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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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).
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?
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.
“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”.
>>>no Airbus has ever crashed due to “computer error”.
Like the Frenchies or the BEA would ever admit to that?
Sheesh.
pathetic
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.
>>>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?
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.
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..