B787 The Wrong Aircraft????

[Packsonflight]

Gixerman: the wow factor only lasts for one year max, but a new aircraft is a 30 year program.
JDW: the A 380 only goes for 5600NM

The big question remains unanswered: Why are Boeing not selling more of the B787? Is it possibly because the airlines donīt want itīs huge range(8500nm) but simply a B767(5-6000NM) replacement. Keeping in mind that aircraft built to fly 8500nm is uneconomical on shorter routs. fx It needs bigger wing to carry the extra fuel load, and that wing causes extra drag.

[Wizofoz]

Packson,

You seem to be under the impression sales of the 787 are dissapointing. They've sold almost 200 of an aircraft that only exists on paper. That's about the asame number that Airbus has sold of the A380, and it's stitting on the tarmac.

[Caslance]

They've sold almost 200 of an aircraft that only exists on paper.

Actually, they haven't. Not yet, at any rate.

Boeing always quotes a single figure as the total of firm orders and commitments. Don't take my word for it - check out their website and press releases,

The number of actual sales must, therefore, be lower than the "headline" figure, otherwise why would Boeing make the distinction in the first place?

[JetDriverWannabe]

Yes, 5600NM is the range max payload range for the A380F (333,000lb payload)

6600NM is max payload range for A380 Pax (200,000lb)

Lets take a look at why the A330-300 and A330-200 have wiped out B777-200 and B767 in regional medium range work. Then you may understand why Boeing needs the 787 series.

The A330 to alot of operators is alot more flexible.
You can put 32 LD3 containers into a pax A330-300 and 26LD3 in a A330-200...

The B777-200 can carry 32 LD3s and 301 passengers with a 508,000lb MTOW. 294,000lb OEW

The A330-300 can carry 32 LD3s with a 507,000lb MTOW , 263,000lb OEW......

Its no wonder the why A330-300 wiped out B777-200 for regional flying....the plane is 20,000lb lighter and can almost do the same job...

The B767 wasn't very flexible in terms of freight capacity. Thats why most airlines with sizable freight operation got the A330 instead of them.
The Boeing 767-300 could only carry 15 LD3 containers. or up to 4 pallets... A330 could carry 10, b772 can carry 10..

Actually , for the 7E7 , the underfloor frieght capacity is much improved, about 20 to 24ish with the standard cargo bay gas tanks .

The 787-800 is about the size of a A330-200... Fuel capacity will most likely about 37,000 to 40,000Gal range.. that would most likely mean a large center fuel tank which might eat into cargo capacity.

The more you think about it, the more the 7E7 looks like the composite version of the A330-200...

[BusyB]

Nice work Jetdriverwannabe but what about the 777-300 and how does the range compare for the 200's

[casual observer]

OEW = 185,000Lb
Assumes 20% weight saving on 767-400ER (764ER is 227,000 from www.boeing.com)(www.boeing.com)

Your estimation is way off. The -400ER is a 5,600nm aircraft. The B787-8 will be a 8,5000nm aircraft. (You might want to compare the OEW difference betwwen the B777-200A and the B777-200ER.) If the OEW of the -8 is 20% lighter than the -400ER, then Boeing would probably need materials that would be 40-50% lighter than today's aluminum!

Its no wonder the why A330-300 wiped out B777-200 for regional flying.

Wipe out is an exaggeration. Before the B777 was launched, Airbus already had 120-130 orders for the A330-300s. Neither the A330-300 nor the B777-200A has been a hot seller for the past 15 years. The A330-300 picked up some pace after Airbus started offering the 230t version of the aircraft.

The 787-800 is about the size of a A330-200... Fuel capacity will most likely about 37,000 to 40,000Gal range.. that would most likely mean a large center fuel tank which might eat into cargo capacity.

THe B787-8 is smaller than the A330-200, but it will have about the same cargo capacity of the A330-200.

[JetDriverWannabe]

B777-300 and 777-200ER additional strengthening to increase the MTOW.

The baseline 777-200 MTOW was up to 535,000lb
777-300 and 777-200ER have MTOWs of 660,000lb and 635,000lb
Both the 773 and 772ER have center fuel tanks and fuel capacity increased from 31,000 gallons ot 45,000 gallons.
777-300
773 can carry 368 pax 5955NM
MTOW =660,000lb
OEW = 347,800lb
Load = 368 x 210 = 77280lb
Fuel = 235,000lb = 35062 Gallons.
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0160 Gallons per seat mile.

The 777-300 is structrally limited. If you fill all 368 seats on one, you can only fill in 77% of the fuel tank. (35000 out of 45000)
777-300ER
The interesting bit is putting the 777-300ER into the equation. The 777-300 ER can carry 365 pax 7880 NM
MTOW = 775,000lb
OEW = 370,000lb
Load = 365 x 210 = 76,650lb
Fuel = 47890 gal
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0167 Gallons per seat mile.

The Range increase on the 777-300ER is mainly due to the fact the the 777-300ER airframe could now be loaded an flown with a full pax load and a 100% full gas tank. (well the gas tank got bigger by 2000 gallons only.)

A340-600 HGW
Ah, Since we did the 773ER, we must do the A340-600 too
Range with 380 pax is 7900NM (up from 7500 on the original A346.
MTOW = 837,000lb
OEW = 400,000lb
Load = 380 x 210 = 79,800lb
Fuel = 357,200lb = 53,300 Gallons of Jet A
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0178 Gallons per seat mile.

A340 and 772ER
Ah we got into A340....so the good old A340-300 vs 772ER debate

A340-300E
Can carry 295 Pax 7400NM
MTOW = 609,000lb
OEW = 288,000lb
Load = 295 x 210 = 61950lb
Fuel = 37153 Gallons
Fuel cost per seat mile = 0.017 Gallons per seat mile

B777-200ER
Can carry 301 Pax 7730 NM
MTOW = 635,000
OEW = 299,000lb
Load = 301 x 210 = 63,210lb
Fuel = 40713 gallons
Fuel cost per seat mile = 0.0174 Gallons

With the above estimates, we can say fuel burn wise, the A343 and 772 ER are pretty similar. The A340 however has less than stellar takeoff performance and climb performance and as a results suffered from more Takeoff weight restrictions which reduced payload and range.


What about low cost ?
lets take a look at the seat cost on the work horse of a typical LLC fleet. The 737-800
It can take 189 pax 3383 NM

MTOW = 174,200lb
OEW= 91,300lb
Load = 189 x 210 = 39690lb
Fuel= 43210 lb = 6446 Gallons
Fuel per seat mile= 0.0101 gallons per seat mile.

I wonder why the low cost model won't work on long haul ? Simple, becoz with long haul A/C, alot of fuel will be used to carry tons of jet fuel around.

[Q]THe B787-8 is smaller than the A330-200, but it will have about the same cargo capacity of the A330-200.[/Q]

B7E7
The 7E7 is shorter but wider. 4M less length will lead to the loss of about 4 LD3 containers.

Length = 56 M
Span = 60 M
Cross section = 5.74m

A332
Lenth = 59M
Span = 60M
Cross section = 5.64M ..

Okay the 787-800 is slightly smaller. About 2 to 3 % smaller.

Okay, you think 180,000lb is too light.. Lets say, its the same weight as the 767-400 then..
230,000lb
the 787-800 can carry 223 pax
MTOW =480,000lb
OEW = 227,000lb
Load = 223 x 210 = 46,830 lb
Fuel = 203,100lb = 30,700 Gallons.
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0159 gallons per seat mile.

[Touch'n'oops]

I am in favour of the non-stop flight. I have flown the 19 hour trip from SIN-LAX. At first it seemed really a daunting flight for a 6' 4" guy in EY. But SIA had increased seat pitch, width, leg space, TV screen and threw a bar in the back so people could socialize and get very pissed!!!

Remember aircraft tech. stopping in Japan will burn considerably more fuel on their extra taxi and climb. Plus the airline will have to pay for the extra landing fees and ground personnel. whereas the non-stop removes these factors.

Boeing's solution of sending a squadron of aircraft to satisfy demand on a long haul route is seriously flawed.
Case in point, CX has three flights a day HKG-LHR. Two of their flights depart half an hour apart and are always over booked!!! Why? because that is when people want to fly. No-one wants to do the day flight (often carries pax unable to get on the night flights), which is extremely tough on the body. Therefore a large aircraft like the A380 is needed.

The squadron of aircraft works well for the short haul business, offering people different times of day to arrive and it is not a slog like long haul.

[speedbird_heavy]

I am in favour of the non-stop flight. I have flown the 19 hour trip from SIN-LAX. At first it seemed really a daunting flight for a 6' 4" guy in EY. But SIA had increased seat pitch, width, leg space, TV screen and threw a bar in the back so people could socialize and get very pissed!!!

But that space comes at a premium....

When I booked to fly to SYD I decided to stop over in Hong Kong for 2 nights on the out bound flight and Dubai for 2 nights on the way back via Bangkok. Granted the stop over in Bangkok was only 2 hours but we visited to wonderful cities (HKG & DXB) which we wouldn't have done if the flights were non-stop.

It just goes to show that Airbus have a better strategy than Boeing. For Airbus to make an aircraft that will go head to head with Boeings new design, all they have to do is fit the same engines and a new wing to an already economical design. The A330.

[casual observer]

JDW:

Your figures are still wrong, but at least they are in the ballpark. I forgot to mention, the engines on the B787 will be a lot heavier than the ones on the B767.

One thing you failed to correct is your statement in your earlier post that the B787 won't burn less fuel per seat than the A380. Based on your new calculations, the previous statement becomes incorrect.

Your length argument that the B787-8 will hold fewer LD-3s than the A330-200 is wrong. For example, the B747-400ER is longer than the A340-300 but it has about the same cargo volume. The A330-200 doesn't need all the fuel capacity of its huge fuel tank. So, there is some wasted space there already. Another reason why you can't just compare the lengths directly is Boeing's fuselage doesn't taper as much as Airbus' fuselage.

[BlueEagle]

Casual Obs. Should that read "B767-400ER" in your post?

[casual observer]

Should that read "B767-400ER" in your post?

No. I meant B747-400ER. The B747-400ER is 70.7m long with a cargo hold volume of 151 cu m. The A340-300 is 63.6m long with a cargo hold volume of 161.4 cu m.

[POLISH_EDDIE]

A380 in Exeter...hmmm A380 in Glasgow....er...no. 787 is 20% more fuel efficient per pax mile than any other aircraft=300 pax to New York burns 20% less fuel than 300 equivalent bodies in an A380. Economies of scale go out of the window. Not only that but the turn round time of a 787 and the fact that it's going to be whizzing about at .85 means that it could do 3 new yorks a day- means more choice and flexibility on scheduling. Is every other airline in the world going to tie its schedules to the arrival of the inbound whale from wherever?
The 787 is a very interesting beast, composite, fly by wire, electric start engines and air conditioniong, cabin alt of 6000 feet, and ...it looks good!

oops that should be "conditioning".

And 787's got a nice shower, right? I wonder if they gonna put it on a real plane though.

Now our Polish airline, LOT is looking for replacement for their 5 767's (2 x 200ER's and 3 x 300ER's)... They wanna buy either 6 A330-200's or 6 787's... I have a doubt which one they should choose... Of course it'll be all political decision but 330's would come sooner and are already flying while 787's are still in desiging process and may not be as good and effective as it sounds now... We'll see. They look nice though.

[Packsonflight]

Stop comparing apples and oranges, the choice will never be between the 787 and 380 because the service will have be dence enough to sustain the 380, and take advantage of the cheapest seatmile available. Fx Iberia in the latest edition og Flight, they say that they have no route dence enough to for the 380. And that is a big company.
Glasgow will not have the problem of handling the 380 in forseeable future, because it only fits routs serviced by, or to dence for the 744 today. Maby around 100 airports in the world.

The composite fuselage of the 787 may not be so much of a brakethrough. When Airbus was designing the 380 they initialy wanted to make ALL the fuslage of GLARE (composite/aluminium material) but the launch cusomers stopped that, and made them have aluminium in the lower part of the fuselage (inpact area) because Airbus could not guarantee them short repair time with normal mechanics after minor impact with groundhandling equipment. Three weeks ago Emirates was asking Boeing for proof or demonstration that the composite fuselage would be repairable in short time and without a special team from Boeing

[MarkD]

The 380 is for operating to airports with the need to push more pax per slot - preferably at both ends - LHR, NRT and so on.

The 787 is for flights which involve at at least one end a second-tier airport where operating two slots is more efficient than one, like why EI replaced 741s with 767s and 330s way back when ETOPS became a runner.

Fuel burn is important but if you need to get 555 pax out per LH slot rather than a fuel efficient 300 then 787s won't do it for you.

[West Coast]

Thanks MarkD. for pointing out what seems to have eluded some. The two planes are not in competition (except for hearts and minds) any more than a 757 and a 747 are. Different aircraft for different missions. I don't know who's market beliefs are correct but Boeing and Airbus have different views as to the direction of air travel. Opposite directions seems to describe their prognostications. As such they are building planes for radically different markets. As to the better plane? If as an airline exec I need a plane to fly from Memphis to London, its the Boeing product. If its from LAX to London, then the 380 would get the nod. These head on comparisons be it from airchair execs here or even from the builders seem simple minded.

[rubik101]

Not heard much from 6000PIC. (page1. 2nd post)
Perhaps he should get some hours in!
Mr Boeing, like Mr Kipling, builds exceedingly good aeroplanes.
Not always, but generally. I'm sure the 787 or whatever comes in the future will find a place in the market, just as the 707 through to the 777 has done pretty well for them in the past. Dreamliner was a toe in the water and they found it cold. We all make misteakes!

[Packsonflight]

After the Dreamliner episode Mr Condit said "we where just checking the marked, we are good at that"!!!! He was fired last year because of the Pentagon scandal, another big Boeing problem.

[db767]

What do you mean "after the Dreamliner episode"?

I thought the 787 was/is the Dreamliner. Do you mean the Sonic Cruiser episode?

[ETOPS773]

Polish Eddie,
I`ve been hearing noises that LOT would recieve discounts to become a A350-800 launch customer.3 way battle huh!

I`m not really a big fan of Boeing,but if the 787 keeps its promises of being more comfy on the inside and having lower cabin altitude,I would pay a bit more to travel on it rather than another plane as long haul travel is horid,and I have to do alot of it

Facts are it will be a successful aircraft,that will break even (just look at the orders in asia!) and make Boeing and the customer airlines a healthy profit-end of story.