Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive 2

Why separation by water?
From the 787-3 subsection: This is an advantage on shorter, high-density routes specially those separated by water such as Tokyo to Shanghai, [...] - Could someone please explain to me why this separation by water is so specially relevant? Thanks and Cheers MikeZ 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael, here is an explanation:


 * 1- All airports charge fees based on MTOW. Typically a higher maximum take off weight would indicate that the plane is bigger which needs more ground crews to servce it, needs more staff to empty it and do customs and baggage checks, and on and on. so a 747 requires more people to care for it at an airport than a 717.


 * 2- A route like Taiwan to Hong Kong for example. Its separated by water but it is only 1000km away (600 miles). No other way to travel than by air. No roads and no trains. So why have a plane like the 737 flying between these two points? It is a drop in a bucket. 100 people a trip. A bigger plane is then logical. But bigger planes cost a lot more to operate. The airports charge such high fees that it may not be economical to have a large plane operate this route. However, there is a medium ground here. Getting a large plane with a very low MTOW. That is, enough of a take off weight to carry the plane weight, the passengers, and luggage, plus a bit of room for fuel. A 1000km (600 mile) route requires very little fuel. Coincidentally, the most used plane on this Taipei/Hong kong route is 777-300 with 660,000 MTOW and 747-400 derated to 700,000 MTOW.
 * If you look at at map of the world on google map, you will see many regions of the world like Asia, Europe, and South America that have big cities separated by water or mountains. These areas can benefit from a large capacity airliner that is efficient enough in both operating costs and all it's fees.


 * 3- Airports are finding out that basing fees on MTOW is a flawed system. Many like Heathrow, JFK, O'Hare, and Hartsfield are beginning to realize that having 1000 737s landing in one day is more of a headache then having 600 737s landing along with maybe 200 767. A plane landing requires the attention of a control tower personal for a considerable amount of time. This plane being a bit bigger does not make a huge difference. Congestion is the absolute number 1 cost to an airport than any other cost. With this realization, airports are beginning to lower MTOW fees. The fee for 757 and 767 has been locked at 2002 level at JFK airport in New york. This is because the airport has seen a huge uptick in congestion and workload because of JetBlue's growth. With Jetblue starting to dominate the airport with their A320 and Embraer 190 planes, it has led to more congestion. An Embraer 190 flying from NY to Houston is really uncalled for. These cities transport roughly 10,000 people between themselves everyday. Why carry 85 people at a time? This has been happening because of fees being exponentially higher. Both Airbus and Boeing have realized this. Boeing first 10 years ago, and now airbus. Boeing has designed the 787-3 to absolutely have a lower cost than a 737 or A320 even at twice the landing fees. The japanese government has realized this for the last 3 decades. The government controls all the airports. They know congestion is the number 1 factor in costs and environmental pollution and customer inconvenience. The fees in japan are only slightly higher as the plane gets bigger. Therefore you will see 777 and 747 operating domestic flights. Because the fees are relatively equal, small planes make a small part of the japanese air fleet. But when these airlines go international like to china or korea, suddenly fees go up. Thats why ANA and JAL have asked for efficient and low MTOW versions of the 787. This plane will be ordered by many more airlines. It is not entering service till 2010. All the 2010 and 2011 slots are sold currently to JAL and ANA. So the earliest slot is 2012. Thats 6 years away. So we have not seen a huge rush for this plane yet.


 * If you still require more explanation let me know. Marcus--Bangabalunga 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Marcus, thanks for your extensive explanations - great job! But the main argument about the "water" is just that usually no other means of transportation exist on some routes (like bridges, tunnels, ships etc.), right? Cheers, MikeZ 08:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I used to fly ISP-PVD on SWA, a 20 min by air, but 3 hours by car. But you need to find a ref for this, and add it to the article. Dhaluza 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mike, the reason water is significant is that routes over water would be the first ones getting larger planes as there is less pressure from the bottom of the market to force capacity down. The route of Paris to Madrid for example. People can take trains. People can drive. People can take the bus. There is more competition from both other sources of transportation and other airlines. This will keep the capacity on this route down to around the 175 seat level. Then lets say London to Madrid. Ferry is non existent. No busses. And driving will take 1 day. So flying is the only way. Now half the modes of transporations are eliminated. So the fight is between airlines. Here, if you go on a travel website, you will see the most used plane is a A321, 757 or 767 by BA and Iberia. But then you have pressure from startups with their 737s. For now they have had an advantage. They are smaller and cheaper to operate. But this operational advantage will be eliminated if a plane is created that is efficient in fuel burn like the 787-3, and also the Madrid and Heathrow airports get fed up with 40 737 and A320 flights everyday and they reduce fees on bigger planes for these routes. You will then see the capacity level come up to around 250 seats and the 737 and A320 leaving this mega route and flying to Seville instead. Or flying Manchester Barcelona instead. No logical reason why Heathrow with 10 million and Madrid with 8 million need to fly 130 seat planes all day.
 * Now, this phenomenon has been occuring for a while. The first place for consolidation and increase capacity will only come in a mature market. That is North America. We have had the deregulation for the longest time and the Low Cost model has been happening here for quite a while. You even see it happening by mergers recently to cut plane trips and increase capacity. America West was bought by USair who now wants Delta. Other mergers are in discussion as well. After North America, it would be Europe, when all the airports and government agencies and even consumers start getting annoyed with all the congestion and delays and pollution. Regions like South America and Asia and India will be last. Every few months a few guys get to gether in India and think its cool to start an airline. They go get themselves a loan and place an order for 100 planes. But this cannot last. Boeing and Airbus know this. Sure they will sell to who ever that has money, but Boeing and Airbus know that you cannot, its impossible, to have hundreds of flights between Mumbai and Delhi everyday. Its pathetic. Something will have to give. And that is where the 787-3 is positioned. I live in Vancouver Canada and I went to seattle and visited Boeing and this is what they talked about. They had clips on video, they had posters, and a speaker. All this I say here is from what they said. Now I will add, Low cost airlines like Southwest and Ryan air will not disappear. They are too smart. These airlines will still prosper. But the other guys that think its fun starting airlines and its the thing to do, they will disappear. Southwest and Ryan air will adapt. There is a place for them. But everything will come to an equilibrium. At the end, everything will be balanced. There was an extreme 30 years ago. KLM used to have 747 flights from Amsterdam to London. Now they dont even have a 747. The first place for this to retract and capacity to grow would be routes over water followed very closely by mega cities within several hours of each other. Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Winglets and raked wingtips
From article: "Winglets provide better efficiency over short distances while raked wingtips are superior over long distances"

Why wouldn't the longer wings be more efficient no matter what? Do shorter flights spend more time at lower altitudes (higher density air), and thus don't need the longer wings? An explanation would be helpful (as well as a citation). -- thanx --68.35.43.82 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The effect of winglets and raked wingtips are different. Winglets are shaped in a way to use the wingtip vortices to produce thrust, while raked wingtips increase the effective aspect ratio. The reason short haul aircraft tend to use winglets more is that the extra thrust improves field performance and increases the rate of climb, which is a favorable trade to having less drag during cruise. On the long haul aircraft, cruise is the dominant mode of flight and thus the cruise drag dominates over the time to climb. Also, while it's not the case on the 787, in some cases the wingspan is limited by airport constraints and winglets offer a shorter wingspan including wingtip device than the raked wingtips (Though with the raked wingtips, the -8 and -9 have a 60m wingspan, which is one of the two major wingspan limits used by airports. The other is 80m, which the A380's 79.8m wingspan borders.) For more info, see Wingtip device. -Marimvibe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Winglets do not produce thrust.69.22.218.109 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. They produce a forward lift vector, also known as thrust. ericg ✈ 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a high quality source. http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/wingdesign/nonplanar.html says "Optimally-loaded winglets thus reduce induced drag by lowering the average downwash on the wing, not by providing a thrust component." 24.63.204.55 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the full quote is: "The result that the sidewash on the winglet (in the Trefftz plane) is zero for minimum induced drag means that the self-induced drag of the winglet just cancels the winglet thrust associated with wing sidewash. Optimally-loaded winglets thus reduce induced drag by lowering the average downwash on the wing, not by providing a thrust component." By the paper's definition, the optimally loaded winglet is the one that produces the best L/D ratio. In contrast, field performance is largely dependant on T/W, and best climb performance is dependant on T/W - D/L, which may stand to benefit from winglets designed to maximize winglet thrust but make L/D slightly sub-optimum. Specifically, I recall a passage in a reference book (I think Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons, by Timothy Laur and a couple others, but I can't seem to find the book at the moment,) that calls out the use of winglets on the C-17 to be driven by the improvement in field performance. A good source would be helpful, but it should be from a designer and not an aerodynamicist in order to really examine why one solution is preferred over another in certain cases, but the aircraft design text I have hasn't changed much since 1985 as far as I can tell. Marimvibe 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-15-DFRC.html says "Winglets, which are airfoils operating just like a sailboat tacking upwind, produce a forward thrust inside the circulation field of the vortices and reduce their strength." I'm pretty sure the Dryden Center knows what they're talking about. Maybe a little. ericg ✈ 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As a person with some knowledge in this field I like to correct all of you. Raked Wingtips produce more lift than winglets. A 90 degree winglet produces no lift. It simply cancels out drag at the tips to improve efficiency. Thats all. Rakes wingtips produce a bit of lift. Also, as a plane travels down a runway, the outer parts of the wing start developing lift first and this continues towards the fuselage. Watch a 777-300ER go down a runway and you will see the tips pointing up rather quickly. Some winglets can produce a slight amount of lift, but not if they are pointing 90 degrees up. Simon--154.20.95.145 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These comments have no impact on the argument of comparitive efficiency. Marimvibe 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Revised 8 June 2007, to remove my more hostile comments. I apologize for making what I deem to be an inappropriate comment.)

Assembly location?
So where is the airplane acutally assembled and tested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.189 (talk • contribs)
 * Everett, Washington in the Puget Sound area. See About the 787 -Fnlayson 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Date clarification in regards to roll out date
Why is there one date that needs a seperate format for clarification, when all others use the standard linked date and month and linked year? This goes against the norm for any article I've encountered, and goes against what the tutorial for linking date suggests. Marimvibe 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The date matches the plane's designation in one format, but may not in other formats. A wiki linked date can appear different depending on a user's preference setting.  The trivia line is worth little if that point is missed.  -Fnlayson 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. For some reason I didn't pick up the 7/8/7 significance. Marimvibe 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal. I might mention the designation instead of (7/8/07), if there seems to be confusion with it. -Fnlayson 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Reference for Scott Carson
In the last sentence of "Development" it states: On March 19, 2007, BCA President Scott Carson and 787 program manager Mike Bair told reporters and investors that Boeing intends to roll out the first 787 on July 8, 2007

In "Technical concerns - Weight issues" it states: The first six 787s built will be overweight according to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson, but the seventh is expected to be on target.

According to Boeing's Official Biography for Scott Carson: Scott Carson is executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

I believe we should be consistent with Boeing's Official Biography, although it might be better to be consistent with the original news article's designation for Mr. Carson. Since Mr. Fnlayson is the primary editor for the Boeing 787 wiki page, I will leave it to his excellent judgement on how best to edit these two sections. --Dan Dassow 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Dan Dassow


 * I didn't realize there was this inconsisency with Carson. We could list both BCA CEO and president at the first reference.  How about that?  -Fnlayson 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that we should list both BCA CEO and president at the first reference as you suggest. When Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago, they designated Alan Mulally as executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Jim Albaugh as executive vice president of The Boeing Company and president and chief executive officer of Integrated Defense Systems. Phil Condit was CEO of Boeing at the time. The multiple titles still confuse most people. Scott Carson took over Alan Mulally's duties when Mr. Mulally became CEO of Ford. --Dan Dassow 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Dan Dassow

Breakeven
Is there any information regarding the number of orders that Boeing needed to breakeven on the 787 project? I believe that the number was approximately 300 planes, which is well below the more than 500 orders the company has received so far. I think it would be worth while to add this financial information in as it demonstrates the success of this plane and its importance to Boeing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I am sure Boeing's finance people have calculated the breakeven point where you recover your initial investment but they have not disclosed this number and I doubt that they ever will. Actual breakeven is a moving target. Various factors such as future inflation, contract revision with suppliers, and future labor cost will affect the outcome. Airbus is more sensitive to this number because once a project reaches breakeven, they have to start paying back the launch aid they had received. --Yasobara 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoke vs. sidestick
Please stop adding the biased info on the yoke vs. the sidestick controller. The sidestick may be a newer method of control inputting, but that does not make it more advanced by that fact alone. I am certian the sidestick controllers on early A320s are less advanced technologicially than the yoke systems in the 777. The 777 and 787 are FBW, so they do not use control cables physically connected to the yoke. That would be outdated, but simply using a yoke for electronic conrtrol inputs is not. - BillCJ 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought this had been discussed on here.  It was just several edit summaries. -Fnlayson 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links to designnews.com
There's currently 6 links to DesignNews.com, surely there should only be one that covers the 787. WP:EL. -- Rehnn83 Talk 07:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are six different articles. If there's one page that links to them all, then replace them with it. - BillCJ 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history this links used to be in the references section - I think they (all 6 of them) would be better in their (or a footnotes section). -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete some marginal ones or all of them. I cut their number in half from when they were added yesterday (a la linkspam).  This page seem the closest to a 787 page on that site. -Fnlayson 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruise speed
I noticed a little edit war going on over the cruise speed. Per the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, Mach 0.85 at practical flight altitudes above 36,000 feet is 660mph, 1062 km/h, or 574 knots. 24.63.204.55 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever flown using Microsoft Flight Simulator? Or have you ever piloted a plane or asked a pilot about speed at flight? You will notice Mach .85 is different at all altitudes. Only when you get very very high up that it doesn't matter. Therefore why do we need to mention the miles per hour, the kilometers per hour, and the knots per hour? Mach number is enough. Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bangabalunga. (In any case the numbers above are wrong. 660mph would be nearer to Mach 1 not 0.85) Gerbilface 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 24.63.204.55 and Gerbilface are both right to some extent, but I disagree with Bangabalunga. Between ~36100 feet and ~65000 feet, the temperature (in the previously mentioned 1976 Standard Atmosphere) is constant, so the speed of sound is constant. Mach 0.85 would be 561 mph or 904 km/h or 488 knots in that region. A copy of the publication is available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539_1977009539.pdf Since airspeed is so conveniently a constant speed (assuming a standard temperature day), I think it's worth mentioning for ease of understanding. Mduell2 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct. I also said very high up. I thought it was from 40,000 feet and on but you have corrected me with 36,100 feet and up. I still dont know why we cant just use Mach?--Bangabalunga 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although a little different, it is similar to showing both Imperial and Metric units for other specs. It helps readers compare speeds and Mach values aren't readily available on older airliners.  Providing Mach numbers is more of a newer thing.  It's much easier finding speeds than Mach values for airliners 20+ years old. -Fnlayson 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem Jeff. Good stuff :)  --Bangabalunga 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One more viewpoint here: it's worth noting, at least for the discussion, that cruise Mach number will vary with cruise altitude. Most likely the design point is somewhere around 35K-40K ft, so listing the speed as converted from Mach number assuming stratospheric flight probably isn't too far off.


 * As a side note, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Units on whether statute or nautical miles (mph v. kts, etc.) should be used as the standard Imperial units for aviation related pages. I personally side with nm/kts, as it seems to me to be more of the standard within the aviation world, but can see why people would argue for miles/mph. Marimvibe 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollout
I don't think it's mentioned in the article, but I took a tour of the Boeing plant at Paine Field and the tour guide said there would be a rollout ceramony on 7-8-07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.179.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks. That's already in the article.  See the bottom of the development section. -Fnlayson 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seat widths
I wonder what possessed Boeing to go with a 17.2" wide seat for the 3x3x3 configuration expected to be used by most airlines. I'm a small person, so leg room isn't an issue for me, but elbow room is -- and my shoulders are wider than Boeing seats. Every time I fly an Airbus I get the feeling that I have an extra tiny bit of space. I think it would be a good idea if the article addressed the comparison of seat widths between Boeing and Airbus aircraft. Airbus seems to use consistently wider seats, in my experience. =Axlq 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Boeing knows this and the last two planes it launched were designed with 18.5" seat widths. However, it is the airlines that have crammed one more seat there bringing it down to 17.2". The 777 is meant to have 18.5" 2+5+2 design. However 30% of 777 in service come with a cramped 3+4+3 layout at 17.2". The 787 is designed for a 2+4+2 layout of 18.5" width, but over 50% is ordered in a 3+3+3 layout again of 17.2" width.
 * The reason cramming one more seat has been rare on Airbus planes is that Airbus has designed its last 3 planes in a way that one more seat would be very hard to add. The A320 cannot be 3+4. The A350 cannot be 3+4+3 (16.9") and at 3+3+3 it would be 18.5". The A380 has 18.5" seats as well in 3+4+3 layout. It cannot have 3+5+3 layout because the seats would become 17.2" and the isle would shrink a bit as well and there would be capacity limitations for emergency exiting. So Airlines go with the 18.5" width. Had the 787 been about 3 inches narrower it would have made the 3+3+3 layout undesirable and all planes would have had a 18.5" width. So its the chicken and the egg phenomenon. Boeing says they recommend a layout and the airlines make it cramped. The airlines say they would not be adding the extra seat if Boeing didn't design planes that could accomodate it. The temptation is too strong. When the 737 is replaced however you will see the width grow to 18.5" or more.--Bangabalunga 20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that explanation. Too bad the 787 isn't 3" narrower; the decrease in cross-sectional area would also have made the aircraft slightly more efficient, while giving more comfort to passengers. -Axlq 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency
On what is the fuel efficiency claim based? On fuel per passenger per km/mile? And to which other airplanes is this compared to? The article does not cite any source for this. Themanwithoutapast 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you believe Virgin Atlantic, The 787 is 27% more fuel-efficient per passenger than the A340. But Boeing's "official" page on the 787 doesn't specify if it is per passenger or some other measure, just that it's 20% more fuel efficient than similarly sized aircraft.. --Bobblehead 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fuel efficiency is compared to the Boeing 767. The 787-8 is 20% more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER. And thats it. This was stated during the launch of the plane in 2004. The 787-8 is an exact successor to the 767-300ER. All other claims of efficiency over another plane are given during press conferences depending on what the airline is replacing the ordered planes with. Northwest during their press conference for the A330 said they would save 20% in fuel compared to the DC-10. The 787-9 is about 11% more fuel efficient than the A330-200. And on and on. I hope this helps.--Bangabalunga 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently attended a lecture from a University of Cambridge professor in Aerospace Engineering. He made a few interesting claims that at least partially debunk the fuel efficiency arguments of the 787 - especially the longhaul 8000km+ models. He said that as the distance of the flight increases, the fuel load must increase exponentially... This is because the weight of the fuel becomes a signifciant factor in the overall weight of the plane, meaning that more fuel is required per mile to keep the thing in the air. ie. a 8000km flight might require 3 times as much fuel as a 4000km flight. On top of this, a heavyier fuel load requires a stronger, heavier fuselage which means that the same plane will not run at optimal efficiency even on the shorter 4000km flight.

Hope that makes sense. I certainly think that unqualified claims about fuel efficiency should not have a place in this article!! 128.232.240.178 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, from what you've said, that would applay to ALL airliners of a given size. THat means that other airliners would be even heavier than the 787 for a given passenger/fuel load for the same reasons, and thus the 787's efficiency would still be better than the traditional airliner. Granted, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but then, I'm not from England either with an interests in debunking Airbus's competitiors! - BillCJ 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

wow, why do people like you edit aviation articles then if you dont know much? How do you go around throwing citation needed everywhere like a drunken sailor? on that competition page 777 has indeed outsold the A340 and A330 since 2005 go check their respective order pages and count it up. We dont need citation needed every 5 seconds and dont give us all americans a bad rep here with the comment above. the guy is simply asking a question and making a comment and you go around accusing him of airbus bias? all i see on wikipedia is boeing neutrality and airbus bashing so put ur low self confidence to pasture and contribute like a gentleman. lets all act like citizens of one planet rather than a region isn't that what wikpedia is about.I dont know much about planes either but i want to come here and read professionaly written articles and learn something. yesterday was a proud day for me watching the rollout on tv with my family and i like what boeing has done with the 787 so no reason to be heavyhanded with people asking questions.


 * I was accusuing the Cambridge professor of an Airbus bias, no the user commenting about him. I don't have to know much about engineering to use the brain God gave me, and I can see that, based on what the user repeated, the engineering prof's comments seem very one-sided. As described, the factors would apply too ALL airliners of that range and size, thus the 787 would retain its advantages. As to throwing citation needed everywhere like a drunken sailor comment, please READ WP:ATTR. Contributors are required to source their material, no matter where it's from. Sure, anyone could probably Google any item on Wikipedia and find a source of some type for it, but it's not the reader's job to do that. That's the job of the contributor. Often, other editors will find sources for those items they did not add. Jeff (Fnlayson) often finds sources for tags that I've added, and for other editors, and I do that myself occasionally. It may seem liek madness sometime to keep adding tags liek that, but it's a necessary part of the process. - BillCJ 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV/opinion issue
From the 787-3 section: "This has led to higher congestion and more pollution. This same phenomenon is occurring in Asia, Europe, and South America. With the proliferation of open sky agreements, numerous airlines have been started in countries like Brazil, India, China, and throughout Europe. These start ups have placed more pressure on capacity on trunk routes and have encouraged the usage of ever smaller planes between very large cities. Routes like São Paulo to Buenos Aires, Berlin to Paris, Mumbai to Calcutta are now increasingly being served by single aisle planes when larger ones would be more logical." This is largely opinion (some of which I believe is incorrect), with a few facts mixed in. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. 192.88.212.43 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As the authur of this section I will answer you that the statement is not incorrect. Having dozens of flights between large cities does increase congestion, pollution, and delays (costs). This is just like carpool lanes on a freeway. A van or a bus eliminates several cars and saves on fuel and time. The world was never like this before. At one time Boeing almost cancelled the 737 line due to poor sales. Now its the best selling airplane of all time. Both Boeing and airbus cant make them fast enough. And where do you think these planes are going? Not between small cities like they were intended, but they are being put on major trunk routes. There are two ways of reversing this trend. One is to bring government regulation like there was 20 years ago. But thats not right, we live in a free society and we need to let the market decide. And that is what Boeing is doing. They are making a super efficient high capacity short range plane with a reduced MTOW to deal with congestion on major routes. The Legacy carriers are asking for this. Boeing has a much stronger relationship with the worlds largest, oldest, and national airlines then some startup from 2004. The legacy carriers have been suffering for too long and this is their comeback weapon. Now you have not seen many airlines ordering this because most legacy carriers in the world are in financial trouble. Also, the 787 is sold out till 2013, thats five years away. A 20 million dollar deposit per plane to sit for 5 years is a lot of money for American Airlines or United or Iberia or Delta. But you know what, they are considering it. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003757930_airshow22.html
 * Also, the 787-3 will be such a game changer, Europe is charging Boeing more money to certify it http://seattlepi.com/business/318387_boeing04.html. Now this is temporary pickering and in the end it will be certified, but the industry is very excited about this plane. Europe likes it as well because it is getting very very congested there. Even though they are dragging their feet as both sides of the Atlantic always do for the other sides plane (remember Concorde), in the end the environmental benefits will push it through. As Randy Baseler said himself, "if you think the 787-8 is a game changer, the 787-3 is an industry changer". Imagine flying in comfort from New York to LA at Mach .85 and cheaper or flying more expensive, slower, and less comfortable on a low cost airline. Thats what American is planning. United is looking at it as well for Chicago to other North American major cities. Its not just comfort and speed. They can also sell cheaper tickets on them! Just wait till the end of this year and early next when some of the worlds largest airlines place orders for the 787. Many will order a dozen or two of the 787-3.--Bangabalunga 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Source your paragraph with links to the relevant sources. I'm flagging it as unsourced. Ibanix 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to argue the accuracy of your statement, I'm more concerned about it's appropriateness in an encyclopedia. It's all opinion, that travellers want lower fares (remind me how you're going to pay for a new $150m plane with lower fares) over frequency (seven 737s a day instead of three widebodies), when the current trends show otherwise. Also saving 5-10 minutes on a 4-6 hour transcon isn't a game changer by any stretch of the imagination; to get real time savings you need to be cruising at .95, like the original Sonic Cruiser. Is this just one well disguised anti-aviation rant? 192.88.212.43 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * remind me how you're going to pay for a new $150m plane with lower fares - It's simple economics. Good businesses understand that when you lower prices, you can potentially sell more items, though of course there are other factors involved. However, this is a principal governments at all levels often fail to grasp, such as when cities raise bus fares because they aren't getting enough riders, and then are stunned when ridership drops even more, so they reaise the rates again. It pretty much costs an airline the same to fly a given airliner at 10% capacity as it does to fly it at full capacity. Though a near-empty plane might get slightly-better fuel economy, and you'll serve less food, the savings aren't enough to justify it. So the less it costs to operate an airpliner, the lower the costs to the airline, and thus theoretically they can offer a lower fare. - BillCJ 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It either takes market share from your competitors or makes them lower fees to keep up. ;) -Fnlayson 02:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your own little personal opinion piece on smaller aircraft being flown on 'big' routes and your theory that the 787-3 will displace them may be true, but it's absolutely unencyclopedic. 24.63.204.55 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not his opinion. A lot of the -3 content came from Boeing people during a tour as discussed in talk here (now on 787 talk archive (see 787-3 section).  A lot of that does seem out of place but it is tied in to the -3. -Fnlayson 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The single biggest cost to an airline is fuel. Number two is labor. Number three is plane payments if new or plane maintnance if old. Here is an example. A 737 holds about 6,500 gallons. At 2 dollars a gallon for Jet Fuel, it costs $13,000 to fly it accross its range. Do it 3 times a day and thats 39,000 a day. Do it 365 days a year and its 14 million in fuel costs for one plane for one year. To lease a brand new 737 from ILFC it costs about $250,000 a month or 3 million a year. Do you think airlines care more about 3 million dollar plane cost or the 14 million dollar fuel cost? Anyways, google 787-3 and you will get some interesting stuff. Also press news button on google with respect to the 787-3 to get the latest updates. This is not an antiaviation rant as you put it. And the trend you are talking about is an old one, its not new nor something about to come. I did place a link with a graph and a commentary by Randy Baseler but the link at Boeing has changed. I will try and update it. In this link he was talking about a recent trip he made to Australia. He saw first hand what had happened to the route between Sydney and Auckland in New Zealand and Sydney and other loacations. He saw how the capacity of airplanes had fallen drastically and the frequency increased. This is sustainable to a point. And of course you can keep making the airport bigger and adding more runways. But he saw the market adjusting and reaching an equilibrium. Anyways, I dont want to go on and on about this. The plane is 3 years away. We will get more info about it later. But remember, the day the 787 was launched the 787-3 took the most orders because for unique circumstances (ANA) its a perfect fit.--Bangabalunga 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please name the airlines that are flying their 737s on 3 missions a day at max fuel load. Your figures are way off. 192.88.212.43 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one example is Southwest Airlines. They fly their jets 13 hours a day. Thats about 2 and a half tankfuls. Take into account the 9 landings and takeoffs per plane and the extra fuel burnt brings it upto 3 tanks a day. That is simmilar to the numbers above.--Bangabalunga 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For all those interested in the 787 here are five recent Power Point presentations given by Boeing executives at analyst and commercial aviation meetings. You will learn a lot about Boeing's strategy and mindset:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/20/2003755221.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/conferences/2007ir_investor_carson.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/farnborough06/assets/presentations/bair_farnborough%202006.pdf

http://www.aseisocal.org/convention/docs/D_Keskar_-_Improving_The_Quality_Of_Life_Through_Technology.pdf

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=1868&ModuleId=2156&Tabid=256


 * Perhaps this could be spun off on a new page, then? It certainly seems a bit chatty and implies knowledge of what Boeing is/was thinking.  At the very least this needs citations.  I'd prefer to get rid of the wordy exposition and setup and just deal with the facts.  This doesn't seem like the place for a history lesson on the causes of pollution. NerfOne 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some more sources for the 787-3 being useful between big cities. I still dont understand why a 737 ferrying passengers between large cities 40 times a day is logical to you guys? I dont understand why you dont think it contributes to delays and pollution? Look at a site like Expedia.com and put in JFK-LAX and see how many flights you get. Then add all the flights from airlines that dont list with Expedia such as Jetblue and you will come to 51 daily flights as of today. As for load factor, all airlines run around 75%. Look at their respective websites and click on investor relations and read their last financial statements.


 * As for these links, the Boeing one talks about planes moving up in size with fewer frequencies. There was another one where Randy Baseler talks about the 787-3, I will try and find it. Two of the other links are a few years old but still relevant to today. Last one is about the outcry in Europe right now with Ryan Air and Easy Jet and other low cost airlines clogging up the airspace and causing many problems there. The EU is trying to cap airline pollution.--Bangabalunga 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2005/05/kangaroo_hop.html

http://joe.biztravelife.com/01/031501.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/04/business/bgair.php

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_31_24/ai_91093365

http://www.expedia.com/default.asp?ccheck=1&&mcecid=ipsplash_ca

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200706/s1944579.htm

787-10
Someone deleted my section on the 787-10, claiming it is not yet launched. However, that person is wrong as it is currently being offered to airlines for sale, clearly indicating that it is launched. I plan on putting the section back if there is no further arguments. (Edwardlay 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Please wait on further discussion. Thanks - BillCJ 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just got back from Seattle (I am a Aviation Engineer with a major carrier) and while correct that the B787 has not been "Launched" (or built) orders are being accepted - does this make the B787-10 acceptable (I think so)Davegnz 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Marcus, the link provided in the last edit about the 787-10 seems pretty specific that Boeing is going ahead with development of the -10. WHile "launch" may not be the best word to use, I do think we can cover some of the info in that source, along with other corraborating sources. I understand you may be a having a problem with your footwear here, but the links stands on its own. Has this been denied by Boeing? - BillCJ 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THis link from Boeing confirms that the program has not been officially "launched", but the othe info in the first piece seem to be correct. - BillCJ 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that link says it has not been launched. I used the word because the title of that article I refernced said had launched in the title. Can we agree on a section without the word launched? Because that sounds good and informamtive to me. (Edwardlay 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Hello, yes I plan on waiting until we have more opinion than just me and whoever deleted it. And there is no doubt that it will be produced. This article has the quote, "Mike Bair, head of the 787 Program, has stated that "It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it...". And since the Paris Air Show, it has been officially launched. Even the list of orders has a column for 787-10 orders. I think it deserves a section, as it will definatly be produced. Thanks (Edwardlay 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC))


 * From what I have seen, I agree with you, but I will wait and see what Marcus's (Bambuluga) objections are, and get his response. He has been in communication with Boeing people on the 787 program, though his info is original research. However, he may have a specific reason for wanting to wait on this based on what he knows, and I'd like to hear it first before committing to including this. - BillCJ 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward, your source for the 787-10 currently being launched and shopped around is the only source available. Anyone with a website can write anything it doesn't mean we bring it over to wikipedia right away. What is the rush?

We can explain this if you really want but not in the variants section. That section should be for the planes currently in production or officially launched and orders taken for. At the top of the page there is a few sentences on the 787-10 you are welcome to expand that. But there are only 3 variants of the 787 currently. Also did you know even if a 787-10 was sold today it could not possibly enter service until 2013 or 2014. That is 6 years from now. Again what is the rush? I know the A350 is suddenly doing well and we feel like our one feelgood story maybe slipping but we should not jump the gun yet. One other thing, Randy Baseler recently said the 787-10 will have the same MTOW as the 787-9 which would reduce its range to even lower than the 787-8. This is not what Emirates and other airlines want. So unless Boeing increaes the MTOW and gives the 787-10 a new wing it will not garner much support. Shopping ideas around is acceptable practice and common but a plane that is launched and orders being taken is not what is happening now.--Bangabalunga 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again if you really feel strongly about this I will not object to you writing about it in the body at the top of the page. Expand the paragraph. But not in the variants section or we will get somebody else adding the A350R or the A380-900 for 1000 passengers Tim Clark wants or the 737-800F Boeing is tossing around since the beggining of this year. We have to keep a balance.--Bangabalunga 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Marcus, the link from Boeing confirms they are talking to customers about the -10, and working with them is developing specifications. What is wrong with having a section on it with details from the Boeing link, especially in light of the A350's variant in the same range? I know of no guidelines in WP:AIR restricting the Variants section to oficially-launched versions. Please point it out to me if there is one. - BillCJ 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill you are correct there is no guideline on how far we can go with variants. Maybe we should stop this and take it to WP:AIR talk to set a guideline then come back here. But all i am saying is this will open a whole new can of worms. We will get rumored variants on all aircraft pages. currently all Boeing and Airbus planes have officially launched products in the variants section and I think this is the right way to go about it. Thats all. Bill I dont own Wikipedia nor do I want to boss others around nor is this my intent, I just see us going down a slippery slope if we include the 787-10 right now.--Bangabalunga 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bangabalunga- yes, I agree, rumors should not be just put on any page without any facts to base them on. Unfortuatly, this is not a rumor at all. Boeing has confirmed it, and my source is very reputable. And beisdes that, there are many sources that talk about the 787-10. Again, there is no doubt that the 787-10 will be produced. Boeing confirmed it. And your argument about the different A350, A380, and B737 variants doesn't make sense, because none of those have been confirmed by Boeing or Airbus, as going to be made. And your argument about the potential sucsess doesn't make any sense because this is an encoclopedia, not an opinion site. We deal with facts, which the 787-10. You clain you don't want to be the boss, but you removed my section without first opening any discussion. Now, I definatly don't want to personally attack you, I have nothing against you. I just feel that this isn't between my opinion and yours, this is a group choice. So, my feeling here is that it's okay for this section. Now, I'm going to wait some time but if I don't see a huge resistance supported by good points, I don't see any reason why that section cannot be added. Thanks. (Edwardlay 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * And I forgot to say, if you don't like my source, please enter 787-10 into any search engine and see what comes up. There are many more sources that confirm the 787-10. And I also forgot to say, that I am leaning against using the word "launch" anywhere in the section, as it becomes too opinated. Thanks. (Edwardlay 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Marcus, it's not rumored - Boeing itself has issued press releases about this - that doesn't qualify as a rumor. I understand your reasoning for wanting to be careful, but you're throwing ou the baby - admitedly a small one - with the bathwater this time. And I know you don't own WIkipedia - there is a user in the Baseball project who already claims ownership through his actions! :) - BillCJ 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To me this article does not say Boeing has launched the -10. It says they are close to launching it.  Specifically it says "Further out, Boeing is working with interested customers to define the 787-10, which has yet to be launched."  Therefore I think the -10 info should stay in the Development section.  There's already a paragraph there that covers most of this.  -Fnlayson 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that source says its not launched. But I had one that said it is. But only one, so I don't think we shoudl consider it launched. But I believe there is enough information out to have a section and it is definatly going to be produced. So I think it would be appropiate to have a section as it is no rumor. (Edwardlay 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
 * If it were 2 different media outlets, I'd agree with that. But since someone can be misquoted or misrepresented, the manufacturer's release should have precendent on matters such as this. -Fnlayson 03:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's why I propose a section describing all of the details and plans, without saying launched. What do you think? (Edwardlay 03:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Until Boeing issues a press statement declaring the program launched, it isn't launched. Plain and simple.  And until they get firm orders for it (which will be announced at launch,) it isn't necessarily definitely going to be produced. I'm not sure if they need to get authority to offer the -10 from the board or not, and even ATO doesn't necessarily mean anything (C-Series.)


 * However, I follow Bill's train of thought that the -10 is most likely a foregone conclusion. I personally don't have issues with articles discussing unlaunched aircraft variants, probably with a threshold of some level of serious design studies being done. There are articles on aircraft that are purely in the conceptual stage at this point (Boeing Yellowstone, Airbus NSR, Bombardier C-Series,) so why not discuss likely future variants? Marimvibe 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this, however, we know that it is going to come out sometime in the future. It is not so much proposed as it is planned. A high ranking Boeing exec said "it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when." Now, I would stake my life on this claim, but I am about 99.99% sure it's coming. Thanks for your input. (Edwardlay 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Just because an exec says it's so doesn't mean it is. They have to say things like that to keep interest up, and then if it flops, they get brushed aside; all you have to do is look at Boeing's own history over the past 20 years- 7J7, Sonic Cruiser, 747-X... Marimvibe 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the writer of the non-Beoing source doesn't know what "launch" means in this context. But everything else quoted jives with the Beoing press release. I have no problem making a section on this now, and if it doesn't launch, we'll do what we've done in other aritcles, and place it under "Failed proposals" or some such. See the Boeing 747 article for several exampels of this, including the 747-300 Tri-jet, and the 747-500X/600X. - BillCJ 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, "brush aside" is a gross over-simplification in those cases, especially that of the Sonic Cruiser. Boeing was very serious about all of these, but no customers were interested. Marcaus has a link to a very interesting pices on the Sonic Crusier/787. Basically, Beoing was trying to sell the Sonic crusier as going faster for the same fuel, but htat the same technology good go the same speed for less fuel, and that's what the airlines wnated, hence the 7E7/787. - BillCJ 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarification, the executives get brushed aside after the company puts forth its best foot, not that the airplanes are brushed aside. Marimvibe 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reitirate once again that we can talk about the 787-10. No problem with that. But as Marimvibe and Fnlayson have said, until this is firm, until a press announcement is made with the CEO of some airline that just placed an order present, this does not belong in the "Variants" section. It belongs in the development section as it is now. --Bangabalunga 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Search Sonic Crusier, 747X, and 7J7 as Marimvibe pointed out. All proposed events that never materilized. But they had pages. Basically what I'm saying is that I believe it will be created, as Bill agreed, but even if it doesn't, it still deserves a section as Marimvibe said. That's my feelings, and I belive what the majority is thinking. (Edwardlay 04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I think the officially-released info on the 787-10 is to the point that it needs its own section. Call it "Proposed variants", and put a hidden discliamer in limiting what we'll add here, but put the -10 there. Simple. Remember, this is an electronic encyclopedia - nothing is written in stone, and we make changes like this all the time. - BillCJ 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could live with a subsection under Development, but I don't think there would be much to add on it other than the paragraph that's already there. Bill's idea works too. -Fnlayson 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I completly agree with Bill. That's a much better idea than what I had in mind. There will be probably be another proposed variant soon so that'll be good to have. Alrightly, can we have some agreement on Bill's idea. There's my vote, and obviously Bills', and I believe Finlayson's. Anyone else? I believe this is a good compromise. (Edwardlay 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
 * By the way, I have enough info to make this section worth it. (Edwardlay 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * The Most I can live with is a subsection under developement as Jeff said. Thats where my vote is. On another note the 787-3 which is my favorite variant and one where I research it relentlessly everyday, I barely find anything on it. This is a plane that is second in line, the design is basically frozen, will be flying in 2 years, enters passenger service in 3 years and I barely find anything on it, yet we want to write about a plane that will not fly for another 7 years probably.--Bangabalunga 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm talking about. That's what I proposed with my comment above. I would appreciate it if you don't delete what I write or knock it it any way, as we have had a discusion on it and it's a compromise, not just what I wanted. So, if I don't see any point against have the proposed section, I shall be adding it within a few days. (Edwardlay 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Marcus, you're being intractable. We've offered a compromise, and you're not even trying to work with us.


 * By the way, since you've kept bringing up the 787-3 section, I finally took a good look at your in-depth reasoning on the need for the -3. It has no sources, which means it's Original research. I'm sorry I didn't catch that sooner. I know you have sources for this, but you need to cite them, or it will have to be removed. (The usual tiem is 2 weeks.) Thanks. - BillCJ 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Marcus, thanks for adding the sources. I wasn't trying to be contentious in requesting them, just hadn't noticed it before. - BillCJ 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so now I'll be adding the proposed Variants section within the next few days. I'm just not sure where it fits better, a subsection in the devlopment section or the variant one? I figured I get some other people's opinion, as I really don't know. (Edwardlay 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
 * I had in mind putting it under Variants. That's were such content on the other pages I mentioned is. - BillCJ 05:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeff upthere in putting it under development since shopping it around is not an official variant.--Bangabalunga 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Marcus, I would list all the airliner articles with that would change your mind. We're both pretty set on what we want, but we don't nend to fight about it. I plan on placing it under "Proposed variants" in the "Variants" section, but will also include a hidden note limiting what proposed variants can be placed there, and you're free to tweak that. There is no guideline or even suggestion anywhere in WP:AIR that the section should be limited to only "official" variants. If you feel so strongly about it, then please take the issue up at WT:AIR, and gain a consensus to do that. - BillCJ 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC


 * Just to let everyone know, I already wrote the 787-10 section in MSWORD, and I've just been waiting to figure out where to put it. I like the poll, and so when I get about 7 or 9 responces I will add the section where everyone wants it. Thanks (Edwardlay 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I can not believe all the 787-10 talk! Maybe this is why for Hall of Fame the applicants have to wait 5 years before they are eligible: its to let all the emotions cool off. Are you guys restless because the 3 variants have gotten stale and its been sooo long and we need something new? Or the rollout got you all wired up? Im a DIE HARD BOEING fan all the way and Im telling you it should not be under variants this plane is not launched nor does it exist in any way but the Boeing sales peoples head. There are no firm configuration such as length and capacity and orders are being taken for anything customers want. Dont show me some secondary website with figures as I only trust Boeing numbers and there is NONE! If an airline shows up and asks for a 777 combi with a freight door and wanted to commit 30 orders Boeing would take it. Tossing around ideas is not a variant cause otherwise throw in a 787 freighter while your at it. Too bad I cant vote in your table but mine would be development.--Bringonthe797 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are definitely reliable sources (WP buzzword) that the 787-10 is under consideration. It hasn't been launched yet.  As such, it's not in the same class as the other variants.  WP allows mention of facts that have reliable sources.  WP doesn't sanction facts that don't have reliable sources.  I'm sure there are countless proposals for other 787 under lock and key at Boeing (787F, KC-787, E-787, 787-8LR, etc.) Archtransit 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The section today was pretty speculative. Talking about redesigning major areas of the 787.  It went on to suggest a 77 m long -11 too. :) -Fnlayson 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chart Wrong
Look at the gross weight in both lbs and kg for the 787-3 and the 787-8. Somethings wrong.

Also, it would be interesting to know what the differences in structure between the 787-3 and the 787-8 are. Since they have different gross and empty weights, there must be some structural differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs)
 * You must mean the Empty weight in the spec table. I'll look into it. -Fnlayson 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The empty weights sound about right. Although we have very little information about the 787-3 we do know the wings are 26 feet shorter which probably translates to about 10000 lbs but I dont know. Also weight is saved even more throughout the plane to make it as light as possible so a 19,000 lb difference is reasonable.
 * Also take into account that Jet fuel weighs exactly 6.7 lb for one gallon. Now you can make the following calculations:


 * Empty Weight = 223,000
 * 290 passengers and luggage @ 210 lb each = 60,000
 * This means 283,000 lb already or 81,000 lb left for fuel.
 * 81,000 divided by 6.7 = 12,089 gallons
 * This is a about a third of the 787-8's carrying capacity which gives the 787-3 about a third of the 787-8's range. 787-8 goes 15,000km and the 787-3 goes 5,000km.--Bangabalunga 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The empty weight (mass) metric values were the same for the -3 & -8. I fixed the conversion on the -3.  The weights are estimates or preliminary now anyway. -Fnlayson 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * can we put this little tidbit calculation above in the 787-3 section? Its a nice little formula and the explanation is cool!--Pasbeat 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure I can add something there but better yet maybe I can make a table in the MTOW article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTOW listing several aircraft and how more payload limit their range. The formula above works for all Boeing and Airbus designed commercial planes. This does not work for military planes like the C17 or C5 or other military transports as they have different design criteria. So yes, go around and calculate all planes and you will get the same result as to why they have the range they do! Its fun.--Bangabalunga 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

787-10 vote
Another alternative is just to request at WT:AIR that other editors comment here on the dispute. Right now, we seem to be split 2-2, so we need othe input for a consensus. I will abide by the decision of the other editors in such a case, at least if or until the we decide on Project-wide guidelines for this. - BillCJ 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure Bill. It does seem like we are split 2-2 and just like you I am willing to abide by the consensus. Can we agree that no IP addresses and recent members (2 weeks or less) count towards the tally? --Bangabalunga 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea for rules, and a good way to solve this whole thing. (Edwardlay 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Discussion
There is absolutely no reason why a proposed variant should not be listed under variants - there's plenty of precedent in other aircraft articles for proposed variants being listed in such a way, even proposed variants that were not built in the end. Ten examples (no particular order - just the first ones I came across - only took a few minutes):


 * de Havilland Vampire
 * Horten Ho 229
 * Bristol Type 138
 * Sikorsky H-19
 * Bristol Freighter
 * Percival Petrel
 * Agusta A129 Mangusta
 * Tupolev Tu-160
 * Junkers Ju 87
 * Curtiss-Wright CW-21

Of course, such vapourware needs to be identified as such, but it's a legitimate inclusion. Secondly, as a point of order, voting is not a way to resolve differences of opinion on Wikipedia - polling is fine as a tool for understanding the variety of opinions out there, but Wikipedia does not operate on a majority rules basis.

There's clearly a strong precedent for the inclusion of a not-yet-built or never-built version, so the onus is now on those who want to exclude it from this one particular article to make a case for that and then build consensus among other editors. --Rlandmann 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are dealing with commercial aircaft here not all aircraft. This is to determine the variant section of Boeing and Airbus and maybe even the Bombardier and Embraer planes thats all.--Bangabalunga 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, check out Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante, or the Bombardier CRJ. (Edwardlay 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Then you need to make a case why commercial aircraft should somehow be handled differently from the other 3,000-odd aircraft that WikiProject Aircraft currently covers, and build consensus to exempt them. --Rlandmann 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten examples of commercial aircraft which list unbuilt, proposed variants in their variants section (again no particular order - just the first ones I came across):
 * Bristol Freighter
 * De Havilland Comet
 * De Havilland Dove
 * Vickers VC10
 * McDonnell Douglas DC-10
 * Yak-40
 * Tupolev Tu-114
 * Dornier 328
 * Boeing Business Jet
 * Lockheed Model 10 Electra
 * There's more than ample precedence for this variant to be included in this section in this article. From a purely pragmatic point of view, even if consensus were reached here to exclude it, the very next editor who came along and wanted to put it back in again could happily do so by referring to WP:AIR guidelines and the precedence available. --Rlandmann 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Bill, I moved your post into the voting chart, I hope you don't mind. (Edwardlay 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't mind. I'm not good with tables, so I figured someone else would add it. Btw, look at Boeing 747 and Boeing 707 (707-700), both airliners. - BillCJ 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Bill, but its not like I am happy about it. We get 787-10 under variants then we are gonna go back to the old days when we had 777-100 and 757-100 and others.... I personally think the old days of the 747 article was much better then the busy page it is now. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=76799550 Dont you think its more organized than the page we have today? By all means talk about the 777-100 and what happened to it just not under variants.--Bangabalunga 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not really. Also you need to really that the "slippery slope argument" is a type of "logical fallacy". It does not neccessary follow that all that will happen just because we allow the -10 in. I could say that if we only allow "officially-launched" versions, then soon someone will want to take out the variants that haven't flown yet, and later someoneone will want to remove the onese that aren't in production, then the ones not in service.


 * People add all kinds of things to WP:AIR articles every day, much of which we all take out. A lot of them with add their own heading if one doesn't exist. Late last night, some enterprising IP user decided to add a "Typical routes" section to almost ALL the ariliner articles except for the Boeings. (No sources, of couse!) I was well past my bedtime, so I left it for today. THis mornign, an editor I've not seen very much reverted them all, as he should have. I have never seen any regular WP:AIR editor, or even an irregular one, even hint at something like a "typical routes" section before, anywhere, yet someone though it would be a good idea. So does this mean we shouldn't have an Operators section because people will think it's OK to add "Typical routes"? - BillCJ 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The typical routes got added to a few Boeing airline articles too. Had me wondering what typical was.  Anyway, someone is more likely to add that, pop culture or trivia than something about a potential variant. -Fnlayson 01:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill's got a good point backed by numerous examples of other articles. It also appears that Bangabalunga is only going on opinion. I think it definatly belongs under Variants, not just because that it what I feel, but because that is what has been done on other articles. Can anyone argue with that beisdes saying they don't think it looks good or fits right? I'm happy to hear it, but I just don't think it's okay to argue on Opinion and I definatly don't want to hear that this posting will cause the downfall of Wikipedia, that because of this posting all other crappy posts will be allowed. That just doesn't make any sense. Thanks. ((Edwardlay 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Log-in to sign please. (This page's history is showing the above comment by an IP user.) It's difficult to tell if someone is pretending to be you or not.  Bangabalunga is welcome to his opinion.  That's why we are seeking a consensus from a group of people. -Fnlayson 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not on my own computer and this one doesn't have my password saved. Anyway, of course he's welcome to his own opinion, but Wikipedia, if you read the instructions, is not based on his opinion, nor the majorities. So, we will make this decision based on the precedent on other pages, as Bill pointed out. That is what wikipedia is about. Again, I am unable to sign in as I do not remeber my password. Sorry. -Edwardlay
 * No problem on the log-in thing. Consensus with good reasons provided is used to set-up rules and guidelines all over the place here. -Fnlayson 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The real question is once the guidelines are set, do we have a right to change them? -Edwardlay
 * We're not setting guidelines here, just talking about what to do on this page. Guidelines can be changed by the same process with twhich tehy are set up, through consensus. - BillCJ 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Given there is not a huge body of information about the 787-10 yet, and it appears to still be somewhat fluid in its definition stage, I think it would be best dealt with by being mentioned under development. It doesn't have to be confined to that section forever though - once more information is made available by Boeing (or once it is being officially offered for sale, and not just discussed as I believe is the case at the moment), then it would be appropriate to give it its own section under variants. --Nick Moss 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So What's so special about this plane ?
In scanning the page briefly all I see are mostly technical specs.

Please add an "Innovations" section or something similar for layman who want a quick summary of that the big deal is.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.86.173 (talk • contribs)
 * Basically it's a lighter and thus more efficient design. It uses mostly composites in its design to get there. Some of that is covered at the top (in Lead).  And there's already a Features section. -Fnlayson 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The features section is a bit of a hodge-podge - it could probably be tidied up. Given the game changing nature of this aircraft, I think an section highlighting the specific innovations would be a good idea (as opposed to including them in with information about the cabin width and seating configurations etc). --Nick Moss 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a section on innovations is a good idea it could replace the description-features paragraph which is filling up with trivia and the production paragraph which is trying to list every sub-contrator and build progress, I presume that somebody will keep this up to date for all 600 odd aircraft and ten of thousand of sub-contracted bits! MilborneOne 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, a summary paragraph or two would not be a bad idea. That'd allow some details in the Features list to be cut back or removed. -Fnlayson 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, it needs a total writeup. I'll do a bit soon and you guys can tweek what I write.--Bangabalunga 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the first thing is to turn the bulleted feature list into paragraphs. The list is like trivia list.  Easy for people to add entries without them fitting together.  A summary paragraph at the beginning would do the original poster is asking for. -Fnlayson 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A summary paragraph or two describing what makes the 787 special would be a good idea. We should be careful that we maintain a neutral viewpoint and not have this sound like a Boeing press release.--Dan Dassow 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like Bangabalunga is doing a rewrite of the feature section and/or adding a innovations section. This is a good idea in my opinion.  I favor adding an innovation section before the feature section, and removing trivia from the feature section.  A layman (like me) will quickly be able to see why this plane is so different.  Mikedz 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Near then end of this section is a paragraph "Early concept images of the 787 included …. ". IMO, this is not a feature or an innovation, just early concepts trivia which can be drop.  The last sentence about the yoke may is a feature but I think irrelevant. -Mikedz 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That part described early features. But I moved it to the Development section, since it is 'historical'. -Fnlayson 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's so special about this plane is that Boeing has outsourced the majority of the manufacturing. Typical to the ongoing trend of big business, Boeing would rather pay foreign workers low wages than to support the American economy. The effect of doing so was made clear by the fact that the parts did not fit properly, which has delayed its first flight even more.

Copyright violations
I noticed that a couple of non-free images were deleted. BillCJ did the right thing when he removed them, however I think we have a bigger problem, the images he deleted I recognized as Boeing images... their status is exactly the same as some identified as free: Avianica 787 and Continental plus 787 image we're currently using in the infobox.

Boeing is pretty emphatic that aside from news organizations, which Wikipedia is not, the images are not free:

I'm going to remove them here, and then go over to the commons and have them removed. (The commons are for free media only, so somebody made a mistake over there.) Anynobody 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Higher cabin pressure and humidity: Added weight?
Boeing plans to increase the air pressure and humidity inside the cabin of the 787. I'm unsure of the formula on this, but is there a significant weight penalty for increasing the mass of the air and humidity within the aircraft? Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At 8000ft altitude (traditional), the density of air is .9805kg/m^3, at 6000ft (787,) .9091 kg/m^3, giving a .0714kg/m^3 difference. Assuming the fuselage to be perfectly cylindrical, on the 787-9 there is a volume of 1132m^3, resulting in ~808 kg or 1778 lbs.  On top of that there will be some additional structural weight for the pressure vessel as well as increased weight as a result of the stronger structural components needed to deal with the other weight increases, and additional fuel weight. I wouldn't be surprised if weight at cruise is 2000-2500 lbs heavier than if the aircraft were designed for the traditional cabin pressurization. Marimvibe 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For delta density times volume, I get (0.0714 kg/m3)*1132m3 = 80.8 kg or 178.2 lb. Rather minimumal really. -Fnlayson 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Going from 8000 feet pressure to 6000 feet pressure doesn't add 2500 pounds. Its not very significant. If it added 2500 pounds that equals the weight of 16 passengers which is too much for airlines to give up to make their passengers more comfortable.--Bangabalunga 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, adding something like 2000 lb wouldn't make much sense. -Fnlayson 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Number built
I've commented out the "number built" section of the infobox for now. The plane which was rolled out does not even have all systems installed yet and has not operated on internal power. Do we have any established conventions for describing the "number built" for an aircraft? To me, the plane should at least be systems complete and possibly able to operate under its own power. --StuffOfInterest 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seating
In Boeing_787 there are two points related to seating in the 787 requiring citations. I have not been able to find sources for this information other than blogs. The information appears to be correct based upon the Boeing fact sheets and cursory calculations, although there is an element of speculation in the text. Should we: --Dan Dassow 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave these bullets intact;
 * Cite the Boeing fact sheets;
 * Remove the citation needed tags; or
 * Remove the bullets?

Seating References

 * I guess you mean the seat spacing bullets (items 4 & 5). Also the cabin interior width and increase (item 6) is uncited too.  I say leave the fact tags on there for a month or so then remove if still unreferenced.  That's generally what's done with unsourced content with old fact tags. -Fnlayson 17:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am new at this and have not edited this page and sorry if I get the format of the talk page wrong.

But I remember reading that the interior will be wider then planned because the insulation will be less then planned. I google and found the below link saying that Boeing stated that the interior will be 1 inch wider then planed because of less insulation. However this is from November 2005.

As a layman, I like an innovation section (talked about earlier) cutting back or removing the features section because the features section has too much trivia. I want to know, what makes this plane so great.

http://seattlepi.com/business/248827_boeing18.html -Mikedz 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent and thanks. I added that as a reference.  It covered everything but the newer A350 XWB. -Fnlayson 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I can help. I may add comments to the talk section about this page.  Just some suggestions from a layman's point of view. -Mikedz 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Airbus web site says about A350 XWB "With a cabin cross-section of 220 inches/5.58 meters from armrest to armrest, the A350 XWB provides wider aisles and the widest seats in the industry. Compared to its nearest competitor, the A350 XWB cabin is 5 inches/12.7cm wider, offering superior levels of spaciousness for passengers." http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/comfort.html --Yasobara 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Boeing web site has excellent charts of seat width and pitch for various passenger accommodation. It is well hidden but public information. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/787.html 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning - Page 10 thru 14 of the following document give you the reference you need. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf --Yasobara 02:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone User:67.80.158.27 has changed the cabin width at eye level to 18 ft 9 in. This is physically impossible. The external maximum width is 18 ft 11 in on page 8 in the Boeing document above. The maximum cabin width at armrest level is 17 ft 11 in by examining page 13 in the same document the business class seating 2 + 2 + 2 (57 + 22 + 57 + 22 + 57 = 215 in). Then you have to believe Airbus document's numbers: 206 inches at eye level and 215 inches at armrest. Page 18 in The A350 presentation at Paris Airshow 2007--Yasobara 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That'll work.  Although 'approximately' needs to be added to the wording since the armrest height is not at eye level, at least the 50 in height they use anyway. -Fnlayson 20:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

First flight in October?
Stop editing that the first flight has been delayed to October until there is an official statement. Unconfirmed speculation, even in the mass media, is not a source. 192.88.212.44 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Boeing may acknowledge further 787 delays next week. --HDP 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So the delays has several reasons according to this article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698754167616531.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I wonder if the 2006 shootout with Lebanon has anything to do with it? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Repair of Composites
The September 2, 2007 issue of the Chicago Tribune has an article that might be relevant, "Boeing coining plan for composite parts: Greater use of superstrengthened plastics in the 787 raises concerns about detecting damage -- now done using a quarter -- but company says visual inspections will be enough" By Julie Johnsson. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_fiber_0902sep02,0,6108705.story?page=1 I am not sure how this article might be used. --Dan Dassow 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would best fit in the "Composite fuselage" section. That seems to be partially covered by what is there now. -Fnlayson 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So the delays has several reasons according to this article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698754167616531.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I wonder if the 2006 shootout with Lebanon has anything to do with it? RGDS Alexmcfire

Takeoff Roll?
What is the estimated runway length for this plane...will it be able to use airports like LaGuardia with short (6000 ft) runways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it can use 6000 feet runways specially the 787-3 and La Guardia has runways that are longer than 7000 feet by the way. American is looking at buying 30 of these to fly out of La Guardia.--154.20.78.130 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AA wanted the DC-10 to be able to use LGA. Archtransit 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New photos
BTW, I added a number of new photos, including some compositions I added with the use of free-use flickr or commons photos. Any opinions? I hope they helped give the article some visual benefit. Some pics for the lower sections of the article would help if anyone has them. Enigma3542002 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the photo of the chubby man sitting in the economy class seat an accurate representation? That doesn't look like an economy seat. Is there too much space between seats? The seat doesn't look too comfortable. Archtransit 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Engine interchangeability
Is this still a technical concern? Mikedz 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"most unique" - nitpick on English Style
This is a nitpick on English style. The phrase "most unique" should not be used. From: Hypertext Guide to English Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage Rules http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5014/courseNotes/5.TechnicalCommunication/tc_2_Usage.html Do not use an adverb with an adjective that cannot be qualified. Wrong: most unique, absolutely essential, quite impossible Correct: unique, essential, impossible The following sentence in Boeing_787 "Boeing sees the 787 family as a game changer with this variant as the most unique of the three." should probably be changed to "Boeing sees the 787 family as a game changer with this as the unique variant of the three."

I did not see this problem with grammar until user:BillCJ reverted a change by user:67.167.166.218 on 17:13, November 10, 2007.

I am suggesting this change rather than making it, since I am not certain the revision captures the intent of the original sentence. I also do not wish to cause problems for user:BillCJ who is one of the guiding spirits of this article (Boeing 787) and WikiProject Aviation.

Sincerely, --Dan Dassow 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * THnaks for the benifit of the doubt. I did check my old college English grammar book (Little, Borwn), and you are, of course, correct. THat's a tid-bit of Grammar that I meesed adding to my editing/grammar knowledge. I get in the habit of reverting IP edits made without edit summaries, as they are generally indistinguishable from vandalism. Sorry for the mistake on my part, and the lack of good faith extended to the IP. I hope he explains his edits next time, as I would have checkd my grammar book first with an adequate explanation. - BillCJ 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BillCJ, I probably would not have noticed this little grammartical error if I had not had it pointed out to me by a very good technical writer. Although the change by user:67.167.166.218 makes the sentence grammatical, it does not quite sound right.--Dan Dassow 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The useage you cite is correct "formal" English right now, and that is what Wikipeida uses, so no further arguments from me on that point. However, it may be another of those "formally" correct usages that goes by the wayside, as the current incorrect usage is very common, and most people (myself included) don't even know it's incorrect. I think using modifiers with the "absolute" words is very useful, and does serve a purpose. To me, it's a case of the language evolving past the rigid grammar rules, many of which didn't come from English originally. It's quite possible (is "quite" allowed here?) that the useage even predates the imposition of this grammar rule, as with the continued useage of double negatives in English, despite all the efforts of mathemeticians to stamp them out! :) - BillCJ 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)