Recent Topics
Toyota OEM Cartridge Filter, Cut Open 12,669 Miles
by Nick1994
04/22/18 04:53 PM
S/C Range Rover, 5000kms 33 different oils UOA
by Vladiator
04/22/18 04:24 PM
Buying oil on price - Pricing Rant
by JHZR2
04/22/18 04:22 PM
Mix of 33 oils VOA
by Vladiator
04/22/18 04:19 PM
Sugar Binge Hangover ... :~/
by LoneRanger
04/22/18 04:18 PM
MagnaFlow 49253 Exhaust Header
by Ambition5253
04/22/18 04:14 PM
Difference between NGK BR6ES and BPR6ES ?!?
by webfors
04/22/18 04:08 PM
Griot's Garage Glass Polish leaving dried flakes
by mclasser
04/22/18 03:56 PM
Pennzoil Platinum 10W30
by turnbowm
04/22/18 03:55 PM
Adhesive for clay pot repair?
by callbay
04/22/18 03:40 PM
G35 rough start
by bowlofturtle
04/22/18 03:37 PM
Parts Master 67045 5K OCI Cut Open
by Ifixjetz1
04/22/18 03:03 PM
Best Subcompact Cars in the US & Global
by NewEnglander
04/22/18 02:41 PM
Super Tech Clearance purchase
by mctmatt
04/22/18 01:58 PM
Website Loading Issue
by sleddriver
04/22/18 01:51 PM
White List?
by BlueOvalFitter
04/22/18 01:43 PM
Troubleshooting F-250 Tranny
by dkryan
04/22/18 01:19 PM
Cabin Vibration
by artbuc
04/22/18 12:27 PM
High Mileage ATF D&F
by FriboRage
04/22/18 12:07 PM
The new Fram TG 3682
by aquariuscsm
04/22/18 12:06 PM
Newest Members
Tremendo, homeontherange, dreko, Marc32275Jax, puma4440
64809 Registered Users
Who's Online
81 registered (93cruiser, AZmike., Astro_Guy, andyd, 2015_PSD, 6 invisible), 1617 Guests and 42 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
64809 Members
68 Forums
282143 Topics
4710469 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#4705257 - 03/24/18 01:19 PM London - Perth Boeing 787
Y_K Offline


Registered: 05/29/09
Posts: 2088
Loc: WA (USA)

Top
#4705266 - 03/24/18 01:23 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
CincyDavid Offline


Registered: 03/03/16
Posts: 659
Loc: Cincinnati, OH USA
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.
_________________________
06 Kia Sportage EX greenish gold(ugliest color ever)
14 Honda Accord LX metallic black
16 Honda CR-V EX silver
17 VW Jetta SE black

Top
#4705270 - 03/24/18 01:34 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: CincyDavid]
PimTac Online   content


Registered: 03/04/17
Posts: 3463
Loc: Soviet State of Washington
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.



Alway true but the budget does dictate how we fly. Having been on numerous 787 transpacific flights including the 789, I find economy to be not too shabby. The air system does help. In the end it ultimately comes down to which airline you fly with. Some do tend to cram more seats in at the expense of legroom.
_________________________
2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring

Valvoline Advanced Synthetic 0w20
Mobil 1 M108A EP filter


Top
#4705303 - 03/24/18 02:01 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
Snagglefoot Offline


Registered: 12/31/17
Posts: 1291
Loc: Alberta
“ Qantas has never crashed” Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.

Top
#4705395 - 03/24/18 03:06 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
Mr Nice Offline


Registered: 09/12/04
Posts: 20909
Loc: Orlando, FL
Both the 787 and the new 777X are amazing aircraft with their technology and engineering.

Too bad I can’t fly one for a living. frown

Top
#4705763 - 03/24/18 08:11 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: CincyDavid]
fsdork Offline


Registered: 02/08/11
Posts: 182
Loc: Canadia
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.


Agreed. 13.5 hours from Vancouver to Hong Kong was painful enough. I'll never take that flight in scum class again unless I can get an aisle seat so I can walk around much more often.
_________________________
2011 Ford F-150 Lariat S/C 6.2L 4x4 - 76K km
2003 Ford Explorer Limited 4.6L 4x4 - 202K km

Top
#4706052 - 03/25/18 07:26 AM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 15430
Loc: OH
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.
_________________________
17 Forester 12K MSS 0W-20
12 Accord LX 86K PP 5W-20
09 Forester 95K M1HM 10W-30
01 Focus ZX3 118K PP 5W-20
96 Accord LX 104K T5 10W-30
95 318i

Top
#4706135 - 03/25/18 08:54 AM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: fdcg27]
Astro14 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 8353
Loc: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.


But this was exactly the mission profile that the 787 was built to fulfill.

Very long range, medium size airplane with exceptional fuel efficiency.

In 1998, Boeing looked at the future in a major market study. What they saw was a market in which airlines served medium sized markets (e.g. Chengdu, China) from large hubs (e.g. SFO). The first airplane design crafted for that market was the "Sonic Cruiser" - a long-range (high fuel fraction), composite, canard design with wing mounted engines and the wings set well aft. Design speed was 0.95 IMN to make those ultra long range flights up to two hours shorter.

But in about 2002, as the airlines struggled economically, and fuel prices soared, they pressured Boeing to build that ultra long range airplane to be as fuel-efficient as possible. Speed was secondary.

The "7E7" was born...composite structure, new winge design, normal cruise speed, and ancillary systems completely redesigned from conventional hydraulic/electric/bleed architecture to an all-electric architecture that allowed for reduced engine auxiliary drag and better fuel efficiency.

When the design was finalized, the "7E7" was labeled the 787.

And it serves those ultra long range routes very well. Its outstanding fuel efficiency, and lightweight structure, allow it to carry a normal passenger and cargo load for an airplane of its size. It's basically a 767-size airplane, but those structural (lighter weight = more fuel) and efficiency (go farther on a lb of fuel) advantages allow nearly double the range of the 767, while keeping the same cabin and cargo capacity.

So, fly SFO-Chengdu? Yep. 16 hours. But a competing airline would have to connect you through Tokyo and it would take 24 hours with connections, etc.

Saves the passenger considerable time. Gives the airline an economic advantage, because it's one airplane, one flight, one crew on a 16-18 hour flight. Ground time imposed by hub connections, or technical stops, costs $$, as personnel service the airplane and re-load passengers, cargo, fuel, and catering. Climb/descent costs fuel and time. Two legs for the same distance requires two crews, and they're both augmented when over 8 hours.

The 787 will continue to re-shape the future of air travel. That's why Boeing has sold the next 15 years of production on the 787...it has thousands of orders/options.

Incidentally, at the same time, Airbus thought the future of air travel was increasingly large airplanes moving greater volumes of passengers from hub to hub...and they built the A-380. But they are struggling to reach 250 orders for that beast...as only the Middle East carriers have bought any large numbers of them...and many carriers have canceled their -380 orders while others (like QANTAS) have turned them back in when the lease was up. The -380 is the past of air travel...


Edited by Astro14 (03/25/18 08:56 AM)
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 TGMO

Top
#4706156 - 03/25/18 09:11 AM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Astro14]
4WD Offline


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 6002
Loc: Texas/International
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.


But this was exactly the mission profile that the 787 was built to fulfill.

Very long range, medium size airplane with exceptional fuel efficiency.

In 1998, Boeing looked at the future in a major market study. What they saw was a market in which airlines served medium sized markets (e.g. Chengdu, China) from large hubs (e.g. SFO). The first airplane design crafted for that market was the "Sonic Cruiser" - a long-range (high fuel fraction), composite, canard design with wing mounted engines and the wings set well aft. Design speed was 0.95 IMN to make those ultra long range flights up to two hours shorter.

But in about 2002, as the airlines struggled economically, and fuel prices soared, they pressured Boeing to build that ultra long range airplane to be as fuel-efficient as possible. Speed was secondary.

The "7E7" was born...composite structure, new winge design, normal cruise speed, and ancillary systems completely redesigned from conventional hydraulic/electric/bleed architecture to an all-electric architecture that allowed for reduced engine auxiliary drag and better fuel efficiency.

When the design was finalized, the "7E7" was labeled the 787.

And it serves those ultra long range routes very well. Its outstanding fuel efficiency, and lightweight structure, allow it to carry a normal passenger and cargo load for an airplane of its size. It's basically a 767-size airplane, but those structural (lighter weight = more fuel) and efficiency (go farther on a lb of fuel) advantages allow nearly double the range of the 767, while keeping the same cabin and cargo capacity.

So, fly SFO-Chengdu? Yep. 16 hours. But a competing airline would have to connect you through Tokyo and it would take 24 hours with connections, etc.

Saves the passenger considerable time. Gives the airline an economic advantage, because it's one airplane, one flight, one crew on a 16-18 hour flight. Ground time imposed by hub connections, or technical stops, costs $$, as personnel service the airplane and re-load passengers, cargo, fuel, and catering. Climb/descent costs fuel and time. Two legs for the same distance requires two crews, and they're both augmented when over 8 hours.

The 787 will continue to re-shape the future of air travel. That's why Boeing has sold the next 15 years of production on the 787...it has thousands of orders/options.

Incidentally, at the same time, Airbus thought the future of air travel was increasingly large airplanes moving greater volumes of passengers from hub to hub...and they built the A-380. But they are struggling to reach 250 orders for that beast...as only the Middle East carriers have bought any large numbers of them...and many carriers have canceled their -380 orders while others (like QANTAS) have turned them back in when the lease was up. The -380 is the past of air travel...


Exactly ~ I have taken B789 direct flights a number of times enjoying the flight. I do not like the ME “hub” trips (been there done that too) … Emirates carried the A380 and some infused money carried Emirates …
When you look at how many international carriers updated fleets with few to no A380’s the other boardrooms smell of testosterone … Further, A350 and B778/B779 will bring serious direct route pressure on the A380 and B748i. For example … skip the airframe for a second and look at travel policies. I’m allowed to choose the most direct route in international business class with domestic connections in first class. Why would I look for a two legged hub trip?
_________________________
2017 Tahoe 5.3L 4WD
2014 Fusion Hybrid
2013 Cruze RS 1.4T
2010 Canyon 5.3L 4WD

Top
#4706311 - 03/25/18 12:01 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
madRiver Online   content


Registered: 07/11/15
Posts: 3309
Loc: New England
How many pilots to fly 17 hrs? I doubt two can do that with regulations in place and likely ban on "pilot go".

Top
#4706319 - 03/25/18 12:23 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
Crispysea Offline


Registered: 04/14/17
Posts: 366
Loc: TN USA
Long haul planes like that have sleeping quarters for pilots. They rotate between flying and sleeping every few hours. There are usually 3 or 4 pilots on a flight, and that’s not counting the rest of the cockpit crew.


Edited by Crispysea (03/25/18 12:24 PM)

Top
#4706432 - 03/25/18 02:29 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Crispysea]
Astro14 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 8353
Loc: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: Crispysea
Long haul planes like that have sleeping quarters for pilots. They rotate between flying and sleeping every few hours. There are usually 3 or 4 pilots on a flight, and that’s not counting the rest of the cockpit crew.


The 787 has a crew rest area overhead the first class galley. You climb a small set of stairs/ladder to get up into it and it has two bunks and a comfortable seat.

Lots of empty space above those luggage bins...

For a two person airplane like the 787:
Flights over 8 hours require one augment pilot.
Flights over 12 hours require two augment pilots.
Flights over 16 hours require three augment pilots.

Composition of those augments (Captain/FO) varies by airline, contract.


Edited by Astro14 (03/25/18 02:30 PM)
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 TGMO

Top
#4706439 - 03/25/18 02:36 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Astro14]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 15430
Loc: OH
When did you switch jobs and leave United to go to work for Boeing?
LOL!
While the 787 has notched up plenty of orders, it remains an unprofitable program and is likely to end as such since it will probably never be able to earn back its development costs, particularly since it's squeezed from below by the A330neo and from above by the A350, a program which also puts pressure on the new 777 developments.
These are the Airbus aircraft that challenge the 787, not the A380.
That Boeing ended up incurring more than six times the deferred costs in constant dollars on the 787 program that it did in bringing the first 777 to service is obviously not helpful for Boeing's bottom line.
Like the 787, the A380 also appears to be a not for profit operation and the 787 at least has orders from many first tier airlines who probably will order more over time while the A380 is now effectively a one carrier program.
While the A380 may be a failed program, the same must be said of the 747-8.
Boeing and Airbus both had studies that showed a much larger VLA market than what has actually materialized.
Having written all of the above, the 787 does seem to be a very efficient airliner in operation. It has made possible some low cost intercontinental flights offered by newly emerging carriers and after the long grounding appears to have had good dispatch reliability.
Had the program gone as optimistically planned and bearing in mind that hindsight is twenty X twenty, the 787 would have been a huge money maker for Boeing. As things have actually turned out, Boeing may break even on this program and may even earn a few dollars. What Boeing learned with the 787 program will certainly pay dividends on future developments and may be doing so even now with the 777X program.
_________________________
17 Forester 12K MSS 0W-20
12 Accord LX 86K PP 5W-20
09 Forester 95K M1HM 10W-30
01 Focus ZX3 118K PP 5W-20
96 Accord LX 104K T5 10W-30
95 318i

Top
#4706469 - 03/25/18 03:22 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
red7404 Online   content


Registered: 01/24/18
Posts: 122
Loc: KS
i was at Boeing Wichita when they started the 777 program. they told us the that the panels and other parts on the 777 was going to be 1/3 bigger than anything we have done be for. BUT headquarters in Seattle would not give us any new buildings to work with the bigger parts. and we had a hard time doing our work with over loaded crains, fork lifts , ect

Top
#4706494 - 03/25/18 03:39 PM Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K]
Astro14 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 8353
Loc: Virginia Beach
I think I've been pretty fair in my aircraft assessments on BITOG...

I've been harsh on the 737 and the A-380.

I've praised the A-320, including its FBW FCS, and the 747, and now the 787.

I've flown both Boeing and Airbus airplanes in line operations...

It's just that I know a dog when I see one...

The 787 wasn't without teething issues, and it was years late to market, but it's enabled new routes that were impossible until it came out. Airlines are only beginning to explore the market potential of that airplane.

I'm excited to see United take delivery of the A-350, an excellent airplane by all accounts. Don't give Airbus Industrie all the credit on that one, however, ILFC forced a design parameter change a decade ago (the A-350XWB as it was known at the time). Some credit for the airplane's current success belongs, properly, to Steven Udvar-Hazy.
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 TGMO

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >