EY460
Utente Registrato
[OT] Anche tutte le consegne Airbus a compagnie USA sono sospese per lo stesso motivo. [OT]
Thread Boeing 787
- Autore Discussione FlyIce
- Data d'inizio
mariol
Utente Registrato
- 3 Febbraio 2009
- 3,633
- 0
Secondo la pagina FB di Jetstar, il B787 operera' voli domestici per circa un mese.
BALI will be the first international route for the Jetstar Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which will start flying to the holiday island from mid-December.
The airline announced the new route as Australia’s first Dreamliner touched down in Melbourne today after a 13,000km delivery flight from Boeing’s giant factory in the US.
“Tickets are now on sale for our first scheduled international service to Bali on Wednesday December 18,” said Jetstar Group chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka. “We expect to add more destinations --including Phuket, Japan, Hawaii and Singapore -- to the 787’s flying schedule as we receive more aircraft.”
The aircraft landed shortly after 1pm to a water canon salute from emergency services and was met by Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine.
The 335-seat plane will spend the next few weeks being certified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority before starting domestic service for a month flying from its home-base in Melbourne to the Gold Coast and Perth.
The delivery flight went without a hitch and pilots said it had performed well since it was delivered from Boeing.
“It’s very similar to a 767, it’s a beautifully responsive aeroplane and very, very quiet up the front. Beautifully quiet,” said Captain Peter Terrill, who landed the plane.
As well as being more fuel efficient, the aircraft also flies slightly faster than the Airbus A330s it will replace and shaved about 30 minutes off the normal flying time as it cruised at Mach 0.86 at 40,000ft. It was estimated it used 8000kg less fuel than an A330 following it on the same route, a 15 per cent improvement with an extra 25 seats and $1 million worth of spare parts in the hold.
Unlike the delivery of the Airbus A380 in 2008, which saw almost six cartons Grange Hermitage consumed, the 57 passengers failed to down the 31 bottles of French champagne provided for the two-leg flight and the remaining 13 have been donated by Boeing to charity.
“Unlike previous flights, this wasn’t party town,” said Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, who said he was pleased with the way the plane performed and the reaction to new cabin features.
The 787 has windows that are 60 per cent bigger than a conventional plane and operates wit higher humidity and cabin pressure.
The aircraft also attempts to counteract turbulence to give a smoother ride. Sensors on the 787 continually adjust moveable panels on the wing in an attempt to smooth out the turbulence.
Two additional planes are due to be delivered by the end of this year and are expected to enter service early next year. Jetstar International will use the 787 to replace 11 A330s and will ultimately take 14 of the planes.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...y-e6frg95x-1226735472852#sthash.UfUFMbNA.dpuf
BALI will be the first international route for the Jetstar Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which will start flying to the holiday island from mid-December.
The airline announced the new route as Australia’s first Dreamliner touched down in Melbourne today after a 13,000km delivery flight from Boeing’s giant factory in the US.
“Tickets are now on sale for our first scheduled international service to Bali on Wednesday December 18,” said Jetstar Group chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka. “We expect to add more destinations --including Phuket, Japan, Hawaii and Singapore -- to the 787’s flying schedule as we receive more aircraft.”
The aircraft landed shortly after 1pm to a water canon salute from emergency services and was met by Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine.
The 335-seat plane will spend the next few weeks being certified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority before starting domestic service for a month flying from its home-base in Melbourne to the Gold Coast and Perth.
The delivery flight went without a hitch and pilots said it had performed well since it was delivered from Boeing.
“It’s very similar to a 767, it’s a beautifully responsive aeroplane and very, very quiet up the front. Beautifully quiet,” said Captain Peter Terrill, who landed the plane.
As well as being more fuel efficient, the aircraft also flies slightly faster than the Airbus A330s it will replace and shaved about 30 minutes off the normal flying time as it cruised at Mach 0.86 at 40,000ft. It was estimated it used 8000kg less fuel than an A330 following it on the same route, a 15 per cent improvement with an extra 25 seats and $1 million worth of spare parts in the hold.
Unlike the delivery of the Airbus A380 in 2008, which saw almost six cartons Grange Hermitage consumed, the 57 passengers failed to down the 31 bottles of French champagne provided for the two-leg flight and the remaining 13 have been donated by Boeing to charity.
“Unlike previous flights, this wasn’t party town,” said Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, who said he was pleased with the way the plane performed and the reaction to new cabin features.
The 787 has windows that are 60 per cent bigger than a conventional plane and operates wit higher humidity and cabin pressure.
The aircraft also attempts to counteract turbulence to give a smoother ride. Sensors on the 787 continually adjust moveable panels on the wing in an attempt to smooth out the turbulence.
Two additional planes are due to be delivered by the end of this year and are expected to enter service early next year. Jetstar International will use the 787 to replace 11 A330s and will ultimately take 14 of the planes.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...y-e6frg95x-1226735472852#sthash.UfUFMbNA.dpuf
Ancora problemi per due 787 JAL:
Boeing Dreamliner: Two JAL flights diverted after glitches
Japan Airlines (JAL) says it has turned around two of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft during flights due to technical problems.
On one plane one of the two anti-ice systems, which prevent ice building up around the engine, failed.
Meanwhile, an electrical glitch made six toilets unusable on another flight.
These are the latest technical issues to hit the Dreamliner, which saw the entire fleet being grounded earlier this year following battery problems.
The anti-icing system failed on a Tokyo-bound flight that took off from San Diego.
A spokesperson for JAL told the BBC that a similar issue had forced a Tokyo-to-Singapore flight to be turned back in June this year.
Meanwhile, an electrical system failure connected to the lavatories affected a flight from Moscow to Tokyo.
The failure resulted in six of the seven toilets on the plane not being able to flush.
The airline said that it was looking into the problems.
Latest setback
The 787 Dreamliner has suffered a series of technical and safety problems in recent months.
In January, its entire fleet was temporarily grounded. That move was prompted after a fire broke out on one of JAL's Dreamliners, and an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight was forced to make an emergency landing because of a battery fault and a fire in one of the electrical compartments.
Though the planes have since been allowed back into the air, other issues have emerged.
In July, a fire broke out on a 787 jet operated by Ethiopian Airlines while it was parked at Heathrow airport. It was traced to the upper rear part of the plane where a locator transmitter is located.
Then in August, ANA said it had found damage to the battery wiring on two 787 locator transmitters during checks. US carrier United Airlines also found a pinched wire during an inspection of one of its six 787s.
The issues have hurt Boeing.
Earlier this week, JAL announced a $9.5bn (£5.9bn) plane deal with rival Airbus. It is the first time that it has agreed to buy Airbus planes, having preferred Boeing for many decades.
Analysts have hinted that issues with the Dreamliner may have played a role in JAL's decision.
However, despite the issues the Dreamliner is still considered to be one of the most advanced planes in the industry and continues to remain popular.
Boeing has received orders for more than 950 jets since its launch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24471093
Boeing Dreamliner: Two JAL flights diverted after glitches
Japan Airlines (JAL) says it has turned around two of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft during flights due to technical problems.
On one plane one of the two anti-ice systems, which prevent ice building up around the engine, failed.
Meanwhile, an electrical glitch made six toilets unusable on another flight.
These are the latest technical issues to hit the Dreamliner, which saw the entire fleet being grounded earlier this year following battery problems.
The anti-icing system failed on a Tokyo-bound flight that took off from San Diego.
A spokesperson for JAL told the BBC that a similar issue had forced a Tokyo-to-Singapore flight to be turned back in June this year.
Meanwhile, an electrical system failure connected to the lavatories affected a flight from Moscow to Tokyo.
The failure resulted in six of the seven toilets on the plane not being able to flush.
The airline said that it was looking into the problems.
Latest setback
The 787 Dreamliner has suffered a series of technical and safety problems in recent months.
In January, its entire fleet was temporarily grounded. That move was prompted after a fire broke out on one of JAL's Dreamliners, and an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight was forced to make an emergency landing because of a battery fault and a fire in one of the electrical compartments.
Though the planes have since been allowed back into the air, other issues have emerged.
In July, a fire broke out on a 787 jet operated by Ethiopian Airlines while it was parked at Heathrow airport. It was traced to the upper rear part of the plane where a locator transmitter is located.
Then in August, ANA said it had found damage to the battery wiring on two 787 locator transmitters during checks. US carrier United Airlines also found a pinched wire during an inspection of one of its six 787s.
The issues have hurt Boeing.
Earlier this week, JAL announced a $9.5bn (£5.9bn) plane deal with rival Airbus. It is the first time that it has agreed to buy Airbus planes, having preferred Boeing for many decades.
Analysts have hinted that issues with the Dreamliner may have played a role in JAL's decision.
However, despite the issues the Dreamliner is still considered to be one of the most advanced planes in the industry and continues to remain popular.
Boeing has received orders for more than 950 jets since its launch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24471093
safin79
Utente Registrato
- 23 Marzo 2011
- 532
- 6
Ogni volta che ricevo una mail alert da questo thread penso "che guaio sarà successo questa volta..."
QATAR Airways to Start Boeing 787 Service to Brussels from Dec 2013
QATAR Airways from 01DEC13 is introducing Boeing 787 aircraft service on its daily Doha – Brussels route, replacing Airbus A330-200/-300 aircraft. Planned schedule as follow.
QR195 DOH0235 – 0745BRU 788 246
QR193 DOH0815 – 1325BRU 788 x246
QR196 BRU1000 – 1825DOH 788 246
QR194 BRU1455 – 2320DOH 788 x246
airlineroute
QATAR Airways from 01DEC13 is introducing Boeing 787 aircraft service on its daily Doha – Brussels route, replacing Airbus A330-200/-300 aircraft. Planned schedule as follow.
QR195 DOH0235 – 0745BRU 788 246
QR193 DOH0815 – 1325BRU 788 x246
QR196 BRU1000 – 1825DOH 788 246
QR194 BRU1455 – 2320DOH 788 x246
airlineroute
[h=1]LOT Polish Airlines Plans One-Time Boeing 787 Tbilisi Operation in Oct/Nov 2013[/h]by JL
Update at 0840GMT 24OCT13
LOT Polish Airlines once again plans to operate one-time Boeing 787 operation on Warsaw – Tbilisi route, replacing Embraer E195 aircraft. The 787 is scheduled to operate on 31OCT13 from Warsaw, 01NOV13 from Tbilisi.
LO723 WAW2235 – 0455+1TBS 788 31OCT13
LO724 TBS0540 – 0610WAW 788 01NOV13
Update at 0840GMT 24OCT13
LOT Polish Airlines once again plans to operate one-time Boeing 787 operation on Warsaw – Tbilisi route, replacing Embraer E195 aircraft. The 787 is scheduled to operate on 31OCT13 from Warsaw, 01NOV13 from Tbilisi.
LO723 WAW2235 – 0455+1TBS 788 31OCT13
LO724 TBS0540 – 0610WAW 788 01NOV13
Boeing ha annunciato di voler portare il rateo di produzione del 787 (10 macchine al mese entro fine 2013) a 12 aerei al mese entro il 2016, e 14 al mese entro fine decennio per far fronte alla domanda.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/accelerating-deliveries-drive-boeing-3q-profits-20654918
Per dare un termine di paragone, Boeing produce 8 777 al mese, mentre Airbus produce 10 330 al mese e prevede di arrivare a produrre 10 350 al mese entro il 2018, e 13 al mese entro la fine del decennio. La mancanza di slot di consegna è costata a Boeing vari ordini (Vietnam Airlines, per esempio, ha dichiarato espressamente di aver ordinato A350 vista l'impossibilità di ricevere un numero sufficiente di 787 entro la fine del decennio) ed è naturale che l'azienda voglia rimediare: vediamo se/come riusciranno veramente a raggiungere ratei del genere con la supply chain globale che hanno.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/accelerating-deliveries-drive-boeing-3q-profits-20654918
Per dare un termine di paragone, Boeing produce 8 777 al mese, mentre Airbus produce 10 330 al mese e prevede di arrivare a produrre 10 350 al mese entro il 2018, e 13 al mese entro la fine del decennio. La mancanza di slot di consegna è costata a Boeing vari ordini (Vietnam Airlines, per esempio, ha dichiarato espressamente di aver ordinato A350 vista l'impossibilità di ricevere un numero sufficiente di 787 entro la fine del decennio) ed è naturale che l'azienda voglia rimediare: vediamo se/come riusciranno veramente a raggiungere ratei del genere con la supply chain globale che hanno.
crazyale
Utente Registrato
- 4 Settembre 2008
- 218
- 5
Nel frattempo sembra che il 787 Ethiopian venga riparato.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022097759_787repairxml.html
Boeing readies patch for fire-damaged 787
Boeing will repair the 787 Dreamliner jet damaged in a fire at Heathrow by making a duplicate fuselage section and cutting out a piece of it to create a giant patch, in a process one expert says is “pushing the limits of what’s been done in the past.”
Boeing has begun the delicate, expensive and crucial process of repairing the 787 Dreamliner that was badly damaged by a fire last July, approaching the fix in a way that will be closely tracked by its customers and competitors.
Behind a scaffolding erected more than a week ago at London’s Heathrow Airport, where the Ethiopian Airlines plane has been idled since summer, a repair team will glue a giant composite plastic skin patch into the burned crown of the fuselage, said two people with knowledge of the details. Boeing has scheduled five weeks for the repair, one said.
It’s a very complicated procedure, but less so than the alternative option that was suggested by some observers: pulling out and replacing the entire aft fuselage section, which Boeing fabricates as a single-piece barrel.
Company spokesman Doug Alder confirmed that repair work has started in London but declined to provide details beyond saying the work “is progressing well.”
Speaking Tuesday at the Cargo Facts aircraft symposium in Seattle, Asrat Begashaw, acting managing director of Ethiopian Cargo, said management expects to have its damaged 787 back in service in about two months.
Because the 787 is the first large commercial jet made from carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic composites, there’s no precedent for the substantial damage to the Ethiopian jet’s hull.
Fixing it is the first major test of the repairability of Boeing’s Dreamliner, so it’s vital to giving airlines confidence the jet will prove robust in service.
The aviation industry is watching “with very high interest” because the damaged piece is a load-bearing structure that’s critical to safe flight, said Eric Casterline, president of Heatcon Composite Systems, a leading maker of composites-repair equipment in Seattle.
“Boeing’s repair is going to be pushing the limits of what’s been done in the past,” said Casterline. “This needs to be done right. The aerospace community needs the assurance that this can be done.”
If the jet’s fuselage was a traditional aluminum one with aluminum skin panels riveted together, this repair could be done relatively easily by replacing any damaged panels.
Boeing’s one-piece barrel sections for the 787 are also harder to fix than the structure Airbus has designed for its composite plastic A350.
Airbus fastens together composite panels to make the A350 fuselage, closer to the traditional structural design of a metal airplane and similarly replaceable in case of damage.
Boeing’s design is lighter in weight and enables a streamlined manufacturing process, but it must prove to be repairable, too.
The fire on the Ethiopian Airlines 787 broke out July 12 when the airplane was parked and empty.
Investigators believe it was likely caused by the incorrect installation of a small lithium battery inside an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), an electronic device found on many planes that transmits location data to satellites in the event of a crash.
The fire caused intense heat damage above the ceiling at the back of the passenger cabin. It scorched a large area of the carbon-fiber skin on the crown of the fuselage in front of the vertical tail fin.
A complex repair
While some speculated that Boeing might have to replace the entire fuselage barrel, company engineers decided against that, as first reported last week on aviation blog Airchive.com.
To begin the repair, the jet maker several weeks ago fabricated a full rear fuselage barrel in its North Charleston, S.C., factory.
It then cut out the crown section to supply a skin patch for the repair of the jet in London, said a Boeing engineer, one of the two people with knowledge of the details.
Several other pieces of composite skin were cut from the same barrel section to provide an inventory of repair patches for future use.
A different Boeing engineer, who is an expert in composite repairs, said putting in the patch will be complex and difficult.
But he said it would have been even more trouble to take the other approach — disconnecting all the wiring, air and fuel systems and then inserting a full fuselage section that would mesh exactly with the section in front of it and the tail behind it.
On condition of anonymity, this engineer explained the likely repair process.
Boeing will cut out the skin damaged by the fire probably in a rectangular cut with rounded edges, he said.
It will cut the patch to the same size and shape and drop it into the space as a plug. The tiny gap around the patch will be filled with paintable sealant that will stretch and compress as the fuselage is pressurized and unpressurized.
Then mechanics will work on the inside, gluing a splice plate to the original skin and to the patch, overlapping both by about 4 inches.
The glue is a superstrong adhesive that is cured using heat blankets that are held under pressure by vacuum bags applied to the area.
Heatcon makes the electronic boxes used to monitor the temperature and pressure, which must be controlled carefully for hours as the adhesive hardens.
In addition to the skin patch, Boeing’s mechanics must repair the stringers — the stiffening rods that run longitudinally along the fuselage — which will be cut when the damaged section is removed.
They’ll have to lay wet composite tape precisely in the shape of the stringer at the point where it was cut and cure it to hardness, again using heat blankets and vacuum bags maintaining the precise temperature and pressure.
All this work will be intricate and must be done precisely to ensure the glue sets as expected and the repair is safe.
University of Washington professor Mark Tuttle, director of UW’s Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures, said proving a bonded repair is sound can be difficult.
“One issue with adhesive bonding is you can inspect the bond with ultrasonic inspection and find no gaps or voids, but nevertheless the strength of the bond is lower than anticipated,” he said.
He said Boeing will stress-test the result after the repair is finished, including flight tests with instruments attached to measure the strain on the patch.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will likely have to sign off on the airworthiness of the jet after repair, Tuttle said. The FAA did not respond to an emailed query before deadline.
The Boeing engineer with knowledge of the repair preparations said the company will gain valuable experience from this repair of a major composite skin section.
“Chances are there’ll be issues along the way as they figure out their expertise,” he said. “It’s all brand new ground.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022097759_787repairxml.html
Boeing readies patch for fire-damaged 787
Boeing will repair the 787 Dreamliner jet damaged in a fire at Heathrow by making a duplicate fuselage section and cutting out a piece of it to create a giant patch, in a process one expert says is “pushing the limits of what’s been done in the past.”
Boeing has begun the delicate, expensive and crucial process of repairing the 787 Dreamliner that was badly damaged by a fire last July, approaching the fix in a way that will be closely tracked by its customers and competitors.
Behind a scaffolding erected more than a week ago at London’s Heathrow Airport, where the Ethiopian Airlines plane has been idled since summer, a repair team will glue a giant composite plastic skin patch into the burned crown of the fuselage, said two people with knowledge of the details. Boeing has scheduled five weeks for the repair, one said.
It’s a very complicated procedure, but less so than the alternative option that was suggested by some observers: pulling out and replacing the entire aft fuselage section, which Boeing fabricates as a single-piece barrel.
Company spokesman Doug Alder confirmed that repair work has started in London but declined to provide details beyond saying the work “is progressing well.”
Speaking Tuesday at the Cargo Facts aircraft symposium in Seattle, Asrat Begashaw, acting managing director of Ethiopian Cargo, said management expects to have its damaged 787 back in service in about two months.
Because the 787 is the first large commercial jet made from carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic composites, there’s no precedent for the substantial damage to the Ethiopian jet’s hull.
Fixing it is the first major test of the repairability of Boeing’s Dreamliner, so it’s vital to giving airlines confidence the jet will prove robust in service.
The aviation industry is watching “with very high interest” because the damaged piece is a load-bearing structure that’s critical to safe flight, said Eric Casterline, president of Heatcon Composite Systems, a leading maker of composites-repair equipment in Seattle.
“Boeing’s repair is going to be pushing the limits of what’s been done in the past,” said Casterline. “This needs to be done right. The aerospace community needs the assurance that this can be done.”
If the jet’s fuselage was a traditional aluminum one with aluminum skin panels riveted together, this repair could be done relatively easily by replacing any damaged panels.
Boeing’s one-piece barrel sections for the 787 are also harder to fix than the structure Airbus has designed for its composite plastic A350.
Airbus fastens together composite panels to make the A350 fuselage, closer to the traditional structural design of a metal airplane and similarly replaceable in case of damage.
Boeing’s design is lighter in weight and enables a streamlined manufacturing process, but it must prove to be repairable, too.
The fire on the Ethiopian Airlines 787 broke out July 12 when the airplane was parked and empty.
Investigators believe it was likely caused by the incorrect installation of a small lithium battery inside an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), an electronic device found on many planes that transmits location data to satellites in the event of a crash.
The fire caused intense heat damage above the ceiling at the back of the passenger cabin. It scorched a large area of the carbon-fiber skin on the crown of the fuselage in front of the vertical tail fin.
A complex repair
While some speculated that Boeing might have to replace the entire fuselage barrel, company engineers decided against that, as first reported last week on aviation blog Airchive.com.
To begin the repair, the jet maker several weeks ago fabricated a full rear fuselage barrel in its North Charleston, S.C., factory.
It then cut out the crown section to supply a skin patch for the repair of the jet in London, said a Boeing engineer, one of the two people with knowledge of the details.
Several other pieces of composite skin were cut from the same barrel section to provide an inventory of repair patches for future use.
A different Boeing engineer, who is an expert in composite repairs, said putting in the patch will be complex and difficult.
But he said it would have been even more trouble to take the other approach — disconnecting all the wiring, air and fuel systems and then inserting a full fuselage section that would mesh exactly with the section in front of it and the tail behind it.
On condition of anonymity, this engineer explained the likely repair process.
Boeing will cut out the skin damaged by the fire probably in a rectangular cut with rounded edges, he said.
It will cut the patch to the same size and shape and drop it into the space as a plug. The tiny gap around the patch will be filled with paintable sealant that will stretch and compress as the fuselage is pressurized and unpressurized.
Then mechanics will work on the inside, gluing a splice plate to the original skin and to the patch, overlapping both by about 4 inches.
The glue is a superstrong adhesive that is cured using heat blankets that are held under pressure by vacuum bags applied to the area.
Heatcon makes the electronic boxes used to monitor the temperature and pressure, which must be controlled carefully for hours as the adhesive hardens.
In addition to the skin patch, Boeing’s mechanics must repair the stringers — the stiffening rods that run longitudinally along the fuselage — which will be cut when the damaged section is removed.
They’ll have to lay wet composite tape precisely in the shape of the stringer at the point where it was cut and cure it to hardness, again using heat blankets and vacuum bags maintaining the precise temperature and pressure.
All this work will be intricate and must be done precisely to ensure the glue sets as expected and the repair is safe.
University of Washington professor Mark Tuttle, director of UW’s Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures, said proving a bonded repair is sound can be difficult.
“One issue with adhesive bonding is you can inspect the bond with ultrasonic inspection and find no gaps or voids, but nevertheless the strength of the bond is lower than anticipated,” he said.
He said Boeing will stress-test the result after the repair is finished, including flight tests with instruments attached to measure the strain on the patch.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will likely have to sign off on the airworthiness of the jet after repair, Tuttle said. The FAA did not respond to an emailed query before deadline.
The Boeing engineer with knowledge of the repair preparations said the company will gain valuable experience from this repair of a major composite skin section.
“Chances are there’ll be issues along the way as they figure out their expertise,” he said. “It’s all brand new ground.”
With an increasing number of airlines now operating the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, every month The HUB will provide an update on the current Dreamliner flight schedule and the routes the aircraft is being deployed upon. This list for October 2013 was compiled from OAG Analyser on October 1, 2013 and changes to planned routes are likely. In the table below we also feature the Boeing 787 network size of each operator and the top destinations served by the aircraft. Our latest analysis shoes that Boeing 787 air capacity rose 5.1 per cent in October 2013 versus September 2013.
[HR][/HR]Aeromexico (AM)
Mexico City (MEX) – New York (JFK)
Mexico City (MEX) – Paris (CDG)
Mexico City (MEX) – Tijuana (TIJ)
Tijuana (TIJ) – Tokyo (NRT)
Aeromexico
[HR][/HR]Air India (AI)
New Delhi (DEL) – Amritsar (ATQ)
New Delhi (DEL) – Birmingham (BHX)
New Delhi (DEL) – Chennai (MAA)
New Delhi (DEL) – Frankfurt (FRA)
New Delhi (DEL) – Kolkata (CCU)
New Delhi (DEL) – London (LHR)
New Delhi (DEL) – Paris (CDG)
New Delhi (DEL) – Melbourne (MEL)
New Delhi (DEL) – Sydney (SYD)
Melbourne (MEL) – Sydney (SYD)
Air India
[HR][/HR]All Nippon Airways (NH)
Kagoshima (KOJ) – Osaka (ITM)
Tokyo (HND) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (HND) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Tokyo (HND) – Taipei (TSA)
Tokyo (HND) – Akita (AXT)
Tokyo (HND) – Fukuoka (FUK)
Tokyo (HND) – Hiroshima (HIJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Kagoshima (KOJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Komatsu (KMQ)
Tokyo (HND) – Kumamoto (KMJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Matsuyama (MYJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Miyazaki (KMI)
Tokyo (HND) – Osaka (ITM)
Tokyo (HND) – Singapore (SIN)
Tokyo (HND) – Toyama (TOY)
Tokyo (HND) – Yamaguchi (UBJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Takamatsu (TAK)
Tokyo (HND) – Okayama (OKJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Sapporo (CTS)
Tokyo (NRT) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (NRT) – Munich (MUC)
Tokyo (NRT) – San Jose (SJC)
Tokyo (NRT) – Seattle (SEA)
Tokyo (NRT) – Shanghai (PVG)
Tokyo (NRT) – Singapore (SIN)
All Nippon Airways
[HR][/HR]British Airways (BA)
London (LHR) – Newark (EWR)
London (LHR) – Toronto (YYZ)
British Airways
[HR][/HR]China Southern Airlines (CZ)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Auckland (AKL)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Beijing (PEK)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Chengdu (CTU)
Guangzhou (CAN) – London (LHR)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Shanghai (SHA)
China Southern
[HR][/HR]Ethiopian Airlines (ET)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Dubai (DXB)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Harare (HRE)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Johannesburg (JNB)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Lome (LFW)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – London (LHR)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Lusaka (LUN)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Mumbai (BOM)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – London (LHR)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – Toronto (YYZ)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – Washington (IAD)
Lome (LFW) – Rio de Janeiro (GIG)
Harare (HRE) – Lusaka (LUN)
Sao Paulo (GRU) – Lome (LFW)
Ethiopian Airlines
[HR][/HR]Hainan Airlines (HU)
Beijing (PEK) – Chengdu (CTU)
Beijing (PEK) – Shanghai (SHA)
Hainan Airlines
[HR][/HR]Japan Airlines (JL)
Tokyo (HND) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (HND) – San Francisco (SFO)
Tokyo (HND) – Singapore (SIN)
Tokyo (NRT) – Boston (BOS)
Tokyo (NRT) – Moscow (DME)
Tokyo (NRT) – New Delhi (DEL)
Tokyo (NRT) – Helsinki (HEL)
Tokyo (NRT) – San Diego (SAN)
Tokyo (NRT) – Singapore (SIN)
Japan Airlines
[HR][/HR]LAN Airlines (LA)
Lima (LIM) – Los Angeles (LAX)
Lima (LIM) – Santiago (SCL)
Santiago (SCL) – Madrid (MAD)
Santiago (SCL) – New York (JFK)
LAN Airlines
[HR][/HR]LOT Polish Airlines (LO)
Warsaw (WAW) – Beijing (PEK)
Warsaw (WAW) – Chicago (ORD)
Warsaw (WAW) – New York (JFK)
Warsaw (WAW) – Toronto (YYZ)
LOT Polish Airlines
[HR][/HR]Norwegian (DY)
Oslo (OSL) – Bangkok (BKK)
Oslo (OSL) – New York (JFK)
Stockholm (ARN) – Bangkok (BKK)
Stockholm (ARN) – New York (JFK)
Norwegian
[HR][/HR]Qatar Airways (QR)
Doha (DOH) – Bahrain (BAH)
Doha (DOH) – Bangalore (BLR)
Doha (DOH) – Copenhagen (CPH)
Doha (DOH) – Dubai (DXB)
Doha (DOH) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Doha (DOH) – Jeddah (JED)
Doha (DOH) – London (LHR)
Doha (DOH) – Munich (MUC)
Doha (DOH) – New Delhi (DEL)
Doha (DOH) – Oslo (OSL)
Doha (DOH) – Riyadh (RUH)
Doha (DOH) – Stockholm (ARN)
Doha (DOH) – Zurich (ZRH)
Qatar Airways
[HR][/HR]Royal Brunei Airlines (BI)
Bandar Seri Begawan (BWN) – Kuala Lumpur (KUL)
Bandar Seri Begawan (BWN) – Singapore (SIN)
Royal Brunei Airlines
[HR][/HR]Thomson Airways (TOM)
East Midlands (EMA) – Cancun (CUN)
East Midlands (EMA) – Orlando (SFB)
Glasgow (GLA) – Cancun (CUN)
Glasgow (GLA) – Orlando (SFB)
London (LGW) – Cancun (CUN)
London (LGW) – Orlando (SFB)
Manchester (MAN) – Cancun (CUN)
Manchester (MAN) – Orlando (SFB)
Thomson Airways
[HR][/HR]United Airlines (UA)
Denver (DEN) – Tokyo (NRT)
Houston (IAH) – Denver (DEN)
Houston (IAH) – Lagos (LOS)
Los Angeles (LAX) – Shanghai (PVG)
Los Angeles (LAX) – Tokyo (NRT)
United
[HR][/HR]Aeromexico (AM)
Mexico City (MEX) – New York (JFK)
Mexico City (MEX) – Paris (CDG)
Mexico City (MEX) – Tijuana (TIJ)
Tijuana (TIJ) – Tokyo (NRT)
[HR][/HR]Air India (AI)
New Delhi (DEL) – Amritsar (ATQ)
New Delhi (DEL) – Birmingham (BHX)
New Delhi (DEL) – Chennai (MAA)
New Delhi (DEL) – Frankfurt (FRA)
New Delhi (DEL) – Kolkata (CCU)
New Delhi (DEL) – London (LHR)
New Delhi (DEL) – Paris (CDG)
New Delhi (DEL) – Melbourne (MEL)
New Delhi (DEL) – Sydney (SYD)
Melbourne (MEL) – Sydney (SYD)
[HR][/HR]All Nippon Airways (NH)
Kagoshima (KOJ) – Osaka (ITM)
Tokyo (HND) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (HND) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Tokyo (HND) – Taipei (TSA)
Tokyo (HND) – Akita (AXT)
Tokyo (HND) – Fukuoka (FUK)
Tokyo (HND) – Hiroshima (HIJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Kagoshima (KOJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Komatsu (KMQ)
Tokyo (HND) – Kumamoto (KMJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Matsuyama (MYJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Miyazaki (KMI)
Tokyo (HND) – Osaka (ITM)
Tokyo (HND) – Singapore (SIN)
Tokyo (HND) – Toyama (TOY)
Tokyo (HND) – Yamaguchi (UBJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Takamatsu (TAK)
Tokyo (HND) – Okayama (OKJ)
Tokyo (HND) – Sapporo (CTS)
Tokyo (NRT) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (NRT) – Munich (MUC)
Tokyo (NRT) – San Jose (SJC)
Tokyo (NRT) – Seattle (SEA)
Tokyo (NRT) – Shanghai (PVG)
Tokyo (NRT) – Singapore (SIN)
[HR][/HR]British Airways (BA)
London (LHR) – Newark (EWR)
London (LHR) – Toronto (YYZ)
[HR][/HR]China Southern Airlines (CZ)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Auckland (AKL)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Beijing (PEK)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Chengdu (CTU)
Guangzhou (CAN) – London (LHR)
Guangzhou (CAN) – Shanghai (SHA)
[HR][/HR]Ethiopian Airlines (ET)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Dubai (DXB)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Harare (HRE)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Johannesburg (JNB)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Lome (LFW)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – London (LHR)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Lusaka (LUN)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Mumbai (BOM)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – London (LHR)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – Toronto (YYZ)
Addis Ababa (ADD) – Rome (FCO) – Washington (IAD)
Lome (LFW) – Rio de Janeiro (GIG)
Harare (HRE) – Lusaka (LUN)
Sao Paulo (GRU) – Lome (LFW)
[HR][/HR]Hainan Airlines (HU)
Beijing (PEK) – Chengdu (CTU)
Beijing (PEK) – Shanghai (SHA)
[HR][/HR]Japan Airlines (JL)
Tokyo (HND) – Beijing (PEK)
Tokyo (HND) – San Francisco (SFO)
Tokyo (HND) – Singapore (SIN)
Tokyo (NRT) – Boston (BOS)
Tokyo (NRT) – Moscow (DME)
Tokyo (NRT) – New Delhi (DEL)
Tokyo (NRT) – Helsinki (HEL)
Tokyo (NRT) – San Diego (SAN)
Tokyo (NRT) – Singapore (SIN)
[HR][/HR]LAN Airlines (LA)
Lima (LIM) – Los Angeles (LAX)
Lima (LIM) – Santiago (SCL)
Santiago (SCL) – Madrid (MAD)
Santiago (SCL) – New York (JFK)
[HR][/HR]LOT Polish Airlines (LO)
Warsaw (WAW) – Beijing (PEK)
Warsaw (WAW) – Chicago (ORD)
Warsaw (WAW) – New York (JFK)
Warsaw (WAW) – Toronto (YYZ)
[HR][/HR]Norwegian (DY)
Oslo (OSL) – Bangkok (BKK)
Oslo (OSL) – New York (JFK)
Stockholm (ARN) – Bangkok (BKK)
Stockholm (ARN) – New York (JFK)
[HR][/HR]Qatar Airways (QR)
Doha (DOH) – Bahrain (BAH)
Doha (DOH) – Bangalore (BLR)
Doha (DOH) – Copenhagen (CPH)
Doha (DOH) – Dubai (DXB)
Doha (DOH) – Frankfurt (FRA)
Doha (DOH) – Jeddah (JED)
Doha (DOH) – London (LHR)
Doha (DOH) – Munich (MUC)
Doha (DOH) – New Delhi (DEL)
Doha (DOH) – Oslo (OSL)
Doha (DOH) – Riyadh (RUH)
Doha (DOH) – Stockholm (ARN)
Doha (DOH) – Zurich (ZRH)
[HR][/HR]Royal Brunei Airlines (BI)
Bandar Seri Begawan (BWN) – Kuala Lumpur (KUL)
Bandar Seri Begawan (BWN) – Singapore (SIN)
[HR][/HR]Thomson Airways (TOM)
East Midlands (EMA) – Cancun (CUN)
East Midlands (EMA) – Orlando (SFB)
Glasgow (GLA) – Cancun (CUN)
Glasgow (GLA) – Orlando (SFB)
London (LGW) – Cancun (CUN)
London (LGW) – Orlando (SFB)
Manchester (MAN) – Cancun (CUN)
Manchester (MAN) – Orlando (SFB)
[HR][/HR]United Airlines (UA)
Denver (DEN) – Tokyo (NRT)
Houston (IAH) – Denver (DEN)
Houston (IAH) – Lagos (LOS)
Los Angeles (LAX) – Shanghai (PVG)
Los Angeles (LAX) – Tokyo (NRT)
| SCHEDULED BOEING B787 OPERATIONS BY AIRLINE (October 2013) | ||||
| Rank | Airline | Seat Capacity | % Total B787 Seats | Change vs Last Month |
| 1 | All Nippon Airways (NH) | 329,272 | 27.5 % | (-0.5) pp |
| 2 | Qatar Airways (QR) | 189,250 | 15.8 % | 0.3 pp |
| 3 | Air India (AI) | 125,500 | 10.5 % | (-1.0) pp |
| 4 | Japan Airlines (JL) | 108,624 | 9.1 % | (-0.2) pp |
| 5 | China Southern Airlines (CZ) | 89,750 | 7.5 % | 1.1 pp |
| 6 | Ethiopian Airlines (ET) | 88,750 | 7.4 % | (-0.7) pp |
| 7 | United Airlines (UA) | 63,072 | 5.3 % | (-0.2) pp |
| 8 | LOT Polish Airlines (LO) | 51,250 | 4.3 % | (-1.9) pp |
| 9 | British Airways (BA) | 38,000 | 3.2 % | 1.5 pp |
| 10 | Thomson Airways (BY) | 30,250 | 2.5 % | (-0.2) pp |
| 11 | LAN Airlines (LA) | 27,500 | 2.3 % | (-0.2) pp |
| 12 | Norwegian (DY) | 22,000 | 1.8 % | (-0.5) pp |
| 13 | Aeromexico (AM) | 18,954 | 1.6 % | 1.2 pp |
| 14 | Royal Brunei Airlines (BI) | 12,000 | 1.0 % | 1.0 pp |
| 15 | Hainan Airlines (HU) | 18,954 | 0.4 % | 0.4 pp |
| TOTAL | 1,198,672 | - | - |
| TOP 20: SCHEDULED BOEING B787 OPERATIONS BY AIRPORT (non-stop departures; October 2013) | |||||
| Rank (Oct-13) | Change (Sep-13) | Destination | Available Seats | % Total Capacity | Change vs Sep-13 |
| 1 | - | Tokyo (HND) | 152,546 | 12.7 % | (-1.1) pp |
| 2 | - | Doha (DOH) | 94,750 | 7.9 % | 0.2 pp |
| 3 | +1 | Tokyo (NRT) | 79,311 | 6.6 % | 0.7 pp |
| 4 | (-1) | New Delhi (DEL) | 75,016 | 6.3 % | (-0.6) pp |
| 5 | - | Guangzhou (CAN) | 45,500 | 3.8 % | 0.6 pp |
| 6 | +2 | London (LHR) | 40,250 | 3.4 % | 0.4 pp |
| 7 | +3 | Beijing (PEK) | 37,812 | 3.2 % | 1.0 pp |
| 8 | (-2) | Addis Ababa (ADD) | 34,000 | 2.8 % | (-0.3) pp |
| 9 | +2 | Frankfurt (FRA) | 32,898 | 2.7 % | 0.5 pp |
| 10 | +7 | Singapore (SIN) | 29,210 | 2.4 % | 0.9 pp |
| 11 | (-4) | Warsaw (WAW) | 25,750 | 2.1 % | (-1.0) pp |
| 12 | +2 | New York (JFK) | 24,832 | 2.1 % | 0.3 pp |
| 13 | -4 | Kagoshima (KOJ) | 22,120 | 1.8 % | (-0.7) pp |
| 14 | +1 | Munich (MUC) | 20,398 | 1.7 % | - |
| 15 | (-3) | Toronto (YYZ) | 19,250 | 1.6 % | (-0.3) pp |
| 16 | (-3) | Shanghai (SHA) | 18,250 | 1.5 % | (-0.3) pp |
| 17 | +5 | Oslo (OSL) | 14,500 | 1.2 % | |
| 18 | +1 | Yamaguchi (UBJ) | 14,062 | 1.2 % | (-0.1) pp |
| 19 | +7 | Denver (DEN) | 13,578 | 1.1 % | (-0.1) pp |
| 20 | +17 | Santiago (SCL) | 13,500 | 1.1 % | 0.4 pp |
| TOTAL | 1,198,672 | - | - |
Credo che a livello di interesse per il pax comune l'A380 nell' immaginario collettivo abbia avuto molto piu' successo a livello mediatico, seppure a parte le dimensioni non è un aereo che introduce particolari novità tecniche come invece il 787. Parlando con molte persone comuni e semplici pax piu' volte mi sono sentito dire che volevano provare a volare con l'A380 e che sarebbero anche disposti a pagare qualcosa in piu' scegliendo una compagnia che opera questo aereo. Non ho mai sentito lo stesso ragionamento per il 787 che è un aereo molto piu' rivoluzionario per le innovazioni che introduce. L'Airbus stessa parla di questo successo mediatico e tra i pax e lo definisce come effetto A380.
L'A380 ha standard di comodità molto alti, ecco perché è apprezzato dai pax. Il suo problema è riuscire a riempirlo in un periodo di crisi economica per molti paesi importanti.Inoltre ricordiamoci che fra 10 anni potrebbero essere mutate molte condizioni che fanno si che si formi più spesso la massa critica per voli con A380.
Il B787 è rivoluzionario a livello tecnico più che a livello mediatico dove le dimensioni contano per fare notizia, infatti il B787 (ma anche l'A350) hanno ricevuto grande interesse da parte delle compagnie più che dal mondo mediatico.
Il B787 è rivoluzionario a livello tecnico più che a livello mediatico dove le dimensioni contano per fare notizia, infatti il B787 (ma anche l'A350) hanno ricevuto grande interesse da parte delle compagnie più che dal mondo mediatico.
13900
Utente Registrato
- 26 Aprile 2012
- 10,008
- 7,389
La realtà è che il 787, per un passeggero, non ha grandi differenze rispetto a un 777. Si, ci sono finestrini grandi e la rotella/pulsantiera., ma lì finisce. In pochi si rendono conto della maggior umidità, anche perché la differenza é poca. Il 787, all'interno, è veramente poco innovativo ed è molto plasticoso. Le maniglie delle cappelliere, quelle delle porte dei bagni e altre parti sono tutte in materiale plastico, anche i bordi dei galleys sono plastificati invece che metallici. Rispetto ai vecchi 747, o anche solo rispetto ai 777, è molto più "cheap". Anche le finiture sono meno curate.
Questo non signifca che Boeing faccia cose coi piedi e Airbus le faccia benissimo, anzi. G-XLEC é stato consegnato con un guasto e ha dovuto passare due giorni in hangar per essere risistemato...
Questo non signifca che Boeing faccia cose coi piedi e Airbus le faccia benissimo, anzi. G-XLEC é stato consegnato con un guasto e ha dovuto passare due giorni in hangar per essere risistemato...
13900
Utente Registrato
- 26 Aprile 2012
- 10,008
- 7,389
Io invece ho avuto la sensazione opposta, mi sembrava più silezioso il 787...