BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2015, 12:14

Username Protected wrote:

Per FAA Regs one Flight Attendant for every 50 passengers.

The 787 was sold as being 20% more fuel efficient then anything else out there on the market at the time (pre A350).

So part of the marketing of the 787 was to over fly the hubs and bypass the fortress.

Who would have thought you would ever see nonstop AUS-LGW service but that is exactly what British Airways is doing with their 787.

And apparently the 787 doesn't have enough seats to cover the demand, so they "upgraded" to a 777:

https://www.austintexas.gov/news/britis ... on-nonstop

Austin continues to amaze me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2015, 23:08

Username Protected wrote:

Burns,

Please continue your thoughts on Airbuses. Curiosity is killing me!

Ed

YES YES YES

We want to hear all about the junky EU airplanes :coffee:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2015, 02:53

Great to hear about the 787.

As a very experienced international traveller for work, I welcome these new midsize comfortable long haulers. They way aviation has become after 9/11, I will always chose a direct flight over a connecting one. But on the longer routes to slightly smaller cities, that was an impossibility until the 787 and A350 came along. This year I flew Ethiopian from LAX to Dublin on their inaugural line. I doubt that route would exist if it had to be flown with the old 777's, or A330/A340's as that demand isn't there. The possibilities for direct flights between cities that would never sustain it previously, is what the 787's were made for. They will create a whole new market for air travel.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2015, 16:56

All these numbers are published in Boeing's airport planning docs, which are public.

Standard day at sea level, MTOW:
747-400 with CF6s: ~10600 feet
787-8: ~10200 feet
787-9: ~9500 feet

747 VS 787 Required runway