Newsstand - "Good steady progress" on the 787

As a counterbalance to all the A380 bad news, the Seattle Times had an upbeat article on the 787 today.

Highlights:

- The plane is still about 5000 pounds overweight, but Boeing engineers and suppliers say that they have identified where the weight loss will come from.

- 787 operating economics are looking even better than expected

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003356605_boeing07.html

As a counterbalance to all the A380 bad news, the Seattle Times had an upbeat article on the 787 today.

Highlights:

- The plane is still about 5000 pounds overweight, but Boeing engineers and suppliers say that they have identified where the weight loss will come from.

- 787 operating economics are looking even better than expected

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003356605_boeing07.html


Wow, if they can pull in 20% greater savings than advertised, this will make the plane a gotta have it airframe! :D

You gotta watch those numbers though. You know what they say; there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

In this case Boeing is saying the 787 is 8-10% better than a 767. And then they say that they may be able to get another 20% better from that original projection. What they ARE NOT SAYING is that the original 8-10% is going to 28-30%. They are saying that they MIGHT be able to get 20% more of the original 10% savings, so the overall numbers might change to 10-12% in total.

Damn, you gotta love that math and the reporters who screw it up.

:D :D

Damn, you gotta love that math and the reporters who screw it up.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't care. :p

Remember back in college? Well the people who went into "Mass Communications" tend to end up in news reporting. And usually they're the ones who hate or aren't good in math and the hard sciences.

Heck, even the reporters of the Sydney Morning Herald can't tell the difference between an A340 and a B747. You don't need to be a genius to know that one. :rolleyes:

I picked up the same thing, but even though a 2% number seems small, I have to think that over a 20-30 year lifespan of an airplane, it will be a significant savings. Maybe one of the more knowledgeable members can jump in with some numbers? (SEA_TIGGER, you out there?)


You gotta watch those numbers though. You know what they say; there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

In this case Boeing is saying the 787 is 8-10% better than a 767. And then they say that they may be able to get another 20% better from that original projection. What they ARE NOT SAYING is that the original 8-10% is going to 28-30%. They are saying that they MIGHT be able to get 20% more of the original 10% savings, so the overall numbers might change to 10-12% in total.

Damn, you gotta love that math and the reporters who screw it up.

:D :D