Time To Kill The Name "Dreamliner"

ukoverlander · Sat May 25, 2013 5:18 pm

Now that the 787 is finally returning to the skies, I can't help but feel that the senior management at Boeing would do well to quietly kill off/drop the name "Dreamliner" and simply refer to the aircraft as the 787 going forward. Given the problems in production, long delivery delays, the recent and extensive grounding of the aircraft, the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

Given the history of successful aircraft Boeing has produced that have simply been referred to by their 3 digit type (737, 747, 757, 767, 777, etc) maybe it's time to do the same with the marketing of the 787. The irony of the "Dreamliner" moniker is that it simply reminds everybody of all the difficulties that have plagued the aircraft. Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

maddog888 · Sat May 25, 2013 5:46 pm

Whilst I follow your reasoning and can see some valid logic, I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air. All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity). Apart from one return to base flight, the passenger "FLIGHT" experience was and I assume will continue to be "dreamlike". So I see no reason that Boeing would want to quietly allow the name to fade away. Also from a purely commercial basis, Boeing has - presumably - an awful lot invested in that name just to throw it away.

Julian

Viscount724 · Sat May 25, 2013 5:52 pm

The name has caught on with the public and the media. It's too late to kill it now. It would be like Boeing dropping use of the Stratocruiser name after that type's many crashes. That name was much more familiar to the public in the 1950s than Boeing 377.

jayunited · Sat May 25, 2013 5:53 pm

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
Quietly dropping the use of the name might be an effective way to move forward.

Effective how? Boeing still has more than 800 aircraft left to deliver.

Every since United restarted domestic 787 flying this week we have seen great load factors on the 3 to 4 (depending on the day) 787 flights that we have on the ORD-IAH route. These 3 to 4 787 flights are in addition to our normal flight schedule they did not replace any of the aircraft UA normally uses on the ORD-IAH flights. Last saturday at this time all of our 787's flying ORD-IAH were almost empty while our normally scheduled flights were completely full and/or oversold. Monday and Tuesday most 787s left we plenty of empty seats but as the word got out that the 787 were flying a lot of people who were already going to fly from ORD to IAH began changing their flights from the 737 to the 787. We had passengers stay at ORD 2 to 3 extra hours just to get on a 787 flight to IAH. The only flight that has gone out with a lot of empty seats this week is the787 flight that leaves ORD at 2200 departure arriving into IAH after midnight. That flight is basically filled with employees who want to catch a ride on the 787. United is also seeing high load on the IAH-ORD 787 flights as well, and I'm sure both DEN and LAX are seeing high loads on their domestic 787 flights as well. So while it may seem like the grounding and all the production problems has tarnished the Dreamliner's image from the looks of it most passengers do not care. To have passengers voluntarily change their flight and stay at ORD 2-3 extra hours just to get on a Dreamliner is crazy because on a normal day most passengers try to catch an earlier flight to get out of ORD as quickly as possible. I think in the real world outside of aviation forums like this one the public is glad to see these plane back in the sky and they will do whatever they can to get on a Dreamliner if it is headed to their destination. So I think they should keep the name as it is Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

airDFW · Sat May 25, 2013 8:29 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?

WildcatYXU · Sat May 25, 2013 11:05 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

AADC10 · Sat May 25, 2013 11:11 pm

Why would Boeing or anyone else want to kill the name? It helps the general public tell the difference between the 787 and the 767 or 777. We know the difference in detail but much of the general public does not pay that much attention so the "Dreamliner" moniker helps set it apart in their minds. Dropping the name is not going to make any difference to anyone paying attention. The other issue is that they want to try to hype it to the public to goose sales, especially before the A350 gets off the ground. The fact is that the plane has little to directly offer the passenger and from a butt in seat standpoint is inferior to most 777 configurations. It does however offer a lot to the airline, with 777 per seat efficiency with 767 capacity.

Viscount724 · Sat May 25, 2013 11:17 pm

Quoting airdfw (Reply 4):
Quoting jayunited (Reply 3):
domestic 787 flying this week

When is UA flying "dreamliner" internationally?

First UA international 787 routes are the new DEN-NRT nonstop and one of 3 daily IAH-LHR flights, both starting June 10.

seahawks7757 · Sat May 25, 2013 11:27 pm

It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

JA813A ANA 787-8 Dreamliner by Brandon Farris Photography

hOMSaR · Sat May 25, 2013 11:33 pm

If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old, and already has its replacement under development. Yet, Boeing still refers to them as Next Generation aircraft.

ER757 · Sat May 25, 2013 11:38 pm

I wish the manufacturers would go back to naming their models instead of using numbers. I miss ones like Constellation, Viscount, Caravelle, Comet, Concorde, etc. Yes, I know the Comet ended up being rather infamous but it was still a cool name. Those were so much better than 757, A320, Q400 etc. So if Boeing should drop anything, it should be "787"
In reality, there's as much chance of that as there is of "Dreamliner" fading quietly away. As someone else pointed out, the name is painted on nearly every one in service

EA CO AS · Sat May 25, 2013 11:40 pm

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 9):
If there was a Boeing jet that needed to drop its nickname, I'd say it would be the 737 "Next Generation" family.

That design is pushing 20 years old

Sorry, but it's still quite relevant to keep the NG designation, due to the hundreds of 737 "classics" still in service.

ghifty · Sat May 25, 2013 11:54 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

That's up to the airline. What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't. The OEM 787 will be better than the OEM 767 potential wise. It's not like carriers are opting to *not* pressurize the cabin 6,000 feet.. or installing standard-sized windows..

Let's not forget that Boeing's customers are airline, not so much the passengers flying in them.

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

Don't all Dreamliners have that? Can be covered up easily, too.

WildcatYXU · Sun May 26, 2013 12:11 am

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
What Boeing delivers standard, however isn't.

OK, so the airlines designed the 787 to be a generous 8 abreast but only so-so but doable 9 abreast aircraft?

flightsimer · Sun May 26, 2013 12:23 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):

The airlines do have an influence of the design of the aircraft.

I believe in the past, Boeing said they were not expecting the majority of the customers to select the nine-abreast seating like they have, but only the tour operators.

Tupolev160 · Sun May 26, 2013 12:23 am

I just prefer not to imagine the bashing it would have been if it was a Russian aircraft (such as the SSJ) grounded for so long and with fire on board... I can't but to be impressed how the majority of comments are clement and hopeful regarding the 787 since the incidents started happening, this actually might be the first topic in a realistic tone by the author, my regards...

einsteinboricua · Sun May 26, 2013 12:25 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
I always assumed that the "dreamliner" nickname was related to the passenger experience in the air.

Well, that's another good reason to drop the nickname. I don't think that a 16.8" seat with 31" seat pitch on a long haul aircraft would be anything to dream of. And that's definitely the future norm, not NH's 18.6" x 33"

But that's not Boeing's fault. If the airline decides to squeeze in tons of seats into a 3-4-3 configuration, it most certainly isn't a Dreamliner, but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.

PHX787 · Sun May 26, 2013 1:09 am

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

That....and JL and NH heavily market the aircraft here as the "dreamliner" itself, instead of the 787. Seriously, killing the name would kill off a huge brand which has a following here in Japan, even despite the incidents. I'm going to HND today and my buddies said to expect a huge crowd on top of T2 when the 787 arrives from CTS marking the return to commercial service for NH.

BLIKSEM · Sun May 26, 2013 1:09 am

I believe that the name Dreamliner is great and is here to stay. The name has caught the attention and imagination not only of the industry but importantly also passengers. It is a refreshing departure from the boring and mostly confusing combinations of letters and numbers designating the offerings of different manufacturers. Boeing would do well to name their future models.

WildcatYXU · Sun May 26, 2013 1:14 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
but "Dreamliner" isn't due to the space the passengers get but from the innovations the airliner itself brings.

OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...
As far as impact of the innovations on the passengers in concerned, please don't tell me it's the larger windows and higher cabin pressure. The passenger in 39E won't even see the window and what will be the real life cabin pressure remains to be seen.

Polot · Sun May 26, 2013 1:18 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it? Passengers don't give a damn about lower CASM, you know...

It is just a marketing name...it can mean whatever Boeing wants it to be based on the context. For airlines they pitch the aircraft's innovation and efficiencies and for the public they pitch the improved passenger experience.

It is marketing, that is all. Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

RottenRay · Sun May 26, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):
All the problems have been very very serious but they have all been technical affecting Boeing and the airlines rather than the passengers directly (thank the deity).

No, they haven't been "very very" serious.

Most have been at the nuisance level.

Please, cite ONE instance where a 787 was in "serious" or imminent danger (as in uncontained engine failure, etc) and then we can take your statement seriously.

Tupolev160 · Sun May 26, 2013 1:23 am

The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made in what i'm concerned and probably the least attractive for me as a passenger to fly into. There was so much hype about this plane, but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

zkokq · Sun May 26, 2013 2:03 am

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

I am glad we all done share the same opinion on aviation, otherwise it would be boring.

WildcatYXU · Sun May 26, 2013 2:04 am

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
The "Dreamliner" is the ugliest aircraft Boeing has ever made

I guess we will have to agree to disagree

While the Dreamliner isn't the Queen Of The Skies (for me the definition of a beautiful aircraft), it's very, very far from ugly. But I realize that beauty is in the eye of the be(er)holder.

ghifty · Sun May 26, 2013 2:14 am

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):
but more problems than any previous model ever encountered.

Oh, really? Take a look at this database, then: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage

Go to "Current ADs," click on "By Make," and then click on "Boeing Company, The." Go compare that to the 777-300ER and then the 787. Or, for a real treat, check out the list for the 727.

So "more problems than any previous model ever encountered"? I think not.

Motorhussy · Sun May 26, 2013 2:27 am

The media outlet I work for has enjoyed the DreamLiner moniker very much recently, especially when, after the battery debacle and subsequent groundings, the business editor was able to use the line "Boeing's nightmare run continues with its new DreamLiner passenger jet..."

Personally I've never liked the name DreamLiner, it's as if Seattle/Chicago was trying to get us all to forget about the equally banal SonicCruiser.

bristolflyer · Sun May 26, 2013 5:13 am

For me the term Dreamliner is typical American braggadocio. Kinda like proclaiming 'the US is the greatest county in the world'. Let them carry on fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.

Polot · Sun May 26, 2013 5:19 am

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 27):
For me the term Dreamliner is typical American braggadocio. Kinda like proclaiming 'the US is the greatest county in the world'. Let them carry on fooling themselves that it's true, the rest of us will get on with our lives.

You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

a36001 · Sun May 26, 2013 5:24 am

The only aircraft that should be allowed the honour of a "nickname" is the Constellation. That is one classic aircraft from a classic era in time for aviation. As good as the 787 is and will be, the nickname "Dreamliner" sounds to me stupid and childish! And I personally will never refer to it as such. I will blindly refer to it with name it should have. And that is the Nightmareliner....o sorry I meant the 787-800!

My thoughts are my own

AirlineCritic · Sun May 26, 2013 6:30 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body

I wonder if AB thought how this name could also be interpreted negatively

flyingthe757 · Sun May 26, 2013 6:44 am

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

It's a new make of aircraft totally so it's a given there would be more issues then other aircraft. The 747-400s and 777 and 737 are all based in part on there older brothers, with new additions and tech, but the 78 was new in every way. The first jumbo had a lot of kinks, as did most new aircraft when.

Have you flown in it yet? As the saying goes, it's not what's on the outside that counts. It's the inside customer experience that's the most important thing.

Braybuddy · Sun May 26, 2013 8:06 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

And before any of them ever flew on it, which is strange. Boeing have such a strong and recognisable brand in the 7X7 series -- one of the most recogniseable brand names in the world, in fact, and much more so than the Airbus designations -- that there was no need to dilute it. It's one of those ridiculous marketing gimmicky names that mean absolutely nothing when you analyse it: unless you're travelling in F or J, or have an entire row of seats to yourself, your flight is hardly likely to be dreamlike, no matter what airline or aircraft you are on.

And, with its problems over the last five years, it's inevitable that it's going to be used against it, with nicknames such as Nightmareliner and worse, as we've seen on these forums.

aerorobnz · Sun May 26, 2013 8:13 am

It will fade once there are heaps in service. It stays because at the moment they are still relatively rare and most airports don't have 787s regularly

GDB · Sun May 26, 2013 9:08 am

I always thought it was a bloody stupid, baby-ish, Disney like name.
Though with hindsight maybe a warning about where all too much of Boeing's attention, management wise, was right at the start of the program.
In this I'm referring to the 3 year late entry into service, more than the events of this year.
Remember their absurdly optimistic projections for the flight test effort back then, how they pissed off customers by sometimes being less than straight with them about the problems encountered.

Sadly, it is too late to grow up and drop the name.

PHLapproach · Sun May 26, 2013 10:02 am

I just jumpseated on one operating the LAX-IAH redeye on the 25th and Houston Approach and Tower both refered to us as a "Dreamliner" to other redeyes following us in. I wasn't expecting controllers to start referring to it's name for it's type. I thought it was neat. Caught me off guard.

"United 1209, caution wake turbulance, you'll 8 miles in trail of a Heavy Dreamliner"

Putnik · Sun May 26, 2013 11:44 am

It turned out to be more of a nightmare than a dream for many people involved so the Dreamliner moniker should be silently dropped.

However, I believe the 787 will be a success in the long run when all teething problems are solved. The size of the aircraft is perfect, economics seems to be as good as expected, we just have to be patient and see this through.

brilondon · Sun May 26, 2013 11:55 am

I agree. Dreamliner is not what I think of when you mention the 787, although the 747 is still known as the Jumbo Jet. Once you name something, it is hard to stop the name especially from those who only listen to the media who keep calling it Dreamliner.

lastrow · Sun May 26, 2013 12:07 pm

keeping the name Dreamliner for existing aircrafts represents an opportunity for marketing later production blocks / improved version of the plane with a slightly different name (which ever this may be) or some extension. Similar to the "E" or the "X" designation on some later Airbus models. This would mark the difference of having a notably improved aircraft when compared to the firstly delivered versions.

I know that Airbus did not do marketing with "E" or "X" to end customers, but I think among airliners.net fellows this difference is well known.

NAV20 · Sun May 26, 2013 12:32 pm

I'll have to look up some marketing research on any preferences among the general public for different makes of airliner.

Reason being, a few months ago (before the 787 problems), 'acting on impulse,' I asked a couple of my neighbours who were travelling (one on business, one for a holiday) what aeroplane type they were booked on. Neither of them knew........

I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

[Edited 2013-05-26 05:33:15]

VC10er · Sun May 26, 2013 12:45 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 1):

I totally agree. It is actually the brand strength of the 787 "Dreamliner" that will help it overcome the horrible initial problems. Thank God no souls were lost. Many people thought BP would change its name and identity after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. But it was actually the strength of the brand and it's optimistic identity that HELPED save the company after such a massive disaster.

I think the vast majority of the flying public and the aviation community understand the 787 was a huge technological leap forward and thus the teething issues SOMEWHAT understandable, yes, far more than expected. But the Dreamliner moniker is a huge asset to an airline today. If you just look at United, it is the primary driver of innovation for United...an airline in dire need of an image driver. The fact they got 'em first is a big deal for them.

Dreamliner will be the moniker for a long time, but one day, it will just be called a 787 when the aircraft is a very common model. As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

What is interesting is that the world's best selling WB, the 777, doesn't have a "name". But 3 7's may be enough. And if 7 is a lucky number...it sure as hell was good luck for Boeing! (although I have the deepest respect for the 777 creators) Boeing really gets the power of a brand and brilliant branding!

lastrow · Sun May 26, 2013 12:57 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
I guess that, as 'enthusiasts,' we all 'care.' But my further guess is that a lot of people (almost certainly MOST people) just book flights on the basis of dates and times of day. And only find out what MAKE of aeroplane they're flying on when they start pulling stuff out of the seat-pocket in front of them (perhaps not even then).

that is certaily true for the persons who fly one or two times a year. However, giving the opposite example: I have heard a business traveller talking ... claiming that he always aims of choosing Boeing over Airbus aircraft, because of their higher cruise speed and therefore arriving some minutes earlier when going inter continental. personally, I would not care for this criterion. however, people are different.

sankaps · Sun May 26, 2013 1:06 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 28):
You think the term Dreamliner is bragging or boasting? Wow....what are your thoughts on Xtra Wide Body?

Great question!

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
OK, so Maddog88 thinks the Dreamliner nickname came from improved passenger experience, you're saying it's the other innovations - so which one is it?

The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Global Cruiser came out tops among US respondents, and Dreamliner overall. Frankly, to me it is the only decent, easy to say and remember name out of the list, with eLiner a possible second.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/arc...ehind_the_scenes_story_on_nam.html

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
It is marketing, that is all. Don't forget too that it was the general public, not Boeing, that ultimately decided on the Dreamliner name.

Yes, but was one of four shortlisted by Boeing and put up for public vote.

justplanesmart · Sun May 26, 2013 3:45 pm

The time to kill the name was before it was ever offered as a possible name.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 42):
The name came from a public poll Boeing held, where it was selected out of four names shortlisted by Boeing, namely
■Dreamliner
■Global Cruiser
■Stratoclimber
■eLiner

Yes, and none of them were worth spit. I did vote for "Global Cruiser", but only as the least idiotic choice. However, Boeing is ignoring their own history when they try to market a plane with a name. Consider:

Boeing Monomail - 2 built
Boeing Stratoliner - 10 built
Boeing Stratocruiser - 56 built

Yes, they have tried to affix a name to some of their jetliners, as I believe the 707 was once marketed as the "Jet Stratoliner", and they often referred to the 747 as the "Superjet", but they were never used over and above the model number.

Flighty · Sun May 26, 2013 3:59 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 40):
As I am in branding, my professional opinion is that the name is genus and it should stay.

Now it looks like "piling on," but I agree. Dreamliner is something the public has heard about, and the public likes.

How it sounds like to enthusiasts doesn't really matter. But it helps the industry get a bit of glamour back in advertising.

After 10 years of hard work, the airplane deserves a name. Without the name, people would ask what the hell took so long to design what looks like a slightly improved 767.

[Edited 2013-05-26 09:01:00]

boeingguy26 · Sun May 26, 2013 4:10 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

Have you seen an A380? That whale makes every bird look good.

art · Sun May 26, 2013 4:18 pm

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 8):
It is kinda hard to kill off Dreamliner when most carriers have elected to have it painted on there aircraft, look here on ANA in the back half-

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8370580033_dbae789843_b.jpg

I have to say that when you look at the photo, the 787 logo near the front of the fuselage is very, very prominent while the Dreamliner logo is tiny in comparison so most observers would be struck by the large 787 logo and might not even notice the Dreamliner logo further back IMO.

okay · Sun May 26, 2013 4:55 pm

I never understood why they creted the name Dreamliner and not continued on the old path of just calling it 787 as they have called all the other types with different middle number. I think an additional name creates confusion if anything, and I think they broke a nice tradition. It used to be, that just by introducing a new type, naming it another 7X7 is a Boeing thing, label on its own right for quality. Now, they came up with this "empty" additional name, and quite mess it has become, of course not because of the name, but it does not do the company any good that the additional name has generated some other additional names to the airliner, like screamliner, fireliner etc. If no additional name had been created, these infamous nickames would not excist, either.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
Why would Boeing or anyone else want to kill the name? It helps the general public tell the difference between the 787 and the 767 or 777.

I don't get this argument. "787" tells the public the difference between 787 and the 767/777 etc. Just as 767 tells the difference between 787/777 etc.

DL747400 · Sun May 26, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
the 787 so far has in fairness been a tad less than 'dream'-like.

The Dreamliner has thus far been more like the "Bad Dreamliner" for Boeing and airlines alike. From the beginning, this to me always seemed like a risky name for such a revolutionary new airliner.

Whenever you try to make such large advances in design, materials and assembly processes simultaneously, there is exponentially more risk that things can go wrong. And they did. Boeing tried to do too too fast and made promises that could not be kept. Bad program management certainly didn't lessen the challenges this aircraft program faced from early on. As a result, their reputation has been significantly damaged. In time it hopefully will recover and the troubles with the 787 will become memories.

RJA321 · Sun May 26, 2013 5:15 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22):

I agree. The currently available 787 is short and just plane ugly

The A380, on the other hand, is actually a beautiful plane, its massive size and those wings are extraordinary.

As for the phrase 'Dreamliner' I don't think it matters to most passengers, so whether or not Boeing continues to use it will only be mostly relevant to airlines and aviation enthusiasts.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net