Talk:Boeing 787

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Aviation Portal

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related WikiProjects and/or task forces:
	Aircraft WikiProject

Archives 1

[edit] Why separation by water?

From the 787-3 subsection: This is an advantage on shorter, high-density routes specially those separated by water such as Tokyo to Shanghai, [...] - Could someone please explain to me why this separation by water is so specially relevant? Thanks and Cheers MikeZ 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michael, here is an explanation:

1- All airports charge fees based on MTOW. Typically a higher maximum take off weight would indicate that the plane is bigger which needs more ground crews to servce it, needs more staff to empty it and do customs and baggage checks, and on and on. so a 747 requires more people to care for it at an airport than a 717.

2- A route like Taiwan to Hong Kong for example. Its separated by water but it is only 1000km away (600 miles). No other way to travel than by air. No roads and no trains. So why have a plane like the 737 flying between these two points? It is a drop in a bucket. 100 people a trip. A bigger plane is then logical. But bigger planes cost a lot more to operate. The airports charge such high fees that it may not be economical to have a large plane operate this route. However, there is a medium ground here. Getting a large plane with a very low MTOW. That is, enough of a take off weight to carry the plane weight, the passengers, and luggage, plus a bit of room for fuel. A 1000km (600 mile) route requires very little fuel. Coincidentally, the most used plane on this Taipei/Hong kong route is 777-300 with 660,000 MTOW and 747-400 derated to 700,000 MTOW.

If you look at at map of the world on google map, you will see many regions of the world like Asia, Europe, and South America that have big cities separated by water or mountains. These areas can benefit from a large capacity airliner that is efficient enough in both operating costs and all it's fees.

3- Airports are finding out that basing fees on MTOW is a flawed system. Many like Heathrow, JFK, O'Hare, and Hartsfield are beginning to realize that having 1000 737s landing in one day is more of a headache then having 600 737s landing along with maybe 200 767. A plane landing requires the attention of a control tower personal for a considerable amount of time. This plane being a bit bigger does not make a huge difference. Congestion is the absolute number 1 cost to an airport than any other cost. With this realization, airports are beginning to lower MTOW fees. The fee for 757 and 767 has been locked at 2002 level at JFK airport in New york. This is because the airport has seen a huge uptick in congestion and workload because of JetBlue's growth. With Jetblue starting to dominate the airport with their A320 and Embraer 190 planes, it has led to more congestion. An Embraer 190 flying from NY to Houston is really uncalled for. These cities transport roughly 10,000 people between themselves everyday. Why carry 85 people at a time? This has been happening because of fees being exponentially higher. Both Airbus and Boeing have realized this. Boeing first 10 years ago, and now airbus. Boeing has designed the 787-3 to absolutely have a lower cost than a 737 or A320 even at twice the landing fees. The japanese government has realized this for the last 3 decades. The government controls all the airports. They know congestion is the number 1 factor in costs and environmental pollution and customer inconvenience. The fees in japan are only slightly higher as the plane gets bigger. Therefore you will see 777 and 747 operating domestic flights. Because the fees are relatively equal, small planes make a small part of the japanese air fleet. But when these airlines go international like to china or korea, suddenly fees go up. Thats why ANA and JAL have asked for efficient and low MTOW versions of the 787. This plane will be ordered by many more airlines. It is not entering service till 2010. All the 2010 and 2011 slots are sold currently to JAL and ANA. So the earliest slot is 2012. Thats 6 years away. So we have not seen a huge rush for this plane yet.

If you still require more explanation let me know. Marcus--Bangabalunga 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, thanks for your extensive explanations - great job! But the main argument about the "water" is just that usually no other means of transportation exist on some routes (like bridges, tunnels, ships etc.), right? Cheers, MikeZ 08:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I used to fly ISP-PVD on SWA, a 20 min by air, but 3 hours by car. But you need to find a ref for this, and add it to the article. Dhaluza 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike, the reason water is significant is that routes over water would be the first ones getting larger planes as there is less pressure from the bottom of the market to force capacity down. The route of Paris to Madrid for example. People can take trains. People can drive. People can take the bus. There is more competition from both other sources of transportation and other airlines. This will keep the capacity on this route down to around the 175 seat level. Then lets say London to Madrid. Ferry is non existent. No busses. And driving will take 1 day. So flying is the only way. Now half the modes of transporations are eliminated. So the fight is between airlines. Here, if you go on a travel website, you will see the most used plane is a A321, 757 or 767 by BA and Iberia. But then you have pressure from startups with their 737s. For now they have had an advantage. They are smaller and cheaper to operate. But this operational advantage will be eliminated if a plane is created that is efficient in fuel burn like the 787-3, and also the Madrid and Heathrow airports get fed up with 40 737 and A320 flights everyday and they reduce fees on bigger planes for these routes. You will then see the capacity level come up to around 250 seats and the 737 and A320 leaving this mega route and flying to Seville instead. Or flying Manchester Barcelona instead. No logical reason why Heathrow with 10 million and Madrid with 8 million need to fly 130 seat planes all day.

Now, this phenomenon has been occuring for a while. The first place for consolidation and increase capacity will only come in a mature market. That is North America. We have had the deregulation for the longest time and the Low Cost model has been happening here for quite a while. You even see it happening by mergers recently to cut plane trips and increase capacity. America West was bought by USair who now wants Delta. Other mergers are in discussion as well. After North America, it would be Europe, when all the airports and government agencies and even consumers start getting annoyed with all the congestion and delays and pollution. Regions like South America and Asia and India will be last. Every few months a few guys get to gether in India and think its cool to start an airline. They go get themselves a loan and place an order for 100 planes. But this cannot last. Boeing and Airbus know this. Sure they will sell to who ever that has money, but Boeing and Airbus know that you cannot, its impossible, to have hundreds of flights between Mumbai and Delhi everyday. Its pathetic. Something will have to give. And that is where the 787-3 is positioned. I live in Vancouver Canada and I went to seattle and visited Boeing and this is what they talked about. They had clips on video, they had posters, and a speaker. All this I say here is from what they said. Now I will add, Low cost airlines like Southwest and Ryan air will not disappear. They are too smart. These airlines will still prosper. But the other guys that think its fun starting airlines and its the thing to do, they will disappear. Southwest and Ryan air will adapt. There is a place for them. But everything will come to an equilibrium. At the end, everything will be balanced. There was an extreme 30 years ago. KLM used to have 747 flights from Amsterdam to London. Now they dont even have a 747. The first place for this to retract and capacity to grow would be routes over water followed very closely by mega cities within several hours of each other. Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winglets provide better efficiency over short distances while raked wingtips are superior over long distances

Why wouldn't the longer wings be more efficient no matter what? Do shorter flights spend more time at lower altitudes (higher density air), and thus don't need the longer wings? An explanation would be helpful (as well as a citation). -- thanx --68.35.43.82 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The effect of winglets and raked wingtips are different. Winglets are shaped in a way to use the wingtip vortices to produce thrust, while raked wingtips increase the effective aspect ratio. The reason short haul aircraft tend to use winglets more is that the extra thrust improves field performance and increases the rate of climb, which is a favorable trade to having less drag during cruise. On the long haul aircraft, cruise is the dominant mode of flight and thus the cruise drag dominates over the time to climb. Also, while it's not the case on the 787, in some cases the wingspan is limited by airport constraints and winglets offer a shorter wingspan including wingtip device than the raked wingtips (Though with the raked wingtips, the -8 and -9 have a 60m wingspan, which is one of the two major wingspan limits used by airports. The other is 80m, which the A380's 79.8m wingspan borders.) For more info, see Wingtip device. -Marimvibe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)