I guess Boeing could have evaded the blame if they had moved forward more aggressively, and by that showing more control about their own program (now it seems that if you want to know about the B787, you either ask Airbus or your glass sphere). This quarterly delay announcement is now getting kind of familiar, let’s look what we’ll hear end of 1st quarter ’09.
Just how long time was left till first flight in August 2007?
The “greatness” is already sold and marketed, so Boeing has to live up to its own high promises. Current estimates on empty weight speak a different language. The real issue will be the -9, and its schedule will tell us if problems are bad or generally manageable.
To really make an assessment of an aircraft, it needs some time in service. With the A380, we are now getting closer to have a real picture. However, I wouldn’t really finalize it before at least a dozen operate on a regular basis.
11 have been delivered. One more to be delivered and then enter regular service… when?
But there are other things. All the A380 frames delivered so far have had custom wires. When shall A380 arrive with standard wires?
While B787-9 has formal orders, as has 787-3, A380-800Passenger is the sole A380 model with orders. A380F is offered, but currently with orderbook of zero. A380-900, A380-800R, A380-700 and A380-1000 are not now on offer.
If B787-9 is more important than B787-8, how important is A380-900?
Inspired by this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/354399-private-biz-jet.html
I thought all those gas guzzlers were baking in the Mojave sunshine
Qatar has sunshine too. And they own the oil, so they are the ones who can afford oil guzzlers. A pity that they did not buy the pointy nosed ones…
usually accepting nothing more from them than a meal or their paying the landing fee.
It’s my aircraft, if I wish to carry the cost and let somebody else fly it that is my prerogative.
But if it was a regular occurrence, and I were to give that pilot free lodging in my house, then the CAA would view the latter as a reward for his flying services.
Well, a host giving a guest free lodging in host´s house, and providing or paying for meals, is perfectly normal. Does it mean that a host must strictly forbid an otherwise qualified guest from operating a plane, and be or hire the whole required crew?
Suppose that the PPL claims that activities of private nature occur during stays, and that free lodging, free meals and valuable presents are rewards in kind for such activities. Presumably, the CAA would retort that both private activities and all the rest are rewards in kind she has received for her flying services?
It is common practice for a flying school to give ‘maintenance flights’ (positioning the acft to the airfield where its 50 / 100 / annual checks are carried out) to competent club members. I have done several myself. This causes the CAA no sleepless nights.
However if it looks like the arrangement is designed to circumvent the need for a proper commercial qualification, then the CAA will drop on it. So if a charter airline gave a PPL a money earning flight (for them), even if they didn’t pay him
So, consider say a completely noncommercial operation that makes no money at all through using the plane and is purely an item of consumption. Not a charter airline, not a flying school, but a private airplane owner who is paying all the costs and not taking money from anyone
If the owner flies, with any guests, as passenger, and hires people to work as pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants etc., then the pilots getting wages explicitly for flying must be CPLs.
But if a guest act as a pilot and does not pay a share of flight costs, whether the owner is a passenger or the other required pilot – can the guest be accused of flying for hire or reward in kind? Can getting where the guest wanted to go, or logging pilot time, or the fun of flying, count as “reward in kind”?
Can anybody suggest some good places to go for lunch within about 2 hours flight of manchester Barton.
What kind of Mach number?
But do they get the performance they promised? That is currently not the question, but will be the more interesting one. How is Dreamliner supposed to reduce seat mile costs?
[LIST]
[*] Lower weight (currently 6% overweight, that would be 16t if the B787 was the size of an A380)
A better benchmark would be A330, because this is the closest match in terms of MTOW, wingspan, cross-section, size… and selling like hot cakes.
As A330 has about 123 t OEW, 6% overweight would be 7,4 t.
[/LIST]
If so, we could truly see some cancellations.
I don’t doubt the B787 looks like a commercial success so far, but do not mix “promised USD for pormised jet” with “actual USD for actual jet”. To this date the B787 has made no single USD of profit for Boeing.
Remember that there also are actual USD for promised jets. Depending on the contract terms, the airlines that cancel might not see their deposits back, while Boeing sells off the whitetails.
The American launch customer of 787, the recently bankrupt Primaris, cancelled their 787 orders long time ago. Did they get their deposits back?
Surely you’re not serious? Yeah, I can see Boeing saying “Nah, it’s just too much trouble. Here’s all your money back. We’re going to shelve it for now.”
Riiiiiiiiight.
JH
I have heard that the customer airliners of Boeing 2707 actually paid some deposits which they didn´t get back…
This has to be the most delayed airliner Boeing have ever produced?
Have they “produced” it? If you mean “produced” as in “flown”, they haven´t done that yet at all. If you mean “produced” as in “rolled out and called it a plane”, perhaps. But if you mean “produced” as in, cut metal or plastic or wood with intent to incorporate it into an airframe that should fly, then just how much was Boeing 2707 delayed as of May 1971?
Well, if you were sad enough to want to back track to get to NYC, then you could always book each sector individually.
Seeing how SQ long has served LHR, it could be feasible to connect in LHR to SQ-SIN-SYD. And then in SYD to SYD-LAX. Or, of course, in the opposite direction. But while JFK-LAX or vice versa is possible using all 3 A380 operators, circling the globe is not, because no A380 crosses New World.
So, now it is possible to fly JFK-LHR by A380 (with the huge detour through DXB)?
I think that even if it falls short on the promised goals, it will still offer significant efficiency improvements versus current technology (A330/767/etc). IIRC, the original goal was to better the 767 by 30%. Lets say they only get 20-25%, thats still a lot of fuel.
787 is too different from 767 to make a fair comparison.
Fuselage width: 767 – 503 cm, 330 – 564 cm; 787 – 577 cm
Wingspan: 767 – 47,6 m, 330 – 60 m; 787-8 – 60 m
MTOW: 767 – 185 t, 330 – 230 t; 787-8 – 220 t.
Let´s see what the 787 fuel burn and range turn out to be if it ever flies.
Sadly, with only one other major airframe manufacturer, prospective customers have few alternatives.
But at least there is one…and I suspect some carriers are seriously looking at the alternative.
What is the order backlog of A330? And how many A330-s have been ordered since B787 was delayed (September 2007)?
Do the new A330 customers include any with outstanding (and unmet) B787 orders?
And there is one minor airframe manufacturer. Has Il-96 scored any recent orders?
They do have two new planes promised – ARJ21 still has not flown and does not have a published first flight date as of 12th of October: ARJ21
and MA600
MA600 seems to have just flown.
Then let us compute the currency requirements.
A pilot cannot fly over 1000 hours per year:
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-503-FAR.shtml
Which means 250 hours in 3 months on average.
With 16 hour legs, it means 15 flights in 3 months.
Between a crew of 4, each of them needs 3 landings in 90 days: 12 total in 90 days.
But a 4 pilot crew cannot possibly fly over 16 hours. I cannot find flight time restrictions for a crew of 5 pilots.