Why buy 787's?

Your concernes are well laid out but nothing that boeing wouldnt have checked as they have done quite well so far with integration and systems . Most of the major electrical systems have been running for close to a year now and we havent heard much issues with them , boeing hasnt warned of any nor have the suppliers . issues which were problematic have been Id’d and either corrected or done away with for the sake of simplicity and cost . FCS is also flying with the 777 and laws being verified . I havent heard of avionics and system functioning trouble other then the complex integration of doing it in the first few jets ! Most of the trouble being seen now is in putting this together in the given time overall the systems are performing well seperately .

I know I said I wasn’t worried about the generators themselves, but lets go down that road a little bit…..IIRC the 787 will used variable speed constant frequency generators. These VSCF gens have caused horrendous reliability problems on the MD-90, though they have been relatively trouble free as the 777 backup 20kva generator. Once again, if Boeing does their homework right it should be ok.

Continuing down the general avionics concern track I would say I also have major concerns about dirty power (caused probs on 757/767) and software. No doubt there will be a lot of software…how well will it be hashed out?

Air Conditioning and Pneumatics were a major cause of service disruptions on the 767. I’m thinking the total redesign/bleedless system is as much about reliability as fuel savings. I hope they get it right…those fans are supposed to turn around 40,000 rpm and suck enough air out of the thin atmosphere at 40,000 feet to pressurize the fuselage for thousands of hours on end.

Keeping in mind these concerns are over and above all the primary stuff, like engine IFSD rate.

At any rate, I’m off my original point an rambling now….I apologize.

Yes the almost endless power gen. capability (more then 767 Aew) looks really amazing in context to what was being done say a decade ago but i have yet to come across a source that claims it to be an area of major concern . Integration went on relativly well and most of he chinks in the wiring , ducting etc were relativly easily sorted out . HS has done pretty well their IMHO . Although the system is itself quite a step above from the standard it doesnt incorporate anything that hasnt been done before so i would not put a big red marker on it if i was listing things that look doubtful. IFE was always going to be an issue and boeing side stepped it and took it off from its requirments . Another issue was the 24Hr engine requirment , although it looked very promising it was hard to meet and it not being their was not a big concern to the airlines (some leasors were pi$$ed though) however i beleive boeing will eventully come around and get that sorted out by the time they do mk11 versions and 787-10 etc etc. The engines according to boeing sources are doing really well and will be contributing to around 8-9% of the eff. gains comming from the 787 . Early reports tend to suggest that both GE and RR are bettering their fuel burn requirments and that the overall fuel burn eff. of the 787 is around 2% better then what has been guaranteed to its customers . The weight after the weight reducing measures is still about 1% over (its my own source so dont quote me) on virtual rollout and assembly (they still have to make and weight the 7 airframe) however they are still going to better the fuel burn they promisied by the same margin even with the weight increase . System startup and Power on is expected to be around 23-24 of this month according to my source close to the program .

IIRC the gen. tech research and development has been going on for about a decade or so and they have been tested as per 787 specs to full satisfaction . They will be the least of the worries as far as Mx is concerned . The only area is CFRP maintaince and how at the regional level that is tackled but again looking at what some of the airlines and boeing have worked up for over half a decade it seems that proper care is being done in that regards aswell.

My bad…I should have been a little more specific.

When you have 2 120 kva generators on a conventional airplane and now we have 4 250 kva generators…..well that tells me you are using electrical power for lots and lots of stuff. I’m not so much thinking about the gens themselves but the distribution and control, and all the user systems. This airplane may not be “all” electric but it is very, very dependent upon electrical power for many critical systems.

All I had to know to worry about the avionics was that there were 2 huge generators on each engine, each with more output than the single generator on a 767. Basically 4 times the power (counting both engines). Wow.

IIRC the gen. tech research and development has been going on for about a decade or so and they have been tested as per 787 specs to full satisfaction . They will be the least of the worries as far as Mx is concerned . The only area is CFRP maintaince and how at the regional level that is tackled but again looking at what some of the airlines and boeing have worked up for over half a decade it seems that proper care is being done in that regards aswell.

A new engine with a new composite frame that is the first “all electric” commercial airplane….

Technically speaking it isnt all electric . Their would be some bleed air IIRC .

I’m not worried about the burn at all……both will be within tolerance for what they originally spec’d out I believe.

Both GE and RR are now privately claiming better burn then what was guaranteed.

Apples and orranges . F-22 electronics cannot be compared with those of commercial airliners . Commercial airline buisness is very conservative and everything is tested , double tested , verified and then given the stamp of approval . Look at the wireless IFE boeing wasnt comfortable with it at that point so they cancelled it for the 787 quite late (after design freeze) .

And what about RR engines? GE engine so far has been testing quite well and fuel burn figures are comming out better then expected.

revoulutionary is a relative term to be taken in context to commercial airline industry. A true revoulutionary aircraft by modern standards should be a fast supersonic (maach 2 ) jet with damn low CASM . Now that would be true revoulution !

I believe the 787 is truly revolutionary. For all the reasons listed in all the threads: structure, systems, etc.

All I had to know to worry about the avionics was that there were 2 huge generators on each engine, each with more output than the single generator on a 767. Basically 4 times the power (counting both engines). Wow.

My reason for not being as concerned about the RR engine is that it is a derivative. The GE is all new. A new engine with a new composite frame that is the first “all electric” commercial airplane….well, I guess thats why I’m concerned. Which is not to say I don’t think Boeing will pull it off.

I’m not worried about the burn at all……both will be within tolerance for what they originally spec’d out I believe.

I’m glad we finally agree there is no need for more customers to rush to the bargaining table at this time!!

But customers would almost certainly have to . Their is no real choice , with a normal widebody if you want deliveries in 2016-2017 you can wait till perhaps 2010-2011 to place the order however the speed at which the 787 line is running if you want deliveries by then you have to order by say mid-late 2009 . That is the speed at which the aircraft is selling to meet the fleet replacement and expansion demands for airlines all around the world .

Its all projections at this point.

Might be for you , as an enthusiast however for airline executives , fleet planners they are HARD GUARANTEES which if not met will yeild hefty compensation .

Meanwhile for the in service product, costs can vary widely from carrier to carrier based upon numerous factors. Therefore, to say airplane X has a mtc cost of Y is hugely ignorant of where, when, how, why your airplanes are maintained. You do know that airlines can change their mtc programs within certain parameters and subject to local FAA approval don’t you? And that foreign carriers have different requirements also? And that some carriers are having heavy mtc done in low cost foreign countries?

I know this , it is common knowledge however is it wrong to assume that if a 767 can be cheaply maintained by a customer x then so can a 787 ??

Taking into account all of this (theres actually much more), you perform a comparison with this “known” airplane and then you quote “lower mtc costs” for the incomplete, unflown, and uncertificated 787 and tell me that I have performed an incomplete analysis? Pot, meet kettle.

I do no comparison. I dont start using numbers that i created to come up with a figure . Your thread starter had some math that you have done which is wrong from the fleet planner point of view , i merely stated that it is very basic and much incomplete and does not factor in Mx costs , Extra revenue generated from new aircraft etc etc . I dont use the figment of my imagination to come up with my own set of values but the evidence from the dozens of airlines (totalled over 50 IIRC) that have ordered the 787 seems to suggest without reasonable doubt they have done the math and have seen the benefits of the 787 as compared to operating used hand down varieties of older jets or even new aircraft of older legacy.

WRT to electronics, recall the embarassing F-22 Date Line incident don’t you?

Apples and orranges . F-22 electronics cannot be compared with those of commercial airliners . Commercial airline buisness is very conservative and everything is tested , double tested , verified and then given the stamp of approval . Look at the wireless IFE boeing wasnt comfortable with it at that point so they cancelled it for the 787 quite late (after design freeze) .

And what about RR engines? GE engine so far has been testing quite well and fuel burn figures are comming out better then expected.

I’m not saying Boeing can’t do it, but if it is truly revolutionary, aviation history shows us that the reliable part will be difficult, at least in the beginning.

revoulutionary is a relative term to be taken in context to commercial airline industry. A true revoulutionary aircraft by modern standards should be a fast supersonic (maach 2 ) jet with damn low CASM . Now that would be true revoulution !

So revoulutionary and reliable cannot coexist?

Its not that they can’t, its just very, very difficult.

Just which systems do you think will contribute to the INCREASE in reliability as you predict ? CFRP has been tested to levels that airlines are now satisfied , both airbus (yes airbus) and boeing have tested rigourously CFRP skins , panels , joints , frames etc to levels much much more then those to be expereinced in the normal life of an airliner.

Actually I wasn’t predicting, just worried about, a DECREASE in reliability. At this point, with my still rather limited knowledge, I’m worried about the systems, particularly the electrical and electronic systems and the new bleedless airconditioning/pressurization. I’m also worried about the all new GE powerplant.

WRT to electronics, recall the embarassing F-22 Date Line incident don’t you? Imagine if China had invaded Japan and they were responding and that happened! And that was on a military airplane, in service, after a 15ish year, multibillion dollar gestation.

I’m not saying Boeing can’t do it, but if it is truly revolutionary, aviation history shows us that the reliable part will be difficult, at least in the beginning.

Quite true because looking at the first 8 months and few weeks of sales boeing has sold close to 2 years worth of production ( @ 10 per month starting 2012) allready , god knows how much they can sell .

I’m glad we finally agree there is no need for more customers to rush to the bargaining table at this time!!

IIRC your original point was that airlines will take decades making the price difference from buying a used 767 refurb. as opposed to the 787 . You even did a cost analysis . You were clearly wrong in that assesment as you have not included Mx values , Higher Revenue generated from the new product and many other factors . Your last comment that if airlines cannot get preffered slots on the 787 they should wait it out with used 767s is somewhat accurate ( i think they should do a shortest possible lease for A330 or 777 ) .

No doubt it was incomplete. I didn’t know we were doing a masters thesis here! However mtc is a piddance compared to fuel. An absolute piddance.

I also reject hard numbers for mtc for an airplane that hasn’t even been completely assembled yet, let alone flown, let alone flown in revenue service. Its all projections at this point.

Meanwhile for the in service product, costs can vary widely from carrier to carrier based upon numerous factors. Therefore, to say airplane X has a mtc cost of Y is hugely ignorant of where, when, how, why your airplanes are maintained. You do know that airlines can change their mtc programs within certain parameters and subject to local FAA approval don’t you? And that foreign carriers have different requirements also? And that some carriers are having heavy mtc done in low cost foreign countries?

Taking into account all of this (theres actually much more), you perform a comparison with this “known” airplane and then you quote “lower mtc costs” for the incomplete, unflown, and uncertificated 787 and tell me that I have performed an incomplete analysis? Pot, meet kettle.

PS: Sorry I can’t figure out how to do the multiple quotes.

I think Boeing is clearly “ahead” of Airbus right now….

Pointless to the thread at hand !

I truly believe the 787 will be revolutionary, thus my skepticism about reliability factors.

So revoulutionary and reliable cannot coexist?

History has shown revolutionary and reliable don’t necessarily go together.

Just which systems do you think will contribute to the INCREASE in reliability as you predict ? CFRP has been tested to levels that airlines are now satisfied , both airbus (yes airbus) and boeing have tested rigourously CFRP skins , panels , joints , frames etc to levels much much more then those to be expereinced in the normal life of an airliner.

And essentially unlimited ETOPS demands exceptional levels of reliability.

And airlines will have to earn their ETOPS cert. for the 787 just liked they had to with the 777 , 330 etc

Airbus, while taking a beating on these boards and in the market lately, is not yet out of the game.

Who said that they were ??

Non U.S. companies seem to have longer term horizons than U.S. companies….

They have different replacement cycles depending upon economic condition , this happens every cycle .

Airbus has time to recover nicely and their product will come to market about the time 787 slots become available in large numbers.

Quite true because looking at the first 8 months and few weeks of sales boeing has sold close to 2 years worth of production ( @ 10 per month starting 2012) allready , god knows how much they can sell .

not a crime after all.

Not at all , and dont get me wrong however your claim still lacks any evidence or even a little bit of logic !

there are ample reasons for some airlines to sit tight if they have the patience to do so.

In summary, I’m sticking to my original point….

IIRC your original point was that airlines will take decades making the price difference from buying a used 767 refurb. as opposed to the 787 . You even did a cost analysis . You were clearly wrong in that assesment as you have not included Mx values , Higher Revenue generated from the new product and many other factors . Your last comment that if airlines cannot get preffered slots on the 787 they should wait it out with used 767s is somewhat accurate ( i think they should do a shortest possible lease for A330 or 777 ) .

People like
– wide seats
– space
– good food
– good entertainment
– good service
– hot stewardess

Neither of the above is in any way aircraft dependent, actually you have more space in an aging B767 than in an A380. Most people don’t know the difference between the aircraft, and most don’t care. Maybe some notice they fly on B787, but the majority will not, granted the stuff listed above is OK.
For passenger preference it is best to invest in new cabins and hotter stewardess, which are platform-independent.

I was reffering to premium passengers only , however you are correct most of the average traveler wants a good cabin at most (*not type specific) however my point was simple that airlines which do operate the 330 , 777 and have done so from the inseption have commanded better Revenue control as opposed to the airlines which operate older fleets barring a few . I am a buisness traveler who travels internationally like 20 times a year , i prefer to travel on a 777 or 330 across the atlantic and i (specially when i spend my own money) make sure the product that i am paying for is worth the money !!

guess all the mentioned points correlate with the age and type of the aircraft.

That was my point !!

They have used B767, and I think their concept wouldn’t pay off using new aircraft.

Special Scenario (exception to the general) . IIRC one of these airlines is wanting to do a Buisness all LHR-SYD segement !! I think i remember reading it somewhere .

I’m not a fanboy or into the “coolness” factor. I couldn’t care less if the 787 had a shark fin or no fin at all. Form follows function after all and I’m just calling them as I see them.

I think Boeing is clearly “ahead” of Airbus right now….they have a “better” product in terms of cutting edge technology. I truly believe the 787 will be revolutionary, thus my skepticism about reliability factors. History has shown revolutionary and reliable don’t necessarily go together. And essentially unlimited ETOPS demands exceptional levels of reliability. I don’t think the 787 will, initially, have 777-style reliability. I hope I’m wrong.

Airbus, while taking a beating on these boards and in the market lately, is not yet out of the game. They retain certain advantages. Sometimes its best to be second to market……witness the case of the 737 Classic, which was, after all, a response to the DC-9 and ended up cornering the market over the long run. The 737NG was a response to the A320, after Boeing rejected building the NG for years and stuck their loyal customers with the -300 and -400 which can’t fly domestic U.S. transcons with a full load all year. Boeing wanted them to buy 757’s, which was too big for a market that was fractionializing (is that a word?). It could be argued the 767 was a response to the A300.

Non U.S. companies seem to have longer term horizons than U.S. companies….Airbus has time to recover nicely and their product will come to market about the time 787 slots become available in large numbers. It doesn’t have to beat the 787, just get close, they can play “games” with the rest….price/support/parts…there is wiggle room.

You’re right B.I.O. that I can’t name an airline who has ordered the 787 “just to keep up with the jones’s.” Just speculation on my part….not a crime after all.

In summary, I’m sticking to my original point….there are ample reasons for some airlines to sit tight if they have the patience to do so. The reasons that I have stated are both economic and strategic. And they can’t get significant numbers of 787’s in the next few years in any event. Perhaps I should have titled this thread: “Why buy 787’s NOW?” The early deliveries slots are gone, the fuel pays back only over time, and the prime competitor has time to respond.

I think both yourself and Bring_It_On both have valid points. I know a good few people who fly very regularly (150+ sectors a year) who have no interest whatsoever in aircraft yet know very well the types they prefer to fly on. Many others, as you quite rightly say, simply don’t care as long as the points you mention are good.

Paul

I guess all the mentioned points correlate with the age and type of the aircraft. Means: airliners offering best service and are highly rated for passenger comfort normally can afford newest aircraft, as they normally belong to the top airlines of the world. But it is not strictly causal. I am just thinking of this new business-only carrier that operates from Gatwick. They have used B767, and I think their concept wouldn’t pay off using new aircraft.

People like
– wide seats
– space
– good food
– good entertainment
– good service
– hot stewardess

Neither of the above is in any way aircraft dependent, actually you have more space in an aging B767 than in an A380. Most people don’t know the difference between the aircraft, and most don’t care. Maybe some notice they fly on B787, but the majority will not, granted the stuff listed above is OK.
For passenger preference it is best to invest in new cabins and hotter stewardess, which are platform-independent.

I think both yourself and Bring_It_On both have valid points. I know a good few people who fly very regularly (150+ sectors a year) who have no interest whatsoever in aircraft yet know very well the types they prefer to fly on. Many others, as you quite rightly say, simply don’t care as long as the points you mention are good.

Paul

No its not spurious , look at the buisness traveler ask him which aircraft he would prefer and you will get the 777 , a380 etc . The 340 is liked due to its low noise , the 777 is wide and comfortable , the a380 will have huge floor space that can be used to generate revenue .

People like
– wide seats
– space
– good food
– good entertainment
– good service
– hot stewardess

Neither of the above is in any way aircraft dependent, actually you have more space in an aging B767 than in an A380. Most people don’t know the difference between the aircraft, and most don’t care. Maybe some notice they fly on B787, but the majority will not, granted the stuff listed above is OK.
For passenger preference it is best to invest in new cabins and hotter stewardess, which are platform-independent.

The fuel savings clearly have a long term payback and the assertions about pax preference is spurious at best.

No its not spurious , look at the buisness traveler ask him which aircraft he would prefer and you will get the 777 , a380 etc . The 340 is liked due to its low noise , the 777 is wide and comfortable , the a380 will have huge floor space that can be used to generate revenue . Look at the legacy airlines and how hard they are having to compete with the SQ’s , Ek’s that have spankin new jets with awsome passenger comfort and enviroment Both these airlines generate extra revenue . The main problem with US carriers is according to a source of mine working with one of the biggest – ” They cannot get enough revenue because the premium pax arent willing to pay huge money for not so good product” . While domestic travel is very much a “Cheapest Fare” wins the long haul specially the long long flights change the preferences of passengers , most airlines that are doing well have realized this and that is why you see the sort of competition for premium passenger exist !! Try flying LHR-SYD in a shabby old jet as opposed to a new 340 or a 380 and you’ll know the difference !! Look at the airlines that are doing well , most of the long haul carriers like BA , LH , EK , SQ , Qantas , CX have good premium products and most are looking to retain that level of quality and improve further by purchasing the 787 , 350 , 380 etc .

, I think it is quite apparent that it is in some airlines best interests to sit and wait.

Some , but very few. Remember airlines do NOT replace airliners because they are cool , nor do OEM’s expect to sell jets on the COOLNESS factor . Boeing launched the 787 when they launched it because it coincided with Median replacement cycle for its 767 customer, early 330 customers and later on will fit nicely into early 777 customers needs . Selling a new aircraft is always about MARKET TIMING . too early – the airlines wont be interested , too late – the airlines would have allready charted their future without your product . You can see the NEAR PERFECT market timing for the 787 launch as it has garnered more orders pre EIS then any widebody (and i think NB aswell) before it ever.

So perhaps the 787 have-nots pick up a few 787s just for the effect/press/morale and then they wait?

Look at the airlines that have bought the 787 , 350 and name me one airline that has purchased it for this reason .

Airlines are sometimes forced to buy early by various factors . Some of the reasons why airlines want aircraft at a particular time are –

* Need replacement
* Need more aircraft for growth and expansion
* Need particular delivery slots
* Need to negate pricing pressure
* Are in good financial situation therefore can get better financing

Perhaps the 787 won’t be revolutionary and reliable at the same time.

Speculation , Wishful thinking or both ??? So far no evidence exists that it is slipping its performance guarantees . As a matter of fact boeing are on record of stating that fuel burn will most likely be 1-2 % better then promised .

I also find it interesting that the Airbus competitor should appear in roughly the same time frame that significant numbers of 787 delivery slots become available…

The A350 was launched later , and airbus had to do things from scratch so they have a longer Launch-EIS period as compared to boeing who had been working on the related technologies since the late ninetees with the 20xx , 2020 an yellowstone projects .

I would agree it is much harder to get efficiency gains on shorter legged aircraft. Significant powerplant improvements would seem to be necessary.

Back to my original assertion, while I can’t argue that an airline should never buy new airplanes, I think it is quite apparent that it is in some airlines best interests to sit and wait. The fuel savings clearly have a long term payback and the assertions about pax preference is spurious at best. So perhaps the 787 have-nots pick up a few 787s just for the effect/press/morale and then they wait?

Perhaps the 787 won’t be revolutionary and reliable at the same time. I also find it interesting that the Airbus competitor should appear in roughly the same time frame that significant numbers of 787 delivery slots become available…thereby increasing the leverage of the airlines…..which, history shows, they desperately need (The Wall Street analysts always say only 2 people ever made money in the airline business: Boeing and Pilots).

Yes both the A320 and 737 are amazing interms of the downtime , however as the systems get complex and complicated it needs to hold on to that edge moreover what they want to do is reduce overall life cycle cost of the fleet factoring in that they will have newer materials , systems , processers etc etc

Looking at the segement and the players it would be very hard to neglect the economics of it . Infact randy B (boeing) last year did talk at one of the airshows that the 737RS would need to be very cheap to make as the single most competitive thing in this segement is the PRICE , it is also much larger of a deciding factor then with widebodies . Tech. incorporation is very good however the cost is very important aswell as the NB market does not see huge margins like the Wb market .

The problem with this segement is that unlike the mid sized widebody this particular segement is very advanced interms of the 737NG and A320 being really eff. jets even by todays standards . I was talking to a boeing engineer about it on my way back from japan last week and he was of the opinion that the eff gains from CFRP and using it to reduce OEW would be around half of the the 787 ( in terms of the net effect on burn) because the cruise distance is very little for NB’s . Having said that they have to get the most they can out of the engines which will come online only at a slow pace as the manuf. are happy milking their older products . The single biggest thing (USP) for boeing’s NB (and i use only boeing because i know nothing of what AB is thinking on this subject) is to reduce the MX value by as much as possible , increase fleet availability , decrease downtime and increase cycles !!

I read that A319 at EasyJet has 99.7% reliability (less than 15 minutes of delay due to maintenance). I can’t see a big jump in availability.
The fuel burn advantage would be comparable, but the fuel burn does not represent a large share of the costs. An aircraft that lands twice in 24h will have less costs for ATC and airport than one landing 10 times in 24h.

The problem with this segement is that unlike the mid sized widebody this particular segement is very advanced interms of the 737NG and A320 being really eff. jets even by todays standards . I was talking to a boeing engineer about it on my way back from japan last week and he was of the opinion that the eff gains from CFRP and using it to reduce OEW would be around half of the the 787 ( in terms of the net effect on burn) because the cruise distance is very little for NB’s . Having said that they have to get the most they can out of the engines which will come online only at a slow pace as the manuf. are happy milking their older products . The single biggest thing (USP) for boeing’s NB (and i use only boeing because i know nothing of what AB is thinking on this subject) is to reduce the MX value by as much as possible , increase fleet availability , decrease downtime and increase cycles !!

An interesting interview in Aviation Week.
The head of IFLC was saying neither Airbus or Boeing are in too big a hurry to replace the 737/A320 series.

He wonders if Airbus might really put it off (in part) because they’re going to be tied up (engineering-wise) with the A350 for quite awhile (and stil have cost issues wit the A380?).

The guessed Boeing might come out with a short widebody.

But it may be awhile since the engine technology (with enough improvements over the 737/320 to justify an entirely new aircraft) aren’t available yet.
Nothing, is going to happen until there is a 10-20% increase in efficiency to make it worthwhile for someone to develop a new jet, or to tempt airlines to buy it.