% of the spares are common.
The spare parts commonality between the 787-9 and -10 is 95%.

Are you saying that only 30% of the regular use spares are common, or more like only 30% of the original assembly parts are common? That would be a very big difference in parts inventory.

As to the OP's question, think:

737 -700, -800, -900

A319, A320, A321 (let's forget about A318s and 767-600s - those were shrinks too far, in bids to maintain commonality)

A350 -900, -1000

A330 -200, -300

FAMILIES!

A type family maintains pilot commonality and significant parts commonality. Those things have value. Observe that Southwest, Ryanair, and Spirit have large (ish) fleets but single types.

The 787-10 was quite a smart surprise move. A bit like some supersized 787-3. Super efficient if you can fill it.

Polot wrote:

The -9 does not compete that much with the 777-300ER. They are not even close in size. 787-9s were in fact sold to complement the 77Ws on order/in fleet.

We're they sold to be delivered the same year?

The B777-300ER doesn't compete in size, but in range. I believe that is what matters for city pairs.

Sokes wrote:

Polot wrote:

The -9 does not compete that much with the 777-300ER. They are not even close in size. 787-9s were in fact sold to complement the 77Ws on order/in fleet.

We're they sold to be delivered the same year?

The B777-300ER doesn't compete in size, but in range. I believe that is what matters for city pairs.

It doesn’t matter if they were to be delivered the same year. Nobody was ever planning on dumping new 77Ws for brand new 789s a few years later. Some airlines like UA ordered the 77W after they already had 789s on order (and I think in fleet?).

Size definitely matters, it’s not just about range. Not every city pair can support airplanes the size of 77Ws. If it was only about range the A380 would have sold like gangbusters.

Sokes wrote:

We're they sold to be delivered the same year?

The B777-300ER doesn't compete in size, but in range. I believe that is what matters for city pairs.

I don't quite understand what conclusion you're trying to point to here... size is far and away what matters most for city pairs. I can't remember a single operator who needed a 77W plane, but bought a 789 instead.

Polot wrote:

I don’t think there is much room for flexibility there. I believe the distance between the front door and any overwing exit Boeing could add is greater than regulations allow, ditto between the rear exits and any over wing exits. So Boeing would still need the current L/R 2 and 3 exits. The A332 has the same door layout.

It took a while for me to find but on a 787-8 the distance from door 1 to door 4 is 122ft. I believe emergency exit doors can't be more than 60ft apart. Assuming they could put a pair of over wing exits exactly in the middle (might not be possible) I wonder if it would be possible to match the 767-300 exit configuration of 4 main cabin doors and 4 over wing exits. The configuration works well on the 767-300 to maximize usable floor space.

One factor not mentioned is the 788 has been an efficient and excellent plane to open up new city pairs due to its range and low operating cost. LHR-BNA Or LHR-CHS among other examples comes to mind.

Also, as has been mentioned I have seen the 788 used on off peak days TATL when higher capacity is not needed as airlines can benefit from lower operating costs.

Well if it were a mistake, why did AA order a whole bunch of 787-8's as 767 replacements just two and a half years ago? These aren't the old build 787-8 that had low commonality with the 787-9. They are the rationalized 787-8 that incorporate the improvements developed for the 787-9. This lowers the cost to Boeing to build them, and makes it a viable replacement for the 767 but with considerably longer range. As Boeing has no MOM to even offer to customers, the 787-8 is the only plane Boeing has to offer between the size of the 737-10 and the 787-9.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/aa-confirms-dreamliner-order-cancels-a350

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if it were a mistake, why did AA order a whole bunch of 787-8's as 767 replacements just two and a half years ago?
...
https://thepointsguy.com/news/aa-confirms-dreamliner-order-cancels-a350

Good point, specially since it's an April 2018 order.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if it were a mistake, why did AA order a whole bunch of 787-8's as 767 replacements just two and a half years ago? These aren't the old build 787-8 that had low commonality with the 787-9. They are the rationalized 787-8 that incorporate the improvements developed for the 787-9. This lowers the cost to Boeing to build them, and makes it a viable replacement for the 767 but with considerably longer range. As Boeing has no MOM to even offer to customers, the 787-8 is the only plane Boeing has to offer between the size of the 737-10 and the 787-9.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/aa-confirms-dreamliner-order-cancels-a350

That's a good point.

With the new commonality with the 789, the 788 does have a new "sweet spot". It's still not ideal as a 767 replacement, but it's the closest thing on the market right now (or the 321LR if you want to go a little smaller)

Antarius wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if it were a mistake, why did AA order a whole bunch of 787-8's as 767 replacements just two and a half years ago? These aren't the old build 787-8 that had low commonality with the 787-9. They are the rationalized 787-8 that incorporate the improvements developed for the 787-9. This lowers the cost to Boeing to build them, and makes it a viable replacement for the 767 but with considerably longer range. As Boeing has no MOM to even offer to customers, the 787-8 is the only plane Boeing has to offer between the size of the 737-10 and the 787-9.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/aa-confirms-dreamliner-order-cancels-a350

That's a good point.

With the new commonality with the 789, the 788 does have a new "sweet spot". It's still not ideal as a 767 replacement, but it's the closest thing on the market right now (or the 321LR if you want to go a little smaller)

But also consider the 767 is not ideal for the latest premium class seats. 1-2-1 business class cabins work better on the 787. Also, premium economy at 8 or 7 abreast will work on a 787 depending on the airline. The 767 cross section was designed for earlier ideas about cabin layouts. The hard product for modern business classes far exceeds what was offered for first class in the 1970's. The main difference between old first class and modern business class is in the soft product. First class service tends to have more on aircraft preparation of food.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if it were a mistake, why did AA order a whole bunch of 787-8's as 767 replacements just two and a half years ago? These aren't the old build 787-8 that had low commonality with the 787-9. They are the rationalized 787-8 that incorporate the improvements developed for the 787-9. This lowers the cost to Boeing to build them, and makes it a viable replacement for the 767 but with considerably longer range. As Boeing has no MOM to even offer to customers, the 787-8 is the only plane Boeing has to offer between the size of the 737-10 and the 787-9.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/aa-confirms-dreamliner-order-cancels-a350

That's a good point.

With the new commonality with the 789, the 788 does have a new "sweet spot". It's still not ideal as a 767 replacement, but it's the closest thing on the market right now (or the 321LR if you want to go a little smaller)

But also consider the 767 is not ideal for the latest premium class seats. 1-2-1 business class cabins work better on the 787. Also, premium economy at 8 or 7 abreast will work on a 787 depending on the airline. The 767 cross section was designed for earlier ideas about cabin layouts. The hard product for modern business classes far exceeds what was offered for first class in the 1970's. The main difference between old first class and modern business class is in the soft product. First class service tends to have more on aircraft preparation of food.

I agree on the cross section. The issue with the 788 is weight when compared to the 767. The 787 is geared for longhaul flying and has a OEW that is 30% higher than the 763; this is why the 787-3 never actually made it into production.

This is why the MoM aircraft keeps getting floated (or a 767neo). Something purpose built for that gap between the 737/a321 and the 788/a332/a339.

VSMUT nails it perfectly.

Sokes wrote:

I know it sold well.
However Airbus sold A330-300s while Boeing sold B787-8s.
I wonder if Boeing should have early focused on the -9, leaving the -8 business to A330-200.

I don't think Boeing gave the A330 any credit toward what the 787 was to become as they're only similar in size. the 787-8's range is totally superior, and what Boeing learned from building the 787-8 helped them make the 787-9 the winner it is, Nobody before had built an intercontinental airplane from a single winding so the learning curve was pretty steep. to say the least. Once they got the process down? They refined it with the 787-9and the -10.

The 787-8 is an excellent plane for new longhaul routes as well as thin longhaul routes. Its been a great success even though Boeing made some initial blunders on it. If it weren't for the blunders it would be even more successful.

In addition, the 787-8 is getting improvements from the 787-9, which will increase commonality and performance and (most likely) efficiency. There may be a second wind for the 787-8 as a result.

I wouldn't call the 787-8 a mistake.

The 787-8 being first was the ultimate chess move.

Between 1998 and 2008 Airbus delivered nearly twice as many smaller A330-200 compared to A330-300. 334 vs 179 deliveries. It was only in 2012 when Airbus increased the MTOW of the A330-300 that the deliveries for the larger model sky rocketed.

The 787-8 was perfectly timed and sized to replace these early A330-200 aircraft if we assume a 15 year life with the first owner. The 787-8 also replaced many old and smaller 767 aircraft.

The 787-9 was perfectly timed for the replacement cycles of the A340-300, 777-200ER and soon the high MTOW A330-300 aircraft.

The 787-8 was a huge success. It's sales dropped because it had captured most of the small widebody market. It converted many early A330 customers.

The strength of the 787 family is not only having three cabin lengths but that they also have vastly different payload range curves. The 787-10 is the medium haul efficiency monster, the 787-8 is for thin long routes and the 787-9 is the all rounder.

The A350-900 is clearly superior to the 787-9 but as a family the A350 can not cover the same spectrum of flights with one pilot pool. The A350-1000 has a similar range and payload curve just slightly bigger.

VSMUT wrote:

Who's to say BA would not have gone for a mix of A330-200s and -300s if Boeing didn't offer the 787-8?

My original hypothesis:
Leave the -8 market to Airbus and focus on the -9.
Most jobs an-8 does, an A330-200 also does.
But same can not be said of the A330-300 versus the -9. So the -9 has much more added value than the -8.
Since the -300 can't do the job of a -9 I think the alternative would have been a mixed fleet.

I don't doubt the -8 to be great for airlines. But very few refer to the deferred production costs. So far only AA ordering the -8 in 2018 convinces me.

That the capacity gap to the B777-300ER is too big may also be a good point, I can't judge. Airlines have no problem to replace B747-400s with smaller planes.

However:
There is a forecast from 2019 that shows reduced demand for B787s from 2021 to 2024. Maybe Boeing didn't want to reduce production for only a few years and sold the -8 at no profit/ small loss?
The -8s were to be delivered first, starting from 2020.
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/w ... stainable/

The AA order included a cancellation of 20 A350s and a deferral of B737MAXs.
Maybe Boeing agreed to shift the MAX order backward in exchange for the -8 order?
US Airways ordered the A350 in 2005 when only 135 were ordered by all airlines. I'm surprised Airbus agreed to the cancellation. Had Airbus sold them too cheap? Anybody knows more?

How many million $/ aircraft is commonality worth?
Maybe VSMUT does nail it. Again: I can't judge.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-8 was perfectly timed and sized to replace these early A330-200 aircraft...

Perfectly timed and sized to replace them at a loss for Boeing.

The A350-900 is clearly superior to the 787-9 but as a family the A350 can not cover the same spectrum of flights with one pilot pool.

Agreed. Again: At what prize?
Has there ever been a plane where three different sizes sold well, or sold well with a profit?

Sokes wrote:

I wonder if Boeing should have early focused on the -9, leaving the -8 business to A330-200.

That just would have increased A330-200 sales by many hundreds.

Boeing started with the 787-8 because that was a model airlines wanted. The original 7E7 was smaller than the 787: the 7E7-8 was about the capacity of the 767-300ER and the 7E7-9 was the capacity of the A330-200. Airlines liked the capacity of the A330-200 and while it was very efficient for it's time, it would not have been nearly as efficient as the 7E7-9. Airlines also had A340-300s and 777-200s they wanted to retire and they wanted a plane more efficient than the 777-200LR or with better range than the A330-300 (which was fairly more efficient than the 777-200).

So those airlines pushed Boeing to make the 7E7-8 with similar capacity to the A330-200 and the 7E7-9 similar in capacity to the A340-300, A330-300 and 777-200. Boeing could "recycle" the 7E7-9 into the 787-8, but they needed more time and work to create the 787-9 and the 787-8 would also work out the design and production systems for the 787-9.

Opus99 wrote:

Yup. Also do take note that BA switched 4 787-9s to -8 which took their original order from 8 to 12 -8s.

Google doesn't help me. You have a source and some more infos?

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-8 being first was the ultimate chess move.

Between 1998 and 2008 Airbus delivered nearly twice as many smaller A330-200 compared to A330-300. 334 vs 179 deliveries. It was only in 2012 when Airbus increased the MTOW of the A330-300 that the deliveries for the larger model sky rocketed.

The 787-8 was perfectly timed and sized to replace these early A330-200 aircraft if we assume a 15 year life with the first owner. The 787-8 also replaced many old and smaller 767 aircraft.

The 787-9 was perfectly timed for the replacement cycles of the A340-300, 777-200ER and soon the high MTOW A330-300 aircraft.

The 787-8 was a huge success. It's sales dropped because it had captured most of the small widebody market. It converted many early A330 customers.

The strength of the 787 family is not only having three cabin lengths but that they also have vastly different payload range curves. The 787-10 is the medium haul efficiency monster, the 787-8 is for thin long routes and the 787-9 is the all rounder.

The A350-900 is clearly superior to the 787-9 but as a family the A350 can not cover the same spectrum of flights with one pilot pool. The A350-1000 has a similar range and payload curve just slightly bigger.

I think you completely nailed it here.

Stitch wrote:

...and the 787-8 would also work out the design and production systems for the 787-9.

Good info.
To the quote:
It's well known that outsourcing was a costly mistake. Then there is all the carbon fiber.
Did they ramp up too fast?

There is one thought of school that thinks basic research should be done by universities, not companies. Kennedy's moon landing is usually mentioned in this context.

We also discussed that Bombardier ruined itself by dancing at too many occasions at the same time. I'm not sure what to think.
The Learjet 85 cost Bombardier 4,9 billion $ write off in the quarter they cancelled it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_85

Should that have been a university project?
Is having two teams work on similar projects a good idea? Covid 19 vaccine development suggests so.

Solar cell development was done by high subsidies. The idea is that lot of money has to flow to reach all corners of the value chain. But I wonder what 20% of that money spent over 10 years in universities would have achieved?
One woman takes nine months to make a child. How long do nine women take?

B787 was ambitious. Maybe the ramp up was too fast. Which of course would rubbish my hypothesis that the -8 was a mistake.
Thoughts?

Is it my imagination or is the 787-8 a lower quality plane? It seems that I did not have good experiences with the -8. The -9 was better, but still not as good quality as the 777s.

It was a good experimental aircraft(risk partners, light weight low quality low supply components, 3 parts depots for entire planet earth) in commercial service, good for one term. Most leased will be back with bankers at the end of lease.

Definitely not a mistake, though the execution of the 787-8 (or more specifically, the 787 program) was far from good, to put it mildly, the 788 took the hits, problems were addressed, so when the 789 and 78X came around they had it smoother. If they'd started with the 789 or 78X those models may have suffered from the fallout of the 787's problems. 400+ sold might not seem impressive at a time when the 789 and A359 have racked up the numbers, but by any reasonable measure it's a solid success.

Sokes wrote:

Did they ramp up too fast?

They grossly underestimated the amount of time they needed to design the airframe and start production.

Sokes wrote:

There is one thought of school that thinks basic research should be done by universities, not companies.

Boeing and Lamborghini both worked (and continue to work) with the University of Washington on CFRP applications in aerospace and vehicle production so there was plenty of "university research" being done prior to program launch. Boeing had also done CFRP barrel research and development for the Sonic Cruiser concept many years earlier.