3 ms·
"Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo." It's also easier
by Xixi 9y ago
"Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo."
It's also easier to make this bet when the passenger version of the 767 is struggling for new orders because of the A330. Boeing had the 747 against nothing, the 777 winning and killing the A340, and the 767 losing to the A330. So Boeing made a better A330. That's why I don't see the 787 as such an insightful bet in terms of capacity (size, length, weight and range): it really is pretty close to the A330. And a modern A330 can pretty much do anything the 787 can do, albeit burning more fuel on the way. The real risk was in the development process and industrialization of the 787 though, which proved risky and costly.
- hinkley 9y agoRemember that Boeing killed off a trans-sonic plane and decided to build the 787 instead. They weren’t always sure this was the only way to go. I think the economy tanking and fuel costs rising made the decision for them.
- aj7 9y ago777 unopposed.
- SeoxyS 9y agoThe 787 has a significantly longer range than the 767/330. That fact alone a very large impact: 1/ It is much heavier than those, and costs a lot more in fuel on takeoff and landing, which makes it a bad choice for the short-but-heavy-load routes that the 767 and 330 excel at (HKG-TPE, CTS-HND, etc). So it's a bad replacement and competitor in those markets. 2/ On the other hand, it opens up ultra-long-range point-to-point flights that weren't quite possible before without a jumbo (e.g. UA on SFO-SIN, or routes to secondary Chinese cities like XIY, CTU, CAN, etc.)