Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

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)

Winglets and raked wingtips

From article: "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)
Winglets do not produce thrust.69.22.218.109 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they do. They produce a forward lift vector, also known as thrust. ericg ✈ 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a high quality source. http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/wingdesign/nonplanar.html says "Optimally-loaded winglets thus reduce induced drag by lowering the average downwash on the wing, not by providing a thrust component." 24.63.204.55 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But the full quote is: "The result that the sidewash on the winglet (in the Trefftz plane) is zero for minimum induced drag means that the self-induced drag of the winglet just cancels the winglet thrust associated with wing sidewash. Optimally-loaded winglets thus reduce induced drag by lowering the average downwash on the wing, not by providing a thrust component." By the paper's definition, the optimally loaded winglet is the one that produces the best L/D ratio. In contrast, field performance is largely dependant on T/W, and best climb performance is dependant on T/W - D/L, which may stand to benefit from winglets designed to maximize winglet thrust but make L/D slightly sub-optimum. Specifically, I recall a passage in a reference book (I think Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons, by Timothy Laur and a couple others, but I can't seem to find the book at the moment,) that calls out the use of winglets on the C-17 to be driven by the improvement in field performance. A good source would be helpful, but it should be from a designer and not an aerodynamicist in order to really examine why one solution is preferred over another in certain cases, but the aircraft design text I have hasn't changed much since 1985 as far as I can tell. Marimvibe 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-15-DFRC.html says "Winglets, which are airfoils operating just like a sailboat tacking upwind, produce a forward thrust inside the circulation field of the vortices and reduce their strength." I'm pretty sure the Dryden Center knows what they're talking about. Maybe a little. ericg ✈ 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As a person with some knowledge in this field I like to correct all of you. Raked Wingtips produce more lift than winglets. A 90 degree winglet produces no lift. It simply cancels out drag at the tips to improve efficiency. Thats all. Rakes wingtips produce a bit of lift. Also, as a plane travels down a runway, the outer parts of the wing start developing lift first and this continues towards the fuselage. Watch a 777-300ER go down a runway and you will see the tips pointing up rather quickly. Some winglets can produce a slight amount of lift, but not if they are pointing 90 degrees up. Simon--154.20.95.145 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
These comments have no impact on the argument of comparitive efficiency. Marimvibe 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Revised 8 June 2007, to remove my more hostile comments. I apologize for making what I deem to be an inappropriate comment.)

Assembly location?

So where is the airplane acutally assembled and tested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.189 (talk • contribs)

Date clarification in regards to roll out date

Why is there one date that needs a seperate format for clarification, when all others use the standard linked date and month and linked year? This goes against the norm for any article I've encountered, and goes against what the tutorial for linking date suggests. Marimvibe 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The date matches the plane's designation in one format, but may not in other formats. A wiki linked date can appear different depending on a user's preference setting. The trivia line is worth little if that point is missed. -Fnlayson 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. For some reason I didn't pick up the 7/8/7 significance. Marimvibe 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Good deal. I might mention the designation instead of (7/8/07), if there seems to be confusion with it. -Fnlayson 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Reference for Scott Carson

In the last sentence of "Development" it states: On March 19, 2007, BCA President Scott Carson and 787 program manager Mike Bair told reporters and investors that Boeing intends to roll out the first 787 on July 8, 2007

In "Technical concerns - Weight issues" it states: The first six 787s built will be overweight according to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson, but the seventh is expected to be on target.

According to Boeing's Official Biography for Scott Carson: Scott Carson is executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

I believe we should be consistent with Boeing's Official Biography, although it might be better to be consistent with the original news article's designation for Mr. Carson. Since Mr. Fnlayson is the primary editor for the Boeing 787 wiki page, I will leave it to his excellent judgement on how best to edit these two sections. --Dan Dassow 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Dan Dassow

  • I didn't realize there was this inconsisency with Carson. We could list both BCA CEO and president at the first reference. How about that? -Fnlayson 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that we should list both BCA CEO and president at the first reference as you suggest. When Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago, they designated Alan Mulally as executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Jim Albaugh as executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Integrated Defense Systems. Phil Condit was CEO of Boeing at the time. The multiple titles still confuse most people. Scott Carson took over Alan Mulally's duties when Mr. Mulally became CEO of Ford. --Dan Dassow 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Dan Dassow


Breakeven

Is there any information regarding the number of orders that Boeing needed to breakeven on the 787 project? I believe that the number was approximately 300 planes, which is well below the more than 500 orders the company has received so far. I think it would be worth while to add this financial information in as it demonstrates the success of this plane and its importance to Boeing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I am sure Boeing's finance people have calculated the breakeven point where you recover your initial investment but they have not disclosed this number and I doubt that they ever will. Actual breakeven is a moving target. Various factors such as future inflation, contract revision with suppliers, and future labor cost will affect the outcome. Airbus is more sensitive to this number because once a project reaches breakeven, they have to start paying back the launch aid they had received. --Yasobara 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoke vs. sidestick

Please stop adding the biased info on the yoke vs. the sidestick controller. The sidestick may be a newer method of control inputting, but that does not make it more advanced by that fact alone. I am certian the sidestick controllers on early A320s are less advanced technologicially than the yoke systems in the 777. The 777 and 787 are FBW, so they do not use control cables physically connected to the yoke. That would be outdated, but simply using a yoke for electronic conrtrol inputs is not. - BillCJ 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I thought this had been discussed on here. It was just several edit summaries. -Fnlayson 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links to designnews.com

There's currently 6 links to DesignNews.com, surely there should only be one that covers the 787. WP:EL. -- Rehnn83 Talk 07:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are six different articles. If there's one page that links to them all, then replace them with it. - BillCJ 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the page history this links used to be in the references section - I think they (all 6 of them) would be better in their (or a footnotes section). -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete some marginal ones or all of them. I cut their number in half from when they were added yesterday (a la linkspam). This page seem the closest to a 787 page on that site. -Fnlayson 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruise speed

I noticed a little edit war going on over the cruise speed. Per the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, Mach 0.85 at practical flight altitudes above 36,000 feet is 660mph, 1062 km/h, or 574 knots. 24.63.204.55 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever flown using Microsoft Flight Simulator? Or have you ever piloted a plane or asked a pilot about speed at flight? You will notice Mach .85 is different at all altitudes. Only when you get very very high up that it doesn't matter. Therefore why do we need to mention the miles per hour, the kilometers per hour, and the knots per hour? Mach number is enough. Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Bangabalunga. (In any case the numbers above are wrong. 660mph would be nearer to Mach 1 not 0.85) Gerbilface 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
24.63.204.55 and Gerbilface are both right to some extent, but I disagree with Bangabalunga. Between ~36100 feet and ~65000 feet, the temperature (in the previously mentioned 1976 Standard Atmosphere) is constant, so the speed of sound is constant. Mach 0.85 would be 561 mph or 904 km/h or 488 knots in that region. A copy of the publication is available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539_1977009539.pdf Since airspeed is so conveniently a constant speed (assuming a standard temperature day), I think it's worth mentioning for ease of understanding. Mduell2 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. I also said very high up. I thought it was from 40,000 feet and on but you have corrected me with 36,100 feet and up. I still dont know why we cant just use Mach?--Bangabalunga 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Although a little different, it is similar to showing both Imperial and Metric units for other specs. It helps readers compare speeds and Mach values aren't readily available on older airliners. Providing Mach numbers is more of a newer thing. It's much easier finding speeds than Mach values for airliners 20+ years old. -Fnlayson 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem Jeff. Good stuff :) --Bangabalunga 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
One more viewpoint here: it's worth noting, at least for the discussion, that cruise Mach number will vary with cruise altitude. Most likely the design point is somewhere around 35K-40K ft, so listing the speed as converted from Mach number assuming stratospheric flight probably isn't too far off.
As a side note, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Units on whether statute or nautical miles (mph v. kts, etc.) should be used as the standard Imperial units for aviation related pages. I personally side with nm/kts, as it seems to me to be more of the standard within the aviation world, but can see why people would argue for miles/mph. Marimvibe 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollout

I don't think it's mentioned in the article, but I took a tour of the Boeing plant at Paine Field and the tour guide said there would be a rollout ceramony on 7-8-07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.179.3 (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks. That's already in the article. See the bottom of the development section. -Fnlayson 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seat widths

I wonder what possessed Boeing to go with a 17.2" wide seat for the 3x3x3 configuration expected to be used by most airlines. I'm a small person, so leg room isn't an issue for me, but elbow room is -- and my shoulders are wider than Boeing seats. Every time I fly an Airbus I get the feeling that I have an extra tiny bit of space. I think it would be a good idea if the article addressed the comparison of seat widths between Boeing and Airbus aircraft. Airbus seems to use consistently wider seats, in my experience. =Axlq 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Boeing knows this and the last two planes it launched were designed with 18.5" seat widths. However, it is the airlines that have crammed one more seat there bringing it down to 17.2". The 777 is meant to have 18.5" 2+5+2 design. However 30% of 777 in service come with a cramped 3+4+3 layout at 17.2". The 787 is designed for a 2+4+2 layout of 18.5" width, but over 50% is ordered in a 3+3+3 layout again of 17.2" width.
The reason cramming one more seat has been rare on Airbus planes is that Airbus has designed its last 3 planes in a way that one more seat would be very hard to add. The A320 cannot be 3+4. The A350 cannot be 3+4+3 (16.9") and at 3+3+3 it would be 18.5". The A380 has 18.5" seats as well in 3+4+3 layout. It cannot have 3+5+3 layout because the seats would become 17.2" and the isle would shrink a bit as well and there would be capacity limitations for emergency exiting. So Airlines go with the 18.5" width. Had the 787 been about 3 inches narrower it would have made the 3+3+3 layout undesirable and all planes would have had a 18.5" width. So its the chicken and the egg phenomenon. Boeing says they recommend a layout and the airlines make it cramped. The airlines say they would not be adding the extra seat if Boeing didn't design planes that could accomodate it. The temptation is too strong. When the 737 is replaced however you will see the width grow to 18.5" or more.--Bangabalunga 20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. Too bad the 787 isn't 3" narrower; the decrease in cross-sectional area would also have made the aircraft slightly more efficient, while giving more comfort to passengers. -Axlq 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency

On what is the fuel efficiency claim based? On fuel per passenger per km/mile? And to which other airplanes is this compared to? The article does not cite any source for this. Themanwithoutapast 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you believe Virgin Atlantic, The 787 is 27% more fuel-efficient per passenger than the A340.[1] But Boeing's "official" page on the 787 doesn't specify if it is per passenger or some other measure, just that it's 20% more fuel efficient than similarly sized aircraft.[2]. --Bobblehead 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The fuel efficiency is compared to the Boeing 767. The 787-8 is 20% more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER. And thats it. This was stated during the launch of the plane in 2004. The 787-8 is an exact successor to the 767-300ER. All other claims of efficiency over another plane are given during press conferences depending on what the airline is replacing the ordered planes with. Northwest during their press conference for the A330 said they would save 20% in fuel compared to the DC-10. The 787-9 is about 11% more fuel efficient than the A330-200. And on and on. I hope this helps.--Bangabalunga 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently attended a lecture from a University of Cambridge professor in Aerospace Engineering. He made a few interesting claims that at least partially debunk the fuel efficiency arguments of the 787 - especially the longhaul 8000km+ models. He said that as the distance of the flight increases, the fuel load must increase exponentially... This is because the weight of the fuel becomes a signifciant factor in the overall weight of the plane, meaning that more fuel is required per mile to keep the thing in the air. ie. a 8000km flight might require 3 times as much fuel as a 4000km flight. On top of this, a heavyier fuel load requires a stronger, heavier fuselage which means that the same plane will not run at optimal efficiency even on the shorter 4000km flight.

Hope that makes sense. I certainly think that unqualified claims about fuel efficiency should not have a place in this article!! 128.232.240.178 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, from what you've said, that would applay to ALL airliners of a given size. THat means that other airliners would be even heavier than the 787 for a given passenger/fuel load for the same reasons, and thus the 787's efficiency would still be better than the traditional airliner. Granted, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but then, I'm not from England either with an interests in debunking Airbus's competitiors! - BillCJ 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

wow, why do people like you edit aviation articles then if you dont know much? How do you go around throwing citation needed everywhere like a drunken sailor? on that competition page 777 has indeed outsold the A340 and A330 since 2005 go check their respective order pages and count it up. We dont need citation needed every 5 seconds and dont give us all americans a bad rep here with the comment above. the guy is simply asking a question and making a comment and you go around accusing him of airbus bias? all i see on wikipedia is boeing neutrality and airbus bashing so put ur low self confidence to pasture and contribute like a gentleman. lets all act like citizens of one planet rather than a region isn't that what wikpedia is about.I dont know much about planes either but i want to come here and read professionaly written articles and learn something. yesterday was a proud day for me watching the rollout on tv with my family and i like what boeing has done with the 787 so no reason to be heavyhanded with people asking questions.

I was accusuing the Cambridge professor of an Airbus bias, no the user commenting about him. I don't have to know much about engineering to use the brain God gave me, and I can see that, based on what the user repeated, the engineering prof's comments seem very one-sided. As described, the factors would apply too ALL airliners of that range and size, thus the 787 would retain its advantages. As to throwing citation needed everywhere like a drunken sailor comment, please READ WP:ATTR. Contributors are required to source their material, no matter where it's from. Sure, anyone could probably Google any item on Wikipedia and find a source of some type for it, but it's not the reader's job to do that. That's the job of the contributor. Often, other editors will find sources for those items they did not add. Jeff (Fnlayson) often finds sources for tags that I've added, and for other editors, and I do that myself occasionally. It may seem liek madness sometime to keep adding tags liek that, but it's a necessary part of the process. - BillCJ 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV/opinion issue

From the 787-3 section: "This has led to higher congestion and more pollution. This same phenomenon is occurring in Asia, Europe, and South America. With the proliferation of open sky agreements, numerous airlines have been started in countries like Brazil, India, China, and throughout Europe. These start ups have placed more pressure on capacity on trunk routes and have encouraged the usage of ever smaller planes between very large cities. Routes like São Paulo to Buenos Aires, Berlin to Paris, Mumbai to Calcutta are now increasingly being served by single aisle planes when larger ones would be more logical." This is largely opinion (some of which I believe is incorrect), with a few facts mixed in. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. 192.88.212.43 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As the authur of this section I will answer you that the statement is not incorrect. Having dozens of flights between large cities does increase congestion, pollution, and delays (costs). This is just like carpool lanes on a freeway. A van or a bus eliminates several cars and saves on fuel and time. The world was never like this before. At one time Boeing almost cancelled the 737 line due to poor sales. Now its the best selling airplane of all time. Both Boeing and airbus cant make them fast enough. And where do you think these planes are going? Not between small cities like they were intended, but they are being put on major trunk routes. There are two ways of reversing this trend. One is to bring government regulation like there was 20 years ago. But thats not right, we live in a free society and we need to let the market decide. And that is what Boeing is doing. They are making a super efficient high capacity short range plane with a reduced MTOW to deal with congestion on major routes. The Legacy carriers are asking for this. Boeing has a much stronger relationship with the worlds largest, oldest, and national airlines then some startup from 2004. The legacy carriers have been suffering for too long and this is their comeback weapon. Now you have not seen many airlines ordering this because most legacy carriers in the world are in financial trouble. Also, the 787 is sold out till 2013, thats five years away. A 20 million dollar deposit per plane to sit for 5 years is a lot of money for American Airlines or United or Iberia or Delta. But you know what, they are considering it. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003757930_airshow22.html
Also, the 787-3 will be such a game changer, Europe is charging Boeing more money to certify it http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/318387_boeing04.html. Now this is temporary pickering and in the end it will be certified, but the industry is very excited about this plane. Europe likes it as well because it is getting very very congested there. Even though they are dragging their feet as both sides of the Atlantic always do for the other sides plane (remember Concorde), in the end the environmental benefits will push it through. As Randy Baseler said himself, "if you think the 787-8 is a game changer, the 787-3 is an industry changer". Imagine flying in comfort from New York to LA at Mach .85 and cheaper or flying more expensive, slower, and less comfortable on a low cost airline. Thats what American is planning. United is looking at it as well for Chicago to other North American major cities. Its not just comfort and speed. They can also sell cheaper tickets on them! Just wait till the end of this year and early next when some of the worlds largest airlines place orders for the 787. Many will order a dozen or two of the 787-3.--Bangabalunga 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Source your paragraph with links to the relevant sources. I'm flagging it as unsourced. Ibanix 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really want to argue the accuracy of your statement, I'm more concerned about it's appropriateness in an encyclopedia. It's all opinion, that travellers want lower fares (remind me how you're going to pay for a new $150m plane with lower fares) over frequency (seven 737s a day instead of three widebodies), when the current trends show otherwise. Also saving 5-10 minutes on a 4-6 hour transcon isn't a game changer by any stretch of the imagination; to get real time savings you need to be cruising at .95, like the original Sonic Cruiser. Is this just one well disguised anti-aviation rant? 192.88.212.43 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
remind me how you're going to pay for a new $150m plane with lower fares - It's simple economics. Good businesses understand that when you lower prices, you can potentially sell more items, though of course there are other factors involved. However, this is a principal governments at all levels often fail to grasp, such as when cities raise bus fares because they aren't getting enough riders, and then are stunned when ridership drops even more, so they reaise the rates again. It pretty much costs an airline the same to fly a given airliner at 10% capacity as it does to fly it at full capacity. Though a near-empty plane might get slightly-better fuel economy, and you'll serve less food, the savings aren't enough to justify it. So the less it costs to operate an airpliner, the lower the costs to the airline, and thus theoretically they can offer a lower fare. - BillCJ 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It either takes market share from your competitors or makes them lower fees to keep up. ;) -Fnlayson 02:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your own little personal opinion piece on smaller aircraft being flown on 'big' routes and your theory that the 787-3 will displace them may be true, but it's absolutely unencyclopedic. 24.63.204.55 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not his opinion. A lot of the -3 content came from Boeing people during a tour as discussed in talk here (now on 787 talk archive (see 787-3 section). A lot of that does seem out of place but it is tied in to the -3. -Fnlayson 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The single biggest cost to an airline is fuel. Number two is labor. Number three is plane payments if new or plane maintnance if old. Here is an example. A 737 holds about 6,500 gallons. At 2 dollars a gallon for Jet Fuel, it costs $13,000 to fly it accross its range. Do it 3 times a day and thats 39,000 a day. Do it 365 days a year and its 14 million in fuel costs for one plane for one year. To lease a brand new 737 from ILFC it costs about $250,000 a month or 3 million a year. Do you think airlines care more about 3 million dollar plane cost or the 14 million dollar fuel cost? Anyways, google 787-3 and you will get some interesting stuff. Also press news button on google with respect to the 787-3 to get the latest updates. This is not an antiaviation rant as you put it. And the trend you are talking about is an old one, its not new nor something about to come. I did place a link with a graph and a commentary by Randy Baseler but the link at Boeing has changed. I will try and update it. In this link he was talking about a recent trip he made to Australia. He saw first hand what had happened to the route between Sydney and Auckland in New Zealand and Sydney and other loacations. He saw how the capacity of airplanes had fallen drastically and the frequency increased. This is sustainable to a point. And of course you can keep making the airport bigger and adding more runways. But he saw the market adjusting and reaching an equilibrium. Anyways, I dont want to go on and on about this. The plane is 3 years away. We will get more info about it later. But remember, the day the 787 was launched the 787-3 took the most orders because for unique circumstances (ANA) its a perfect fit.--Bangabalunga 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please name the airlines that are flying their 737s on 3 missions a day at max fuel load. Your figures are way off. 192.88.212.43 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Just one example is Southwest Airlines. They fly their jets 13 hours a day. Thats about 2 and a half tankfuls. Take into account the 9 landings and takeoffs per plane and the extra fuel burnt brings it upto 3 tanks a day. That is simmilar to the numbers above.--Bangabalunga 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For all those interested in the 787 here are five recent Power Point presentations given by Boeing executives at analyst and commercial aviation meetings. You will learn a lot about Boeing's strategy and mindset:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/20/2003755221.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/conferences/2007ir_investor_carson.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/farnborough06/assets/presentations/bair_farnborough%202006.pdf

http://www.aseisocal.org/convention/docs/D_Keskar_-_Improving_The_Quality_Of_Life_Through_Technology.pdf

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=1868&ModuleId=2156&Tabid=256

  • Perhaps this could be spun off on a new page, then? It certainly seems a bit chatty and implies knowledge of what Boeing is/was thinking. At the very least this needs citations. I'd prefer to get rid of the wordy exposition and setup and just deal with the facts. This doesn't seem like the place for a history lesson on the causes of pollution. NerfOne 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are some more sources for the 787-3 being useful between big cities. I still dont understand why a 737 ferrying passengers between large cities 40 times a day is logical to you guys? I dont understand why you dont think it contributes to delays and pollution? Look at a site like Expedia.com and put in JFK-LAX and see how many flights you get. Then add all the flights from airlines that dont list with Expedia such as Jetblue and you will come to 51 daily flights as of today. As for load factor, all airlines run around 75%. Look at their respective websites and click on investor relations and read their last financial statements.
As for these links, the Boeing one talks about planes moving up in size with fewer frequencies. There was another one where Randy Baseler talks about the 787-3, I will try and find it. Two of the other links are a few years old but still relevant to today. Last one is about the outcry in Europe right now with Ryan Air and Easy Jet and other low cost airlines clogging up the airspace and causing many problems there. The EU is trying to cap airline pollution.--Bangabalunga 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2005/05/kangaroo_hop.html

http://joe.biztravelife.com/01/031501.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/04/business/bgair.php

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_31_24/ai_91093365

http://www.expedia.com/default.asp?ccheck=1&&mcecid=ipsplash_ca

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200706/s1944579.htm