Despite what Airbus’ COO for customers wants, thinks or claims, the 747-8I will be a success, as it has no competitor. You very well know the A380 and 747-8I serve two distinctly different markets. Oh, the 747-8I is more fuel-efficient than an A380, but then again, as I said, does it really matter considering one is a 400seat to 500seat airplane and the other a 500seat plus airplane? The orders will come for the -8I, just as they will for the A380. Which one makes for a more profitable and lower risk business case, well, I would say the 747-8I. Both are great airplanes, but your continued -8I bashing is rather boring.

It now appears “non arm chair” ceo’s agree.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/02/boeing-considers-suspending-sh.html
and Boeing is relocating key 787-3 staff.

Everyone is free to copy what Boeing says & label anything else as “arm chair”. Meanwhile business reality is progressing.

Same for 747-8i : listen to Randy & you are 2 steps behind.

The MEW is 10t less, but most of that is in the wingbox area, I have been led to believe, which means that while it has the same fuel volume of a 787-8, it cannot fill the center tank to anywhere near full capacity, which kills it’s range, especially at a full load. But since the plane is doing the equivalent of intra-California missions, 1250nm or so at full payload is plenty of range.

The only real advantage the 787-3 offers over the 787-8 is the shorter wingspan, which allows it to fit in “B-Type” gates (FAA Group IV / ICAO Code D). There has been much discussion amongst “armchair CEOs” about the possibility of Boeing taking the 787-8 and putting the 787-3 winglets on it for airlines, especially those in the United States, who need a plane that fits in the same gates as a 767, but offers much better range then the 787-3.