All Nippon Airways Swaps 787 Orders
January 8th, 2010
ANA Changes Orders To 787-8’s
Boeing Assessing Market Viability Of 787-3 Model
787-3 Still Being Offered
Launch customer for the 787 Dreamliner, All Nippon Airways has swapped its remaining orders for the 787-3 to the 787-8 model while Boeing confirms that it is evaluating the future of the third variant of the Dreamliner family.
Boeing’s orders and delivery page on its website now no longer lists any 787-3 orders.
European blogger Vero Venia first caught wind of the order change.
Image courtesy of Boeing
“As a result of ANA’s order conversion from the 787-3 to the 787-8, there are no longer any 787-3s in the backlog. The market viability of the 787-3 is currently being assessed,” Boeing’s 787 spokesperson Yvonne Leach tells me.
Boeing also says that the 787-3 is “still offerable” for sale should orders emerge.
All Nippon Airways had 28 firm orders for the type for use on high density, domestic routes to eventually replace some of its older 767, 777 and 747 jets.
Given All Nippon Airways’ order reshuffle, Boeing may be poised to drop the short range 787-3 variant as it looks to claw back costs that have risen as a result of delays on the wider program. The saving grace of course, is that All Nippon Airways did not materially reduce its 787 commitments.
By engineering this order change, the benefits for Boeing in the future certainly look better - with inevitable costs associated with R&D on the 787-9, a new final assembly line in North Charleston, anything that cuts capital expenditure will be a welcome move while it focuses its efforts on the current flight test program with a view to certifying the baseline 787-8 to allow first delivery in the fourth quarter this year.
Entry Filed under: All Nippon Airways, Boeing, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9
68 Comments Add your own
1. Bobbelieu | January 8th, 2010 at 15:41
Makes sense, really. They can always pick up the engineering work for a smaller derivative down the road should the market open up for it.
B~
2. USAF Fan | January 8th, 2010 at 15:52
ANA will almost certainly have gotten some financial benefit by switching its 787 orders.
But at the same time, Boeing will not now need to spare resources on a third model that will probably never be a big hit.
Better to stick with the 8 and 9 and get those into revenue service.
3. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 15:52
Thanks for referring to me. I’m not sure to be the first one to discover that. I bet the spouses of some people at Boeing knew it earlier.
BTW, this is my blog entry:
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/where-have-all-the-787-3-gone/
4. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 16:26
I don’t want to be cynical but “787-3 Still Being Offered” is as true as “A340-500 Still Being Offered“.
5. Daniel Tsang | January 8th, 2010 at 16:37
I think scrapping the 787-3 program is a good proposition since the 787-3 is specially designed for the Japanese domestic market. Now that no Japanese customer holds order for this variant, why should Boeing keep it?
In doing so, Boeing can free up more engineering resources and focus on its 787-9 and 787-10/777X.
6. Tweets that mention &hellip | January 8th, 2010 at 17:02
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paulo Sérgio Martins, Paulo Sérgio Martins. Paulo Sérgio Martins said: RT @FleetBuzz Boeing Drops 787-3 After ANA Switches Order http://is.gd/5UJQi <Bummer. Next time - or 747-8D…> [...]
7. ikkeman | January 8th, 2010 at 17:59
thus the first variant of the biggest pre-first-flight order success in history falls to market reality.
the 783 had 26 orders, the 748i has 36
How will the last variant of the greatest VLA in history fare?
And how do you like the management twist on this one
when the one of three models of the 787 fails to hold a single order while it’s siblings rack up 850+, I’d say Boeing’s time would be better spend doing almost anything besides
“assessing the market viability of the 787-3″
wedgetail, kc767a, kc767j, 787, 748, selling C-17s - Does aviation really need management speak spokespersons
(and to stop the Boeing Uber Alles mentality - Airbus has plenty on it’s plate to, a330mrtt to Australia, A380 production & sales, A350 engineering, A400M sales)
8. Buster | January 8th, 2010 at 19:40
This must be “Shoot The Dog, Part 4″
The market viability of the 787-3 is currently being assessed,” Boeing’s 787 spokesperson Yvonne Leach tells me.
That’s one assessment that won’t take very long! The 787-3 was always a dog of a short-haul plane, evan an A300 would have been a better option and significantly lighter.
Now, how about telling us how many 787s you think you can deliver in 2010 thru 2012?
9. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 20:25
8. Buster | January 8th, 2010 at 19:40
I agree.
But, in five years is there any other alternative to transport 330 passengers efficiently from A to B, which is about 3,000 nm away?
The smallest available modern and efficient widebody will bet the 787-8.
I think a beefed up gears ad brakes plus other tricks can transform the 787-8 to a hi-Cycle 787-8 for short/medium distances.
In all-economy configuration it can transport decently up to 330 passengers on a four to five flight hour routes.
But that’s only a speculation.
10. Jacobin777 | January 8th, 2010 at 20:39
The B787-3 was needed to get launch customer ANA on board the B787 program.
Boeing will probably not really work (or worry) about the B787-3) anymore.
I’m curious given the changes in OEW’s, MTWO’s, wing structures, etc. of the B787-8 and B787-9 if Boeing will still eventually offer the B787-10. Of course, there probably will need to be some modifications but Airbus with the A359 is really eating Boeing’s lunch in the B772ER replacement department.
11. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 8th, 2010 at 20:59
What’s the 787-3 - Domestic right? Big deal. Obviously a loss - like when FedEx and UPS got FedUP with Airbus and dropped the A380, followed by everyone else.
One plane at a time. Let them get it in the air, understand it better, then start Derivatives ‘R Us - which, incidently, they do FAR better than anyone else.
Is there still a need for 550 seat single class Domestic operations in Japan? i.e. Is there a replacement for the 747-400D type operated by ANA & JAL? Incidently, the only operators of that aircraft - in the world. Incidently, Boeing produced the 747-400D specifically for the Japanese market - specifically for just two carriers.
T-~10 days V2 on RC501!!!
12. Ryan | January 8th, 2010 at 21:05
I dont see why Boeing would even consider a 787-10 if its all but abandoned the 787-3.
To make a 787-10 competitive enough, it’d need a bigger wing (for range), newer engines (for performance) and a bigger landing gear (structural changes for higher weights).
Those three parts alone are a big portion of a whole new airplane.
Boeing is more like to replace the 777 than make the 787 any bigger.
13. B380 | January 8th, 2010 at 21:22
Pity, I liked the big winglets…
12. Ryan | January 8th, 2010 at 21:05
I would agree with that. They may do -8, -9 and 777NG. -10 maybe a stretch too far (considering it will be a second stretch) and may not be competitive enough with the A350-900 (which is a base model). Why not upgrade -200ER and -300ER. New materials, weight saving, new engines, perhaps even XWB! Plus whatever other 787 technology they can introduce. That way they can cover all of the Airbus’ models. Now, I wonder if people will complain that the 777NG is just a warmed over 777….
14. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 21:44
11. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 8th, 2010 at 20:59
Want to know how domestic air travel will evolve in Japan? Go to my blog and read “Pyramid of Japan”.
15. Jacobin777 | January 8th, 2010 at 22:30
Ryan”I dont see why Boeing would even consider a 787-10 if its all but abandoned the 787-3.
To make a 787-10 competitive enough, it’d need a bigger wing (for range), newer engines (for performance) and a bigger landing gear (structural changes for higher weights).
Those three parts alone are a big portion of a whole new airplane.
Boeing is more like to replace the 777 than make the 787 any bigger.”
A potential B787-10 is independent of the B787-3 in terms of design, etc.
Boeing has already indicated that they could offer the B787-10 when needed. This to me ostensibly seems Boeing has been able to figure out the extra wing size (which probably wouldn’t have been more than the B789). A “two-plug” stretch would be needed in terms of frame size. This would also allow for the extra landing gear which might need only a rear bogey (aka the A340) or a triple-bogey gear.
Regarding engines, an increase of 4k-5k lbf from the current engine models would be enough.
The B789 requires about 71K lbf. A B787-10 would require 78K-80K lbf of thrust. The current GENx has about 75K lbf. and the current Trent 1000 (Trent 1000-Z) has about 78K lbf.
16. keesje | January 8th, 2010 at 23:26
Was deferring the A380F also a smart move?
Come on, you can’t have it both ways..
17. James Baloun | January 8th, 2010 at 23:44
Keesje,
yes, deferring an airframe is better than building a frame with a limited or loss-plagued future (A380?). Deferring the A380F is not exactly the same, as it took Airbus out of the VLA freight market. Not the same as deferring a niche market commuter twin derivitive when the siblings have set record sales levels before delivery.
18. Leelaw | January 9th, 2010 at 00:28
“Was deferring the A380F also a smart move?”
IIRC, the proper Leahyism is “interrupt.” The 380F and the 787-3 seem to be equally moribund concepts. So why pursue them once they had the desired effect of helping to launch the respective program. However, “interrupting” the A380F doesn’t seem to have had yielded much in terms of the promised effect of helping to expedite the production ramp-up of the WhaleBus[t] program.
19. Jacobin777 | January 9th, 2010 at 00:40
Keesje: The A380F for all practical purposes is not going to happen. There will probably be a BWB-F before the likes of an A380F.
20. Airbus Supplier | January 9th, 2010 at 07:01
The A380F was never deferred.
It was cancelled outright.
21. Mike M | January 9th, 2010 at 08:11
Is it me or does anyone else find it laughable that Keesje is so quick to jump on this 787 piece yet hasn’t said a word on the failed Whalebus(s) - Had to borrow your word there Leelaw!!
Jacobin is right, the A380F will never happen. A high-cycle 787-8 will become what the 787-3 was meant to be for all intents and purposes.
So tell us keesje, why havent you said a word about the A380 on the other post when you’re foolishly trying to equate the 787 to the A380?
You tell us airlines want the A380, but your sole post on that thread is for airlines who have deferred deliveries of the fat whore of Too-lose more times you’ve had a rush of pro-Boeing comments.
Please delight us with your stupidity, please.
22. Vero Venia | January 9th, 2010 at 09:30
16. keesje | January 8th, 2010 at 23:26
Yes it was a smart move. They have taken a difficult but necessary decision.
Had they continued with the A380 they would have had difficulties to force cargo operators to take delivery of the aircraft. The cargo market has simply imploded.
23. Vero Venia | January 9th, 2010 at 09:31
Sorry I meant “A380F”
24. CE7 | January 9th, 2010 at 11:03
The 787-3 joins 767-400ER, 777-200, 777-300 and 747-8I in the long list of failed Boeing airplane programs.
25. Mike M | January 9th, 2010 at 11:10
The 767-400ER was a low cost replacement for the L1011 at DL/CO, of which the 767 has sold over 1000 examples.
The 777-200 spawned the -200ER, -200LR, F and -300ER; all again over 1000 examples sold.
The 747-8I, a low cost A380 killer that as part of a family has sold over 1500 units.
The 787-3 joins the Airbus failed products of the A340-8000 (ONE built), the A400M, A380, A318, A350 (all 153 different versions), the lack of award-winning A340 family the A380F, the A310, A330F (for which Flyington, the launch customer doesnt even have an AOC to fly!) and the Sonic Cruiser copy-cat in the launched, failed and buried “E-Squared” concept as well as the A330 and A320’s that crash thanks to pitot and computer error.
Ass Air France, they’ve become experts at crashing plenty of Airbus jets!
26. Vero Venia | January 9th, 2010 at 13:30
24. CE7 | January 9th, 2010 at 11:03
What’s wrong to kill a loss making program?
If a product generates loss without any positive aspect elsewhere, you just kill it unless you are not interested in making profit out of it.
What’s a failed program? It’s a program that keeps undermining the performance of your company.
27. Jacobin777 | January 9th, 2010 at 14:25
CE7 sounds like “sour grapes” to me.
28. Chris Wallace | January 9th, 2010 at 15:58
It’s easy enough for NH and JL to just replace 772s, 77Es and 773s with 787-8s and 787-9s with paper de-rated MTOWs to reduce airport fees. They can also have RR and GE adjust the engine controls to de-rate the thrust to reduce wear and tear to reduce maintenance costs.
They can also buy additional 767s for ICAO Category D gates, or just rebuild the terminals to Code E status to allow the 787 to be used. Or maybe the lack of gate spacing will finally convince the Japanese government to close the older airports and force NH and JL to operate out of all the new ones they have been building in cities like Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya.
NH have said they expect to receive the last of their 787s in 2017. Those final planes would probably have been their 787-3 order (assuming Boeing starts development in 2014-2015). I’m not sure where JL’s planes were, but I expect they would have been delivered between 2018 and 2020. So both carriers were probably looking at the better part of a decade between when they originally planned to get them and when they actually would. At that point, probably easier to just “recycle” their early 787-8s for domestic use and put the new birds with a half-decade’s worth of Block Point improvements incorporated in them on the international missions.
I have long said Boeing could do worse than launch the 787-10 as a simple stretch of the 787-9 and I believe such a plane would not suffer the fate of the 777-300 or 767-400ER in the marketplace.
As noted, the A330-300 has grown to the point it pretty much covers much of the 777-200ER’s market niche. Yes, the 77E still has the legs on the A333 by about 2000nm and will lift more payload, but if you’re flying 10,000km or less, it’s very tough to beat the A330-300’s economics.
And this is where the 787-10 could shine, in my opinion. It would offer a larger passenger cabin and significantly more cargo hold volume than the A330-300E along with lower fuel burn. The A333/772/773 replacement market alone is well over 500 frames and just adding two more fuselage plugs to the 787-9 should be both cheap and easy. I think Boeing is leaving billions on the table if they don’t develop the -9 and -10 in parallel and launch them together in 2014-2015.
29. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 9th, 2010 at 22:53
‘proper Leahyism’ & ‘Whalebus[t]‘
(Notes: Über Alles)
Those (Boeing Co.) planes mentioned by 24. CE7 - just taking a wild guess here - were collectively cheaper to engineer and bring to the market than the A380. Also they’ve collectively garnered more orders. And dare I say so, they’ve collectively been more profitable.
Anyway, how exactly is the 777-200 a failure? Is that compared to the 777-200ER? Would that be the same for the Boeing 747 - where the 747-100 would be a failure, and the 747-200F not? Oh duh, competition with the A330-300. My bad. Well Boeing focussed on the 777-200ER, and turned out ok. Not so for the A340-200/-300/-300e/-8000. The A330-300/-200 have the market to themselves currently.
I like the idea of a high-cycle 787. That will come in time.
Don’t worry about that, carry on - continue…
30. Buster | January 10th, 2010 at 00:03
25. Mike M | January 9th, 2010 at 11:10
The 747-8I, a low cost A380 killer
Which airlines have chosen this “killer” rather than the A380?
As for the rest of your post, you really are a very bitter man. Are you Doug McVitie in disguise?
31. Aotearoa | January 10th, 2010 at 02:33
30. Buster
Hey Buster, if the 747 didn’t kill the 380, what did? Something sure has.
By the way, there are a number of answers to choose from and here may be more than one.
BTW, if you’re European, you’re paying for it.
32. Mike M | January 10th, 2010 at 06:29
Buster
I note how you couldnt defend ANY of the failed Airbus products I listed. Nice.
The 747 has sold MORE units than the A380 since the whore of Too-lose was launched.
And no, I’m not Doug.
Are you Scott Hamilton?
33. Vero Venia | January 10th, 2010 at 13:05
The 747-8i is not an A380 killer.
As you can see in this picture, the 747-8i and the A380 are in two distinct market.
http://verovenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/mydreamfleet3.jpg
The important question is about the market size for 400+ seat aircraft in general.
34. Leelaw | January 11th, 2010 at 08:31
Please excuse this off-topic question: is there going to be a “roll-out” ceremony for the 747-8F before its maiden flight?
35. Leelaw | January 11th, 2010 at 10:04
Supplementing my earlier question, Boeing did throw quite a shindig celebrating the “roll-out” of the 777-300ER (see: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021114i.html), hardly more of a milestone event than the debut of the 748F. Perhaps the embarassing 7/8/7 “Potemkin Event” has put them off such ostentatious hoopla?
36. Leelaw | January 11th, 2010 at 10:21
In other news today ahead of tomorrow’s “Airbus New Year Press Conference” (aka “Order Intake Jamboree”):
PARIS, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Airbus (EAD.PA) won 311 aircraft orders in 2009, topping its target for 300 orders despite a global economic slowdown, French daily Les Echos reports on Monday.
37. Buster | January 11th, 2010 at 10:33
32. Mike M | January 10th, 2010 at 06:29
Nice deflection.
You claimed the 748i is an A380 killer. So answer the question - which airlines have chosen the 748i rather than the A380?
The rest of your post is a bitter waste of bandwidth.
38. Dave_BC | January 11th, 2010 at 10:43
“32. Mike M | January 10th, 2010 at 06:29
Buster
I note how you couldnt defend ANY of the failed Airbus products I listed. Nice. The 747 has sold MORE units than the A380 since the whore of Too-lose was launched. bAnd no, I’m not Doug. Are you Scott Hamilton?”
Mike M, Just to be sure, you’re not this guy below? - - -
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/michael/maple/?trk=ppro_find_others
“Executive Direcor Business Strategy & Marketing c at Boeing Commercial Airplanes ”
(I’m merely asking this as it would clear up any confusion that readers may have — esp as the name & initial are the same)
39. Homer Simpson | January 11th, 2010 at 16:49
25. Mike M
Applying your “logic” to Boeing, they have a long list of failures:
737-600
737-900
747SP
747-100SR
747-300SR
747-400D
767-400
777-200LR
Just goes to show the “value” of your vitriole.
40. Mike M | January 11th, 2010 at 17:43
>>>Buster (37)
Korean Air & Lufthansa.
>>>Dave_BC (38)
You didnt say whether or not you were Scottie boy?
And nope, I am not the guy you found in that link.
>>>Homer (39)
How is the 737-600 a failure? It works well for SAS and theyve not complained. A low cost derivative.
737-900 spawned the 737-900ER, another low cost derivative.
The 747SP - the jury is out on that.
747-300 never had a chance to shine since the 747-400 was launched within five years of its service entry. And we all know how successful the 747-400 was
747-400D - a low cost 747-400 derivative to serve the Japanese market since Airbus couldnt and still cant offer anything in contrast. 100% monopoly with the 747D families at NH/JL
The 767-400ER was a low cost replacement for the L1011 at DL/CO, of which the 767 has sold over 1000 examples.
777-200LR sold more than the A345, despite being in service two years later. Total monopoly on the C-market.
The value of my vitriol is worth more than the bucket of human waste you presented. Get back to Marge before Flanders nails her.
41. Dave_BC | January 11th, 2010 at 17:44
. . . and 757-300; and 747-400ER; 747-400QLR.
And also these notable ones which didn’t get any launch orders when pitted against the A3XX:-
747-500X & -600X.
42. Mike M | January 11th, 2010 at 17:51
757-300 was like the 767-400ER, a low cost option tailored for tour operators like JMC and Condor. I do not recall Boeing claiming they’d sell anywhere near the amount the -200 sold?
As for the 747-400QLR/-500X/-600X ; these were never launched so how you class them as poor is pointless.
How about the A340 Lite, the A330 Lite, the A340 freighter, the A321 freighter, the countless A350 designs, the A330-A350 hybrids, the A340-400 concept - where does it end?
The fact remains that the low cost models Boeing built were cheap and have no direct competition.
43. Dave_BC | January 11th, 2010 at 18:00
and Mike, regarding pitots – sure, it’s all an Airbus problem:-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/16/336264/timely-abort-could-have-averted-blocked-pitot-757-struggle.html
Not to mention these I just Googled:-
~ On 6 February 1996, Birgenair Flight 301 a Boeing 757 crashed into the sea shortly after takeoff due to incorrect readings from the airspeed indicator. The suspected cause is a blocked pitot tube (this was never confirmed, as the airplane wreck was not recovered).
~ On 1 December 1974, a Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 6231, a Boeing 727, crashed northwest of John F. Kennedy International Airport during climb en route to Buffalo Niagara International Airport because of blockage of the pitot tubes by atmospheric icing.
44. Dave_BC | January 11th, 2010 at 18:23
“How about the A340 Lite, the A330 Lite, the A340 freighter . . . the A340-400 concept - where does it end?”
What about them?
A330s and A340s all have practically the same fuselage, cockpit, wing and other systems. So no significant cost there.
As for the “A330-A350 hybrids” — well, to use your phrase:- “these were never launched [industrially] so how you class them as poor is pointless”.
Regardless, now with over 500 orders for the XWB . . . That’s really disappointing. For Boeing.
As for the A380 freighter. The market is dead at the moment. And the A380F is ‘paused’. But I bet the A380F will re-emerge offering a high-density ~170t Cargolux-pleasing capability.
45. Mike M | January 11th, 2010 at 18:37
>>>What about them?
>>>So no significant cost there.
Ah, works ok for Airbus, but not Boeing huh?
>>>over 500 orders for the XWB . . . That’s really disappointing. For Boeing.
I cant speak for them, but I’m sure their most pressing need is for the 787 to enter service with the record breaking backlog to be fulfilled too.
>>>I bet the A380F will re-emerge offering a high-density ~170t Cargolux-pleasing capability.
Up until you made that remark, I did have a modicum of respect for your ability to discern fact from fiction.
That’s just plain stupid if you this A) the A380F will ever be built and B) if Cargolux ever order it if it did exist!
I needed a laugh, thankfully I got it at your expense!
46. Chris Wallace | January 11th, 2010 at 18:59
The 747-500X and 747-600X were “launched” in September 1996 and had real customer interest. TG and MH both announced they would order the 747-600X and BA was preparing a 747-600X order, as well.
However, BA started to reconsider the need for a 500+ seat aircraft when they formed the TATL partnership with AA, which offered them new frequencies to new hub cities.
And the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis which crippled Thailand and Malaysia pretty much made it impossible for either to buy it and soured the interest of airlines like CX and SQ who were also looking at it. Therefore, Boeing decided to stop development.
47. Buster | January 11th, 2010 at 20:47
40. Mike M | January 11th, 2010 at 17:43
Korean Air & Lufthansa.
Purchased the 748i AS WELL AS the A380, not instead of. The 748i is such an A380 killer that nobody has bought it INSTEAD OF the A380. Zero. None. Nada. Zip.
48. Homer Simpson | January 11th, 2010 at 21:04
40. Mike M
The irony is so delicious you can’t even see the double standards you’re applying.
“How is the 737-600 a failure? It works well for SAS and theyve not complained. A low cost derivative.”
And the A318 is also a low-cost derivative that has not received any complaints from its customers. And it’s sold more than the 737-600, but of course, to you, it’s a failure.
You apply the same double-standard to all the other Airbus sub-models, even one that’s sold more than most of the Boeing sub-models I listed.
“The 747SP - the jury is out on that.”
Say what? In terms of sales, which seems to be the standard you’re applying, it’s an abject failure. Or is Boeing going to sell a lot more? Ha ha.
“777-200LR sold more than the A345, despite being in service two years later. Total monopoly on the C-market.”
Total monopoly? Since when is 60% market share a “total monopoly”?
“The value of my vitriol is worth more..”
Your bitter vitriole is worthless. The sad part is, you don’t even realise it.
Marge will never leave me.
49. Falcon | January 11th, 2010 at 21:20
“How is the 737-600 a failure? It works well for SAS and theyve not complained. A low cost derivative.” Mike M
Mike, guess you’re not listening much but SAS have complained plenty about what they call the piglet. They have tried getting rid of them but apart from a few leases no success. They even evaluated extending the frame but in the end those numbers didn’t work out either. They are generally happy with the -700 and -800 but not the -600. This is why there has only been one early additional order and it was more than a decade ago.
50. Paulo M | January 11th, 2010 at 22:00
737-600
737-900
747SP
747-100SR
747-300SR
747-400D
767-400
777-200LR
and 757-300; and 747-400ER; 747-400QLR
757-300 was like the 767-400ER
747-400QLR/-500X/-600X
=================================
Many of the derivatives built by the Boeing Company are derived from aircraft families that have been exceptionally successful - even at the time of EIS for each of the derivatives concerned. And in the majority of the cases, the derivatives were niche players anyway.
Further four Boeing aircraft here part-paid for even more outstanding success on follow-up derivative aircraft. These are the 747-300, 737-900, 777-300 and 777-200LR which lead directly to the 747-400, 737-900ER, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter, respectively. OMG!! Look at the sales validation - isn’t that awesome or what?!
My bet is that the initial batch of derivatives were already profitable to start with. All of the growth models derived from this initial batch have been wildly profitable.
For Airbus, the success stories are with the A300 which lead to the A310. That’s the only case similar to Boeing type derivative success. The A340 was only a moderate success and each derivative were only king for the few months that the market awaited the TOTAL AWESOMENESS of the 777 derivatives. Of course, the A340 sibling A330 is what Airbus did right.
================================
The market is dead at the moment. And the A380F is ‘paused’
Yes, the market is on life support. But then so is the A380. Compared with both the slightly smaller 747-8F and the smaller still 777F, the A380F is a wildly overweight aircraft. But don’t take my word for it, check the market validation - and that’s despite the recent cancellation of 2 orders for the 747-8F.
Further, adding to the equation large number of relatively new good quality freighters, parked out in deserts in California and elsewhere, all but obliterates poorly thought-out designs like the A380F, while putting the market for new-build freighters under strain in the near term.
51. Homer Simpson | January 11th, 2010 at 22:25
50. Paulo M
“That’s the only case similar to Boeing type derivative success.”
Hmm, you think?
So the A319 with over 1,500 sales and the A321 with over 750 sales are not successful derivatives? How about the A332 with a modest 550+ sales?
Astonishing.
52. Paulo M | January 11th, 2010 at 23:10
50. Paulo M
“That’s the only case similar to Boeing type derivative success.”
Hmm, you think?
So the A319 with over 1,500 sales and the A321 with over 750 sales are not successful derivatives? How about the A332 with a modest 550+ sales?
Astonishing.
———————————————————–
Duh! I left those for a specific reason. As you can see, the 737 Next-Gen has exactly the same success. Both the A320 and 737 families are of differently stretched aircraft using the same wing.
The point I was trying to make is on the Boeing aircraft I mentioned - they all have the same fuselage length - largely the same body - but massively improved wing designs, weight reduction and important technological additions that give the same basic design vastly superior performance. For example, the 777-300ER vs. the 777-300, and so on.
I made a mistake including the A300 and A310 because those where significantly different aircraft - more different in fact than the 777-200 is to the 777-300 - and on the Airbus side, than the A319 is to the A320. The A300/A310 is as complexly different as the 747-100 is to the 747SP perhaps.
Sorry, my bad - late here. I retract the “successful Airbus commentary”. The Boeing success commentary is correct.
53. Paulo M | January 11th, 2010 at 23:19
In addition to retracting the offending “successful Airbus commentary”. I’d like to point out the case of the Airbus A340-300 and A340-300e, and also of the A340-600 and A340-600HGW - see weak.
On a positive note, there’s the A320-100 and the wildly successful A320-200. I’m currently requesting any further information on such Airbus aircraft programmes that are successful in nature.
54. engineer (Land of the long white clouds) | January 11th, 2010 at 23:39
Dave_BC
You seem like a highly knowledgeable person. Why do you think that with 500+ orders for the airbus XWB, it is disappointing for boeing? Can you please explain and can you identify where Boeing has said that they are disappointed? Facts as it stand: the 787 after 2 year delay has finally flown and is currently undergoing test flight phase.
The XWB is not airborne yet. I for one would like to see the XWB take flight. I think both are truely remarkable airplanes.
You know i am not a fan of airbus but A350 sounds very interesting to me.
As for the 727 icing of the pitot probe it is not Boeings fault or is it? You quoted atmospheric icing. Is it not correct and wasn’t it because the flight crew did not turn the heating for the probes on?
Now surely that was not because the sensor was faulty as was the case in the airbus which required airbus to refit the affected planes with the redesigned sensor.
As for the 757 that aircraft was in storage for a while, and when an aircraft is in storage pitot probes and static ports are required to be blanked off to keep debris away. As far as i remember there was two 757 that crashed because of erroneous readings linked to pitot probe being blocked.
Do you know if boeing had to redesign the pitot probe because of that crash?
55. Stymie Hugo | January 12th, 2010 at 01:12
51. Homer Simpson
“How about the A332 with a modest 550+ sales?”
50. Paulo M
“Of course, the A340 sibling A330 is what Airbus did right.”
You two jackasses finally agree on something.
56. Vero Venia | January 12th, 2010 at 07:51
What’s a failed product?
A failed product is the one that continues pulling the results of your company down without any prospect of providing any profit in the future.
Once that product is terminated, it belongs to the past. It’s gone and buried. End of story.
The most difficult part about a failing product is to determine its prospect to generate profit. It takes one’s courage to terminate a failing product, but you must not let a product drag your company to failure.
The 787-3 has never become a failing product since it has never been produced. It’s detailed design has not even started.
Today, the 747-8i is in forward loss position, but nobody knows how it will sell in the future (yet). It’s a failing product but with important aspects around it, that is the presence in the small niche market of 400-500 seater. I bet there will be between 5 to 10 orders for the 747-8i in 2010.
It will take much courage from Boeing to assess the case of the 747-8i objectively. However, the case of the 747-8F will help the 747-8 program recover at least all the cost spent for the development and the production.
57. ikkeman | January 12th, 2010 at 11:15
man, what a slap-fight.
So do we agree that both major players have had successes and less stellar offerings?
783 was always in a difficult position as it was designed for a very small niche market - But I’m sure it more than payed for itself by continueing the virtual monopoly of B in Japan.
Just like the A310MRTT is not a failure since it allowed A to get experience with multipurpose military planes.
They’re just not sales-successes.
In an industry as heavily subsidized as our aerospace, who cares about ROI. They’re both national champions and clearly fall in the “to important to fail” category.
58. Dave_BC | January 12th, 2010 at 11:43
“Up until you made that remark [ie re A380F], I did have a modicum of respect for your ability to discern fact from fiction.”
Believe what you will if it makes you happy.
What i’ve said regarding the A380F is not fiction.
59. Dave_BC | January 12th, 2010 at 14:35
engineer wrote: ” . . . Why do you think that with 500+ orders for the airbus XWB, it is disappointing for boeing?”
My reference was tongue-in-cheek, and in the context of the Boeing cheerleader Mike-M making the A350 out to be a supposed example of an Airbus program ‘failure’. Nevertheless I’m sure Boeing (and Mike-M alike) would have preferred if those orders had gone to the Everett, rather than “Too-lose”.
And off-topic, but worth commenting on:-
engineer wrote: “As for the 727 icing of the pitot probe it is not Boeings fault or is it? You quoted atmospheric icing. Is it not correct and wasn’t it because the flight crew did not turn the heating for the probes on?”
As I said, I merely Googled that info. I was not intending to get into the technicalities (which I’m sure you know more than me about). Rather, those examples were in response to Mike-M’s totally irresponsible and baseless comment: ” . . .as well as the A330 and A320’s that crash thanks to pitot and computer error”.
What my examples do illustrate is that pitot tubes by their very nature are prone to blockage, not just by ice, but by insects, tape etc. etc. Moreover, when they do get blocked, it matters not a jot whether they feed air-data to a 1960’s analog aircraft (727), a 1980’s intermediate one (i.e. 757) or a modern digital aircraft such as an A330 (or indeed 777). So it’s nothing to do with “computer error”.
Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases involving the surprisingly common situation of ‘unreliable air data’, FAA and EASA-approved operational procedures have been correctly followed by the pilots (who regard it as simply routine corrective action to an air-data anomaly).
60. Dave_BC | January 12th, 2010 at 14:37
Mike-M wrote:-
” . . .as well as the A330 and A320’s that crash thanks to pitot and computer error”.
Mike, please tell us exactly which “A330 and A320s” have experienced “computer error” (as opposed to “human error”) causing it to crash?
61. Paulo M | January 12th, 2010 at 15:35
You two jackasses finally agree on something.
?
I only agree with logic.
——————————————————
man, what a slap-fight.
Fair enough. All I’m trying to say is that Boeing has had better success with niche derivatives and, by extension - as you point out - better success at protecting markets it dominates. Japan is a case in point.
———————————————————-
Mike, please tell us exactly which “A330 and A320s” have experienced “computer error” (as opposed to “human error”) causing it to crash?
Air France Flight 296. It is disputed event.
AF447 is a peculiar case. Given that the A330 has flown in commercial service for many years with a fairly large fleet, the incident comes across as an anomaly.
Finally, for interest, American Airlines Flight 965
American eventually sued “Jeppesen and Honeywell, who made the navigation computer database and failed to include the coordinates of Rozo (an approach waypoint to CLO) under the identifier “R”…”
In other words, a programming error.
62. Dave_BC | January 12th, 2010 at 16:04
“Air France Flight 296. It is disputed event. ”
I knew someone would mention it.
btw I saw it live (on TV). It’s quite clear that the pilots took their eyes off the ball and flew it into the ground (i.e. quite literally weren’t looking where they were going). Also happens to be similar to conclusion the courts came to. Of course, conspiracy theories abound. . .
As for AF447 – there’s no evidence of computer failure at all. All we do know is that the flight control system went into ‘manual’ mode – exactly as it should do whenever pitot tubes give unreliable data. Anything else is pure speculation.
In short, unless Mike can provide new evidence to the contrary, no Airbus has ever crashed due to “computer error”.
63. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 18:10
>>>no Airbus has ever crashed due to “computer error”.
Like the Frenchies or the BEA would ever admit to that?
Sheesh.
64. Dave_BC | January 13th, 2010 at 08:58
pathetic
65. Vero Venia | January 13th, 2010 at 12:09
I’m sorry to say this, but I find it disgusting to discuss about accidents in blogs. Let the authorities deal with that difficult job of finding the cause of accidents. They are there to investigate and then to improve the safety of air travel.
66. Mike M | January 13th, 2010 at 14:49
>>>pathetic
It is when the French communists do not release information, not that you’d ever agree.
You’re still blinded in the belief that the A380F will be built, what hope is there with rationale debate with someone of that mentality?
Do you believe Concorde will fly again soon too?
67. Dave_BC | January 13th, 2010 at 14:56
Vero, needless to say, my remark above was *not* directed at the BEA (or the ‘Frenchies’).
btw I agree with you that bringing up the issue of safety / crashes in this thread (i.e. post no. 25) was totally inappropriate.
68. Dave_BC | January 13th, 2010 at 15:52
66. Mike M | January 13th, 2010 at 14:49
>>>pathetic
It is when the French communists do not release information, not that you’d ever agree.
Idiot.
As per ICAO (HQ’d in Canada), Annex 13 SARPS for “Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation” sets out the rules, which includes the issue of information disclosure. France is a member and has to comply with those rules. Oh, and by the way, for AF447, the USA’s own NTSB is part of this investigation (as are the Brazilians etc. etc..
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed