|Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):|
All true, but that shorter wingspan crippled the plane aerodynamically compared to her wider-winged sister, making it less efficient than the 787-8 on stage lengths greater than about 500 kilometers. That is why ANA and JAL cancelled and are taking de-rated 787-8s for their domestic needs.
Sure you are right. But if we imagine that the 787-3 had been ordered in large numbers like the -8, then the -3 would have left the factory gate with a much lower sticker price with the shorter wing and other structures optimized for the 68,000kg lower MTOW, and the equation ending up with 500km breakeven would be very different.
Old 757 and 767-non-ER (and A300/310) are nowadays mostly replaced by 737 and A320 - more direct flights, higher frequency. Had they been replaced by 787-3 instead (meaning >1,000 delivered over the next decade), then we would have seen the -3 with a $1-2 million lower annual leasing fee than the -8. And the -3 would have been a great economic performer.
For a CFRP wing a much greater part of the final price is one time up front production facility costs - moulds, layup robots, autoclaves etc, while on alluminum wings riverting labor is a greater part. Therefore making a CFRP wing by the dozens instead of by the many hundreds is an economic catastrophe for the manufacturer.
The Boeing / JAL-ANA deal is likely something like this: You order a brand new Chevy model at GM
later tells you that they regretted the deal since they are not going to produce that Chevy model. But since you have a contract, then they offer to give you what they have instead, which happens to be a Cadillac. What would you say?
1. Thank you.
2. Aw s**t, then my insurance fee will rise $50/yr.
I guess you would stick to version #1. So would I, and JAL and ANA did the same.