Boeing says in talks on 600 possible 787 jet sales

Reuters ^ | Tue Apr 5, 2005 09:45 PM ET | Christian Plumb

[Paleo Conservative]

Ping!

If you want on or off my aviation ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.

[Hunble]

I do not want to be off of the ping list, but as a private pilot, this really does not interest me.

[hattend]

Bair acknowledged that the plane's final design, due to be unveiled later this month, will look more traditional than early renderings featuring a shark-like curved tail fin and large, sloping front cabin windows.

Dang, I LIKED the looks of the earlier renderings.

[BurbankKarl]

Good. I would bag on Old Europe but we are older than all their whigs anyway.

[Seaplaner]

I loved the last line. The 787 Dreamliner is ...Boeing's bet that airlines will ...want smaller planes for point-to-point travel between regional airports rather than for Airbus' double-decker A380 superjumbo, which would bring larger numbers of passengers into "hub" style airports.

So, Boeing's new airplane is a size that the airlines can use, and will offer substantial fuel savings.

Perhaps in their marketing of the A350, Airbus will offer customers their choice of an A380 or a free toaster.

.

[RayChuang88]

I think the 787 will look more normal because the tail design seen in the artist's conceptions made the plane potentially vulnerable to Dutch roll, where if you move the rudder of the vertical tail surfaces, the plane will suddenly have a habit of turning on the roll axis.

This was why Boeing had to redesign the 707's vertical tail fin to be taller so the plane had less tendency to Dutch roll during turns.

[pierrem15]

"Dutch roll"-- a feature of Fokker designs? :-)

[Paleo Conservative]

So, Boeing's new airplane is a size that the airlines can use, and will offer substantial fuel savings.

Why the hell would people want to have to add 3 hours per connecting flight just to get to and from airports that fly A380s? I'd rather be able to fly more directly to my destination. And what's so efficient about such huge planes anyway. How many connecting 737 or 767 flights are necessary to funnel passengers to them? Airbus' ideal for air travel is for everyone to fly to huge hubs where they'll then transfer to a few A380s. Ever seen JFK at rush hour? That's what they'd like. Imagine having to wait behind 20 or 30 A380s in order to taxi to take off.

[COEXERJ145]

Imagine having to wait behind 20 or 30 A380s in order to taxi to take off.

Think about loading/unloading 20 or 30 of those things all within the space of a few minutes.

[Paleo Conservative]

If Boeing decides to close down the commercial 767 line, and move it elsewhere for military production, I wonder if they would offer the choice of the modified 787 engines that will be developed for the A350, for use on a KC-767 or the E-10? Considering that those planes will last well into the middle of this century wouldn't it make sense to get an engine that will be supported for a long time to come?

[Clemenza]

The 767 is an excellent freighter. Tampa Cargo out of Colombia has had a lot of success with their new 767Fs, while Continental is still discussing a 767F, although that will not happen until they start making money again (pull the plug on US Air and United NOW GE!).

The 76' is done as a passenger craft. The 787 was a wise decision made despite Stonecipher's ambivalence about it (it was in the planning stages back in the Condit days).

[Paleo Conservative]

Think about loading/unloading 20 or 30 of those things all within the space of a few minutes.

Tell me about it. My first transoceanic trip was in 1976. At that time there were no flights to Europe from Texas so we had to fly from CRP to IAH to JFK to LHR. I swear we had to wait behind 20 or 30 747s after we left the gate. The lines for customs at Hearhrow were pretty long. The lines at JFK when we returned were even worse. It's a lot easier to fly directly from DFW or IAH.

[Paleo Conservative]

The 76' is done as a passenger craft. The 787 was a wise decision made despite Stonecipher's ambivalence about it (it was in the planning stages back in the Condit days).

I'm glad Stonecipher's gone. He's already burried one aircraft manufacturer.

[Paleo Conservative]

The 767 is an excellent freighter.

I thought the narrower diameter made it less desirable than the A-300F.

[Clemenza]

The WORST legacy of the merger with Douglas was management's decision to keep the finance arm as a part of Boeing, IMHO.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Its the logical follow on to the 767, but until its in the air and its performance is known, I wouldn't throw a party!

[AggieCPA]

Think about all the screaming babies!

[Central Scrutiniser]

The 380 has its place and its niche, I don't see the 787 as its competition. The A350 is the competitor, ATW this month has the 787/A350 war as its cover story.

BTW, I saw some frightening planes in Thailand recently, Phuket Airlines with 737-200's with the longwave antenna strung from the tail to the cockpit, decrepit 747-200's flying to London, and, I swear to god, YS-11's in service.

Remember the name, they are the next disaster. (They also are flying a few MetroJet 737's with the red/black color scheme, they were too cheap to repaint)

[Paleo Conservative]

BTW, I saw some frightening planes in Thailand recently, Phuket Airlines with 737-200's with the longwave antenna strung from the tail to the cockpit, decrepit 747-200's flying to London, and, I swear to god, YS-11's in service.

What's really sickening is how the EU threatened to increase tariffs on shrimp from Thailand if Thailand did not order 8 A-380s. If that isn't a case for the WTO, I don't know what is.