The Boeing 787 is a twin-engine long-range widebody aircraft developed in the early 2000s. Packed with new innovations and technology, the aircraft started commercial operations with ANA on October 26th 2011. Boeing chose the name Dreamliner in 2003, which would eventually be a game-changer for many airlines. Enabling routes that weren’t possible for aircraft of the same type, the Boeing 787 was a dream come true for many airlines.
On the day of delivery, Scott Fancher, the then vice-president and general manager of the 787 program, while holding his ticket said:
“I’ve been waiting years for this slip of paper. Breathe! Take it all in as you are the first to experience this new standard in aviation.”
Scott Fancher – then vice-president and general manager of the B787 program
The 787 has played a transformational role in how the industry builds and expands networks.
Since entering into service in 2011, the 787 has:
- Enabled more than 320 new direct routes between city pairs
- Carried more than 577 million airline passengers
- Completed more than 2.8 million revenue flights
Birth of the B787 Dreamliner
In the early 2000s, airlines weren’t really keen on the Boeing 767 or 747. The demand was inclining more towards fuel efficiency rather than capacity, along with rising demand for point-to-point transit. An aircraft capable of flying long-haul flights and landing in a small airport was needed. Boeing worked on this and developed a brand new aircraft, the Dreamliner.
“The 787 did a remarkable job getting people where they really wanted to go,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Teal Group.
“This jet took them directly to where they wanted to go, which definitely helped stimulate international traffic,” Aboulafia added.
In 2004, orders for 50 aircraft were placed by ANA. This new widebody was expected to be 20% more efficient than the Boeing 767. Since components for the Dreamliner were coming from all over the world, Boeing had to modify four 747s into Dreamlifters. These modified jumbo jets would carry large sections of the 787, like wings and fuselage sections, making the whole process significantly quicker.
The final assembly of the first prototype was started in 2007 and was soon rolled out. At this point, the aircraft already had 600+ orders. In December 2009, the aircraft made its median flight; after the flight testing was completed, the first Dreamliner was delivered to ANA.
Inside the B787 Dreamliner
The aircraft is around 80% composite, including components like aluminium, titanium and other materials. Some distinct external features, such as a smooth/lowered nose, curved wings, chevrons, etc., make it more fuel-efficient and contrasting. The aircraft uses a fly-by-wire control system.
The Dreamliner has an interpretation of Ethernet (Avionics Full-Duplex Switched Ethernet) which transmits data between the flight deck and aircraft systems. The width of the 787 cabins is 5.5 meters, which is much larger than that of the 767. In fact, it’s closer to the 777.
Additionally, the cockpit of the 787 is significantly different from other Boeing aircraft. The classic yoke remained, however. The windows of the 787 are also considered to be one of the largest windows among civilian aircraft. Around 60+ operators fly the Dreamliner, across 1000 plus routes around the globe.
“The 787 set a benchmark. I don’t even think we fully realized the scope of how much it would change expectations for commercial aircraft,” said Boeing 787 director of product marketing Tom Sanderson. The Dreamliner met all expectations at the time of its launch.
Problems Faced by 787
Although the 787 was never involved in any serious accident that led to the death of people, there were numerous problems. Being a brand new aircraft with new technologies, issues soon followed after its commercial flights started. There were problems with the fuel systems along with electrical failures.
The aircraft had to be sent to maintenance/inspection frequently. There were problems in the tail section and engines as well. In 2013, due to an issue with lithium-ion batteries, a fire broke out. The aircraft, which was flying for ANA, had to perform an emergency landing. A similar incident happened with JAL as well. These incidents led to the grounding of Dreamliner.
At that time, around 50 Dreamliner were flying worldwide and all of them were consequently grounded. But this was just the beginning. Following this came a lot of other issues and groundings, which affected deliveries as well. To cope with the situation compounded by COVID-19, Boeing ultimately had to reduce the rate of production as well.
In 2020, Boeing reduced 787 production to five airplanes per month; due to the pandemic’s impact on demand for international travel.
Boeing’s 737 MAX and 787 problems also gave Airbus a boost for their program. “Had the 787 been delivered on time, Boeing would have easily been 5-8 years ahead of Airbus. Boeing’s distraction by crisis after crisis gave Airbus a commanding lead in the heart of the narrow-body market,” Hamilton said.
“Had the MAX crisis not happened, I suspect the delivery suspension would have been short-lived if occurring at all.”
Scott Hamilton, Leeham News
Paused Deliveries
In October 2021, Boeing didn’t deliver a single 787.
Boeing has paused deliveries and is doing inspections and rework as needed on undelivered 787s, to ensure that quality meets the engineering specifications.
“Through engineering analysis, we have determined there are no immediate safety of flight issues for 787s in the in-service fleet. While we never want to disappoint or cause delays for our customers, quality and safety always come first. These actions are essential to bolstering the long-term health of the program and are preparing us for sustained growth and success as market demand returns,” Boeing said in a statement.
“Boeing is committed to providing full transparency to our regulators and working with the FAA through the rigorous process to resume 787 deliveries. We have engaged with the FAA on this issue in meetings and working sessions over hundreds of hours and will continue to do so,” said Boeing.
Future of the 787 Dreamliner
Although the past ten years had their ups and downs, the future is still promising. There are still over 600 787 planes on the backlog.
Since the Dreamliner fulfils much of today’s demand, there hasn’t been a need for modification. However, in the future we may see a cargo or upgraded variant. Since COVID has increased the demand for freighter aircraft, a cargo 787 might be a possibility. Airbus has also announced a cargo variant for their A350 widebody.
“The biggest risk to future 787 orders is new, more capable, single-aisle jets, particularly the A321 Neo,” says Aboulafia.
Aircraft like the 787 were major factors for the demise of 747s and A380s; it seems smaller and more versatile narrowbodies like the A321neo, 737MAX and the new A321XLR could replace the Dreamliner.
What do you think the future holds for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner? Let us know in the comments below.
It appears the problem started all from greedy Ex CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg ignoring the safety future of designing and manufacturing Boeing products. Why did they relocate the B787 assembly line from Everett, Washington to Charleston SC? Is this also Wuilnburg’s greedy idea to save money without considering all those professional experts who were building the aircraft for many years?
No the real reason is McDonald Douglas merged with Boeing and MD’s business culture took over Boeing’s. MD is mainly a military contractor and the bottom line for them is money. I will never fly on a 787 not after what many of who are either current and former Boeing employees have said about the 787 many have said to what is possible NOT to fly on a 787 etc. All the signs are all there that plane is a time bomb. I or my family go out of our way to avoid flying either the 787 or 737 max. I will take an AB 350, 321 or 330 any day.
Boeing as an aircraft manufacturer should close its doors and ask for the Lord’s forgiveness for what they have done. How on earth can a company murder 346 human beings
with an aircraft that never belonged in the air and not hold anyone accountable? Does anyone believe the congressional hearings will change the dollar mindset at Boeing. Is Boeing too big to fail? Only when Boeings business model changes will I consider
flying on board one of its aircraft.
Having successfully launched the 787-8 which was a logical replacement for the 767 and then launched the 787-9 which is a logical relacement for the 777-200, I think Boeing got it all wrong with the 787-10. Nobody needs an aircraft of that size (which also has worse range than the -8 and -9). The next size needed for those airlines needing larger aircraft is the 777X-9 . Unfortunately the long delays in delivery of the 777X have played into Airbus’s hands. Currently the A350-1000 is the Queen of the skies. It is only slightly smaller than the 777X, has better range and is already an established success whilst the 777X is stll a couple of years away from launch.
Having successfully launched the 787-8 which was a logical replacement for the 767 and then launched the 787-9 which is a logical relacement for the 777-200, I think Boeing got it all wrong with the 787-10. Nobody needs an aircraft of that size (which also has worse range than the -8 and -9). The next size needed for those airlines needing larger aircraft is the 777X-9 . Unfortunately the long delays in delivery of the 777X have played into Airbus’s hands. Currently the A350-1000 is the Queen of the skies. It is only slightly smaller than the 777X, has better range and is already an established success whilst the 777X is stll a couple of years away from launch.
long haul aircraft which can satisfy any
They are just over 103 787s completed with first flights and stored in the US.
If no 787s get delivered by end of this year (which is very unlikely to happen), Boeing would probably deliver between 110 – 115 787s into the next year. My guess would be deliveries would start from April 2022 onwards..
What is the flash point, the temperature at which composite catches on fire and burns compared to aluminum? Is composite basically strengthened plastic? In a crash that includes a fire, will the composite burn at a lower temperature than aluminum? What temperatures are they? Is composite less safe? I won’t fly in a Dreamliner until Boeing and the FAA answer my questions.
The 787 may be a great plane, but I much prefer a larger aircraft that will stay where the pilot puts it – meaning that an A380 is soooooo much more comfortable when a B787 could be affected by bad turbulence. The A380 is also great as you can go for a walk. I live in Australia and often visit the UK. It’s great that you can get up and stretch your legs, or stand buy the center door (L2) and do some stretches without getting in any ones way. Please don’t let the A380 disappear. There are lots of us out there who love this plane for comfort over and above the convenience of flying point to point on a B787. Emirates I love you! It’s also nice to take a stroll through Dubai duty free on the way to the UK. This can’t be done on the return (EK414), due to the rush to load the plane to get in before the Sydney midnight curfew.
Go with AIRBUS !!
The attempt by Boeing to adopt automotive mass-production techniques on the 787 is the root cause of some of the structural issues requiring rework. Replacing experienced tech inspectors with technology to measure skin/former gaps, and then discovering improper shimming shouldn’t be a surprise. Airframes are not automobiles and application of assembly line principles are difficult. The complexity of systems means that aviation construction is still a craftsperson industry where expertise of the worker is key.
I would add that fabrication here, there, and everywhere is not conducive to a quality product.
I love to fly Boeing more than Airbus as a personal choice..
Boeing is a bit in trouble now but I feel it will bounce back good..
The Dreamliner I flew was a Air India aircraft and was a great experience to fly on..seats are comfy and window are big and with a wide angle view..
I hope many other airlines fly the Dreamliner..
Also hope 777x come into the commercial market waiting for it eagerly..
Also samchui is a great aviation expert love your articles and blogs keep on the good work sir 🙏
As stated in these comments I don’t think a narrow body can ever compete with a twin aisle aircraft for long haul flights, irrespective of the seating configuration. JAL has resolved the comfort issue by installing one less seat but this comes at the great expense of revenue. However knowing that an economy seat less than 18 inches wide is basically unacceptable to the travelling public, arguably Boeing could or should have taken put more thought into this and taken it into consideration during the design phase and gone with either a 767 or A350 cabin width. As also mentioned the large windows are great but are totally negated by the crazy dimming system that no passenger likes. However if the 787 hadn’t been created we probably wouldn’t have the A350 today!!
In December 2009, the aircraft made its median flight;”
I think you mean Maiden Flight.
Funny how rearranging the letters changes the meaning. Sloppy writing either way.
Typo – get over it.
The 787 has been both a dream and nightmare at the same time. It was the first major commercial jet to not use bleed air to heat and pressurize the plane that every other pressurized jetliner should have installed new or retrofitted, and has opened up tons of new routes with its operating economics. At the same time, it has been a nightmare with the worst cattle car among cattle car economy seats of any jetliner, and consistent structural problems and delays compounded by a mass grounding and battery fires. The first 787s delivered in 2011 and 2012 are now rapidly approaching the D-Check interval, which involves basically taking the whole plane apart and putting it back together again. Who knows what we will find there, and the troubled history of the jet is not a good sign.
I would like to read more about the positive side of the 787 such the benefits and all the new technologies incorporated in the Dreamliner.
For readers complaining about the seats, it has nothing to do with Boeing. It is each individual airlines doing.
Trying to be a informed consumer. I take a different vantage point. I hesitate to fly the 787-9 after reading about the composite skims and Ion battery problems that were found. The problem was found after the aircraft were already delivered from the Boeing Plant in Charleston, SC. In my understanding, certain 787-9 are inspected upon audit but, not all unless there is a specific problem related to one.
In regards to the 737-Max and what I researched; The Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System was developed to fit the FAA’s guidelines/specifications. In my opinion, the plane should have been taken off autopilot or, fly by wire upon take off. That would have prevented the tug of war between the planes & pilots. The first pilot of one of the troubled Max’s 737-8 had the same issues; erroneous airspeed indications and turned off the autopilot avoiding disaster.
In addition, I don’t think the test pilots should be blamed for the crashes. They didn’t develop the system.
Furthermore, Information was purposely withheld from the pilots in the 787-9 manuals. Why? I suspect someone didn’t think the pilots needed to know how the MCAS system worked or, it was beyond their comprehension? What do you think?
Error.
I apologize, 737-8 manuals not, 787-9.
Boeing management did a very bad thing on the initial 737 Max & should be responsible. However, it’s not the first time an executive(s) has done wrong. all the car manufacturers have at times, Airbus has a times. I think Boeing should be called out but let’s bot get Excessive or woke on this American company . We should expect the best of course & they should deliver but don’t let our news take over their reputation to give it to Airbus. I flew 787 and Airbus neo A321 from Europe recently and trust me there was a big difference pro Boeing!
Writers and publishers please be responsible in your reports – don’t just try to sell your story at a lot of good, hard working peoples juggler
.
I dread the day that single aisle aircraft are regularly used on long haul routes. From a passenger aspect they are less spacious, feel cramped and tolerate turbulence less. Putting A321s and 737s on long haul is like having to fly SYD-MEL and SYD-BNE in Dash-8s and ATR72s.
I think it all depends on how carriers decide to equip their narrowbody aircraft. A Jetblue-style A321 is arguably more comfortable in terms of basic seat dimensions than what’s offered on the majority of widebody aircraft.
@Charles Riviere “The issue with Boeing is not safety. They are professionals with unmatched credentials.”
Boeing cut corners and sold a demonstrably unsafe aircraft without fully disclosing the true nature of flight systems to pilots or captured regulators, blamed the resulting accidents on the pilots and airlines, and would still be happily marketing the Max in the identical fashion with full knowledge that it would cause more accidents had the true facts hidden by Boeing not been discovered by lawyers and media. Boeing does not have “unmatched credentials” and employs far too many people who could not be accurately described as “professionals” where safety is concerned. Boeing destroyed any conception to the contrary and anybody who wishes to think that this the same Boeing from before the McDonnell-Douglas merger – either in engineering or ethics – is engaged in fantasy. The competence of the present Boeing – which is more properly thought of as the old McDonnell-Douglas – should be very much in doubt.
Can’t say I’ll EVER be flying on a 737max after folloeing that debacle closely… I’m still not convinced of its safety, and I’m still repulsed by Boeing’s response. When international travel recommences, I will be checking the plane before booking the flight every single time. Rebranding and marketing will not sway me.
This plane changed flying for me. It’s hard to go back to any other plane once you’ve flown this wonder. I was shocked the first time I flew it how quiet the take off was. On the air it feels like you’re floating and their anti turbulence system beats any plane I’ve ever flown. I get excited every time I board one. I feel so proud about the human race having created this plane. I’d rather fly economy in a dreamliner than first class on any other plane. So, yes a big fan !!
This has been described by Boeing Engineers – ever since the 1990s, Boeing is being run by marketing folks rather than real engineers !
These people only care about short term profits, rather than long term vision – this has caused huge issues in quality control at Boeing ! This disease is seeping across US corporations ! Money, profits is all that matters ! They are doomed.
Boeing hit the ballpark fence with this airplane.
It wasn’t the idea, but vast knowledge of the future of the market.
It was a New Plane.
But Boeing made two huge mistakes:
The discontinuation of the 757.way to soon.
The extension of the 737 concept.
Both failed.
The 757 was soon replaced by the A321 in the market.
the B737Max was a design disaster.
Hey, build a 21st century plane. Stop extending a 1959 design!
I always wonder, who are the executives that make those bad decisions?
The get paid millions to come up with some garbage.
I am not excited about any new models because what I most care about is seat and leg space in the cheapest ticket class. The aircraft manufacturers design a plane for a specific number of seats and then because the FAA doesn’t object airlines add many more to make everyone not in first class less comfortable. To add more people they make luggage more expensive, and the passenger is the one who suffers.
Boeing outsourced manufacturing and went into the assembly business. In the process, they lost control of quality. The displacement of the engineering and safety culture with a profit-driven culture has been disastrous. I flat out do not trust Boeing, so I avoid flying on their planes.
The issue with Boeing is not safety. They are professionals with unmatched credentials. I have flown literally every type of aircraft they have made since the 1950’s and never had a concern about safety of the aircraft. I had issues with third world pilots and ATC’s but not the frames. The issue with Boeing is that they put people in charge who had huge stock options based on financial results and not market share or sustained customer base. Condit and Muilenburg stand out in my mind as incompetent technology leaders. Moving from Seattle to Chicago made no sense and fighting with the unions and shifting production to a state not particularly renown for its engineering expertise made no sense.To prove my point look at the problems with the Starliner where Elon Musk now has a three year head start and Boeing is in the dust. Bad management should not be rewarded when things fail never mind the stock price. The PR department has worked overtime to minimize huge problems and the results are unmistakable. Airbus was a distant 2nd now the clear leader for 20 years to come even after botching the 380 panacea. Boeing needs Elon Musk’s not the crew now in charge. Short BA. all the way to $100.
A brilliant project paying the price of innovation and, as well mentioned, some other turbulences, not all Boeing or the 787 alone fault. But 1000 acft delivered and a backlog of 600 still, delivering the performance it delivers – the -9 has same payload capacity and more range than the bigger and less efficient A359, for example – make the road for a brilliant future! I invite you, Sam, to read my article on the 10 years of service of the “heavy plastic” at Air Facts Journal, from a Dreamliner pilot point if view (link below). Cheers and thanks for your reflections on it!
@jon
Seats inside the 787 (like all models) are dictated by the purchasing airline, NOT Boeing. Seats on UA/AA uncomfortable? Blame the airline management. JL’s 787s are widely believed to have some of the best coach seating around.
It’s kind of irrelevant who makes the seat / cabin layout decisions. The unfortunate fact is that approximately 97% of 787s flying are in the very uncomfortable 9 abreast layout in economy. While the general public don’t care, those in the know will avoid this aircraft if more comfortable alternatives are available. For premium cabins, sure the 787 makes for a great ride. However in economy, it’s far from a ‘dream’.
There will always be a market for long haul twin isle passenger jets, period. While some markets such as east coast US to England certainly could benefit form the “extended range” single isle jets especially lower cost airlines for me I am not so sure a long flight on a single isle plane would be enjoyable, think about the number of bathrooms for example “extra room” seats ? At least on a well packed 380/787/350 there are sufficient “facilities” and some room to at least walk around a bit.
NO Sam there is nothing wrong with the 787 it is/was the right plane production wise extensive use of carbon fiber funny how fast AB came out with one after being hammered by the 380.
Having said all this I do agree that BA has systemic issues within the executive suite, too much “we know better” frankly they should break up BA
787, great plane tech wise, but not great for coach passengers. Most uncomfortable coach seats (UA & AA) I’ve ever experienced are on the 787. The big windows are great except that most crews darken them, not allowing passengers to take advantage of the big windows.