787 Width, Range Increased

Boeing details 787 improvements
Inch added to cabin width; stretched version will have more range

After a two-day 787 "summit" in Seattle with about 140 airline customers,
financial institutions and supplier partners, The Boeing Co. revealed several
improvements Thursday to its Dreamliner.

The new jet will have an inch more cabin width and a stretched version of the
plane will have more range.

Bentrott disclosed that Boeing has increased the maximum takeoff weight of the
787-9, a stretch variant due in 2010, to 540,000 pounds. That's up from 509,000
pounds.

It means the 787-9 will be able to fly as far, if not farther, than the smaller
787-8, Bentrott said, providing airlines with greater flexibility in how they
might use a combination of both planes.

Qantas is among the customers talking with Boeing about this higher gross-weight
variant of the 787-9, according to sources. Qantas could announce a decision as
soon as Dec. 7 on ordering the 787 as well as Boeing's 777 and its planned
747-8. It is also considering Airbus planes, including the A350.

The new range of the 787-9 is 8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles. The range of the
smaller 787-8 remains at 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles. The short-range 787-3
would have a range of from 3,000 to 3,500 nautical miles.

The 787-8 will be the first of the three models delivered, in mid- 2008. The
787-3 and 787-9 will follow in 2010.

Bentrott said Boeing has changed how it describes the seat count on the 787.
From now on, he said, the company will give a seat-count range for each of the
three models.

He denied that Boeing's motive in doing so is to counter a strong Airbus
marketing and sales pitch that its planned A350 will seat more passengers than
the 787 and thus will have better seat-mile costs.

Customers will configure the 787-jetliner cabin differently, Bentrott explained.
Some may want a two-class cabin rather than three classes. Some will choose
eight-abreast seating instead of nine. That's why Boeing decided it would be
better to give a seat-count range for each of its three 787 models, Bentrott
said.

The 787-8 seat-count range is 210 to 250; the 787-9 is 250 to 290 seats; and the
787-3 is 290 to 330 seats. (The 787-3 seat numbers are for a one-class
configuration. The fuselage is the same size as that of the 787-8.)

Bentrott also disclosed that the 787 cabin will be an inch wider than previously
planned. The extra room is the result of eliminating a sidewall insulation
blanket, he said. The additional inch means the 787 interior cross section will
be 15 inches wider than that of the Airbus A330, Bentrott said. The A350, which
will be a direct competitor to the 787, will have the same fuselage cross
section as the A330. But Airbus has said it will shape the A350 cabin walls so
that its plane will have nearly as much room as that of the 787 -- a claim
Boeing has called nonsense.

The A350 is scheduled to enter airline service in 2010.

Boeing now has 309 firm orders or commitments from 25 customers for the 787,
Bentrott said. Of those, 233 orders are firm, with several airlines signing
contracts in recent days.

So far, the only major U.S. airlines to order the 787 are Northwest and
Continental. But Delta, United and American had representatives at Boeing's 787
summit.

"Airwatch" wrote:
Bentrott also disclosed that the 787 cabin will be an inch wider than previously
planned. The extra room is the result of eliminating a sidewall insulation
blanket, he said. The additional inch means the 787 interior cross section will
be 15 inches wider than that of the Airbus A330, Bentrott said. The A350, which

According to their respective web sites:

787 350 330
Fuselage cross section 226in 222in 222in
574cm 560cm 564cm

Max cabin width: not listed 208in 208in
530cm 528cm


The conversion factors for the airbus A380 are way off due to rounding.

Now, Boeing claims max cabin width 15 inches greater than A330. That
would put it at 223in or 655.4cm

With fuselage width of 226in, and max cabin width of 223, that leaves
1.5 inches on each side for not only insulation but also the actual
interior wall, as well as wiring and ducting etc. That is not realistic
unless Boeing has acquired Star Trek era technology.

And one has to wonder if the removal of a blanket was required to cut
down on weight and how this will impact noise levels in the cabin (as
well as temperature control, remember that the 787 won't benefit from
"free" heat from engines.

Note that the Airbus web site lists the max cabin width of 350 to be the
same and the 330.

On the 330, the thickness of the wall is roughly 7", 18cm. Airbus's
claim that it can cut a few inches is credible. Cutting wall down to 5"
might be reasonable. But Boeing Claims of a wall thickness of 1.5" isn't credible.

What is interesting here is that Boeing's 787 is already superior to the
350 in terms of cabin width, so it is hard to understand why they would
bother working to increase width even more, unless the real goal was
weight reduction through removal of insulation.

In an 8-across seating, the 787 would be superior to the 350 even before
Boeing's latest insulation diet. But if the new increase with now
allows airlines to put in 9 accross seating, it would allow the 787 to
turn into a sardine can that people will learn to despise. Remember the
charter configs on BA's 777s where people complained and not only
cramped seating but also lack of ventilation ?


Also, the Boeing decision to make seating capacity even more vague is
probably because the added cabin width will allow some customers to put
9 across seating.


Since the 787 looked superior to the 350 from the public documents, one
wonders why Boeing would have felt the need to make the numbers fuzzy to
prevent direct comparisons. Usually, it is the inferior competitor who
puts fuzzy numbers out to prevent clear conclusions of the product's inferiority.


Perhaps the real goal of those presentations isn't to convince airlines
but rather Wall Street Analysts. Airline would probably get real numbers
such as usable cabin length and distances between doors, bulkheads etc
so that they would calculate exactly how many rows of seats they can put in.

Qantas is among the customers talking with Boeing about this higher gross-weight
variant of the 787-9, according to sources.

The new range of the 787-9 is 8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles.

Still not enough for SYD-LHR which is 9188nm.

Also, the increase in MTOW would result in increased airport fees.

He denied that Boeing's motive in doing so is to counter a strong Airbus
marketing and sales pitch that its planned A350 will seat more passengers than
the 787 and thus will have better seat-mile costs.

Interesting that Boeing is doing advertising FOR airbus. This statement
gives much credibility to the A350 and places it as a strong and real
competitor. It is good that Boeing doesn't underestimate Airbus, but
reacting as it does tells me that the Airbus offering is actually better
than had been expected or that the 787 isn't going to be as good as promised.


Some may want a two-class cabin rather than three classes. Some will choose
eight-abreast seating instead of nine.


This seems to indicate that 9 across would be the expected standard and
8 across would be the deviation. This is bad PR. Boeing had spent so
much effort to market the aircraft as a ultra comfortable one, and now,
they would ruin all that by starting to say 9 across seating.

So far, the only major U.S. airlines to order the 787 are Northwest and
Continental. But Delta, United and American had representatives at Boeing's 787
summit.


Since Northwest is in bankrupcy protection and contracts can be voided
at will, I am not sure Boeing should count their orders as "firm".
Delta is unlikely to be in any position to place orders for 2 years. If
United does exit bankrupcy in February, it is then likely to be in a
position to be placing orders after a few quarters of profitability.
Replacing old 767s would be a fairly high priority.

Emirates - and possibly other Asian airlines - have 10 seats abreast in

their 777s, as BA's bucket-and-spade (Caribbean) subfleet had for
some time, and yet seem to retain good PR.

Some of the European and Canadian charter lines have nine seats
abreast in Airbus 300s and 330s. There's also a dreadful DC-10
3-5-2 configuration I've seen somewhere - there are few depths
(or narrownesses) to which some airlines will not go.

Thinking of seat pitch, Qantas squeezed two extra rows of seats
into their 717s when they passed them down to their cheap
subsidiary, Jetstar, which has 180 seats in its new Airbus 320s.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:14:31 -0500, nobody wrote:



SNIP

In an 8-across seating, the 787 would be superior to the 350 even before
Boeing's latest insulation diet. But if the new increase with now
allows airlines to put in 9 accross seating, it would allow the 787 to
turn into a sardine can that people will learn to despise. Remember the
charter configs on BA's 777s where people complained and not only
cramped seating but also lack of ventilation ?


Also, the Boeing decision to make seating capacity even more vague is
probably because the added cabin width will allow some customers to put
9 across seating.


SNIP


This seems to indicate that 9 across would be the expected standard and
8 across would be the deviation. This is bad PR. Boeing had spent so
much effort to market the aircraft as a ultra comfortable one, and now,
they would ruin all that by starting to say 9 across seating.


Some time ago Air India stated that they would have 9 abreast in their
787s, I wonder if they knew about Boeing's widening of the cabin then.
It seems as if most of the wonders of the 787's passenger comfort are
gradually being rolled back. The 330/340 cross section is perfect, it
restricts quality full service long haul carriers to the very
passenger-friendly 2-4-2 and allows charter, lesiure, discount
carriers to squeeze in 3-3-3. With a wider cross-section 3-3-3 or
2-5-2 is inevitably going to be more common on the 787.
--==++AJC++==--