Post by JF MezeiPost by Uwe KleinMy tentative guess is that current models of the A330 are competitive
against the 787-8 for the foreseeable future.
Maintenance issues may (if they really pan out) give the 787 an edge
over the 330. And interior comfort (higher cabin pressure, bigger
windows) may give it a marketing advantage.
That was the advantage Boeing had advertised for originaly.
On the other hand Airbus is extending airframe lifetimes
over all families targeting for a final of 180.000h
Post by JF MezeiPost by Uwe Klein( Notice the
increased numbers for MTOW for the -8 _and_ the -9 -10 models
as annouced recently ).
pardon my ignorance here, but has ZA001 gained weight because it ate too
much turkey on the USA thanskgiving ? Surely, the addition of
re-enforcements on the side body/wing interface couldn't have changed
much in the aircraft weight ? Why would the aircraft suddently need an
increase in weight ?
No it was overweight all the time. Boeings rationale was that
these fatty deposits would vanish after the prototype set of frames.
( At that time Boeing intended to sell sn1..6 to customers for
revenue use. This idea has been scrappped. )
IMHO increasing the MTOW from sn20 on forward would indicate that
Boeing does not have the (chose any/all from: time, engineers, money, expertise )
to fix the excess weight. Same goes to some extend for the optimised
( with expected expertise garnered from -8 flight data ) -9 variant.
Put into this equation the return to the -8 wing for the -9 version.
Post by JF MezeiIsn't it fair to say that Boeing has known the weight of ZA001 (and the
few others that have been assembled) for 2 years now ? And since
Boeing finished disassmbling/reassembling it last year when it finally
worked the rivets issue, shouldn't the weight have become fairly stable
by then ?
The weight issue was already known at the time of the "lessons ppt".
Post by JF MezeiDid Boeing truly hide the weight gain from its customers and
shareholders since then ?
Or is it possible that the increase in MTOW is the result of data from
first flight which would have confirmed the aircraft is calable of
hauling more freight ?
Probably ( er, most certainly ) not. MTOW increase was silently injected
into the public via the type guides for airports. ( and "unblogged" later )
The designlimits (~258t?) for the landing gear have become a very near hard limit.
Post by JF MezeiThe big question: wouldn't customers be given the real time of day with
regards to actual weight of the 787 ? I assume they are under NDA
agreements ?
Hehe, I am not involved with any customer, so it is a clear "don't know".
Post by JF MezeiI think it is fair to say that Boeing will meet contractual obligations,
but in the end, just like the 340-500, while the plane will be able to
reach its advertised range, it will not be able to do so with a full
load. But in exchange, for short hauls, it will be able to carry more
than originally advertised.
The MTOW increase seem to boost performance towards range as originaly
projected and sold, but will certainly miss advertised sfc values by
quite a margin as a consequence.
Post by JF MezeiBTW, will the increase in MTOW result in increased landing costs at
airports, or do airports have the same prices for a range of MTOW, and
as long as the 787 remains in the same range, landing costs won't increase ?
Don't know, seems to go along distinct ranges.
Post by JF MezeiPost by Uwe Kleinfor some time to come. The initial batch of 20-6=14 airframes
will underperform even more ( overweight by same amount, no increase
in MTOW).
I think that there is some expectations management being done by Boeing
right now. They oversold it capabilities, and are still stuck with media
repeating that 20% number.
Boeing had been too loudly advertising that number and did not
correct those assuming a staging against A330 values.
No amount of sweet words will erase that abroad.
Post by JF MezeiAnd they are probably now welcoming specualtion that its performance is
terrible, and then people will be happied when they learn of the real
stuff which won't be as bad as thought.
Most people one can read on the net still turn the
"gamechanger, revolutionary, ... airplane" hamster wheel like mad.
Post by JF MezeiPost by Uwe KleinBetter (and trustworthy) data for a comparison will not be
available before EIS + 6month or thereabouts.
I am pretty sure that 787 customers are being given the real numbers.
This is especially true when you consider that Boeing has to negitiate
penalties due to delivery delays, and those customers would require the
real weight of the aircraft to measure the financial impact to them.
Probably.
But they will get gagging sweets in compensation ;-)
So no direct information gain for the unwashed public.
Post by JF MezeiIf an airline like Air Canada doesn't have markets that require extreme
range, then a 787 not able to carry full load at full range won't impact
AC in terms of what it can and cannot do with the aircraft. And it is
fair to state that the 787 will be better than the 767 in just about
every metric.
Pfft, that's a rather surefire assumption. the 767 is a halfhearted reaction
to the original A300 and a _30_ years old design.
Interesting question on the side:
How would the original A300 have fared in the US
market if it had been from a local manufacturer?
If the vitriolic reactions to the A380 and A350XWB and Airbus in general
are anything to go by there must have been quite a bit of NIH syndrome
present even 30 years ago.
What will ANA pay for their just ordered for "immediate delivery"
compensation 5 x 767-300ERs? ( and 5 x 777 )
uwe
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.