Boeing Unveils Dreamliner

2007-07-09 09:44:31

#26

Protecus: Prophet of Certain Certainties; +28|6965

Boeing pretty much has this one in the bag.

In already has the 747-400 for the long range, high capacity routes, and with the addition of the 787, it has a foot in every market.

In order to compete, Airbus has to not only finish the A380, but also has to go through the entire research and development process of bringing the A350 into play.

Besides, Boeing has it's secret waeapon, the Dreamlifter:

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15819

Its not actually a real passenger plane. Its a modified 747 made specifically to trensport the components of the 787 to the US for final construction. Since the plane is mostly made out of carbon fiber, they come in large, pre-formed peices.

Which is damn cool

Last edited by Protecus (2007-07-09 12:44:01)

2007-07-09 09:45:41

#27

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7205

^^ agree. Right now Boeing is kicking the shit out of Airbus. All because the the A380 problems.

2007-07-09 09:48:49

#28

nlsme: Member; +48|6859|new york

This plane HAS been designed primarily for the cost benefits. Yes there is a lot of new technology that involved. But this will not cost as much as you might think. An airlines greatest expense other the the aircraft is fuel. And with the current trend in fuel prices, the savings that are to be gained there are yet immeasurable. This savings will far out way the cost of the training to be had. The parts are almost all composites, and the maintenance required has been cut by a third. So there you will reap a savings in maintenance, far outweighing the cost of training mechanics(btw the airlines only pay for a MI-NUT PORTION of said training) the tooling is already made, and it may be more expensive to replace the composite parts, they have twice to three times the life expectancy. It probably won't make any difference in the price we pay to fly. Not because the plane or expenses associated with it, but rather the fact that the entire industry is losing money, this might make it easier for them to operate w/o subsidies. Surely every penny saved from this new plane will be eaten away by the airlines before ever reaching the customer.......

2007-07-09 09:51:01

#29

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,992|7075|949

Mitch wrote:
If you want to lower airline prices, simply pass a law that says you must be born in the US to fly a plane in the US. Then, arm your pilots with guns so they can shoot the fucking terrorists. Instantly this will reduce prices because i know i would feel more safe on an un-hijackable plane!. This would lead to more people flying which will in turn lower the prices per person that airlines need to charge...

Today's most retarded post winner. Congratulations.

2007-07-09 09:54:19

#30

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7205

nlsme:

Most training for pilots and mechanics are built in to the cost of the plane. For example, Airbus gives you a certain amount of training credits per aircraft. You can actually give back training credits and put that price value towards spare parts. Not sure if Boeing does that, but I bet it is something similar.

I disagree with your tooling and parts assessment. Simply because it comes down to the individual contracts between the airline and the leasing company or Boeing.

2007-07-09 10:47:27

#31

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6666|Escea

Protecus wrote:
Boeing pretty much has this one in the bag.

In already has the 747-400 for the long range, high capacity routes, and with the addition of the 787, it has a foot in every market.

In order to compete, Airbus has to not only finish the A380, but also has to go through the entire research and development process of bringing the A350 into play.

Besides, Boeing has it's secret waeapon, the [b]Dreamlifter[/i]:
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getA … emID=15819

Its not actually a real passenger plane. Its a modified 747 made specifically to trensport the components of the 787 to the US for final construction. Since the plane is mostly made out of carbon fiber, they come in large, pre-formed peices.

Which is damn cool

If you extended the cargo area of the fuselage to the cockpit and raised the cockpit, you'd probably end up with an aircraft the same or bigger than the A-380 passenger wise. Still Boeing brought out its main competitor to the A-380 (though not at the time) a long long time ago, so they're still ahead of Airbus.

2007-07-09 11:52:10

#32

nlsme: Member; +48|6859|new york

We can agree that the customer will never see any price reduction from this. Of course the parts are more expensive, they are composites. They will, however last longer thus costing less.
To even think of being a mechanic on a commercial plane, you have to have a degree in Aerospace Mechanics, and maintain your license. The mechanic pays for this(or gets trained the cheap way from the mil.). The airlines expenses for training are the same as any business. OJT really doesn't cost as much as they say it does.

2007-07-09 12:14:27

#33

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7205

nlsme wrote:
We can agree that the customer will never see any price reduction from this. Of course the parts are more expensive, they are composites. They will, however last longer thus costing less.
To even think of being a mechanic on a commercial plane, you have to have a degree in Aerospace Mechanics, and maintain your license. The mechanic pays for this(or gets trained the cheap way from the mil.). The airlines expenses for training are the same as any business. OJT really doesn't cost as much as they say it does.

I have an A&P and all I had to was go to school for 2 years straight, ending with my license and an Associates in Specialized Technology.

2007-07-09 22:15:19

#34

nlsme: Member; +48|6859|new york

TY thats my point.....What airline paid for that? Oh wait..

Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-09 22:25:59)

2007-07-09 22:21:51

#35

cowami: OY, BITCHTITS!; +1,106|6733|Noo Yawk, Noo Yawk

Just to provide a little insight:

The reason why the A380 and the Boeing 787 are compared is because the 787 is supposed to show what demographic (I don't really know if this is the right word) Boeing is aiming for, while the A380 expresses what Airbus is aiming for. The 787 is meant to be (though it exceeds the range of) a mid-range hauler. The 787 is supposed to be marketed to airlines which operate between mid-sized airports (for example, Midway Airport in Chicago as opposed to Chicago O'Hare International). They believe that the demand for that type of route will be more lucrative to airlines than the high-capacity international flights that Airbus hopes to promote with the A380.

Of course, Boeing's future is also on the line with this project, making all the more urgent that the Dreamliner succeed.

2007-07-09 22:27:11

#36

nlsme: Member; +48|6859|new york

IF this project were to flop, Boeing would flinch. Thats about it.
Boeings products and projects reach far and wide. It is the LARGESt aerospace company in the world. This project makes up less then 5% of their projected Profits for 2009. That's like me throwing away $2000. It would suck, but all in all JUST A FLINCH.

Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-09 22:31:10)

2007-07-10 05:36:50

#37

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7205

nlsme wrote:
TY thats my point.....What airline paid for that? Oh wait..

You do not need the degree.

2007-07-10 07:02:32

#38

nlsme: Member; +48|6859|new york

Federal law says to work on any commercial airliner you do.....And you have to maintain your license.

2007-07-10 08:38:10

#39

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7205

nlsme wrote:
Federal law says to work on any commercial airliner you do.....And you have to maintain your license.

Not sure where you get that info. You can actually get your A&P in high school. The only requirement is FAA approved courses, not a degree. As for the maintaining, you only need to exercise your A&P rights every two years. So in reality, you can use your A&P once every two years and still be legal....not smart, but legal.

2007-07-10 10:57:31

#40

blisteringsilence: I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy; +83|7145|Little Rock, Arkansas

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 1627.html/

An interesting read on the problems with the A380 program.

BF2S Forums Boeing Unveils Dreamliner

Mitch wrote:

Protecus wrote:

nlsme wrote:

nlsme wrote:

nlsme wrote:

Board footer