Opus99 wrote:SteelChair wrote:Opus99 wrote:If Boeing listening to a few customers at the expense of others means 3300 orders across the 787 and 777 family then. Compared to about 2000 across the 330 and 350 then I mean. Few customers it is.
787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense
777x order book weak and faltering.
No doubt the 787 has sold a lot of frames, but will never (cue endless accounting comments) make a dime. It's waaaayyyy heavier than it was supposed to be. Something like 50k more than a similarly equipped 767. 25 tons!
And many people consider the legacy 777 the last good program Boeing ever did. On time and profitable and all that stuff. 25 years ago. Ancient history.
If you just want to throw a tantrum over Boeing then by all means but your analysis did not make any sense. What does Boeing listening to one group of customers have to do with their cost overruns.
I don’t understand this a.net obsession with accounting. Are you actually serious? All that cash Boeing made pre max, was it not from delivering 787s? Every time a 787 is delivered you get cash. You can do all the accounting mathematics you like. Well they deliver a 787, they are making clean Cash profit and accounting profit. Could we say that for A380? Can we say that for A220? There’s even no point going down all that.
If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.
Opus99 wrote:It’s such a pathetic way to look for something bad to say and people here always use it like who actually gives a damn. There’s nobody that will look at a 787 program and say mehn that was a failure. 1500 orders in 12 years?? For a widebody?? This is even without a freighter, Airbus could dream.
Is the A350 not holding its own?
Opus99 wrote:Show me who else has done that. That 350, they should release the real backlog that 900 frames on order is a joke and they know it.
Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?
Opus99 wrote:The 787 is damn good aircraft,
I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).
Opus99 wrote:a successful program
Opus99 wrote:and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years.
What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?
Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.
Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...
As for weight. 787 weighs more than 767 and so what? Why won’t it it’s a bigger frame by length and by width and by fuel capacity and it travels farther.
I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.
Opus99 wrote:Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.
Opus99 wrote:Where?You can check if you like.
Opus99 wrote:Does it? Can you tell me how you know?The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO.
Opus99 wrote:Tantrum much?Which is actually comparable size
330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?
Opus99 wrote:I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.
Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA
As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.
There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.