Announcement on Monday

Just heard that Virgin are announcing a plane order on Monday to coincide with the inaugural flight to Chicago.

Strong rumour is that the order is for the Dreamliner.....

[ChuckC]

Maybe even more than rumor. There was this that came out in the news last month.

Are you a Dreamliner fan, Albert?

Chuck-

[Pete]

Ooo... genuine gossip

I've always thought the 787 was a little too light on seats to satisfy most of Virgin's network, which don't have too much trouble filling 747-400s and 340-600s. The 787 would be great for the likes of bmi, but can't see it being a good fit for Virgin. I'd be happy to be wrong though!

Pete

[mcmbenjamin]

Well if VS really is going to use Open Skies and start Europe to the USA; the 787 might work out.

[Pete]

Originally posted by mcmbenjamin
Well if VS really is going to use Open Skies and start Europe to the USA; the 787 might work out.

Given the veto clause in the agreement (ie, the USA have to open up their domestic airspace to European carriers within 12 months, or the wedding's over), that would be an awfully risky basis to place a multi-million dollar order for aircraft which won't be delivered for some years. I think any business looking at that market will want to be sure it's going to continue before investing quite so much in it.

Please be orders for Boeings, not the rattle box ugly A's

Please may I see a piccy of one of these dream planes[oo]

[Bazz]

Egg, here is the official site. If you Google Dreamliner 787 you will get a lot of sites and pics.

The wait list for the 787's is soooo long, 500-600 plus aircraft already on order across the globe.

If it's true that the expected order is for 787's - Any idea's on the waiting time?? It must be 5 years minimum surely?

[ChuckC]

Even though there is a long waitlist VS could trade with other carriers or negotiate a fee to lease aircraft from customers who are ahead in the queue.

It certainly would be a great choice for increased frequency to US cities from Europe. I'm with pixuk, however, on true long hauls. That's where the "queen of the skies", the 744, really shines.

Chuck-

[mcmbenjamin]

Good point Pete.

Are VS the UFO on Boeings customer order sheet? Hmmmm I wonder.......rumours earlier in week it was DL but now heard its a non US airline.....although 30 787s do seem a bit steep for VS.

Am I right in thinking that Boeing haven't even built one 787 yet...?

[ChuckC]

McCoy,

Originally posted by McCoy
Am I right in thinking that Boeing haven't even built one 787 yet...?

The most recent announcement I see from Boeing on the first 787 ...

Exciting, eh?

Chuck-

Hmm... are there factors in the 787 project that differ significantly from the A380 project, that make comparisons invalid? Or are we likely to see similar problems and delays set-back the 787s emergence? Are Boeing having to 'mortgage themselves up to the hilt' to fund this project like EADS did?

Originally posted by ChuckC
McCoy,

Originally posted by McCoy
Am I right in thinking that Boeing haven't even built one 787 yet...?

The most recent announcement I see from Boeing on the first 787 ...

Exciting, eh?

Chuck-

I like the green assembly practice ... flying parts in from all over the world [}:)] On your other note Chuck ... I always liked the 777 for its space and cabin height ... but a 747 also does it, and perhaps we should try out a 380 whenever we can!

Originally posted by McCoy
Hmm... are there factors in the 787 project that differ significantly from the A380 project, that make comparisons invalid? Or are we likely to see similar problems and delays set-back the 787s emergence? Are Boeing having to 'mortgage themselves up to the hilt' to fund this project like EADS did?

No I doubt it- the 787 has many more orders than the 380 has to date.

380 orders stand at 156 to date and none ordered in the last year.

787 orders are at 514 with 96 since the start of the year.

The 787/380 comparision is drawn due to the hype in the aviation industry. Analysts predicted that future air travel would either result in a large capacity aricraft being flown on core routes (so LHR-JFK, FRA-LAX etc) with 737/a320 sized aircraft flying into the key airports so a hub and spoke system. Or smaller longer range aircraft flying point to point routes (so AKL-JFK say). Airbus risked its future in the former and Boeing in the latter. Orders now seem to suggest that Boeing got it spot on where as Airbus didnt.


This is not to say B is better than A- far from it, B have had just as many flops (737-600, 767-400, 717, 747sp all spring to mind). There also is a clear market for the 380 but the fact that both companies placed so much money in too very different products always meant one would loose out. This is why A has problems now.



On a side- a quick look at Boeing orders shows a number of UFO orders for 787s. Those being for two orders for 15 a/c, 3 orders for 2 a/c, one order for 11 a/c, one order for 3 and one order for 4 a/c. Any could be VS in theory.

[Pete]

Without wishing this thread to descend into an A vs B war (and I'm glad, for the most part, that we've resisted thus far), but I would suggest that price has a lot to do with the reason the 787 has many more orders than the 380. I personally believe there's room for both Boeing and Airbus' vision of the future, but if you're a point-to-point type of carrier, you need smaller aircraft in larger numbers. Those with requirements for the 380 need fewer aircraft to operate out of their slot-controlled airports. Saying Boeing has 514 orders against Airbus' 156 is a clear win for Boeing really misses the point of their original goals.

And, as I said earlier in this thread, I'd be quite happy to be wrong, but I really don't see the 787 as a good fit for Virgin Atlantic. As I understand it, it's got less capacity than the A340-300, which is an aircraft VS has been shifting away from in favour of the -600 and its existing 747-400 fleet. From an engineering & flight crew point of view, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only have 2 or 3 787s in the fleet, but equally there aren't that many routes in the VS network that are "small" enough to justify 15 787s. Virgin's main hub being London, they're dealing with slot limitations all the time, so I really struggle to see how they could be on the Boeing UFO list. But hey, I don't have any insider information, so could easily be wrong

All good points Pix ... it really should be down to slots, and customers. However there are a few other saliant points. For example it would mean a new type of aicraft, flight deck etc., with the attendent training and maintenance extras that go with it should VS go for the 787. Then there's the deferral of both the remaining 346s and planned 380s leaving a large gap in the delivery schedule for growth ... then there's the reports of establishing operations in Europe where I'd assume (like ORD) starting with smaller aircraft may be economical. Then again, VS would surely have to negotiate early deliveries with Boeing and its customers to fill that delivery schedule to make entering Europe a reality, and that might cost too. Yet, the 350 is not due into service until 2012 (I think) and that won't fill any short term needs either.

So, I'm confused about all the circumstantial evidence ... will look for Monday's news, but then again we've been here before too!!!

Originally posted by pixuk
I personally believe there's room for both Boeing and Airbus' vision of the future,

agree

Originally posted by pixuk
And, as I said earlier in this thread, I'd be quite happy to be wrong, but I really don't see the 787 as a good fit for Virgin Atlantic.

Agree am also struggling- can understand the likes of ANA or NZ wanting it for routes such as NRT-MCO or AKL-DEL for example. Cant see anywhere from London that VS would want to start on that would require additional range or small seat capacity. From MAN or GLA or even a European airport would be a whole different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by pixuk
From an engineering & flight crew point of view, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only have 2 or 3 787s in the fleet, but equally there aren't that many routes in the VS network that are "small" enough to justify 15 787s. Virgin's main hub being London, they're dealing with slot limitations all the time, so I really struggle to see how they could be on the Boeing UFO list. But hey, I don't have any insider information, so could easily be wrong

They could be one of the UFO 2/3 orders.

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes

Haha- fantasic!

The order will be for Boeing, with the 787 being the favourite. It might be 777's though, I cannot get a firm answer on that at the moment. The 600's are using much more fuel than they planned, which is one of the reasons why they are going over to B's.

Originally posted by albert75
The order will be for Boeing, with the 787 being the favourite. It might be 777's though, I cannot get a firm answer on that at the moment. The 600's are using much more fuel than they planned, which is one of the reasons why they are going over to B's.

Isn't the A also a slower aircraft?

It would fit in quite well for VS though. Although smaller than the 600s the 9 series will carry just under 300 which is roughly the same as the current 600s. It also has an added advantage that should all the hype about the 380 mean VS pulls out then the conversion for the flight deck crews will not be as much of a problem as I think they're working on main commonality flight decks????

Originally posted by willd
This is not to say B is better than A- far from it, B have had just as many flops (737-600, 767-400, 717, 747sp all spring to mind). There also is a clear market for the 380 but the fact that both companies placed so much money in too very different products always meant one would loose out. This is why A has problems now.

The 767-400 wasn't a flop, it was only built to replace DC-10 fleets in Delta and Continental, it would have just been an added bonus if other customers ordered some too.

Originally posted by AlanA

Originally posted by albert75
The order will be for Boeing, with the 787 being the favourite. It might be 777's though, I cannot get a firm answer on that at the moment. The 600's are using much more fuel than they planned, which is one of the reasons why they are going over to B's.

Isn't the A also a slower aircraft?

Not according to the Boeing / Airbus sites : 787-9 has max cruising speed of mach 0.85 and 346 is 0.86, also bear mind a 346 can take many more pax (up to 400 v 290) and cargo. So pure fuel burn is not always a fair comparison.