Boeing's 787 Dreamliner takes flight for the first time
By Nilay Patel 
posted Dec 15th 2009 2:09PM
posted Dec 15th 2009 2:09PM
posted Dec 15th 2009 2:09PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Boeings lost the race.
@Ops By "lost the race" you mean "designed a more fuel efficient jet in response to overwhelming demand to lower airline costs", then yes. You are correct.
AirBus may have their floating airfortress (perhaps they are moving in a Final Fantasy direction), but the smaller, more fuel efficient jets that can fly further is a win. They are having trouble with production, but it looks like they are figuring it out.
These jets will likely be a new standard in air travel.
@Ops 840 firm orders waiting to be delivered, how are they losing?
@Ops
Can we ban those Airbus Marketing Dept?
@Ops
Hub and spoke is the airline model buddy. So Airbus can sell 100 A380s while Boeing sells 1000 Dreamliners...are they still losing?
Plus boeing crashes better and more often, yay, and weeee
@Ops
Yawn Boeing (USA) against Airbus (Europe) we're allies remember ?
@Ops
Dudes and Dudats... Please! Airbus won by delivering the A380 first, that's a fact. Both companies have had their strings of production problems leading to delays after delays. That's also a fact. Who is going to win the race, we know not. In fact they may very well complement each other.
A380 is design to be a hub to hub carrier, whereas the 787 is design more for medium to long range travel. You will not see an A380 flying intra-continental, but you will likely see both planes flying the international routes.
However, seeing how someone has mentioned 787 being fuel-efficient, I have to say that depends on the engines and other options they select.
A huge bulk of the buy actually comes from the middle-east... so we can all see the request for delay in deliveries to these customers.
They do though I believe, statistically, but we can go with truthiness I guess :/
!!!YAY For The Majestic Titanic Of The Sky!!!
Happy now?
@Wwhat
Shut up, idiot. You hear about more Boeing crashes because there are far more Boeing planes in the air than Airbus, so no fucking shit you idiot.
@Darkmax
Boeing already has more firm orders than the A380 has optional, firm, and already delivered combined. DURR I WONDER WHO WILL WIN?
@Anders
Agreed, but I'm disappointed there haven't been any steps taken to produce a new supersonic jet. The technology is certainly there, but I don't think any company wants to risk it in this economy. I think if it's perfected (by todays standards it certainly can be) then there's a lot of money to be had, as well as a new benchmark for airline travel. I'm hoping to see a return to elegance and comfort that airline travel once was, and the Dreamliner is a leap in that direction.
@The Missing Link
Because supercruise is not avaliable for airliners yet. Supersonic speeds guzzle fuel. The Concorde was more of a novelty, and with the increase in telecommuting abilities, it is less necessary to need to travel across the pond in an hour or two.
@darkmax
no buddy, the a380 hasnt broken even yet, they only have 200 odd orders, they are losing money on the project. 787 has 800 odd orders, they have already made money on it, and you cant compare the a380 with the 787, they play entirely different roles in the airline industry.
@Anders
The AIRBUS A380 has one fundamental design flaw: It's too big to land at most US airports, the runways and taxiways just cannot support them. There number of ports that can handle such large planes are about a dozen.
Beast
What are they going to do when they get past 797?
@Spiraling Shape
They won't get that far by 2012
@Spiraling Shape Well if they use Hexadecimal they can go all the way to F ^_^
@trippisme
Considering that it's developmental code name was "7E7" I think that hexadecimal could be a real possibility...
Be careful not to hit falcon...cool plane but hope its not too late.
"It's not every day a a major new aircraft takes the skies for the first time"
Perhaps not daily, but surely weekly (A400M):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSuWPwN_uBADCW6WOZ3MF0b4wJ7wD9CH2BHO0
@el Capitan the A400M is not a "new" airframe - it's merely a military version of the already existing A400 commercial aircraft (much like there are military adaptations of many other commercial airframes) so, while the 787 is brand spankin new, the A400M is merely a rehash of an already existing aircraft - nothing new to see there, plenty new to see here. . .
@mmalsed wait - sorry - got my models and numbers screwed up. mea culpa - sorry. :/
@mmalsed
np. though funny that its been upranked! :)
@mmalsed
That's completely untrue.
@mmalsed
The a400m is a completely new aircraft -- perhaps you're confusing the a400m with the model number a300.
Who is Northwest? You mean Delta?
@airj1012 *thumbsup*
Not to mention Delta might not even be taking delivery on the orders they inherited. The first batch off the assembly are going to end up overweight and therefore have their range cut. They're likely to defer the orders until later when they can get them on model, and possiblhy take some more 777s in the meantime.
Not the most well-written blog entry...but that 787 is pretty!!
7E7 4eva
I perfer AirBus they are much safer and they don't crash as often in comparison to Boeing's ( I know there is fewer of them but still They gor better technology than Boeing)
@pankomputerek That is absolutely not true. In fact, airbus planes crash almost twice as often per mile flown.
@pankomputerek
Care to back up your claims with real data?
Thanks.
@pankomputerek
I prefer people who shut their mouths when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
@Shovel Man
It's actually true, but has a lot more to due with how terrible the first 747/737's were built. All modern planes are safe, and none is safer then others.
@Shovel Man Here's some. I misspoke initially, airbus planes experience a fatal crash that isn't caused by pilot error 1.08 times per million flights, boeing experiences the same kind of crash 0.71 times per million flights. So airbus planes crash due to mechanical failure 50% more often than boeing planes. The data I have covers from the 727 to the 767 for boeing and from the A310 to the A321 and up until the end of 2004 (this is the best data I can find).
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
Edit to myself: Pilot error is included, hijackings are not.
@TMoney2007
To be fair, comparing per flight isn't necessarily a good metric. An A340, for example, will have fewer "flights" than a 737 because the A340 is used mostly on long-distance flights (compared to the 737 which is mostly shorter flights).
Note that your data does not appear to include the A340, A380 or the 777, none of which have had a passenger fatality.
Additionally, the A320 statistic seems sketchy since there are over 4000 A320s in service; with an average of 3 flights a day (conservative for an aircraft like the A320) that results in 4.3M flights per year. The A320 has been in service since 1988, so it's very hard to believe that there are only 6M flights total.
Even a doubling of the number of A320 flights would make Airbus appear to be safer than Boeing, but then you consider the fact that the Boeing statistics include much older designs (e.g. the 727 from the 1970s is much less safe than any of today's passenger aircraft).
You are probably statistically safer flying on a 737NG (-700/-800/-900) or an A320 compared with a 737-300 or MD80, simply because newer aircraft have better avionics and have the benefit of newer, safer design elements. But the difference is not substantial; your chances of being killed on any passenger aircraft in the US are damn near zero (approximately 1 in 50 million).
no details or wifi and geek stuff.
@va jj
Stuff like that is picked by the carriers, and has nothing to do with the plane.
I hope they chose to stick with this interior http://bit.ly/6V8nd9
@Boyo
Looks nice but unfortunately having only side-mounted luggage bins will only work for the low-density seat configurations you'd find in upper class cabins. Coach class cabins will require center-mounted luggage bins as well, (like you'd find in most planes,) which destroys that cavernous feeling that the picture evokes.
@Boyo
lmao I'd feel like such a weirdo sitting in that single seat.
@Alex
I disagree. In the photo you can see the economy class cabin with the center aisle overhead cabins. still looks sweetly cavernous to me!
Boeing has a lot riding on this plane, and as a result so do a whole lot of American workers. Hope they pull it off!
@Colin B The sad part is that just as with the 777, a significant portion of the main structures are made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Same goes for the 787. In fact a lot of stuff for the dreamliner was subcontracted to Chinese firms to gain access to contracts in the Chinese market.
@(Unverified)
Care to cite a reference for the Chinese-made parts? While many of the parts are made in Japan (and Italy, and France), a considerable amount are made here in the US. The innovative materials and structures in this plane mean that only a few places in the world are even capable of building some of the parts.
Regardless, my initial point is still completely valid. Boeing is a huge company with many other interests, but a large portion of their future success is riding on the 787. If it fails, it would be a huge, huge mess and would directly affect a lot of American factory workers and engineers.
@Colin B
The rudders are contracted out to China.
Congrats Boeing.
A plastic 767 that is coming in way overweight, and will barely be able to compete with the a330.
Congratulations boeing.