Thumbs down for B787 dreamliner????

Question

There are quite a few posts here, where people tend to prefer 747 over A380. The common reason being, support for 747's history. They tend to ignore the technical superiority of the A380 in regards to quietness & fuel efficency, which is very important these days due to global warming & fuel prices.
Now my question to these people is, Would you prefer A330 over B787 for the same reasons & give it a thumbs down for lack of history or is it a matter of American patriotism?

Stretch....I don't think any massive changes are required on runways to operate A380. And also the cost is gonna be oneoff. Think about lower ongoing operating costs.

Setyawan... pl. read the news papers! Major airports around the world are busting at their seams for capacity! more terminals are being built, more & more people are flying these days compared to last decade. This trend is only gonna continue.

Calnickel......... It is not abt where the parts are made, haven't you heard of slogans like "If it is not boeing, Iam not going"? I feel this kind of American 'patriotism' is a bit too much.

Answer 1

Ha Ha There are still people who still prefers 747 because they can't take the fact that someboy else can develop something better! Isn't it obvious that A380 is better than 747 in every aspect? It isn't patriotism, it is fanaticism!

Answer 2

Not even close to thumbs down. The A330 is not even close to as fuel efficient as the 787. The A330-200 can hold 36,746 Gallons of fuel and fly 6,749 nautical miles. The 787-9 can hold 36,693 and 8000 to 8500 nautical miles. Who wins? The 787. The A330 doesn't even come close in technology to the 787. And American Patriotism? Airbus' factories are in Europe an Boeing's are in the US. Also it is used with many recycled materials. And it is supposed to be the most quiet jet. So i'd say the 787 is much more advanced.

P.S. the 787-9 can go farther than the A380 on 1/3 of the fuel an A380 uses

Answer 3

Here we go again. In the end it's just a chance for people to repeat the FUD that Boeing has published in the Seattle Times.

The A380 has a shorter wheelbase than many current aircraft and lower ground pressure than some, it is also built to fit in the standard big aircraft ramp spots and it needs the same length of runway to take off and land. It takes more people so it needs more capacity, but that's the way things go. We need bigger aircraft to get the people in and out of the major hubs on the long haul routes.

On routes like SFO-LHR and JFK-LHR the aircraft are all full all the time. BA runs two flights a day between SFO and LHR. The world demand for travel is increasing, not decreasing.

I like 747s, but then I like the Avro Lancaster, it doesn't mean it's a good choice for an airline.

The B787 is not a new concept, it is an evolutionary development intended to replace the aging B767, B777, A330, A340 and similar aircraft, it comes in medium and long range models. It does use more lightweight composite materials and Boeing is having big problems putting it all together, but that's engineering for you, they'll almost certainly sort it out. When all's said and done it's going to be just like travelling on the older aircraft, it's probably going to cost the same to us and it's going to be cheaper for the airlines.

Answer 4

Let's tackle a few points here.
A380 fuel efficiency:
A plane that large is going to use a lot of fuel. BUT, the fuel per passenger is at the lowest amount.
HOWEVER, just about every airport it lands at needs (or needed) runway mods for it to fit/support it's weight. How much fuel was burned in construction vehicles to do this work?
The B787 is fuel efficient because of weight reduction, using carbon fiber to replace most of the traditional metal structural components.
Over all, the A380 is just an enlarged concept of an existing idea, while the B787 is going off in a new direction.

Actually, I believe I read the cost to modify the runways at LAX was in the area of $1.4 million.
Also, the Jetways (the tubes people enter and exit the aircraft through) needs a 2 level system, as the A380 loads/unloads from 2 different levels.

Answer 5

The 787 is presently up against the A330, but the A350 is it's true like-for-like comparitor. The 787 is of course years ahead, but that's fine.
When the 787 has its first heavey landing, those carbon spars will crack like a twig, and lessons will be learnt, probably in time to change the design or even the material on the A350.
It's becoming very very clear that the Carbon Spars, with all the added metalwork for stiffeners and Rib Posts, and tremendously thicker in section are just as heavy as an all aluminium one. The ally ones are tremendously cheaper to produce, the fasteners are cheaper, the holes are easier to drill...I could go on.
And the 787 Spars are made in Japan, in fact most of the 787 is outsourced from USA. Boeing just assemble it.

Answer 6

but you dont take an important issue into consideration, how many people a day would go from one place to another in one day in the same time from the same airport?now where commuter airline is booming, that was for a reason, people want to go without hassle, and cheap.so for me, itll be a lot of empty seat in a380 after few years from now. i think it will be a big disadvantage of airbus not to take that into consideration. thanks.

Answer 7

American patriotism? Both these planes are made all over the world.

Answer 8

Hmm..coudn't it be both? I do like all the aircraft of both aircraft-making companies.