Boeing B787 - How much better ?

[Stuffy]

Some say the B787 is 25% more efficient than an equivalent ?

How much better would a Boeing B787 be on a route, for instance: Manchester to Dubai, Abhu Dhabi or Bahrain?

Compared to an Airbus A330-200HGW ?

Would the aircraft cost(assuming the Airbus was either second hand or bought/leased at a preferential rate) Be part of the equation ?
What about operating costs ?

Some charter airlines believe it will revolutionise point-to-point destinations. Think of Gatwick or Manchester to some exotic destination.
Which, would have not been, flown, with any other type.

It is always difficult to get through the sales blurb and hyperbole.

[pwalhx]

Have ANA not complained the performance is not as expected on the Frankfurt route?

[PAXboy]

In most walks of life, the salesman over sells and the customer over expects. Perhaps the same is true in the airliner world ...

I seem to recall similar statements when the 340/330 were introduced but it could easily have been another machine.

[Buster the Bear]

Monarch cancelled thier order for B787's as APD meant that the airframes were no longer viable to the destinations they had planned.

[pabely]

It is a better airplane but not what Boeing Sales say at the moment.
I'm sure once fixes & upgrades come on-line it will be a winner, isn't that the case with most new technology airplanes?

[Stuffy]

I remember Bob Crandall of American Airlines complaining bitterly about the real performance of his MD-11's. They didn't match the sales talk.
Although I have always enjoyed being a passenger in one.

Once I was chatting to an Airbus rep in 1994. He said that Virgin's old B747-100 used 85 tonnes of fuel Gatwick to Newark. Virgin's new A340-300 used 35 tonnes on the same route. Or so he said.

The Boeing B787 had to be beefed-up a bit when there were problems in the wing box area. Adding weight. Apparently it is more expensive to make carbon fibre than use alluminium?

If I were an airline chief and I got a good deal on some A330-200HGW's. I wonder if my competitor with his new Boeing B787s would be smiling?

[DaveReidUK]

Some say the B787 is 25% more efficient than an equivalent ?

How much better would a Boeing B787 be on a route, for instance: Manchester to Dubai, Abhu Dhabi or Bahrain?

Compared to an Airbus A330-200HGW ?

That depends entirely how you define "efficient".

One measure might be fuel burn per seat-mile (or fuel burn per aircraft mile, for a similarly sized aircraft).

Nobody, least of all Boeing, would claim that the 787 is 25% more efficient in that respect, compared to the competition.

Would the aircraft cost (assuming the Airbus was either second hand or bought/leased at a preferential rate) Be part of the equation ?
What about operating costs ?

Obviously acquisition cost would form part of an potential operator's overall comparison exercise. But comparing a new-build 787 with a used A330 would be a fairly pointless exercise.

[racedo]

Its not just about efficiency. Ultimately if you can charge £150 a seat more than someone using a competitor airframe, your costs are only £50 more per seat, assumming similar load factors and passenger numbers then you will be laughing.

Sadly too many CEOs focus on a single part without realising there are many others.

[TSR2]

Ultimately if you can charge £150 a seat more than someone using a competitor airframe

But that's a lot of extra cash for a family of four going to say Orlando for their holidays. However, I wish Thomson well.

[BadgerGrowler]

Didn't Boeing say that the first tranche of airframes will be overweight, and won't be down to the spec weight until later frames?

Probably didn't help with both RR and GE missing spec fuel promises either

[No RYR for me]

Monarch cancelled thier order for B787's as APD meant that the airframes were no longer viable to the destinations they had planned.

Just like the sales man lies about the aircraft performance of an aircraft the airlines lie about why a route is not viable :D

[Chidken Sangwich]

Will all depend on how the fuel burn stacks up, but I have serious doubts.

B787 - $1,000,000 month lease / 278 seats
A330 - $350,000 - $400,000 month lease / 374 seats
B763 - $300,000 month lease / 315 seats

Maintenance reserves will also obviously be a factor, but then can you 'maintain' plastic?

[MAN777]

In my youthful days I wrote off 2 carbon fibre/kevlar racing canoes in 1 week, wrapped them round rocks and they could not be repaired unlike normal glass fibre.

My point being, what happens when a catering truck bounces off the fuselage, can modern carbon kevlar be repaired ??

[Stuffy]

Another issue is the 'Emergency Cut Here' marks on the fuselage. An axe bounces off !

Here is an interesting letter to the Aerospace magazine:-

Composites - shades of the Comet ?

"Reading Bill Read's article in the February issue. On the maintenance aspects of aircraft containing an ever increasing proportion of composite materials in their structure, has awakeneed a long felt concern that I have about these materials. Fuelled by the huge benefits that are there to be exploited in terms of higher structural efficiency over their metal equivalent, especially in these times of austerity and the need for ever lower seat mile costs, industry, driven by its customers, has embraced this new relatively unknown material and forged ahead to integrate it into the very heart of airframe manufacture. In this latest breed of airliners, tried and tested metals that are know completetly understood through the hard lessons from generations gone by, are increasingly becoming the exception rather than the norm.

We understand composites as manufactured and we are perfecting processes to manufacture ever more complex components and assemblies out of this new and challenging material. But it is not tolerant of damage, it is not easy to spot(the extent of) damage, it is not esy to repair, it is not easy to guarantee a repair. Consequently, the long term integrity of such repairs has to be questionable. We understand the science but I fear we don't understand its durability in a damage risk environment.
Back in the post war days, we thought we understood metals. The Comet was a frightening illustration of how little we did know. Speed, distance and comfort were then the driving forces. Chasing the current-day holy grail of minimal seat-mile costs could be a frightening analogy."
- John H Mangan CEng MRAeS

[Stuffy]

Airlines wanted this aircraft, but Boeing says that they really wanted the B787.

A proposal Boeing wasn't able to build ?

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/sonic-cruiser2.jpg

Boeing Sonic Cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser)

[Denti]

Boeing claims that the 787 burns around 20% less fuel than any other same sized aircraft. Thing is, airbus for example doesn't offer any aircraft in that size bracket (210-250 seats for the -8). It can be roughly compared to a 767-300, but no completely, especially if range comes into the equation. The 787 is a pretty small wide body airplane with a pretty long range in the non-overweight configuration.

The first around 60 aircraft are overweight, the first 20 of those by a huge amount. One of the results is the low number of seats that are used by the first two customers on international long haul routes, 158 in the ANA version and 186 in the JAL one.

Total cost will depend of course, the first 300 airplanes were sold at steep discounts for prices as low as 64 million $ per airplane which is considerably below the list price for a 737.

[Phileas Fogg]

Sensible folk don't care about the beancounters and their penny/cent pinching ways of costs per mile/kilometre ... Give us sensible folk 3 or 4 engines per aircraft for oceanic travel and we're happy to pay that little bit more to rest peacefully in our seats.

[Denti]

Hmm, only two of those are still in production, the self disintegrating ugly mass of A380 and the new 747-8 which doesn't really sell well in the passenger world.

[Phileas Fogg]

Denti,

And why did they cease A340 production? ... Because the beancounters decide upon costs before safety and opt for A330's instead!

But just because they recently ceased production doesn't mean that the type won't be flying for another 20 years or whatever.

And the B747-800 probably isn't selling so well because there are fleets of B747-400's with plenty of life left in them yet.

[galaxy flyer]

Stuffy

Why do you say the airlines wanted the Sonic Cruiser, but Boeing built the 787, née 7E7?

GF

[Denti]

Actually most bought the mighty B777 instead of the A340. But the war about twins vs. quads is pretty much over, and there is not one shred of evidence that it is less save, so the safety guys supported the bean counters in this one. I'd rather fight for better conditions than for any specific type of airplane.

The 747 is in the process of being phased out of the passenger world and of course will live on for a long time in the freight world. The A380 will be continued to to be sold at a steep discount as it is airbus main prestige plane even thought the A350/A330 will earn the money in the longhaul market for them.

@galaxy flyer, i wondered about it as well. As far as i remember it was the other way round, boeing wanted to build the sonic cruiser and airlines didn't want it, except some private GA operators.

[Phileas Fogg]

I'd rather fight for better conditions also ... 3 or 4 engined conditions. :)

A cat is said to have nine lives, so four engines has four lives, 3 engines 3 lives etc, so 2 lives are as safe as 3 or 4 lives?

By the way, the Titanic would have been unsinkable had the beancounters not become involved in it's construction and the number of lifeboats etc ... it wasn't an iceberg that sank the Titanic costing thousands of lives ... it was the beancounters!

[yeo valley]

agree with the beancounter comments. spend a pound to save a penny.And always someone somewhere or something suffers.

[oceancrosser]

Chidken Sangwich
Will all depend on how the fuel burn stacks up, but I have serious doubts.

B787 - $1,000,000 month lease / 278 seats
A330 - $350,000 - $400,000 month lease / 374 seats
B763 - $300,000 month lease / 315 seats

Maintenance reserves will also obviously be a factor, but then can you 'maintain' plastic?


Your numbers are crap. A 788 is one seatrow wider than the 763. No one but British crap outfits put over 300 people in a 763.
And you have no idea about lease rates.
B763 210-240 seats $3-400K pr mth,
B788 200-260 seats $1.200K pr mth
A332 220-280 seats $7-800K pr mth, (enhanced version ca 5-10yr old).
Currently Boeing gives the OEW of the 788 as about the same as an A332.
How much less can it burn? Some but not a whole lot, physics still apply

[plasticAF]

Stuffy

Something I raised over a year ago.
So, would an airline be able to carry out a skin repair/replacement on a section of skin? I doubt it!
That would make for an interesting claim against the baggage handlers etc. First one to happen and the Insurers get in on the act demanding what?
Lets wait and see what happens in the real world.

[TURIN]

Stuffy

Something I raised over a year ago.
So, would an airline be able to carry out a skin repair/replacement on a section of skin? I doubt it!
That would make for an interesting claim against the baggage handlers etc. First one to happen and the Insurers get in on the act demanding what?
Lets wait and see what happens in the real world.

A simple skin repair procedure is taught during the course and has been carried out in the field. Identifying the damage is the hard part. An ultra sound detector is required to check for delamination or damage inside the structure. Light impacts are as you day not a problem.

[Stuffy]

I make no apologies if this reads like a tabloid newspaper:-

In my opinion the story goes like this: Boeing were becoming increasingly alarmed at the success of Airbus. Boeing, a traditionally conservative company, has been well supported by US politicians. The B707 was helped by the military orders for the KC-135. They are now helping the company with the order change for the B767 tanker.

With the alarm caused by Airbus. Boeing made a quantum leap in faith and came up with the Mach.96 ‘Sonic Cruiser’,with quite a bit of composites in the construction. There was a debate about Boeing actually being serious about this aeroplane. Airlines became very keen on the concept and Boeing had to get on with it. They could build the airframe, but the engines…. There was probably a military engine to do the job, but it would be thirsty. Subsequently some wag renamed it the ‘Sonic Boozer’.

Boeing couldn’t build it, but Boeing still had to come up with a radical solution to challenge Airbus. With their experience with composites for the Sonic Cruiser. Boeing produced the extremely elegant Boeing 7E7/787. The early artist impressions showed flowing lines made of composite – an Airfix kit.

Some time later they removed their expert on composites(management know best you know of course).

The B787 was rolled out and there was a little problem with the wing and wing box. The experts here may be able to expand on this. From what I understand it broke. This necessitated quite a bit of beefing up which added weight. It also made it three plus years late.

Airlines were keen on the B787 because, with it, they thought they could fly from Birmingham(EGBB) six thousand miles to the exotic Nakhon Nowhere, and make a profit. That’s one of the reasons for the interest from package-holiday airlines. From the comments here it would appear that the B787 is not doing what is says on the tin. Or in this case the plastic.

For yet another twin engine tube, it looks elegant. Unfortunately, at the moment the economics do not. Then there still is the problem of plastic damage and repair.

http://www.russiablog.org/787Dreamliner.jpg
The original elegant design. With the tailfin before it was changed.

[Heathrow Harry]

I'd guess the real problems with the plastic will show in 4-5 years

[Stuffy]

Boeing have been working on a quick and easy way to spot damage.

How successful they have been I wouldn't know.

With plastic damage. There could be an undetected crack along the fuselage etc. Quite a problem.

[mutt]

The 787 is a pretty small wide body airplane with a pretty long range in the non-overweight configuration. The initial sales presentation that i looked at showed it doing our desired route with only 21,000 kgs of payload, and that was before the additional wing box weight increase. So I dont think that the present aircraft will be financially viable with a 170-180 passenger payload.

[Groundloop]

Boeing made a quantum leap in faith and came up with the Mach.96 ‘Sonic Cruiser’,with quite a bit of composites in the construction. There was a debate about Boeing actually being serious about this aeroplane. Airlines became very keen on the concept and Boeing had to get on with it.

Where on earth did you get this bit about airlines being keen on the Sonic Cruiser? It's proposed operating economics were diabolical. The extra thrust, and hence fuel, required for that little bit of extra speed made it a non-starter.

[Stuffy]

DALLAS, April 4 (Reuters) - The head of Boeing Co.'s
largest airline customer, American Airlines, said on
Wednesday he sees a sizable role in American's fleet for a new
super-fast jetliner planned by Boeing.
Don Carty, chairman and CEO of American's parent company
AMR Corp., said the "Sonic Cruiser" announced by Boeing
last week had the potential to alter airline operations
radically by increasing productivity with shorter flight times.
"We obviously see a sizable use for that airplane," Carty
said at a Dallas airline maintenance conference. He did not
specify how many of the planes American might order when it
goes into production sometime between 2006 and 2008.

[Stuffy]

Even on Pprune:-

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4300-boeings-new-sonic-airliner-atracting-lots-interest-airlines.html

[Copenhagen]

Didn't mr Branson order a dozen or so?