Boeing has achieved the 400 mark for the 787, the most successful launch of an aircraft in their history. The final year end figures should be in soon. with orders for over a thousand aircraft.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... air04.html
Boeing hits 400 orders for 787
Moderator: Latest news team
Boeing hits 400 orders for 787
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
tolipanebas
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00
I wouldn't exactly call the Boeing 787 one of the smallest widebodies ... If you would say that the 787-300 is among the smallest, yes, then you would be correct. But keep in mind there is more to the 787 than the 787-300 ...tolipanebas wrote:Since the 787 is without doubt one of the smallest wide body jets ever, its encouraging sales numbers are not realy such a big surpise.
The longest version of the 787, the -900, is only 0.7m smaller than the 777-200 ... Not exactly something I would call small
A310-300 : length 46,7m
B767-200 : length 48,5m
B787-300 : length 52,0m
A300-600 : length 54,1m
B767-300 : length 54,9m
B787-800 : length 57,0m
A330-200 : length 58,8m
A350-800 : length 58,8m
B767-400 : length 61,3m
B787-900 : length 63,0m
A330-300 : length 63,6m
A340-300 : length 63,6m
B777-200 : length 63,7m
A350-900 : length 65,2m
B747-400 : length 70,7m
A380-800 : length 73,0m
B777-300 : length 73,9m
A340-600 : length 75,3m
Incorrect again when talking about the 787. However, it is correct when talking about the 787-300 ...tolipanebas wrote: The 787 could be seen as the RJ of the widebodies and RJs always sell in dozains at once.
B787-300 : up to 6.500km
B787-800 : up to 15.700km
B787-900 : up to 16.300km
Indeed, 6.500km isn't that much for a Widebody, so you could indeed call the 787-300 a RJ-widebody.
Greetz,
Andries Don't dream your life, live your dream !!!
-
tolipanebas
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00
Andries-
You are correct and I should have clearly mentioned I was talking about the 787-3 in my remarks.
Anyway, my point is that B is actually marketing 2 significantly different planes (structural, performance, size etc) under the same name. In that perspective, it is a bit fraudulous to just add up all sales and talk about THE sales of THE 787 when in fact there are 2 different planes with the same name offered.
You are correct and I should have clearly mentioned I was talking about the 787-3 in my remarks.
Anyway, my point is that B is actually marketing 2 significantly different planes (structural, performance, size etc) under the same name. In that perspective, it is a bit fraudulous to just add up all sales and talk about THE sales of THE 787 when in fact there are 2 different planes with the same name offered.
Tolipanebas:
Apparently you are one of those blindly obsessed with Airbus and its propaganda machine.
Boeing has designed an aircraft that is modular, using the same fuselage (with different lengths), as well as different wings, but same engines, same systems etc, to cover a wide variety of needs.
Boeing did the same thing with the 737 NG, which compromises 4 versions (7 if you want to throw in the very successful (and they did it first) BBJ series.
Airbus has taken the A320, name is the A321, the A319, A318, all of which are variations on the same plane. You would have to call it envy, as they are attempting to artificially match the long and successful line of Boeing aircraft. The A380 is nothing but an ego play.
They did the same thing with the A330, which is simply a variation on the A300/310, as well as the A350 (and isn’t that one getting awfully long in the tooth?-didn’t Airbus say something about warmed over 60s technology about the 747? ) When the A300 came out in what 68-69?)
Is Boeing perfect? Far from it. They have had their share of failures and foul-ups over the years. But they also have maintained their integrity. Orders are firm orders, not negotiations going on that they have not won. They don’t claim options until they are firm. And they do not call each variation of an aircraft a new model.
Someone recently said it best. Airbus is sales led, and Boeing is Engineering led. And while you can disagree with various merits of their product line, Boeing either matches up or outright beats Airbus from the Single Aisle market up through the 450 seat market. The only missing segment is the 550+ passenger, and Boeing thinks its too limited to put a product into. So far they are right (the only reason Airbus has sold 155 of them is the half off deals). At that rate they are never going to see money from that project, let alone have to repay the 4 billion they were given to start it.
Airbus needs to bite the bullet and start to come out with truly advanced technological products to compete with the 787 and 777 (and soon enough the replacement 737). Bad mouthing the competition isn’t going to work, you have to put your product where your mouth is. Instead of competing with technology they are competing with slurs.
It tells you something about actually having to go to your board and spend and risk your companies money, not the EUs money.
Apparently you are one of those blindly obsessed with Airbus and its propaganda machine.
Boeing has designed an aircraft that is modular, using the same fuselage (with different lengths), as well as different wings, but same engines, same systems etc, to cover a wide variety of needs.
Boeing did the same thing with the 737 NG, which compromises 4 versions (7 if you want to throw in the very successful (and they did it first) BBJ series.
Airbus has taken the A320, name is the A321, the A319, A318, all of which are variations on the same plane. You would have to call it envy, as they are attempting to artificially match the long and successful line of Boeing aircraft. The A380 is nothing but an ego play.
They did the same thing with the A330, which is simply a variation on the A300/310, as well as the A350 (and isn’t that one getting awfully long in the tooth?-didn’t Airbus say something about warmed over 60s technology about the 747? ) When the A300 came out in what 68-69?)
Is Boeing perfect? Far from it. They have had their share of failures and foul-ups over the years. But they also have maintained their integrity. Orders are firm orders, not negotiations going on that they have not won. They don’t claim options until they are firm. And they do not call each variation of an aircraft a new model.
Someone recently said it best. Airbus is sales led, and Boeing is Engineering led. And while you can disagree with various merits of their product line, Boeing either matches up or outright beats Airbus from the Single Aisle market up through the 450 seat market. The only missing segment is the 550+ passenger, and Boeing thinks its too limited to put a product into. So far they are right (the only reason Airbus has sold 155 of them is the half off deals). At that rate they are never going to see money from that project, let alone have to repay the 4 billion they were given to start it.
Airbus needs to bite the bullet and start to come out with truly advanced technological products to compete with the 787 and 777 (and soon enough the replacement 737). Bad mouthing the competition isn’t going to work, you have to put your product where your mouth is. Instead of competing with technology they are competing with slurs.
It tells you something about actually having to go to your board and spend and risk your companies money, not the EUs money.
Yeah ... I know the one who is obsessed
Remeber Airbus had the most orders in the past few years and it's Boeing first year they beat Airbus since a while, and now everyone is saying Boeing is way better then Airbus
I don't know, but I can't look into the future, maybe you can? Who knows something happens with the B787, that she won't reach those beautiful numbers etc. (And now I'm saying what a lot of people said when Airbus announced the A380).
Let's see what happens, because lots of things can happen in both positive or negative way for B and A ...
Remeber Airbus had the most orders in the past few years and it's Boeing first year they beat Airbus since a while, and now everyone is saying Boeing is way better then Airbus
I don't know, but I can't look into the future, maybe you can? Who knows something happens with the B787, that she won't reach those beautiful numbers etc. (And now I'm saying what a lot of people said when Airbus announced the A380).
Let's see what happens, because lots of things can happen in both positive or negative way for B and A ...
Yeah, so? What's wrong with 'upgrading' and old plane? I don't know what the meaning of this sentence is, it just doesn't makes senseRC20 wrote:They did the same thing with the A330, which is simply a variation on the A300/310, as well as the A350 (and isn’t that one getting awfully long in the tooth?-didn’t Airbus say something about warmed over 60s technology about the 747? ) When the A300 came out in what 68-69?)
Tot hier en verder
ROTFLMAO!!! The A330 is a variation of the A300? How exactly? The ONLY things they have in common are the shape of the fuselage and the shape of the nose. That's it. Using your logic, every narrowbody ever built by Boeing is just a variation of the 707.They did the same thing with the A330, which is simply a variation on the A300/310
Absolutely nothing! Boeing is still upgrading the 747. I think that as long as you can incorporate new technologies onto the original design and as long as it is economically viable is ok. But on the other hand, is also great to see that they are working on a completely new design with new technologies. In this particular case, A is going to have to catch up...just my 2 cents.What's wrong with 'upgrading' and old plane?
Regards,
JAHC
now is time for Airbus to clean sheet the A350
If you look at the "orders"
Boeing has something like 250-300 contractul orders from clients that have fleet plans:
Air Canada
Air India
ANA
JAL
Continental
Northwest
Qantas (for example 45 ordered, 20 near ordered and 50 purchase rights
Air New Zealand
LOT
ILFC
Korean Airlines
Garuda
when all these blue chip carriers build out their fleets - there will be 400-500 787 orders.
The A350 has small orders from airlines that have limited international routes and are placing "orders" based on hoped for expansion
Bangkok air, current fleet of 3 A320's
Qatar with 60 units on "order"
US Air, with a 250 million airbus investment in their bankruptcy court, and a cancellation clause for performance deficiencies
Air Fly
Air Europa
etc
when all these airlines can not realize their expansion dreams, there will be "orders" that never happen.
Airbus is at a pivot point, and if they were smart, they would clean sheet a new plane (A350) or two (A360) to replace the A330 and A340 series.
The A380 and A400 make it diffficult, but the German and French taxpayers can ante up another 20 billion euros, and then we will really be in for a great future for air travel.
Boeing has something like 250-300 contractul orders from clients that have fleet plans:
Air Canada
Air India
ANA
JAL
Continental
Northwest
Qantas (for example 45 ordered, 20 near ordered and 50 purchase rights
Air New Zealand
LOT
ILFC
Korean Airlines
Garuda
when all these blue chip carriers build out their fleets - there will be 400-500 787 orders.
The A350 has small orders from airlines that have limited international routes and are placing "orders" based on hoped for expansion
Bangkok air, current fleet of 3 A320's
Qatar with 60 units on "order"
US Air, with a 250 million airbus investment in their bankruptcy court, and a cancellation clause for performance deficiencies
Air Fly
Air Europa
etc
when all these airlines can not realize their expansion dreams, there will be "orders" that never happen.
Airbus is at a pivot point, and if they were smart, they would clean sheet a new plane (A350) or two (A360) to replace the A330 and A340 series.
The A380 and A400 make it diffficult, but the German and French taxpayers can ante up another 20 billion euros, and then we will really be in for a great future for air travel.
The Airbus vs Boeing discussion is rather amusing for someone like me who hasn't picked a side yet 8)
I think we can all agree, that withouth this A vs B thing, we'd all be flying planes with serious bugs. (Cfr. the Microsoft monopoly on the software market.)
Without the need to outrun eachother in the business, why would a company (A or B) need to design better and more efficient planes?
It is interesting, however, that both companies chose other strategies (roughly put: better ranges against more capacity). Labeling the A380-project 'pure ego' is a bit over the top I think.
Anyway, as nobody can see into the future to see who will be on the right side of the discussion, happy arguing!!
I think we can all agree, that withouth this A vs B thing, we'd all be flying planes with serious bugs. (Cfr. the Microsoft monopoly on the software market.)
Without the need to outrun eachother in the business, why would a company (A or B) need to design better and more efficient planes?
It is interesting, however, that both companies chose other strategies (roughly put: better ranges against more capacity). Labeling the A380-project 'pure ego' is a bit over the top I think.
Anyway, as nobody can see into the future to see who will be on the right side of the discussion, happy arguing!!
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
While all data relating to the Boeing 787 and Airbus A-350 must be considered preliminary until flight test is complete and production data is released, several conclusions can be assumed from the data each manufacturer has posed on its web site. This data follows:
AIRCRAFT MAX WEIGHT PASSENGERS RANGE (mi.)
Boeing 787-8 476,000 lbs. 210-250 8,500
Boeing 787-9 540,000 lbs. 250-290 8,800
Airbus A-350-800 540,000 lbs. 253 8,300
Airbus A-350-900 540,000 lbs. 300 7,500
From this data we can assume that the A-350 will be less efficient, based solely on its weight. In the case of the A350-800, vs. the B-787-8, the A350 is 32 toms heavier. Air Canada recently announced that it is stripping the paint from one B-767 to save fuel. This is expected to save 360 pounds (0.18 tons) which will reduce fuel expenses by $24,000 annually.
What then, will be the fuel savings by flying a plane that is 32 tons lighter? Airbus can still compete by offering substantially lower prices to make up for the discounted cash flow for future fuel costs. On top of the lower fuel costs, the composite construction of the B-787 is expected to reduce maintenance and inspection costs
AIRCRAFT MAX WEIGHT PASSENGERS RANGE (mi.)
Boeing 787-8 476,000 lbs. 210-250 8,500
Boeing 787-9 540,000 lbs. 250-290 8,800
Airbus A-350-800 540,000 lbs. 253 8,300
Airbus A-350-900 540,000 lbs. 300 7,500
From this data we can assume that the A-350 will be less efficient, based solely on its weight. In the case of the A350-800, vs. the B-787-8, the A350 is 32 toms heavier. Air Canada recently announced that it is stripping the paint from one B-767 to save fuel. This is expected to save 360 pounds (0.18 tons) which will reduce fuel expenses by $24,000 annually.
What then, will be the fuel savings by flying a plane that is 32 tons lighter? Airbus can still compete by offering substantially lower prices to make up for the discounted cash flow for future fuel costs. On top of the lower fuel costs, the composite construction of the B-787 is expected to reduce maintenance and inspection costs
I guess Airbus will have to go back to its drawing board to put more composite materials in its design for this one, if they ever find a way to produce composites in mass like Boeing does.
When back on the drawing board, they could also add 'bleedless' engines too. Airbus doesn't use those, if I'm not mistaken, right?
When back on the drawing board, they could also add 'bleedless' engines too. Airbus doesn't use those, if I'm not mistaken, right?
smokejumper analysis explains 777-300ER success
It is 40,000 lbs lighter than the A340-600, it climbs faster to cruise altitude, flys higher, and faster.
I do not know how Airbus can engineer away 40,000 Lbs
If you look at a 777 landing gear, it has two bogeys and the front gear, but an A340 has a little wheel at the centerline as an addition, that has to be a big weight penalty, along wth the four engines and their plumbing.
When Air Canada ran a fuel cost model and put oil at 100 a barrel, the figures on operating cost differential were supposedly very scary. It would be irresponsible for a Airline Manager to ignore these realities.
For a freighter, the 747-800F weighs 150,000 lbs less than an A380, yet only carries 20,000 lbs less - I can not imagine the A380 being successful outside of package freight, and when Airbus give the planes away at 50% discount, Airbus will struggle to get any contribution from freighter sales to recover it's A380 investment.
Airbus has made some mis steps after basically brilliant product strategies with the A300 and the A320. Did they change CEO's between the A320 and later developments?
I do not know how Airbus can engineer away 40,000 Lbs
If you look at a 777 landing gear, it has two bogeys and the front gear, but an A340 has a little wheel at the centerline as an addition, that has to be a big weight penalty, along wth the four engines and their plumbing.
When Air Canada ran a fuel cost model and put oil at 100 a barrel, the figures on operating cost differential were supposedly very scary. It would be irresponsible for a Airline Manager to ignore these realities.
For a freighter, the 747-800F weighs 150,000 lbs less than an A380, yet only carries 20,000 lbs less - I can not imagine the A380 being successful outside of package freight, and when Airbus give the planes away at 50% discount, Airbus will struggle to get any contribution from freighter sales to recover it's A380 investment.
Airbus has made some mis steps after basically brilliant product strategies with the A300 and the A320. Did they change CEO's between the A320 and later developments?
8O I did not realize that. Perhaps my previous statement that the A380 would be popular in the cargo market may have been incorrect.For a freighter, the 747-800F weighs 150,000 lbs less than an A380, yet only carries 20,000 lbs less
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
Bla bla bla .... another A vs B war ... looks like airliners.net here ....
Maybe we can all agree that both manufacturers are making great planes now and in the future. Both manufacturers will have their customers and everybody will be convinced that its plane is the best.
Let's stop discussions about this is better, longer, bigger, ... then that, because it all sounds like boys shouting "mine is bigger then yours ..."
Maybe we can all agree that both manufacturers are making great planes now and in the future. Both manufacturers will have their customers and everybody will be convinced that its plane is the best.
Let's stop discussions about this is better, longer, bigger, ... then that, because it all sounds like boys shouting "mine is bigger then yours ..."
-
Zenfookpower
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 00:00
- Location: The Great Lakes (USA)
BBKing wrote:Bla bla bla .... another A vs B war ... looks like airliners.net here ....
Maybe we can all agree that both manufacturers are making great planes now and in the future. Both manufacturers will have their customers and everybody will be convinced that its plane is the best.
Let's stop discussions about this is better, longer, bigger, ... then that, because it all sounds like boys shouting "mine is bigger then yours ..."
Why, this is the only way to learn something, as long as the arguments are "fact" driven and not reflecting "emotions".....
If this cannot be done anymore, then close the website...We have the autoshow here in DTW and guess what ..? it is nothing else but comparing brand A, B, C, D...
May be we are all "Boy Scouts" once we have a passion for something..
some of us like to theorize
Sorry BBKing,
Some of us enjoy friendly discourse, speculation and banter. I do not see anything substantive in your posting, only telling persons not to communicate
Some of us enjoy friendly discourse, speculation and banter. I do not see anything substantive in your posting, only telling persons not to communicate
Some of us enjoy friendly discourse, speculation and banter. I do not see anything substantive in your posting, only telling persons not to communicate
Glad I'm not the only one who felt this way.Why, this is the only way to learn something, as long as the arguments are "fact" driven and not reflecting "emotions".....
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."