Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

airliner designs

Feb 18, 2017

Trump praises newest Dreamliner the 787-10 as all American made

Australian cities are expected to get some of the first 787-10 services to Singapore from next year, but will we fit into the seats?

Did Trump’s minders hide this Boeing graphic from him?

There could be less nervousness about the Trump administration in American aerospace following the rolling out of the second stretch of the Boeing Dreamliner family, the 787-10, in North Charleston overnight.

President Trump declared it as ‘all American made’, meaning that either he doesn’t get the Boeing message of many years about how the Dreamliner is a global airliner, or alternatively, that he understands it perfectly, but will call it all American anyhow rather than pursue his hard line about American jobs going overseas.

Maybe the Boeing graphic at the top of this post, which has featured large in numerous Boeing briefings for almost four years, never quite made it across his desk, or has been kept hidden by his aides and entourage.

In any event the apparently improved relationship between the President and Boeing is likely to calm rattled nerves in the US aerospace sector, although less so in Lockheed Martin, because of his regular references to whether or not Boeing’s Super Hornets mightn’t prove better value for money than the Joint Strike Fighter.

A short guide to the recent history of the Trump-Boeing relationship can be read here.

The 787-10 shown below is a payload versus range trade off that recognises that current Boeing (and Airbus) widebody jets generally offer more range than they are likely to need for the routes they most frequently fly.

It is also likely to be prominent in this part of the world because that compromise, of more seats for less range, fits very well with launch customer SingaporeAir’s needs on its routes to Australia, China, South Korea, Japan and India.

Singapore Airlines is committed to purchasing 49 Dreamliner 787-10s, as well as 67 similarly sized but much longer ranging Airbus A350-900s, some of which will be optimised as ultra long range models for non-stops to New York and Los Angeles.

The critical question for air travellers however is whether or not Singapore Airlines will render the 787-10 in economy class in the spacious eight across format Boeing designed for  it, or the nine across arrangement that jams the hip bones or passenger hard together for what can be an intolerably miserable ride over any distance.

So far, airline accountants appear to have more say in these decisions among 787 buyers than executives who understand that being a full service carrier means you don’t try to get away with the smallest longer distance airline seats ever seen in service for the entire commercially successful jet age which began almost 60 years ago.

Boeing says the 787-10 will begin its certification flights within a few months and enter service next year.

Advertisement

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

24 comments

Leave a comment

24 thoughts on “Trump praises newest Dreamliner the 787-10 as all American made

  1. JW (aka James Wilson)

    Another example of Trump’s Orwellian world of ‘alternative facts’ perhaps?

    1. comet

      Bad things will come from Trump.

      An insane megalomaniac psychopath is in power. He’ll destroy the entire US economy, regardless of whether he picks on Boeing or not.

      1. Crocodile Chuck

        “Price check on cyanide pills for second commenter!”

        Keep clutching those pearls, Comet! 😉

        1. Tango

          There are indicators that the Cabinet level types have carved out their fief and run them rational (State and Defense so far)

          While we will suffer educator meltdown and fouled air and water, we are hoping we can take the hit and recover.

        2. comet

          It’s called a recession. And Trump will cause one.

          But Mr Crocodile, you’re quite entitled to like Trump if you so wish.

      2. Dan Dair

        Comet,
        “An insane megalomaniac psychopath…”
        Maybe he’s more of a narcissistic, fruit-bat, showman.?

        I’ve no doubt that the ‘Toddler-in-Chief’ is only in it to line his own pockets and for his own self-aggrandisement.

        Much like those frequently discredited TV evangelists who promise so much, take your money from you & then are caught somewhere with their trousers-down.? (or similar)
        Still, I wouldn’t one of them with their finger on the nuclear-button either.?

        The supposed Abe Lincoln quote springs to mind,
        ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time’.

        You have to imagine that at some point the scales will fall from the eyes of the great unwashed of the USA
        and they’ll look at their president & gasp at what they’ve done to themselves.? Hopefully, that day will arrive before he’s done any real damage, such as ruining Boeing or turning the planet into a smouldering husk.?

        1. Tango

          I think Dan pretty well has it hit on the head.

          If you have watched Mattis and Pence in Europe, despite the Trump spewings, they are on message.

          The aspect that is being made more of is the Europeans need to buck up for their own defense and that’s true and the feeling in the US cuts across the spectrum of politics believe (or in Trumps case blithering’s)

          That said, bless Australia. Not only a great ally (yea we have been wrong about what we got into but its appreciated the stand by US as well)

          Australia truly punches above their weight and puts its defense money on the table.

          1. Dan Dair

            Tango,
            “The aspect that is being made more of is the Europeans need to buck up for their own defense”

            The Brits have been saying pretty-much the same thing to the rest of Europe over defense-spending.

            The trouble for the US is that the security of their own domestic & US overseas interests are at stake, so overseas defence cutbacks are not so easy as might appear at first sight.
            The Europeans will have the forces to protect US-led installations in their territory, in just the same way you’d expect Australia & NZ to do, but oil installations or overseas manufacturing or bottling plants may present ‘soft’ targets in parts of Africa & the Middle East for example. A significant US presence in these vulnerable areas is a big help in retaining regional security.
            (though of course, some times the regional stability is adversely-affected by those who see the US as ‘imperialists’)

    2. derrida derider

      Oh come on. Yes, Trump is an ignorant narcissist who is unfit to hold the position he holds.

      But his boosterism for the 787 is just routine American politician stuff – Hillary would have said exactly the same. What do you expect him to say – “yeah the 787 is a piece of crap and you should buy from the French. There are no American jobs in this anyway”. Yeah, right.

  2. Mick Gilbert

    “I was given that information.”
    I expect that this will be the President’s new stock response when caught out making stuff up.

  3. Dan Dair

    The constituents are made all around the world,
    They ARE built / assembled / constructed in America.

    Its not a lie to say ‘made in America’.

    It is disingenuous though,
    because so much of the components & sub-assemblies are NOT made in America.
    (There are rules which apply to the labelling of manufactured goods, where the component parts are sourced from outside the country of manufacture.
    Normally this wouldn’t matter with an airliner as it’s not intended for the retail market)

    Once again a fine example of “doublespeak” or as JW says, alternative facts.?

    1. Tango

      Dan D:
      In order to be labled “Made in America” it has to have all major parts build here.

      Assembled does not cut it.

      We had a flashlight mfg that could not claim that because a spring and a seal were made in China.

      Keep in mind, the current US President has the literacy rating of a 5 year old.

      He has the attention span of a 3 year old

      He has the intellect of a new borne.

      His visionary rating is womb based.

  4. Tango

    Ok Trump is a flim flam man and we are stuck with him

    I apologize to the world and particularly Australia for his childish behavior.

    Sadly too many in this country are whining about the good old days and not preparing their children for today reality.

    Pretty amazing for a bunch of anti government types who are totally depending on said government to wipe their butts.

    1. Dan Dair

      Tango,
      “Sadly too many in this country are whining about the good old days……..
      Pretty amazing for a bunch of anti government types who are totally depending on said government to wipe their butts”

      That’s the trouble with anti-government types, they have no concept at all of how much government at all levels and society itself is a cohesive force for the general good.
      I sometimes think it would be nice to put those folks into a wildly distopian situation to see how keen they were on not paying their taxes & having, for example no law enforcement.?

      But of course, everyone else would would suffer, irrespective of their political views.
      (Personally, I’m not particularly a fan of ‘big government’, nor a fan of over regulation.
      But IMO there’s a big difference between disagreeing with areas or priorities of local or national government
      & deciding that the whole thing is irreversibly screwed-up.?)

      1. Tango

        Yep, we all would like less tax and les regulation.

        Yep, some regs are stupid (the one about US content being one to make it made in the USA)

        That said, you can see what chaos looks like

        Syria a current chaos in point, though there are more than just them.

  5. reeves35

    Back to the topic and I really think SQ have the chance to make a statement with what they do with their Y class seating on their 78Js. Do they seek to differentiate their Y class product from Scoot and maintain their global reputation for an excellent Y class product or do they take the low road undoubtedly advocated by the bean-counters and go with 9 abreast?

    QF has chosen the “low road”option but whether that turns out to be a financial boon or a turn-off remains to be seen.

    For SQ, it throws up an interesting conundrum given the 78J will fly to AU alongside 77Ws in the comfortable 9 abreast configuration and A380s in the equally comfortable 10 abreast configuration. If the 787 is 9 abreast and quickly gains a reputation as being the inferior product, pax will actively seek out the other aircraft. In these days of social media, the reputation of the product cannot be easily managed by an airline’s marketing department throwing around a few free J class tickets and courting positive media reports as was done in days gone by.

  6. chris turnbull

    According to my rougher than rough internet research the -10 could still do the Brisbane- LA or Melbourne LA mission with about 330 odd seats . Assuming I’m right (?) the -10 would be a better fit for QF for those routes than the -9. Or are the range numbers not realistic ?

    1. reeves35

      78J has a nominal range of 6430nm. This is nowhere near enough to do MEL-LAX which is over 7500nm. It is also not enough for LAX-BNE without significant payload restrictions. 78J will probably have a role in AU but more as a replacement for A333s to/from Asia rather than trans-Pacific.

  7. Ben Sandilands

    Chris,
    Qantas has been notably hard to convince on range payload claims by jet makers, but there would be little room for doubt that in due course the -10 will be considered viable for such flights, if not from Day One, and assuming Qantas converts some its options.

    However Qantas has briefed media that it will totally refurbish its A380 product, and with around 120-140 more seats per slots some 3-6 years from now, they may not see the 787-10 as a US route server other than new loner haul continental American cities where a non-stop anything including in a 787-9 would have considerable premium travel appeal. Qantas sees the 787-9s as developing new routes, and has mentioned non-stops to Chicago in the past, as well as announcing Perth-London. The hip bone dimensions of adult passengers won’t ever shrink to accommodate a nine across seating arrangement in 787 economy, or please the deity, the inhumane but technical possibility of a 10 across A350, since Delta and United have them on order, although United may cancel. I think the business case for an eight across Y class in 787s may eventually prevail (as Boeing always intended) in which case much more amenable choices will be on offer in competitive markets.

    1. StickShaker

      The issue I find fascinating about the 787-10 is whether Boeing will eventually produce a higher gross weight version to increase its range to trans Pacific capabilities – something in the order of 7500nm+.
      I see a gap in Boeing’s future lineup of genuine long haul aircraft from the 290 seat 787-9 to the 400 seat 777-9. The 777-8 is a heavy ULH version of the 777-9 and cannot be considered competitive against the Airbus 350-1000 despite having a similar seating capacity. The 787-10 at approx 320 seats slots in between the A350-900/787-9 and the 777-8/A350-1000 in seating capacity but it doesn’t have that vital trans-Pac range to be considered a genuine long haul aircraft.
      This leaves (IMHO) quite a large gap in Boeing’s lineup which could be nicely filled by a 787-10HGW.
      It no doubt wouldn’t be a simple exercise as the 787-10 has the wing from the 787-9 which in itself is not greatly different from that on the 787-8. Boeing made this decision when firming up the design of the 787-9 in order to keep costs down – there had been much speculation that the 787-9 would get a larger wing that could then underpin a long range 787-10.
      This decision may come back to haunt Boeing should they choose to proceed with a 787-10HGW as it would come at the cost of greater engineering complexity and capital outlay than otherwise would have been the case.
      Trying to beef up a model that already exists at the upper levels of an aircraft family will no doubt have other challenges in terms of centre wing box and main gear loads – I doubt that the 787 designers would have ever considered a triple bogie main gear for an aircraft that was originally intended to replace the 767.
      Engine choice and availability could be a stumbling block, the 787 and 350 engine variants are somewhat maxed out and would be considered long in the tooth by the time such an aircraft entered service.
      There may also be many less obvious issues that would add to the risk and cost of launching such a project but if it turns out that Boeing is poorly represented in that market segment then I think a 787-10HGW would be the most likely response.

      1. Dan Dair

        StickShaker,
        I think it’s all about money, or more accurately, Boeings’ lack of it to invest in its own future.?

        Why else have they not replaced the whole airframe of the B737, or at very least the wings & centre-box (not that it’s got one) of that design.?

        I agree with your analysis of the B787’s weight / range options.
        Again, it looks very much like Boeing chose the cheapest way of stretching the airframe last time, which means that the next stretch will need a lot more money spending on it, if it’s going to actually meet the specifications you anticipate.?

        Incidentally, the next B777 upgrade is still three years away & eating-up Boeings’ cash reserves / bank overdrafts.
        I wonder when the US financiers & investors are going to start to look at Boeing more as a ‘hole-in-the-ground’ than a’ cash-cow’.?

  8. Crocodile Chuck

    @ Comet: mate, recessions in fiat economies come along every 4-5 years.

    Its been 9 years since 2008. I reckon, like you, a recession is baked in the cake.

    Trump has nothing to do with it.

    1. derrida derider

      Crocodile Chuck, recession in commodity money economies also came along pretty regularly, and they tend to be much more severe than in trading fiat economies precisely because monetary policy and the forex market can buffer some of the shock.
      Oh, and we had no recession in 2008 – because of a monetary/fiscal stimulus that simply would not have been possible on the gold standard.
      A recession is two successive quarters with negative GDP growth, and we haven’t had that happen since 1991 (the next quarter’s National Accounts release will mean Australia has had the longest spell between recessions of ANY country since the industrial revolution – fiat or commodity money based).
      I do hope you don’t get your opinions on aviation from the same alt-right blogs your economic ones come from.

      1. Crocodile Chuck

        DD
        You’re not v bright.

        Comet’s anguished post, & my response, concerned the country currently helmed by Donald Trump.

        Re read it; don’t worry about your lips moving.

Advertisement

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.