Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Boeing 787 First flight

adder7712

adder7712

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Mar 9, 2009
1,926
9
Oh yeah, can't wait. Quite a bit of my family/friends have done engineering work on the '87
 
More fuel efficient, and mid sized to better fit smaller number of air travelers. Composite materials, hopefully, to reduce aluminum fatigue. It sounds like the right plane for the right time.

I remember the 747 when it was rather new but had no idea how long such a project goes from test flight to actual passenger flight. I could only imagine how long the 787 took to get to this point. :)

Where is the maiden flight, Chicago or Seattle?
 
Anything that makes the 787 great from a passenger standpoint will soon be forgotten once the US carriers take delivery of theirs and shove as many seats as they possibly can on it :D
 
63dot said:
More fuel efficient, and mid sized to better fit smaller number of air travelers. Composite materials, hopefully, to reduce aluminum fatigue. It sounds like the right plane for the right time.

I remember the 747 when it was rather new but had no idea how long such a project goes from test flight to actual passenger flight. I could only imagine how long the 787 took to get to this point. :)

Where is the maiden flight, Chicago or Seattle?
Click to expand...

Maiden flight is in WA. Should be going between Paine Field and Boeing Field (Everett and Seattle, WA). First flight will never be in Chicago unless production moves there. The plane was assembled in Everett, mostly.
 
sysiphus said:
Maiden flight is in WA. Should be going between Paine Field and Boeing Field (Everett and Seattle, WA). First flight will never be in Chicago unless production moves there. The plane was assembled in Everett, mostly.
Click to expand...

That's cool, but a very short flight. Could it possibly get up to altitude or is this mostly a low altitude test flight?

With so many orders, I think airlines are very confident with this model. It's very nice on the eyes.
 
63dot said:
That's cool, but a very short flight. Could it possibly get up to altitude or is this mostly a low altitude test flight?

With so many orders, I think airlines are very confident with this model. It's very nice on the eyes.
Click to expand...

It'll be some thing like a 5-hour flight. They're not just going point A to B. So yes, they'll be going up to standard altitude, etc.
 
sysiphus said:
It'll be some thing like a 5-hour flight. They're not just going point A to B. So yes, they'll be going up to standard altitude, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they'll land at KBFI at Seattle after taking off from Everett.
 
Looks interesting, but I'm more interested in when I'll finally get a chance to fly in one of the airbus A380s.
 
nick1516 said:
Looks interesting, but I'm more interested in when I'll finally get a chance to fly in one of the airbus A380s.
Click to expand...

Have fun with boarding/deplaning/baggage claim with those monstrosities...what a way to clog up a terminal. If you've ever flown on even "just" a 747, now imagine dealing with even -more- people.
 
sysiphus said:
Have fun with boarding/deplaning/baggage claim with those monstrosities...what a way to clog up a terminal. If you've ever flown on even "just" a 747, now imagine dealing with even -more- people.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard boarding the A380 is preety smooth when the airport has proper equipment and yes there will be MANY people. ;)
 
adder7712 said:
From what I've heard boarding the A380 is preety smooth when the airport has proper equipment and yes there will be MANY people. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup. And therein lies the problem. There just aren't that many airports that have the appropriate infrastructure. Most modern airports barely can handle a 747-400 properly.
 
sysiphus said:
Yup. And therein lies the problem. There just aren't that many airports that have the appropriate infrastructure. Most modern airports barely can handle a 747-400 properly.
Click to expand...
Most cities, airports, and airlines that have the demand for an A380, whether through origination and destination passengers or via connections, will invest in proper infrastructure before anyone even considers operating an A380. Nobody is boarding them out of single level gates with one hundred seats and a single jetway. In my experience, they've actually been faster to board than other types.
 
akonradi said:
Most cities, airports, and airlines that have the demand for an A380, whether through origination and destination passengers or via connections, will invest in proper infrastructure before anyone even considers operating an A380. Nobody is boarding them out of single level gates with one hundred seats and a single jetway. In my experience, they've actually been faster to board than other types.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It's not just the number of jetways, it's the number of ticket counters/agents, the number of baggage carousels, etc...but most importantly, it's the runway/taxiway reinforcements to take the mass of the plane...it's a massive investment. It's a huge gamble for many of those airports to put that kind of money on one plane--it's not the right type of plane for anything but transcontinental long-haul. Anything less and it's a nightmare to fill the planes. There's a reason why Boeing didn't build something that big--there's much more money to be made in a 767-sized replacement...thus the rushed redevelopment of the A350.
 
sysiphus said:
Yes and no. It's not just the number of jetways, it's the number of ticket counters/agents, the number of baggage carousels, etc...but most importantly, it's the runway/taxiway reinforcements to take the mass of the plane...it's a massive investment. It's a huge gamble for many of those airports to put that kind of money on one plane--it's not the right type of plane for anything but transcontinental long-haul. Anything less and it's a nightmare to fill the planes. There's a reason why Boeing didn't build something that big--there's much more money to be made in a 767-sized replacement...thus the rushed redevelopment of the A350.
Click to expand...

Your second sentence implies that airlines actually give a flying f*** about how long you have to wait in line at the counter or at baggage claim ;)
 
sysiphus said:
Don't put too much stock in it. Practically the entire interior design is specc'd by the buyer--so while that may represent a configuration we'll see in the real plane, BUT--any number of real configurations may exist/be bought.
Click to expand...

yeah but that photo is going to be pretty close to reality. if you are an airline you not going to spend money on a new plane and then not use it to the max by designing the inside the way it should be designed - more room for passengers and a better "feel" to the cabin. sure you can customize it, but you can only customize an inside of a passenger airplane so much when you are given a set of parameters to meet such as safety regulations, seating capacity, etc. Boeing helps customers with the inside...they dont just say...here you go...we will not give you any options or ideas for the inside.

just look at the 777. very roomy compared to older planes and most 777s look pretty much the same across airlines.
 
yg17 said:
Your second sentence implies that airlines actually give a flying f*** about how long you have to wait in line at the counter or at baggage claim ;)
Click to expand...

No, they don't care--beyond being able to keep reliable schedules for passenger throughput and runway scheduling. That, they do care about--and they're essentially linked.
 
There will come a time when very large airliners will have the same demand when people were filling up 747s, but the recession has certainly put vacations on hold, or at least brought those vacations to local areas where people can drive to their destinations.

The 787 seems perfect for what I have seen in airports. Its fuel efficiency will definitely be a model for future airliners. I too would not want to stand in line and board a 747 sized airplane.
 
sysiphus said:
Yes and no. It's not just the number of jetways, it's the number of ticket counters/agents, the number of baggage carousels, etc...but most importantly, it's the runway/taxiway reinforcements to take the mass of the plane...it's a massive investment. It's a huge gamble for many of those airports to put that kind of money on one plane--it's not the right type of plane for anything but transcontinental long-haul. Anything less and it's a nightmare to fill the planes. There's a reason why Boeing didn't build something that big--there's much more money to be made in a 767-sized replacement...thus the rushed redevelopment of the A350.
Click to expand...
The passenger experience at counters/baggage claim is virtually unchanged as the airports where the A380 currently flies and is scheduled to fly not only have large enough, typically using CUTE, ticketing and baggage claim facilities that are never used to capacity but also majority of traffic functioning as connecting feed so that the aforementioned facilities are unnecessary for most passengers. Again, no airline wants to launch their most up-to-date flagship operations into an airport which cannot efficiently handle the increase in passengers and cargo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back