Boeing Reviews Viability of Short Haul B787 Model Rating Options

[kimshep]

Courtesy : Reuters under Fair Use policy

Boeing Reviews Viability of Short Haul B787 Model

* All Nippon switched orders

Short Range B787-3 Model Under Review

ATLANTA, Jan 8 (Reuters) - Boeing Co is reviewing plans for a shorter-haul version of its carbon-composite Dreamliner aircraft after a top customer switched orders to another model.

"The market viability of the 787-3 is currently being assessed," Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing commercial airplanes, told Reuters on Friday.

All Nippon Airways, the launch customer for the 787, switched its orders for the 787-3 plane, meant to fly shorter routes, for longer-range versions. As a result, Boeing no longer has any 787-3 planes in its order backlog, Proulx said.

Addressing the switch on his blog, Boeing commercial planes Marketing Vice President Randy Tinseth said that for All Nippon "getting aircraft into their hands for earlier delivery was a better solution for them."

Boeing is offering different versions of the Dreamliner, which promises greater fuel efficiency by using durable, lightweight composite materials.

The 787-3 model is meant to accommodate up to 330 passengers on routes of up to 5,650 kilometers, while the 787-8 and 787-9 versions are designed to carry fewer passengers for longer distances.

The 787 made its first test flight in mid-December.

[Stitch]

There was little blurb in The Seattle Times quoting Boeing Marketing executive Randy Tinseth as noting the 787-3 will likely be withdrawn from sale.

"It's my guess that it won't be part of our product offering in the future," Boeing's commercial aircraft marketing head Randy Tinseth said Tuesday in an interview at the Singapore Air Show. The plane was specifically designed for Japanese carriers, he said, declining to elaborate on the program costs.

Not a real surprise, frankly, as NH and JL have both decided to add 767-300ERs for the airports that are gate-space constrained and will likely move to the 787-8 and 787-9 (perhaps with paper MTOW derates to lower landing fees) as a replacement for the domestic 777s. So with no real market for the model, there is no reason to continue development and they can free up resources for other programs.

[Stitch]

When asked, Randy Tinseth noted the 787-8 outclassed the 787-3 on missions beyond 200nm, due to the 787-3's smaller wingspan.

No wonder only NH and JL were interested, since most major Japanese cities are less than 500nm from HND so it's about the only place on Earth such a plane made sense.

This post has been edited by Stitch: Feb 4 2010, 02:06 AM

[jimc]

There was little blurb in The Seattle Times quoting Boeing Marketing executive Randy Tinseth as noting the 787-3 will likely be withdrawn from sale.

"It's my guess that it won't be part of our product offering in the future," Boeing's commercial aircraft marketing head Randy Tinseth said Tuesday in an interview at the Singapore Air Show. The plane was specifically designed for Japanese carriers, he said, declining to elaborate on the program costs.

Not a real surprise, frankly, as NH and JL have both decided to add 767-300ERs for the airports that are gate-space constrained and will likely move to the 787-8 and 787-9 (perhaps with paper MTOW derates to lower landing fees) as a replacement for the domestic 777s. So with no real market for the model, there is no reason to continue development and they can free up resources for other programs.

I am suspicious of the whole thing: First, a new group to, "design and manufacture" a single aisle 737 upgrade/replacement, a 783 reallocation, and now a Tinseth quote like this one. Really, it can only mean the 797 is around the corner, and it will be a single barrel composite craft of which the world has never seen before. Who will be able to answer with anything close/ The Russians, Brazillans, Chinese, et al are scratchin their collective heads.

[Stitch]

In related news, it was announced during the 787 Media Tour that NH would be taking the first 10 production 787s (ZA100-ZA116).

[robertkc]

Really, it can only mean the 797 is around the corner, and it will be a single barrel composite craft of which the world has never seen before.

Interesting... do you really believe this?

[Stitch]

The current 737NG bodies are built in sections by Spirit, but then assembled into a complete fuselage before being shipped by rail to the Renton FAL, so with their experience building the forward section of the 787, if any supplier could build a single barrel narrowbody fuselage, it would probably be Spirit...

Personally, I would expect it to be built in three sections, minimum. One overwing section and then a forward nose section and aft tail section, both scalable up or down a number of frames in order to allow Boeing to produce a 140-seat shrink, a 180-seat baseline and a 220-seat stretch.

[viscount234]

That's a good sweet spot, but IMHO, and primarily as a very frequent flyer, airlines need planes in the following seat setups:

90-110

120-130

140-150

170-190

190-220

Now, the larger regional jets can cover the 100-seat market, and I don't know if it makes financial sense for Boeing to compete there. But, the 120-130 seat market is critical because this is also the 150 seat plane for the all-economy carriers. So, you still need something like the 737-700, 737-800, 737-900 and a 737-1000, which is a major task. Airbus tries to swing almost 100 seats between the A318 and A321 and the results are what they are.

Does Boeing need two planes? Something along the lines of a 757 (still my favorite plane of all time) that can fit the 140/150 to 220/230 range with about three planes, as you stated. Then, another plane to start off at 100 and move up to about 140/150 in 2-3 models?

I just don't think that one plane can replace what was previously 3 (757, 737, DC-9/717/MD-80).

[jimc]

Really, it can only mean the 797 is around the corner, and it will be a single barrel composite craft of which the world has never seen before.

Interesting... do you really believe this?

Of course, I do not know if the "797" nomaclature is correct, but I certainly believe that this will be the next step in evolution for Boeing NBs. I see few reasons of why it cannot be single-barrel, but I could be convinced to allow for 2 or 3 segments. Regardless, it must be composite. If this evolution does not occur, then Boeing will likely have to cede the NB market entirely to other producers, as only a leap such as this will lock down a market portion big enough to make money. Boeing cannot produce "the same" as other manufacturers for the same price and cost of ownership, nor a more expensive aircraft with only slight cost of ownership improvements compared to all other companies competing in this space. Really, ONLY Boeing seems equiped to take the leap, as Airbus has too much on its plate, and the other manufacturers lack the technology and infrastructure to pull it off. The timing is critical, and an attractive "game changining" alternative to Airbus, MDs, and 737s in the coming years will lock the market for Boeing NBs for 30+ years.

[robertkc]

Of course, I do not know if the "797" nomaclature is correct

Perhaps not - I thought 797 referred to a possible blended/swept wing design. 737 RS is the term you're looking for I believe.

[jimc]

Of course, I do not know if the "797" nomaclature is correct

Perhaps not - I thought 797 referred to a possible blended/swept wing design. 737 RS is the term you're looking for I believe.

Sir:

I am not looking. I am merely hoping, no?

My reference to nomenclature refers only to what is, what could be, and hopefully, what will come.

Call me a dreamer. Call me an engineer.

Ok, OK! Call me an engineer who has too much time to dream. But, the logic is obvious.

[jimc]

Really, it can only mean the 797 is around the corner, and it will be a single barrel composite craft of which the world has never seen before.

Interesting... do you really believe this?

Of course, I do not know if the "797" nomaclature is correct, but I certainly believe that this will be the next step in evolution for Boeing NBs. I see few reasons of why it cannot be single-barrel, but I could be convinced to allow for 2 or 3 segments. Regardless, it must be composite. If this evolution does not occur, then Boeing will likely have to cede the NB market entirely to other producers, as only a leap such as this will lock down a market portion big enough to make money. Boeing cannot produce "the same" as other manufacturers for the same price and cost of ownership, nor a more expensive aircraft with only slight cost of ownership improvements compared to all other companies competing in this space. Really, ONLY Boeing seems equiped to take the leap, as Airbus has too much on its plate, and the other manufacturers lack the technology and infrastructure to pull it off. The timing is critical, and an attractive "game changining" alternative to Airbus, MDs, and 737s in the coming years will lock the market for Boeing NBs for 30+ years.

The United announcement today saying that it is in fiscally better shape and able to make a decision on new NBs in the coming months may signal the beginning of many other carriers renewing the order cycle for worn-out, or soon to be dated NBs in their fleets. United has thus far made its choice clear on WBs, hedging with equal orders to the only two manufacturers. But when it comes to NB, the choices of vendors is larger, and there is probably little need to hedge with 2 or more vendors this time. Would United get a deal to go with a large "C" order, effectively leveraging a well priced order with favorable terms from Bombardier in order for Bombardier to gain market saturation and market comfort? The risks for large NB operators are great right now as they begin to replace aged fleets: Buy what is available now, and risk missing a new generation of NBs by a hair, or not ordering and face competition by those who will drive down operating costs with new more efficient fleets, forcing unaffordable ticket pricing competiton. Airbus has not fully discussed what it can bring to the party, (and may be unable to fund anything new at this point), and Boeing has bantered about re-engineing. Airbus' decision to raise NB production rates this year is surely an indicator that the smell of blood is in the water for new orders (and that it desperately needs revenue and cash flow). American, Delta, US Air (maybe...) and others all need new NBs soon, and outside of N. America, the market will reamain equally healthy. Given lessons learned on the 787, can Boeing garner a 737 RS or simialr beast to answer a longer term challenge as opposed to new engines, and can Airbus do anything at all, with so many of its resources tied up in two money losing schemes (380 and 400M), even as it falls behind its timeline for 350 first flight and delivery? It could be that neither will be clear winners in the NB space, as Bombardier, et al, take the NB bone right from the dogs' open mouths.

[JayinKitsap]

Really, it can only mean the 797 is around the corner, and it will be a single barrel composite craft of which the world has never seen before.

Interesting... do you really believe this?

Of course, I do not know if the "797" nomaclature is correct, but I certainly believe that this will be the next step in evolution for Boeing NBs. I see few reasons of why it cannot be single-barrel, but I could be convinced to allow for 2 or 3 segments. Regardless, it must be composite. If this evolution does not occur, then Boeing will likely have to cede the NB market entirely to other producers, as only a leap such as this will lock down a market portion big enough to make money. Boeing cannot produce "the same" as other manufacturers for the same price and cost of ownership, nor a more expensive aircraft with only slight cost of ownership improvements compared to all other companies competing in this space. Really, ONLY Boeing seems equiped to take the leap, as Airbus has too much on its plate, and the other manufacturers lack the technology and infrastructure to pull it off. The timing is critical, and an attractive "game changining" alternative to Airbus, MDs, and 737s in the coming years will lock the market for Boeing NBs for 30+ years.

I dreamed that a pair of hulls, one 717 type diameter and one 737+ (say about 12" wider than current 737) that was designed to be swapped onto 2 different wings would allow for full coverage of the market. The small barrel + small wing covers the 120 to 150 market, moderate range. the small barrel + large wing would allow for transcon /atlantic range (like 757 and more), the large barrel + small wing covering up to 220 or so - short to medium range, and the large barrel + large wing being the 757 replacement.

The current 737 is way too heavy to be small volume short haul, and the 737-900ER is short on range at full capacity.

It needs to be CFRP barrels and wings, but I think Boeing needs at least 5 more years of 787 experience before diving in. Also, the new systems of the 787 need to be in service for a good while to get the best performance jump. Five years would give a chance for the new engines to mature also.

That is my dream.