View Full Version : ATTN Airplane Buffs: 787 1st Flight
Just an FYI to any airplane enthusiasts: the Boeing 787 just achieved first flight. Finally.
You can track the flight via this link (http://www.newairplane.com/dreamlinerfirstflight/ffindex.html)
militarymoron
12-15-09, 13:02
just watched it. good to see it finally take flight.
My office overlooks Paine Field. Didn't even have to stand in the rain. A lot of relief around here.
Very cool. Love the flugzeugs.
I suspect greater operational efficiency will produce greater corporate profit before reduced ticket prices though.
I suspect greater operational efficiency will produce greater corporate profit before reduced ticket prices though.
Ticket prices are already to low, they need to be raised, but thats another discussion for another time.
I watched the first flight live, pretty cool to finally see it take flight. It looks a lot different than I thought it was going to when I started checking it out the other day. It looks really low to the ground kinda like a 737, but its the size of a 757/767. I am sure in person it looks better, just kinda squaty looking.
Very cool. Love the flugzeugs.
I suspect greater operational efficiency will produce greater corporate profit before reduced ticket prices though.
Since ticket prices and fees barely cover the cost of the flight, that's not a bad thing. Except for Southwest, very few airlines have had any net profits over the last 10 years.
Rayrevolver
12-15-09, 15:35
787 on short final. Just flew past downtown Seattle for a full stop at KBFI.
SWATcop556
12-15-09, 17:05
Watched it on Fox News. Very impressive!
Ticket prices are already to low, they need to be raised, but thats another discussion for another time.
Since ticket prices and fees barely cover the cost of the flight, that's not a bad thing. Except for Southwest, very few airlines have had any net profits over the last 10 years.
Start another thread and let's kick it around. A number of folks here fly quite a bit.
Watched them building it Aug. 2007 w/ the maiden flight expected THAT Dec. The interior passenger cabin mockup we walked thru
seemed like a real game changer. Enjoyed watching it live (though on FOX) today, sure Boeing is glad to have that behind them.
Now to produce the 800+ on order @ $150-175 mill. apiece.
Hopefully it brings more jobs for Seattle-ites building at Boeing. Those guys have been hit hard.
woodandsteel
12-16-09, 08:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fucq5BoEfEI
Wish I could've been there to see that live.
The city that I live in has a regional airport, with a Class C airspace. I happened to be there one day when an airliner was doing somekind of training with a 747. The plane would take off and land, repeatedly. It was amazing to see something so big, lift off so effortlessly. I felt very fortunate to be there that day to see it.
So because it's more fuel efficient (approx 20% better then other Boeing Aircraft) does that mean the tickets will be 20% cheaper, then say what they would be to ride a 747?
Doubt it. :mad::mad:
Since ticket prices and fees barely cover the cost of the flight, that's not a bad thing. Except for Southwest, very few airlines have had any net profits over the last 10 years.
Just noticed your handle. I was a DOT Ramp Agent for FDX for many moons. What do you fly?
ForTehNguyen
12-16-09, 11:10
this is going to be a highly successful plane: great fuel efficiency, range, large reduction in weight, land and takeoff from shorter runways. It's going to be a big workhorse for the airline industry. The amount of orders it has speaks for itself.
Hopefully it brings more jobs for Seattle-ites building at Boeing. Those guys have been hit hard.
Due to the strike happy workers there, the 2nd assembly line for the 787 was moved to South Carolina and not built in WA
So because it's more fuel efficient (approx 20% better then other Boeing Aircraft) does that mean the tickets will be 20% cheaper, then say what they would be to ride a 747?
Doubt it. :mad::mad:
Really? Have you ANY clue what it costs to operate an airline? Clearly not or you wouldn't be bitching about your $89 ticket price.
Where are you SkinTop? Need to you to weigh in here & help keep this thread on the tracks.
Really? Have you ANY clue what it costs to operate an airline? Clearly not or you wouldn't be bitching about your $89 ticket price.
yeah clearly tickets in Colorado are cheaper, but tickets are not $89 here in Florida....avg. 300-400 for the tiny coach seats.....1100-1200 for 1st class when I flew in august.
yeah clearly tickets in Colorado are cheaper, but tickets are not $89 here in Florida....avg. 300-400 for the tiny coach seats.....1100-1200 for 1st class when I flew in august.
I just flew direct from DIA (Denver) to Miami and it wasn't $400 so you need to shop around more if you're such a penny pincher. I take it you're pretty young too and don't remember when plane tickets were 2-4x more than they are now. Airlines haven't been profitable for many, many years so if you don't like the prices... don't fly. I hate people that bitch about it when it's not that much money if you think about it and you're not forced to fly either.
On average I play around $330 for a round trip flight. Recently I had to pay about $800 for a flight because I was traveling on Thanksgiving weekend (but at least I got a direct flight).
Let's not forget that most airlines break even by carrying packages. That's breaking even folks, not making a profit.
I do however strongly disagree with charging passengers for checking luggage because it creates a mess trying to get everyone and their damn bags onboard. Thank God I fly first class :D
I'm an airline customer, so my knowledge of the industry is limited to that lane.
I typically fly from regional airports in the midwest, to, through, or from hubs (esp DIA, MSP, ORD) around the country for $225-350 round trip if I use Orbitz, Priceline, etc. I can't always count on those though, and am hoping to see published fares from the airlines come down from the $400-700 I usually see.
Lots of variables in ticket prices. I'd be happy just to have some consistency rather than the day to day fluctuations.
I don't think I've ever gotten a ticket for $89. Where do I sign up? :D
this is going to be a highly successful plane: great fuel efficiency, range, large reduction in weight, land and takeoff from shorter runways. It's going to be a big workhorse for the airline industry. The amount of orders it has speaks for itself.
With the 787 looking to be such a great proof-of-concept airframe for the incorporated technology, I wonder what will be next?
Given it's advantages, there will be mil aps for the bird too. KC-787, anyone?
With the 787 looking to be such a great proof-of-concept airframe for the incorporated technology, I wonder what will be next?
Given it's advantages, there will be mil aps for the bird too. KC-787, anyone?
Maybe. Better that than some Euro offering, IMO. I wonder if it has the balls AND the legs to be a good KC, since it'd have to haul beans and bullets in addition to gas..? I assume it's pretty capable, but it's not all that big.
The issue with airline ticket prices is that they are either the same or lower than they were 30 years ago. Ticket prices have not kept up with inflation(3% nominal per year) and they have not kept up with fuel costs(even though there are fuel surcharges on tickets now). 30 years ago a gallon of Jet-A was like 15-20 cents. Now we pay about $1.75-$2.25+ depending on where we are at.
Through the course of all of the past 30 years we as pilots(and other airline employees) have also not kept pace of nominal 3% cost of living increases to keep up with inflation(through bankruptcy imposed pay rates, bottom feeder startup airlines, and other reasons). American Airlines pilots are asking for a 60% pay raise from their current rates(they will never get it). They came up with this by taking their pay rates from 1978 and simply adding 3% per year COLA and it was a 60% raise from where they are at.
Domestically airlines need business travelers(who's companies pay a premium to get reduced fair last minute tickets) to cover the loss's from the $150 tickets they sell on that same flight. Cargo for domestic operations is not that big of a revenue boost.
Internationally airlines can pay for the whole flight based on the cargo and any passenger revenue is extra, hence the shift of the legacy airlines to more international than domestic operations and shifting the domestic feed to regional airlines.
The military is very risk averse when adapting commercial airframes to mil applications. Near the end of it's production run rhe 707 was pretty much only used for mil stuff after the commercial market moved on. If Boeing wins the tanker contract, it will be based on a 767 not a 787. The 787 may get a shot at an AWACS contract but I wouldn't count on it.
Re: Airline profitibility. Airlines are always on the edge of survival. Newer business models like charging passengers for checked luggage is a direct reflection of their health. To make matters worse increased surchages levied by the gov for passenger screening has further eroded their profits. Also, while cargo carried on passenger flights used to be nearly as profitable or sometimes more so than passenger fares, cargo regs introduced since 9/11 have nearly killed that market.
While the increased operational efficiency of the 787 will help airlines eke out a little more revenue, don't expect to see those savings passed onto the flying public.
cargo regs introduced since 9/11 have nearly killed that market.
Actually thats not really true. There really has been no increased screening/scrutiny of cargo since 9/11(checked luggage yes, but not cargo). It is a big problem(hole/weakness/etc...) that is still being researched and new laws are being put into place all the time. I am sure fdxpilot can touch more on that than me, i'm just a bus driver, he's the truck driver.
Most domestic airlines however do not carry much cargo, some mail perhaps, but not a ton of cargo. Internationally however they carry a shit ton.
ForTehNguyen
12-16-09, 21:41
With the 787 looking to be such a great proof-of-concept airframe for the incorporated technology, I wonder what will be next?
Given it's advantages, there will be mil aps for the bird too. KC-787, anyone?
maybe one day they can upgrade Air Force One to a newer 747/787. A single 787 engine can power a 747. But they do have a modernized 747 that uses 787 style wings and 787 engines. Heard the Air Force was poking around for a new AF1 but its just poking around, nothing hard yet.
Actually thats not really true. There really has been no increased screening/scrutiny of cargo since 9/11(checked luggage yes, but not cargo). It is a big problem(hole/weakness/etc...) that is still being researched and new laws are being put into place all the time. I am sure fdxpilot can touch more on that than me, i'm just a bus driver, he's the truck driver.
Most domestic airlines however do not carry much cargo, some mail perhaps, but not a ton of cargo. Internationally however they carry a shit ton.
You could be right. I went to an MRO conference in 2002 and some of the airline reps were bitching about the hurt they were under due to 'new' regs on cargo. But maybe they were just bitching about things in general and were focusing on cargo. At the time the airlines were bleeding money out their ears.
I do know that we still sweat cargo pallet capability in new aircraft, and we wouldn't do that if there was no market.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-17-09, 01:19
Was that a T33 chase plane?
maybe one day they can upgrade Air Force One to a newer 747/787. A single 787 engine can power a 747. But they do have a modernized 747 that uses 787 style wings and 787 engines. Heard the Air Force was poking around for a new AF1 but its just poking around, nothing hard yet.
A couple of years ago, I was reading a thing about airframe modernization in the KC135, B52, and some others. It talked about engine and wing retrofits that would give them another 20 years. One part of it said that the 135 and 52 could be powered by 2 and 4 (767?) engines, respectively, at substantially greater operational efficiency without loss of payload, range, etc.
ForTehNguyen
12-17-09, 09:37
A couple of years ago, I was reading a thing about airframe modernization in the KC135, B52, and some others. It talked about engine and wing retrofits that would give them another 20 years. One part of it said that the 135 and 52 could be powered by 2 and 4 (767?) engines, respectively, at substantially greater operational efficiency without loss of payload, range, etc.
a lot of these engines on older military planes is ancient stuff, i bet there are great performance gains to be had upgrading to a new engine. The costs were argued to be "too much", but its cheaper than designing a new bomber. Two GE90s generate more power than all 8 of the B52 engines.
Boeing has suggested re-engining the B-52H fleet with the Rolls-Royce RB211 534E-4. This would involve replacing the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33s (total thrust 8 × 17,000 lb) with four RB211s (total thrust 4 × 37,400 lb). The RR engines will increase the range and payload of the fleet and reduce fuel consumption. However, the cost of the project would be significant. Procurement would cost approximately US$2.56 billion (US$36 million × 71 aircraft). A Government Accountability Office study of the proposal concluded that Boeing's estimated savings of US$4.7 billion would not be realized and found that it would cost US$1.3 billion over keeping the existing engines.[45] The higher cost was blamed on significant up-front procurement expenditure, necessary re-tooling, and the RB211's higher maintenance cost. The GAO report was subsequently disputed in a Defense Sciences Board report in 2003[46] and revised in 2004 that identified numerous errors in the prior evaluation of the Boeing proposal, and urged the Air Force to re-engine the aircraft without delay. Further, the DSB report stated the program would save substantial funds, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase aircraft range and endurance, duplicating the results of a Congressionally funded US$3M program office study conducted in 2003.[47] However, the re-engining has not been approved as of 2009.
That's the info, thanks.
Now I'm reminded of a joke.
There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked."
Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach."
Rayrevolver
12-17-09, 16:19
Was that a T33 chase plane?
Yes. Two T-33s were used as chase.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.