|
Boeing to cut 787 output from 14 to 12 monthly from late 2020
According to Leeham, Boeing is going to cut 787 production for two years citing global trade environment (read: Trump)
Boeing then seems to plan to increase production again from late 2022. But to do so Boeing need to secure significant new orders to fill a large production gap from 2022 onwards. Leeham; Boeing to cut 787 production |
Ramping up for the 767-400? |
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10601555)
Ramping up for the 767-400?
|
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10601555)
Ramping up for the 767-400? A little perspective on the 787 rate - they're dropping from 14/month to 12/month, which is still the highest production rate for any widebody. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10602013)
They'd have to start building 767-400s again before they could ramp up production - it's been out of production for over a decade.
A little perspective on the 787 rate - they're dropping from 14/month to 12/month, which is still the highest production rate for any widebody. Could Boeing restart production?Now, there is an important point that this argument hangs on. Boeing wrapped up building passenger 767s back in 2012… but they have kept building freight 767s up until today. This means they are still building the same airframes, ordering the same engines and still have the same expertise onboard. An additional advantage is that the 767 is an existing plane; it is already FAA approved, tested and requires no additional training.Now, a simple question would be, could Boeing restart production? The complete article can be viewed at: https://simpleflying.com/boeing-767-production-restart/ |
Why bother ?
Isn't the 788 the replacement ? Economics of 787 must be better |
Originally Posted by Meester proach
(Post 10602671)
Why bother ?
Isn't the 788 the replacement ? Economics of 787 must be better |
isn't a lot of the economies /weight lost on an old all metal fuselage? (which presumably a reboot of the 767 would be) Wonder if it would be -200, -300 or -400? Wouldnt -200 be nearer to the NMA capacity? |
Couldn’t have they figured that out 10 years ago?
And I guess it is only economical to add the 76X to your fleet (how many would you need) when you already operate the 76. And what if you then phase out the current 76? You are left again with a small uneconomical fleet.. |
How about a 777X style re-wing of the 767 fuselage (of course, new engines too...)
Now they'd never go down this route, but if they used FBW and the common cockpit to the 777X/787 that would be a real airline winner in terms of flexibility. |
The 767-300 is almost exactly the same size as the 787-8.
The -400 is only 2 m shorter than the 787-9. What am I missing here? |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10603791)
The 767-300 is almost exactly the same size as the 787-8.
The -400 is only 2 m shorter than the 787-9. What am I missing here? |
However, the 787 was designed as 8 abreast . |
Originally Posted by SOPS
(Post 10604282)
However, the 787 was designed as 8 abreast .
My point was that, as in other contexts, it's not just length that matters. :O |
In terms of weight the 787 is not a lightweight in spite of its carbon fibre construction.When I retired my employer had recently introduced the 788 GE powered replacing the 763 with very similar pax capacities.In terms of Zero Fuel Weight a fully laden 763 weighed the same as an unladen 788 rather breaking the myth of lightweight construction.I am guessing the use of materials was quite conservative and that the weight of the generators and new style compressors for the pressurisation has pushed the weight up.The 787 fuel burn in the cruise is very low provided the sector length is long.It is not nearly as improved on shorter sectors.I am led to believe my former employer continues to despatch an engineer on the flight deck when operating to short haul destinations without engineering support such is the types voracious need of maintenance attention.Doubt has been raised over whether Boeing have made any profit from any of their 787 sales given the complexity of construction and the cost of modern materials in the aircraft.Boeing has certainly made efforts to reduce the amount of titanium in the airframe some components of which had a 98% wastage rate in manufacture.My colleagues flying the 787 loved it when it was working but it had a very challenging entry into service and continues with the temperament of a thoroughbred racehorse.One of aviations classics...I suspect not ...more an interim pathfinder. Regards Stampe |
It was made for transpacific range, to now do "what the 767 did over the north atlantic" over the pacific as well. 787-8 was meant to indicate 8000 NM range. The original -3 was more of a 767 concept.
|
A lot of these discussions just focus on the technical attributes rather than the commercial ones of how much the aircraft will cost to build, sell and operate, and how many will be sold. The 757, whose demise seems regularly questioned, was given up because customers stopped buying it. The 787 may look attractive but is very expensive to buy, and orders in recent times for that too have dropped off.
It does seem that, in the race to provide ever longer ranges, manufacturers lose sight of the shorter ones where the bulk of traffic actually is. In their quest to do Sydney to New York nonstop in starts to put in features which make London to New York or Dubai less economic. |
Originally Posted by wondering
(Post 10604451)
How about Airbus re-winging the A321 with a larger wing and stretching it even more?
The A321 already uses the largest versions of the LEAP and GTF - I'm not sure how much more growth potential exists in either engine. |
How about some new CFRP wing for it to save weight for some longer fuselage?
|
They could put new a engine on the old airframe and get a computer system to make it fly like the older model and it would save money in development.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.