New Problems With Boeing 787 Revive Concerns

Discussion in 'Travel Technology' started by jbcarioca, Dec 11, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
  2. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    The fuel savings number is damn impressive.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  3. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    More impressive Han the percentage IMHO, is that they're beating in actual use the expected fuel burn. Anybody remember the last time that happened on a new usr plane?
     
    FlyingBear likes this.
  4. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    That's basically what I was referring to. They sure as heck are doing better than automotive manufacturers with those numbers...
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  5. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I went from 30 mpg to 45 mpg back in 2003. That was a 50% improvement... and my previous car was actually way better than the fuel economy standards at that time.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  6. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    jbcarioca likes this.
  7. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Not quite sure I understand what you mean. For what it's worth, my 30 and 45 mpg numbers are based on my own long-term gas consumption records for each vehicle, not based on manufacturer/EPA/CR numbers.

    Edit: oh, you meant they (Boeing) didn't make up stuff like the auto manufacturers? I thought you were talking about the 20% improvement being a better "jump" than you'd achieve in the automotive space.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  8. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    The airframers have their share of fiction...
     
  9. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    Correct :) Self-reported numbers in both cases and such a difference!
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  10. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    What strikes me as strange is that fooling consumers with such fake numbers should be a lot easier than fooling a corporate customer about to order billions of dollars worth of aircraft. The due diligence should be a lot more thorough in the latter case.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  11. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    True. I suspect that both B and A, plus mini-B and E for that matter, use the ads to appeal to either prejudice or emotions of people who can influence decisions. Apart from pure economics there is a lot of prejudice.
    1) Pro and con about FBW was one until Boing went to FBW themselves, but now control law logic gathers polemics;
    2) Fuel consumption, maintenance and total operating cost has them all trying hard to mislead each others potential customers. Without outright lies, slight changes in assumptions about mission, airport conditions, passenger/freight loads etc change the economics, and when teh aircraft are not yet in service or with mature records it's easy to mislead.
    3) Capital cost, resale value/residual value, tradin policies, delivery commitments are all topics of hot debate and contractual shenanigans.
    4) A huge area of cost and misleading information: manufacturer support and major maintenance (airframe, engines, avionics, major systems: four distinct deals; four chances to alter economics; four chances to mislead)
    5) Anybody want to discuss delivery dates or promised performance specifications?

    All in all, from a short experience doing lease structuring and purchase evaluations on aircraft, I'd argue that the big difference between car salespeople and aircraft salespeople is the size of the price. Otherwise as we often say YMMV

    the foregoing represents my own opinions and is not meant to imply that Airbus, Boeing, Bpmbardier, Embraer, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Rovce or any other entities involved in these deals ever would be in any way condoning participating in or otherwise allowing anything ever to be even slightly altered to pout themselves in better light or their competitors in worse light.
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  12. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    Well, on the consumer side of things, you are supposedly regulated and should have far less room in deciding on "optimal" conditions under which the numbers are chosen. Hence my surprise that marketing numbers were met and even exceeded in real world application. Obviously that's not the only place for marketing "facts", but an easy one to manipulate.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  13. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    One of the areas hardest to manipulate is fuel burn, because the precise conditions for a given claim are specified including temperature, altitude and a myriad of otehr factors. As a general rule fuel burn is pretty much spot on. When it is off it usually reflects some change in the airframe , engines or installation since the measurements were specified. In the B787 case there were, and continue to be, constant changes in some aspects of all three, it seems. Still, there is no doubt taht beating the fuel consumption numbers in the first deliveries is a major accomplishment and one Boeing can crow about.
     
    FlyingBear likes this.
  14. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    Agreed. But how EPA numbers are derived is well known as well, and yet it's possible to make a "mistake" of 20 percent or more on manufacturers side.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  15. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Odd that it never seems to happen to the consumer benefit
     
  16. FlyingBear
    Original Member

    FlyingBear Silver Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Status Points:
    845
    I had to think hard about this one. The only case where you get "more" than you think that I can think of in automotive world is the speed show on the speedometer. It is mandated to show exact or higher speed than real. Soo... yeah, that's all i got.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  17. milchap
    Original Member

    milchap Gold Member

    Messages:
    27,668
    Likes Received:
    148,110
    Status Points:
    20,020
    How soon we forget.....all new aircraft introduced had teething problems !
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  18. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Now there have been at least four generator problems, including a new one with UA. None of them seem to have been safety of flight issues; each B787 has eight of them; but it is a potential huge issue since the airplane is mostly electric including several systems traditionally hydraulic, so all parties concerned are treating it with an excess of caution, just as Airbus did with the wing spars. There will be more such issues, but were there anything really major for the B787 it likely would have surfaced by now.
     
    milchap likes this.

Share This Page