Big Day in Seattle: The BOEING 787 DREAMLINER is unveiled

[BroncoBuff]

The plane will be unveiled today in Everett, but space to watch the ceremony is at such a premium, many Boeing employees and stockholders will pack into Qwest Field (home of the Seahawks) to watch the unveiling on closed-circuit TV. The 787 is a mid-to-long range passenger jet that replaces the 767.

The 787 Dreamliner has almost single-handedly altered the balance of commercial airliners, and righted Boeing's ship. The European consortium Airbus had caught and even passed Boeing in worldwide sales in 2004. But after pouring untold resources into the A380 double-decker Super-jumbo jet, they've been stung by a series of long delays and embarrasing cost overruns and weight concerns with the plane. And while Airbus has tended to these problems, they neglected the mid-long range market, which Boeing's Dreamliner has nearly cornered now with 677 firm orders over the past year - an all-time record for a commercial airliner.

Boeing has scored a record 677 firm sales orders for their groundbreaking 787 Dreamliner (above).
After long delays, Airbus finally countered with a re-worked version of its A350, an offering that
has been widely criticized as old technology by industry watchers.

Next up is the U.S. Air Force tanker competition. Airbus has formally proposed a version of its A350, while Boeing counters with 767 and now 777 tanker proposals. If Airbus wins the contract, it will assemble the plane in a new plant in Alabama, if Boeing wins, in Seattle.

[Vladimir]

that is a very large plane... pretty cool looking none the less.

[theAPAOps5]

I was up in Seattle for a conference earlier this year and we took a tour of the boeing plant in Everet. Saw the new line for the 787 getting staged. I also saw the 747 "Dreamlifter" that will fly the fuselage from the plant in Alabama up to Everett for final assembly. This will be the first time the fuselage will be delivered whole as its entirely composite.

Some more interesting facts. Boeing is just about ready to switch over their production line to an assembly line. Thats right the planes will be constantly moving as they are assembled. Granted its only a small amount per day. They found that if its an assembly line they get a huge tax break. They also don't put the engines on the airplane until the last possible minute becuase once the engines are on its a huge tax increase as well.

[Tombstone RJ]

Good for Boeing. I toured the plant a few years back when I was staying in Seattle. I'm glad they have so many new orders for their new plane.

They also competed against Lockheed for the new all-purpose jet fighter, but lost. I hope the get the tanker contract.

[theAPAOps5]

I know Boeing took a hit with the military when they pulled out of the 767 Air Tanker contract they had signed with Boeing. They found out the Officer who was the negotiator was just at retirement and had accepted a job with Boeing and Boeing had bought his house so he could move to Everett. So the Government pulled the contract. But you would think they still have some sort of an edge as Boeing is an American company and Airbus is a European Consortium.

[minibronco]

Yea, I was there in Seattle too.... that place is sweet. The factory was nice, everything was so well put together, and the Future of Flight museum had a small chunk of the 787 for you to sit in... heaven.

[Meck77]

Don't they offer non-stop flights from DIA to Munich or Berlin now? I've been meaning to look into that. That would be a fun little vacation.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Don't they offer non-stop flights from DIA to Munich or Berlin now? I've been meaning to look into that. That would be a fun little vacation.

They have had a direct flight to Frankfurt for years now. And they just added a direct flight to Munich. I have flown both legs and flying into Munich is much nicer. Frankfurt International is a cluster fluck.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

They have had a direct flight to Frankfurt for years now. And they just added a direct flight to Munich. I have flown both legs and flying into Munich is much nicer. Frankfurt International is a cluster fluck.

Cool. Yeah I had a flight from Frankfurt to Warsaw years ago. When they called for boarding there was no assigned seats. There were literally people fighting for a seat because it was over booked. Not uncommon for people to fight for space on buses in Eastern Europe but never experienced that on a commercial airliner before.

I love Munich. Lived there for 3 months back in my college days. I'll be heading there soon enough!

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Air Berlin just ordered 35 of those beauties. We stockholders thank our German friends for their business.

[Play2win]

Shouldn't it have been unveiled in Chicago?

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by DS49

Shouldn't it have been unveiled in Chicago?

Thats only where the Corporate HQ is located. The production facility is in Everett Washington and isn't moving. Thats where they role out all their new planes or upgraded planes.

[NW Bolt Fan]

Originally Posted by Billy Clyde Puckett

Air Berlin just ordered 35 of those beauties. We stockholders thank our German friends for their business.

How long have you had the stock? Saw they were doing great awhile back, but didn't have any spare cash around to throw their way. Wish I'd managed to dig some up now...

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

Thats only where the Corporate HQ is located. The production facility is in Everett Washington and isn't moving. Thats where they role out all their new planes or upgraded planes.

I used to live in Seattle, and have driven by Everett many times. There was a huge hub-bub made about them moving to Chicago, i.e., thats where Boeing was going to be centered. If that is really where Boeing was going to be centered, don't you think that is where They would be doing the unveiling?

I am just talking about all the speculation that was going around at the time they moved their HQ to Chicago.


Seattle has 3 great things going for it– economically speaking: Micro$oft, Boeing and The Port of Seattle.

Not a bad place to live at all.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by DS49

I used to live in Seattle, and have driven by Everett many times. There was a huge hub-bub made about them moving to Chicago, i.e., thats where Boeing was going to be centered. If that is really where Boeing was going to be centered, don't you think that is where They would be doing the unveiling?

I am just talking about all the speculation that was going around at the time they moved their HQ to Chicago.


Seattle has 3 great things going for it– economically speaking: Micro$oft, Boeing and The Port of Seattle.

Not a bad place to live at all.

It was funny watching Denver and Chicago stump for the HQ. Knowing that the production facility was never going anywhere. Thats where the jobs are that will help a cities economy and they were never leaving. Man if I could live in Seattle I would in a heart beat. I fell in love with that town when I was there.

[theAPAOps5]

And here she is in all her glory:

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by NW Bolt Fan

How long have you had the stock? Saw they were doing great awhile back, but didn't have any spare cash around to throw their way. Wish I'd managed to dig some up now...

I bought it in the mid 80's, mid 90's now. The Morgan Stanley price target is $120.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

I know Boeing took a hit with the military when they pulled out of the 767 Air Tanker contract they had signed with Boeing. They found out the Officer who was the negotiator was just at retirement and had accepted a job with Boeing and Boeing had bought his house so he could move to Everett. So the Government pulled the contract. But you would think they still have some sort of an edge as Boeing is an American company and Airbus is a European Consortium.

Yeah, good recap. The whole contract was pulled, and now Airbus is in the running for the re-opened contract. They're proposing a modified version of their hastily re-designed A350 ... and if they win, they're gonna build a huge plant in Alabama to coordinate the assembly. So at least they're gonna assemble it USA if they win.

Boeing has taken advantage of the delay after the scandal to re-design an awesome 777-based tanker, which was a good idea because the A350 had the 767 beaten on almost every point. The Air Force wil decide in about a year.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So how much do each of these giant airliners pollute the planet?

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So how much do each of these giant airliners pollute the planet?

Thats one of the pluses with the 787. Its predominately composite so its carbon footprint is minimal compared to the others. But even then an airplanes impact on the environment is negligible compared to automobile emissions.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

Thats one of the pluses with the 787. Its predominately composite so its carbon footprint is minimal compared to the others. But even then an airplanes impact on the environment is negligible compared to automobile emissions.

Really? How's that? I mean how many gallons of jet fuel is each airliner burning per minute?


Jet pollution: drawing a line in the sky
Although cars generate more greenhouse gases, airliner exhaust has an exaggerated effect, scientists say. Is it time to take action?
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Gazing into a clear blue Wisconsin sky, David Travis was amazed by what he did not see: not one fluffy airliner contrail. Not that day or in the two days that followed the 9/11 terror attacks, when commercial airliners in the United States were grounded.

For Dr. Travis, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, that tragedy had a tiny silver lining. A sky without jet contrails became a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see if the skinny, man-made clouds really did affect climate, as he had long suspected.

Little is known about the global climate effects of airliner exhaust. Although jets create far less greenhouse gas than power plants or automobiles, they have an outsize impact because of where they spew it - the delicate upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, five to seven miles up from Earth's surface. And an expected boom in airline travel in coming years is likely to swamp any efficiency gains from the next generation of airliners, such as the just unveiled Airbus A380.

The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place.

"Airliners are special because even though their total emissions are relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the atmosphere. "It's a special location."

When injected together into the icy atmosphere, the mix of exhaust gases - including water vapor, unburned hydrocarbons, particulates, sulfates, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon dioxide - produces clouds and has two to three times the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone, Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers reported last year.

That finding meshes with what Travis found. Comparing ground temperature readings during the 9/11 flight ban with those after and before it, Travis found that those seemingly inconsequential wisps fanning out miles above the earth were like a blanket, reducing temperature fluctuations nationwide.
CONT.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Really? How's that? I mean how many gallons of jet fuel is each airliner burning per minute?

Its not based on how much emissions on each flight leg. Its based on volume. The amount of auto traffic compared to the amount of air traffic is exponentially higher that when compared side by side its not even close. I have statistics at work as I am writing my accreditation paper on that so I can give you more details tomorrow if you really are interested.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

Its not based on how much emissions on each flight leg. Its based on volume. The amount of auto traffic compared to the amount of air traffic is exponentially higher that when compared side by side its not even close. I have statistics at work as I am writing my accreditation paper on that so I can give you more details tomorrow if you really are interested.

See the article I posted above. I research this stuff for trading securities.

"Even with a 40 to 50 percent improvement in fuel efficiency, you're faced with a 3 to 20 factor increase in the amount of travel, so we are going to have to have big increases in emissions with that kind of growth," says David Greene, a coauthor of the IPCC report and scientist at the Center for Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Because it will take decades to turn over the global fleet, pollution will moderate only very slowly, he says.

Future contrail scenarios depend much on how much fuel is burned - and at what altitude. One possible solution, noted by researchers in England, would be to fly at lower, warmer altitudes. Contrails require moist yet very cold air to form - prevalent over some regions, such as the American Midwest, or Northern and Western Europe. By flying 6,000 feet lower, aircraft would produce fewer contrails, a team of scientists from Manchester Metropolitan University reported in 2003.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

See the article I posted above. I research this stuff for trading securities.

That article is the catalyst for my research. I have read that one and find it very interesting. I am researching to either confirm or disprove that very study.

[theAPAOps5]

Also Jet Fuel is essentially Kerosene which burns slower and more efficiently than say gasoline or its high octane relative Avgas.

Another point is that study fails to take into account that contrails aren't just formed from exhaust but also are created from wing tip vortices which consist of nothing more than condensed air and moisture.