B787 The Wrong Aircraft????
 

hi.

I think Boeing is building the wrong aircraft.

What they are offering today is one 3500nm model and another 8500nm model, when the world just wants a 767 replacement!!

You know nothing about this business , airlines` needs , the product you mention , or anything else for that matter , you are the weakest link.....goodbye.

hold on one min - the chap has a point!

economies of scale see to it that the A380 will cost less to fly on, even if it can not fly the same distance as the 787.

begs the question what benefit will the 787 actually bring. non stop to austrailia.... 23 hours - no thanks

I dont have to be an expert to see that Boeing has helluva problem to sell this bird to the airlines.

Small company in Iceland buys 2aircrafts, with no money down, and 5 options!!!!

The orderbook has some resemblance to the one of the late sonic crucier.

The fact is that Japan is coming up with $3.5bn and Boeing only $1.5bn (out of 10 total) for this program.

Because of that, Boeing is building an aircraft tailored for the big airlines in Japan (50 orders) when the others just wants an aircraft with 3000nm less range.

6000PIC,

You wanna explain your comments by any chance, how is packsonflight wrong. If you're going to contribute to this forum, atleast explain why you think this is so without slating him for posting his opinion. actually, pof, can you reason why you thing boeing is wrong.

Don't count out the possible orders from NWA; We are hearing that an announcement is not too far off....

Japan and China are a big part of our survival....

The A380, B787 and B777LR are 'horses for courses' and not necessarily competeing in the same market.
23 hours LHR/SYD actually sounds very attractive to frequent travellers whilst low cost pax probably won't object to being herded into an A380, if the price is right.
None of these aircraft are the 'wrong' aircraft, just so long as the market they are aiming for is there in sufficient quantity.

Omark,

you've got to be kidding!!!!

23 hrs non-stop to Sydney "sounds attractive to frequent flyers"

I think NOT!!!!

And don't just take my word for it, go look at the loads for the A345 and the order book for the 200LR (EVA just about to cancel/convert, leaving only PIA)

As freighters, these planes may have merits but you have to face up to the facts that PAX's don't like being in the air that long. Ever wonder why the A380 can't fly non-stop to Sydney ??

Boeing is in a mess at the moment. Lack of integrated anything means Airbus look, sound and feel a lot more joined up. Airbus have a strategy whilst Boeing is clearly divided up into its respective product divisions.

End result, nice aircraft, but they all look like they have different father's. (and thats not good for overall economics as we all know!!!)

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".

do you know what economies of scale actually means??

the 380 can hold up to 850 passengers, the 787 can hold 250. if your figures are correct, the boeing will be over 4 times more fuel efficient than the airbus.

it may be able to do x number of trips to new york than the airbus, but an airbus can carry over three times the number of passengers. so it only needs to go once.

saves time, saves flight crew saves landing fees and most importantly, instead of doing the extra trips from lon to new york the airbus can be off somewhere else earning its money - makes no sence at all

No Norodnik, I most definitely am not kidding, business travellers, who are usually the most frequent travellers, will relish non-stop services. Actually, via Singapore or Bangkok, the journey time LHR/SYD is roughly 20.30 flying plus a transit of approximately 1.30 on the ground, total 22 hours, so the non-stop aircraft should do it in a little under 20 hours. With the option of sleeper seats in J and F class this will be a popular flight. EY pax will be happier to get there in a shorter overall time, especially if the price is right and the seat pitch is increased from standard EY that we know today.

At the risk of repeating myself, (since this subject has been hammered to death on other threads), I don't agree that Airbus have got it all right and Boeing have got it all wrong, far from it.

Boeing actually got it right. They did a study of the market and came to the conclusion that whilst a very big aircraft would be desireable for a few routes by a few operators the market would never be big enough to sustain a large enough order to break even, certainly not in competition with anyone else. This conclusion was also influenced by the fact that many Boeing customers were already showing signs of ditching their B744s and moving to a versatile range of B777. Boeing decided to approach Airbus and offer a consortium for VLA which Airbus rejected. Boeing then pulled out and left Airbus to go it alone. If Airbus think that they will simply replace the B747 and fulfill orders in excess of 1000 aircraft then they are woefully mistaken.

159 orders before the first aircrarft flies isn't really as significant as it may seem given todays financial environment. Operators are cashing in on major discounts that are currently being offered in order to satisfy THEIR needs, they don't actually give a stuff if Airbus breaks even just so long as Airbus honour their contracts and support the aicraft they deliver. Contracts that will have been very carefully written/agreed to by the operators. Major carriers each require a relatively small number of A380 type aircraft to satisfy their individual requirements on the relatively few routes that can sustain them.

The A380 is a very, very long way from break even at the moment and 'break even' is fast moving towards the horizon as the project becomes more and more over budget. The 159 orders may well represent around 70% of total demand, should this be the case then Airbus will be in a financial quagmire.

All true but I think the point being made is the need for / economic viability of extreme range. Ultra long range aircraft such as the 787-8/9, 772LR and A345 clearly have to offer an increased level of comfort to get people to stay in the a/c for that length of time: which reduces the number of seats: which means that all the costs of an 8,500nm sector have to be amortised over a relatively small number of seats: which pushes up the required fare: which, thus far, it seems not many pax are prepared to pay. I read somewhere that SQ attempted to charge a premium for SIN - LAX and NYC but couldn't sustain it. It seems there's a point where the combination of extreme range and capacity results in seat sector costs which are unviable. The sales performance of the 772LR and A345 seem to bear this out. I'm sure that the 787's technology will still help but I doubt to the extent that will generate many new ultra long haul point to points. However, I suspect that the same technology will ensure it wipes the floor with the competition on more typical 5,000 - 7,000 nm sectors.

:D

Don't underestimate the wow factor associated with the A380, especially with some of the more ambitious plans for internal layouts. It will be a tough call non-stop or more comfort, PAX are a fickle lot.

I might be wrong, but Didn't Boeing poo poo fly by wire in the early days?

Aztruck, enjoyed the programmes enormously.

freighters flying for 23 hours. No Way!
None of todays freighters can fly any where near that distance. Take the Longest range Freighter today. The 777-200LRF. It can only flying 5800NM with full load. Assuming an average speed of 450knots. Thats still only 13 hours.

I am sure airbus can easily make a A380 airframe that can easily do LHR , SYD... but soo much space and weight will be taken up by Jet-A that it won't be economically viable.

As for the fuel cost per seat mile for the 7E7
As for cost per seat mile. I suspect that the A-380 will be the cheapest.

Assume a passenger is 210lb each..

A380 can fly 555 of these passengers 8000NM
MTOW = 1,235,000lb
Load = 555pax x 210 = 116,500lb
OEW = 608,400
The fuel load of such a trip will be.
MTOW -Load - OEW = 510,100lb of Jet A.
Assumming Jet desnity = 6.7lb / gallon, Thats 76,134 Gallons of Jet A

Lets take the 787-800 , it can fly 224 passenger 8500nm (www.boeing.com)
MTOW = 480,000 LB (www.boeing.com)
Load = 223pax x 210 = 46,800lb
OEW = 185,000Lb
Assumes 20% weight saving on 767-400ER (764ER is 227,000 from www.boeing.com)
Fuel load will be :
MTOW - load - OEW = 248,200lb of fuel
That is 37,044 Gallons of Jet A.
A380
76,134 / 8000 / 555 = 0.0171 gallons per seat mile

B787-800
So the fuel per seat mile = 37,044 / 8500 / 223 = 0.0195 gallons per seat mile.

i.e. the A380 uses 0.0171/0.0195 *100 = 13% less fuel per seat mile than the 787-800


The B787-800 is not 20 % more efficent..infact, With these set of numbers, it will uses 13% more fuel than a A380 per seat mile

Saying that. lets add the A332 Figures in
Airbus A330-200 range is 6750NM with max pax
MTOW = 513,000
OEW = 268,000lb
Load = 253 x 210 = 53130lb
fuel = 191870 lb or 28637 gallons.
A332 works out to about .0167 gallon per seat mile...but remember for 6750 NM

Ah, add 772LR too
Range with 301 Pax is 9420NM
MTOW = 760,000lb
OEW = 320,000 lb
Load = 301 x 210 = 63210lb
fuel = 53440 gallons.
53440 / 9420 /301 = 0.0188 Gallons per seat mile.

A345 Range 9000NM , 313 seats
MTOW = 840,000lb
OEW = 385,000lb
Load = 313 x 210 = 65730lb
fuel = 58100 gallons
58100/ 9000/313 = 0.0206 Gallons per seat mile.

As you can see. For C market ranges. the A380 leads the way in cost per seat mile.

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.

aztruck,

You may want to have a re-think about whizzing in connection to mach.85. 3 new yorks a day might also need a slight rethink.

No way - while 23hrs may be good for business, as a business traveller it is most definitely not something that I would relish in any class of travel, yet alone back where posh people fear to tread. It does strike me that the potential for passenger misbehaviour on a 23hour flight is pretty high. I've seen people at screaming point after 10 or 11 hrs - imagine that doubled.

I don't know yintsinmeritem, I used to do quite a bit of long haul business travel for a few years. One trip I've made a few times is Dublin-Heathrow-Singapore- Auckland-Wellington. When you throw on the connections to/from the hubs, eliminating any stopover starts to look that bit more appealing - on a journey that length, sitting around airports isn't much better than sitting in an airplane.

Having said that, I'm not too sure about doing it in Economy but then again I'm 6'2" so the thoughts of 2 hours, let alone 20, in an economy seat gives me nightmares!!! ;)

If people wanted to fly for 23 hours non-stop then there would be orders as long as your arm for the planes that can do it.

Pax's don't want to (at least the eco ones) and Airlines can make more by stopping over.

The ONLY advantage I could see for flying > 15 hours would be if it meant I didntt have to stop over in the US and be questioned by the servants of the 4th Reich

As an Aussie living in the UK all I can say is, when talking about long sector times, what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative?

My family are traveling back home in August. MAN-KUL 14hrs, 5 hour transit, KUL-SYD 11 hrs = 29hrs plus entertaining two tired kids for five hours before going through the agony of getting them on board the next flight.

One 23 hr sector (Actually more like 21)? Where do I buy the ticket?

norodnik, flying for more than 15 hours isn't for everyone but that doesn't mean it isn't for anyone.

Believe me, people don't fly all the way to Australia/NZ etc just to have a 3/4 hour stopover in Singapore or KL. Aircraft limitations have necessitated stopovers, but I guarantee you that if it were more economically viable to fly direct from say LHR-SYD, we'd all be doing it. Why, because it'd be cheaper.

From a business pax point of view, if I had to be in SYD on a Monday morning, and had a choice of leaving on a Fri night or a Sat morning, I'd probably take the Sat morning flight to have an extra night at home with my family.

It's horses for courses really.....