I don't think I saw references to this on other threads. Should we call it the 787-8 NG? 787-8 MAX? 787-8 version 2.0? 787-8 reboot?

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

It is interesting that Boeing is taking these steps ... one reason is that it wants the A330-800 neo to be stillborn; however it cannibalizes orders for the 797.

Interesting. This would in theory give them to option to have the same or similar MTOW to the 789, and if so, this thing would be an absolute monster of range.

Maybe this is what QF is looking for, in a heavy premium config, for SYD-LHR?

Here is a related article:

https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... 3d09e.html

The title of this thread is very misleading and inaccurate. They're only bringing commonality to the aft body section.

There are still plenty of design differences between the 787-8 and 787-9/10 from ranging from the one piece frames and the vent stringers in the wings that the 787-9/10 have that the 787-8 do not have.

I am confused by what is going on here. If it is simply a change of the aft section, it’s a cost cutting measure all around.

If it is in fact replacing the 787-8 with a shrunken 787-9 I see three ways of looking at this:

1. Boeing wants to make the 787-8 overall better by making it cheaper to build and operate in hopes of picking up more sales than it has as of late compared to the -9 and -10

2. Boeing figures that it can’t compete in economics against the -9 or -10 nor against a possible 797 so they are doing this to boost its range to fill some sort of niche.

3. Boeing feels that it’s sales in the long run may dry up so they are doing this as a cost cutting measure in case the sales don’t come so that they can repurpose this aircraft’s supply chain for -9 and -10 leaving no real loss as they are still using all the same assembly lines, parts, and suppliers with the key difference being fuselage frames. Similar idea to the 737-7.

Having said all that I certainly don’t see a shrink aircraft using mid 2000s technology nor a 787-8 with a 787-9 tail canabalizing sales of an aircraft using late 2010s technology optimized for its role as a smaller aircraft than the 787-8.

There were a lot of parts in the 789 that were revised to be better that didn't require any extra strength. Better often was being lighter, but some changed suppliers or terms in the orders. But yes the more commonality between models usually is the better answer. However, things like landing gear would stay the original -8's, wing spars and wing box would probably go with the lighter one. I recall the -9's MTO grew based on the wing testing of the -8's wing, it was about 10% overdesigned. A lot is picking up loose ends in the -8 that were already done for the 9. A better plane for a bit less cost.

If it is costing Boeing more to produce the 788 than the other models then it only makes sense to take measures to reduce this cost. If not it will only add to the deferred cost as they will have a target in mind per delivery to reduce those cost. They cannot abandon the 788/A332 market to Airbus because the 788 is too expensive to produce. Or they could have maybe done it if they had another model in the space. Seeing as there is a gap it seems to make sense for this to happen.

What does this do for the reported MOM? Nothing most likely if deliveries are only going to start in 2025 or later as there is still 7 years until then. Then again if they already have an aircraft in this space that is cheap and has the right capacity, does that make the business case more or less solid?

Adopting the changes to the 788 makes sense, especially if the costs can be amortized over the entire line. What I’m curious about is if the carriers who purchased 788 1.0 will be irked if they get 788 2.0 as there is incompatibility, or would that only hold true if they didn’t also fly the 789?

So the idea that the costs to fly the 789 were virtually the same as flying the 788, would this now not hold true?

767333ER wrote:

I am confused by what is going on here. If it is simply a change of the aft section, it’s a cost cutting measure all around.

If it is in fact replacing the 787-8 with a shrunken 787-9 I see three ways of looking at this:

1. Boeing wants to make the 787-8 overall better by making it cheaper to build and operate in hopes of picking up more sales than it has as of late compared to the -9 and -10

2. Boeing figures that it can’t compete in economics against the -9 or -10 nor against a possible 797 so they are doing this to boost its range to fill some sort of niche.

3. Boeing feels that it’s sales in the long run may dry up so they are doing this as a cost cutting measure in case the sales don’t come so that they can repurpose this aircraft’s supply chain for -9 and -10 leaving no real loss as they are still using all the same assembly lines, parts, and suppliers with the key difference being fuselage frames. Similar idea to the 737-7.

Having said all that I certainly don’t see a shrink aircraft using mid 2000s technology nor a 787-8 with a 787-9 tail canabalizing sales of an aircraft using late 2010s technology optimized for its role as a smaller aircraft than the 787-8.

I think this is an attempt to kill off the A330-800 once and for all. Decreasing 787-8 costs and increasing commonality with the 787-9 and 787-10 will give Boeing the ability to be more aggressive com pricing the 787-8.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

767333ER wrote:

I am confused by what is going on here. If it is simply a change of the aft section, it’s a cost cutting measure all around.

If it is in fact replacing the 787-8 with a shrunken 787-9 I see three ways of looking at this:

1. Boeing wants to make the 787-8 overall better by making it cheaper to build and operate in hopes of picking up more sales than it has as of late compared to the -9 and -10

2. Boeing figures that it can’t compete in economics against the -9 or -10 nor against a possible 797 so they are doing this to boost its range to fill some sort of niche.

3. Boeing feels that it’s sales in the long run may dry up so they are doing this as a cost cutting measure in case the sales don’t come so that they can repurpose this aircraft’s supply chain for -9 and -10 leaving no real loss as they are still using all the same assembly lines, parts, and suppliers with the key difference being fuselage frames. Similar idea to the 737-7.

Having said all that I certainly don’t see a shrink aircraft using mid 2000s technology nor a 787-8 with a 787-9 tail canabalizing sales of an aircraft using late 2010s technology optimized for its role as a smaller aircraft than the 787-8.

I think this is an attempt to kill off the A330-800 once and for all. Decreasing 787-8 costs and increasing commonality with the 787-9 and 787-10 will give Boeing the ability to be more aggressive com pricing the 787-8.

Boeing has been extremely effective at getting cost out of the 789. Now it is time for the 788. I agree with Flyingclrs727, this is to compete against the A330NEO. Kill off? Maybe. .The 788 is either made cheaper to build or it goes out of production as the current build cost is too high for capabilities.

So this is about decreasing costs-- makes sense.

But to "kill off" the A338, they're also going to likely need to increase capability, or at least the option thereof.

Granted, I realize that the majority of this type's market is under 6000nm, but how much would it take to give the 788 similar MTOW option as the 789? The same gear/tires/brakes and ____?

enzo011 wrote:

What does this do for the reported MOM? Nothing most likely if deliveries are only going to start in 2025 or later as there is still 7 years until then. Then again if they already have an aircraft in this space that is cheap and has the right capacity, does that make the business case more or less solid?

Airlines could buy the 787-8 for delivery in the 2020-25 period for the MOM market and than repriotise them to longer thinner routes once the MOM starts arriving in 2025.

I don't think these aircraft would ever go to waste.

brian415 wrote:

It is interesting that Boeing is taking these steps ... one reason is that it wants the A330-800 neo to be stillborn; however it cannibalizes orders for the 797.

Cannibalizing potential 797 sales is the least of Boeing's worry. Far to many people think that companies are afraid to cannibalize their own product lines. On the contrary. As Cannon so brilliantly explained a few decades ago with their fully funding and pushing the development of a whole ink cartridge printer division.... (which would absolutely cannibalize laser printers)... It is far better to cannibalize your own lines with another of your own lines - than to loose market share to someone else. A lot of companies have copied that since - all quite successfully.

Have a great day,

This is simply about reducing the cost to build a 788. In that sense it is a very smart move by Boeing.

There are rumors Boeing is also doing this as a precursor to moving the entire 787 line to Charleston to free up space for the 797 production line in Seattle.

travelhound wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

What does this do for the reported MOM? Nothing most likely if deliveries are only going to start in 2025 or later as there is still 7 years until then. Then again if they already have an aircraft in this space that is cheap and has the right capacity, does that make the business case more or less solid?

Airlines could buy the 787-8 for delivery in the 2020-25 period for the MOM market and than repriotise them to longer thinner routes once the MOM starts arriving in 2025.

I don't think these aircraft would ever go to waste.

Yes the 787-8 can do the 767's mission quite easily. Fuel burn improves as aircraft get lighter towards the end of the flight. So a 787-8 taking off with its tanks half filled will be extremely efficient as a 767 replacement. As a 767 replacement it is by far the best option of the current aircraft available.

Once the NMA arrives the 787-8's would start doing longer flights as you pointed out.

I agree with Elroy Jetson.Assuming the 797 launch later this year all the production will eventually all be moved down creating even greater efficiencies - but not till the hump of the present production is done.5 years time?With only 30% of 788 missions over 5knm it will be highly niched in the future.

Agree with many above: This step was a Logical one to come. It makes the 787-8 an active model again, triggered by the AA sale.
Not related to the A333-800 necessarily, but side effects welcome for sure.

Flyglobal

I don't think I saw references to this on other threads. Should we call it the 787-8 NG? 787-8 MAX? 787-8 version 2.0? 787-8 reboot?

I would just call it "a little bit more production-standardized, less odd-ball 787". There is nothing particularly capability-enhancing about this change.
At most, call it a 787 v1.4 or so.

The title of this thread is very misleading and inaccurate. They're only bringing commonality to the aft body section.
There are still plenty of design differences between the 787-8 and 787-9/10 from ranging from the one piece frames and the vent stringers in the wings that the 787-9/10 have that the 787-8 do not have.

Indeed. It seems that little by little Boeing is nevertheless bringing some of the smaller -9/10 improvements back into the -8. The AA order is probably behind this, as well as the strategy to kill the A338.
From a manufacturing point of view, Boeing is still producing two types of 787: the -8 and the -9/10.

If it is in fact replacing the 787-8 with a shrunken 787-9 I see three ways of looking at this:

IMO the -8 doesn't need to be a straight shrink, as it would have too much range. It just needs to have full commonality -except- the MLG and any other elements supporting the higher MTOW of the -9/10.

LAX772LR wrote:

But to "kill off" the A338, they're also going to likely need to increase capability, or at least the option thereof.

Why? We are talking about a model that currently has zero orders and Boeing has been able to beat it recently with both the 789 (HA) and 788 (AA).

r2rho wrote:

I would just call it "a little bit more production-standardized, less odd-ball 787". There is nothing particularly capability-enhancing about this change.
At most, call it a 787 v1.4 or so.

Indeed, as the horizontal tailplane and simplified nose sections have made it to the 788, it's incremental standardization and simplification really. They may bring some minor performance and efficiency improvements day-to-day, but they are cheaper to build for Boeing and reduce spares costs for operators, which is probably the true reason for them.

ElroyJetson wrote:

This is simply about reducing the cost to build a 788. In that sense it is a very smart move by Boeing.

There are rumors Boeing is also doing this as a precursor to moving the entire 787 line to Charleston to free up space for the 797 production line in Seattle.

All 787 and NMA will eventually be in Charleston, supposedly. There are Boeing videos out there discussing space for a ‘future project’ on site. They also can’t just shut down all 787 production in Washington yet without negotiating something to replace it with the government/unions. I suspect NSA will wind up doing that, someday. It will surely get offered a huge package of incentives and a.net e-outrage will righteously flow at that time.

ElroyJetson wrote:

This is simply about reducing the cost to build a 788. In that sense it is a very smart move by Boeing.

There are rumors Boeing is also doing this as a precursor to moving the entire 787 line to Charleston to free up space for the 797 production line in Seattle.

Have heard that as well. Basically SC has space, I am told, to run the two lines in parallel and overall the cost would be cheaper in great part because it would drastically cut down on the number of lifts the BCF would be needed for. Was told the maximum rate in that scenario could even be a bit higher than the 14 they are going to due to this.

What is interesting to me is the timing of when you do it. You would incur some rate reduction for some period of time when you do this. It looks to me like the relevant parts of this are as follows.

1. When can you close down the two 777 lines and convert them to one line? Right now 77X occupies what was the 787 surge line.

2. When do you start NMA assembly? I suspect the answer is earlier than many people suspect. I also suspect you need two lines in one place at some point and that these will be the 777 line when it goes down to one and the 787 line when it moves. The question is which can happen first.

3. When you move it what is the best time for a bit of a slowdown in 787 production? I suspect their preference will be to first use the 77X line for NMA then the 787 line converts around 2026-27. That would be a good time engine wise to look at a 787 Max type program and I think it’s very well suited as a plane for that to happen since increased engine efficiency won’t move the range to unneeded highs and should shove the 787-10 up into a very nice place. So I figure picking up the line and moving it in the 2026-27 gets you to around 2,000 787 delivered. Figure a year or more to get the line back in place and to modify it for any changes you make in a re engine program. The timetable for all that makes a good deal of sense.

If Boeing has their way and can make space by moving 77X right over to 777 line I suspect that’s what happens first. 787 will get moved later as they have every reason to keep up production, chew through the backlog and keep pressure on the A330neo. Any Airbus move to replace the A330neo or re-engine the A380 should fix a date for engines to be ready for the 787.

Boeing has more than likely figured out all the logistics and cost advantages to doing this Plus what they intend to do with the personnel.

Does the 8 have a different wing body side join arrangement than the 9/10?

What other major differences exist?

By incorporating the Aft of the 9/10 onto the 8, you get the advantages of the laminar flow improvements done there correct?

As noted, this is just a cost-saving measure, not an attempt to improve the payload-range performance of the 787-8 to compete against the A330-800. The 787-9 seems to be the handling that already based on the HA and AA RFPs (yes, I know AA ordered 787-8s as well, but that was considered a surprise and likely more for 767-300ER replacement than A330-200).

To my knowledge all 787s have the same length Section 48 and the 787-8 and 787-9 have a same-length Section 47 with the 787-10 adding an 8 foot plug. I am guessing the manufacturing / layup process might be different on the -8 than the -9 and -10 so they are dropping the current process for the -8 and moving it to the same as the -9 and -10. Having a common Section 47+48 would probably also improve the production rate which in turn would support the general 787 production ramp.

The Sections 44, 46,11 and the Wings have significant differences on the 8 when compared to those on the 9/10 because of the body side of join wing interfaces, correct? I thought this was completely reworked for 9, but those changes did not become part of the 8 build processes. (perhaps the WIng Box- Section 11 is common between all 3, I don't know).

ODwyerPW wrote:

The Sections 44, 46,11 and the Wings have significant differences on the 8 when compared to those on the 9/10 because of the body side of join wing interfaces, correct? I thought this was completely reworked for 9, but those changes did not become part of the 8 build processes. (perhaps the WIng Box- Section 11 is common between all 3, I don't know).

Going back a while, but I thought a revised wing box was brought in somewhere around line 90 negating the need for the wing brackets.

This may help as well:

LAX772LR wrote:

This may help as well:
https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=56450

That is the visible stuff.

Talk was that a wide range of "inner" details and how those things fit together were changed to optimize parts production and the assembly process. Get away from those expensive Titanium (patch up) parts too.

Must have changed interfacing enough to not allow module wise uptake.

I expect that what Boeing has realised is that while Airbus could match whatever they produce in a technical sense, they (Airbus) are most vulnerable in the pricing area.
This is because compared with Europe, Boeing have more flexibility to deal with efficiencies and Boeings hands are not tied by a Company Constitution Board/shareholder situation aimed at keeping rough parity between the parties, who tend to break up into nationalistic groups when things start to go very wrong. These things limit the capacity of Airbus to bring about the most efficient changes.
Boeing on the other hand can just move production of a new model to another state, with more flexible laws in the situation where Boeing feels limited.
Airbus could elect to move production away from Europe even more but I think their hands are somewhat tied.
This imo is what the 788 changes are all about.

Boeing's ability to switch final seemly to 'another state' is more (imho) to do with the method of final construction for the 787 rather than anything else.One gets the impression that the skill sets required are far lower.

r2rho wrote:

brian415 wrote:

I don't think I saw references to this on other threads. Should we call it the 787-8 NG? 787-8 MAX? 787-8 version 2.0? 787-8 reboot?

I would just call it "a little bit more production-standardized, less odd-ball 787". There is nothing particularly capability-enhancing about this change.
At most, call it a 787 v1.4 or so.

I prefer calling it the 787-8EVO, as in evolution. (I repurpose this suffix from a then sure-fire "breaking news" by a seasoned member a long time ago for the 737MAX before it was so named). It is distinct from NG and MAX as it looks to be more to the point and less wieldy than version 2.0 or 1.4. Shorter and sure more cool than reboot too. As for "a little bit more production-standardized, less odd-ball 787", quite a mouthful isn't it?
Anyway, just my $2/- worth (inflation, you know).

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing on the other hand can just move production of a new model to another state, with more flexible laws in the situation where Boeing feels limited. This imo is what the 788 changes are all about.

Except the Section 47 and 48 for the 787-8 are already manufactured at Boeing Charleston.

It sounds like the 787-8 and 787-9 (and 787-10) Section 47s are currently manufactured on separate lines within the facility using different production processes. This change is to use the 787-9's Section 47 on the 787-8 rather than the original structure to eliminate that separate line/process.

LAX772LR wrote:

This may help as well:

If I remember correctly, the pressure floor of the -9 has been raised relatively to the -8. Maybe a consequence of the wider gear trucks?