• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Boeing delays 787 dreamliner

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).

We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
The 380 however, requires much more space at the airport and a redesign of terminal facilities for all but a few existing locations.

Couple that with the fact that some major airports will not accept the 380 period, reduces the desirability. It seems to have a small market segment, that Boeing is willing to conceded.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).

We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
Well I think that's exactly the point, major airports ARE reaching their breaking point in terms of future expansion. With a few exceptions like Denver, most major airports are not located in places where it's easy to expand. So as more and more flights are added and more and more people fly, the ability to use major airports as hubs instead of destination airports will be greatly reduced. This will make direct flights between medium size airports a large growth segment.

Of course flying larger and larger planes into the major airports can help increase capacity somewhat, but runway size and number of gates aren't the only limitations...the airport has to have the ability to deal with all those people in a number of different ways (security, terminal space, etc). And a bigger plane is not the free lunch it would seem to be, it takes longer to offload, takes up more physical space at a terminal, takes up more airspace and ground space in terms of following distances and all that. Now I'll admit that there is almost certainly SOME benefit to be found there, I'm just not sure it will match the growth in the middle of the market.

As you said, time will tell.

Edit: Just for comparison, I pulled up a list of the number of planes of various sizes Boeing has sold since they started production, from largest to smallest (thanks Wikipedia!). I think it says a lot about the size of various market segments. Who knows what will happen in the future, but it's an interesting comparison for the present.

747: 1,387 since 1969, about 36 per year
777: 649 since 1993, about 46 per year
787: We'll see...
767: 954 since 1982, about 38 per year
757: 1,050 between 1982-2004, about 48 per year
737: 5,439 since 1968, about 139 per year

The market is flatter than I expected, which might make your view more likely. Of course it's hard to say what will happen when new sizes are available, we'll have to wait and see.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,087
494
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.

It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.

They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,

Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
lmao Dan Rather.

Name a commercial airliner that didnt shatter to pieces in a major crash ;)

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,087
494
126
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Boeing has a modified version of the 747 that can be rolled out if the market indeed decides it likes ultra large aircraft like the A380. So far the market has not liked such large aircraft. The 767, A330, and other mid sized jets have been the workhorse of intercontinental travel. Boeing is betting on the fact this is not going to change, even with a global population taking advantage of flight.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Boeing has a modified version of the 747 that can be rolled out if the market indeed decides it likes ultra large aircraft like the A380. So far the market has not liked such large aircraft. The 767, A330, and other mid sized jets have been the workhorse of intercontinental travel. Boeing is betting on the fact this is not going to change, even with a global population taking advantage of flight.
I find it interesting than I've flown between some major hubs, including international ones, many times and I've NEVER flown on a 747. The largest plane I've been on was a 777, and that was between some pretty large domestic and international hubs. I'm sure there are larger routes than Dulles in DC to Paris, but probably not very many of them.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,087
494
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Boeing has a modified version of the 747 that can be rolled out if the market indeed decides it likes ultra large aircraft like the A380. So far the market has not liked such large aircraft. The 767, A330, and other mid sized jets have been the workhorse of intercontinental travel. Boeing is betting on the fact this is not going to change, even with a global population taking advantage of flight.
I find it interesting than I've flown between some major hubs, including international ones, many times and I've NEVER flown on a 747. The largest plane I've been on was a 777, and that was between some pretty large domestic and international hubs. I'm sure there are larger routes than Dulles in DC to Paris, but probably not very many of them.
NWA dropped the DC-10 for the A330. Then for awhile they brought it out of retirement on certain asian routes to replace 747s as the 747s werent making money due to not being full. And recently they retired their last 747-200, the biggest plane in their fleet passenger wise. I left for Jax from MN a couple of weeks ago and saw the last one at their maintenance hanger looking all sad and lonely :(

I really think Boeing is onto something with the need for 250-350pax planes vs 500+ pax planes. Time will tell of course.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,628
4
81
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Once they are ready for production about how long does it take to make each one of these planes?
A380 - full production is 4 / month
Boeing 787 - full production is 10 /15 month
Wow, that seems like a decent amount for how big they all are.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
15,427
2,979
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.

It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.

They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,

Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
lmao Dan Rather.

Name a commercial airliner that didnt shatter to pieces in a major crash ;)



Impact != "major crash".

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.

It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.

They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,

Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
yet another report where he was basically ridiculed by experts. The basis seemed to be one disgruntled engineer.

Frankly, shattering on impact is the least of your worries.
It was actually IIRC 17 senior employees. The one you are refering to had 32 years.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,414
0
0
I'm sure Airbus lost a lot of fans when its purchased European politicians threatened tsunami-ravaged countries with economic hardship unless they bought Airbus planes. Boeing is quite the shady company, but not that low.

Airplanes or genocide. What a decision.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,387
5
81
I'd much rather wait 6 months and have them put their product on the market confidently then have them rush things.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
83
91
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).

We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.

It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.

They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightening because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,

Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.


It's not so much 'design flaws' as it is a change in technology application and the overbearing safety constraints.

Since the fuselage is now being made from RCF (Reinforced Carbon Fiber) - graphite cloth material held in a plastic matrix,
the constraint becomes passenger safety in case of a fire emergency, whether it's from a system malfunction or a crash.
The graphite itself won't burn, it already has been 'burned' (reduced) to make the graphite fiber cloth,
the risk is the plastic resin that forms the matrix - it can burn, but more likely will react with heat and air to generate cyanide gas, a common problem with any plastic material fire - cyanide gas is extremely poisonous,
and most deaths in aircraft incidents are smoke inhalation related, much more than from trauma.
(Cyanide Gas was the agent of choice in execution for all gas chamber methods)

The use of a copper grid is common practice for all RCF as a method to control static electricity.
It also is used as an EMI shield in military applications, and stealth (low level observation)
by absorbing radar and reducing the returned echo to keep the vehicle from being exposed on a radar monitoring screen.
The graphite itself will conduct electricity, but it has a fairly high electrical resistance, and electricity will always take the path of least resistance.
The risk would be from localized delamination of the matrix, which could lead to catastrophic failure of the wing structure.
The copper grid collects static electricity from whatever source, and provides a preferred ground or discharge path to direct the electricity
away from the airframe and structure, and keep it out of the avionics and related flight control equipment.
The trailing surfaces of the aircraft, usually ailerons, flap tracks, wing tips, elevators, and rudder have static discharge 'wicks' which allow the
static to be eliminated at the vehicle extremities whenever there is a capacitance build-up, which includes a lightening strike.

With the conversion to a plastic fuselage, and the expansion of the use of composite materials, at least the post fire clean-up would be simplified -
all you would have to do is stack up the bodies and sweep up the piles of graphite fiber after the fire goes out.



 

Finality

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,665
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.

The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,366
471
126
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.

The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
Is a American Airlines 777 comfort level the same as a Delta 777?

 

Finality

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,665
0
0
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.

The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
Is a American Airlines 777 comfort level the same as a Delta 777?
Never flown either airline so I couldn't comment :)

The only differences I can imagine would be in seating and lighting arrangements. Noise levels should generally be the same as well as other things like humidity etc.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
83
91
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.

The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
i doubt its much quieter. the fundamental pain of air travel isn't noise, its the air. low pressure/very dry air required to keep the aluminum planes from deteriorating leads to the discomfort people feel on long travel flights. the 787 is the only plane that addresses this.
 

Finality

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,665
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.

The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
i doubt its much quieter. the fundamental pain of air travel isn't noise, its the air. low pressure/very dry air required to keep the aluminum planes from deteriorating leads to the discomfort people feel on long travel flights. the 787 is the only plane that addresses this.
Your right cause only an Boeing can design a quiet plane with fancy new composites :confused:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/27/business/air.php

Airbus says the A380 will be quieter and more efficient than any other large aircraft - the small chase plane actually made more noise than its huge cousin. The lack of sound appeared to justify the extra six months spent on it after airlines demanded that Airbus make the plane even less noisy than it already was.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY