Airli ne Ext ras
that the Dreamliner has lived up to As recently as the early 1980s, the US
Aviations Game-
Changers
S
The super-efficient hortly after the turn of
Boeing 787 and the millennium, Boeing
announced its newest
Airbus A350 have airliner, a revolutionary
ushered in a new new medium-widebody jet
era for commercial that was touted as a game-changer.
flight, making long- In January 2003, the programs first
haul, low-demand design team was put together, and
routes once deemed a few months later, details started
impossible altogether being provided to the aviation world.
The plane would be called the 787
common. Editor
Dreamliner. The aircraft was special
Chad Merchant takes primarily because of the amount of
a closer look at composite materials that went into
how two decisions its airframe construction, but also
changed the industry. for its modular assembly. Strategic
partners from all over the world
from Japan to Italy to Australia to
England combined with North
American companies to produce and
sub-assemble various components,
14 aerop olis w w w.a er op olis.my
expectations and fulfilled its promises.
The main competitor is the A350 from
Airbus, which also offers next-gen
construction (50-55% composites)
and like the 787, boasts significantly
reduced operating and maintenance
costs. These aircraft truly are game-
changers in the world of commercial
aviation for airlines and for
passengers. But what really catalysed
these planes ability to transform the
industry boils down to two important
decisions: changing the law to allow
twin-engine airplanes to fly over
oceans and shifting to composite
materials for airframe construction.
EFFICIENCY AND OPPORTUNITY
The relatively lightweight composite
materials extensively used in the 787
and A350 carbon fibre and titanium
in addition to traditional aluminium
deliver the biggest change. Its not
even immediately visible when looking
at these jets, but what they are largely
built with opened up a whole new
world for airlines. To understand this,
we first have to look at the decision
that even made planes like the 787 and
A350 a possibility.
or modules, for the 787, with Boeing
carrying out the final assembly at its
plant in Everett, Washington.
Like many large-scale manufacturing
programs, the 787 program suffered a
number of setbacks and delays, none
more public and more disastrous than
the overheating lithium-ion batteries
used in the planes electrical systems,
which ultimately led to the worldwide
grounding of all 787s for nearly four
months in early 2013. Following a
series of tests and revisions to the
battery hardware system, along with
the introduction of other protections,
the 787 was allowed to return to flight.
For the 787, it seems those turbulent
times are well behind it. After lengthy
delays and cost overruns, its clear
Federal Aviation Administration would
not permit twin-engine airplanes to
fly anywhere that was more than 60
minutes from a possible diversion
airport, just in case one engine failed.
This of course restricted twin-engine
planes from flying over oceans and
gave rise to a handful of three-engine
jetliners like the DC-10 and the L-1011,
which were developed specifically
because of this rule. Since airlines
had to fly more inefficient three- and
four-engine airplanes to connect cities
separated by oceans, only major city
pairs had sufficient demand to enable
these routes think New York to
London. If you wanted a route like, say,
Atlanta to Lisbon, or Seattle to Beijing,
you were simply out of luck.
So what changed?
The reliability of turbofans (the
engines used on modern passenger
jets) was the single greatest
technological factor. The 60-minute
rule was a holdover from the days
of far less-reliable piston-driven
engines, and the rules simply didnt
reflect the greater reliability of jet
engines. Finally, in 1985 and perhaps
a er op oli s w w w. a ero p o l i s . my 15

somewhat reservedly the FAA granted
permission to US carrier TWA to fly
its twin-engine Boeing 767 direct
from Boston to Paris, a route which
took the plane nearly 120 minutes
from the nearest diversion airport.
This was a landmark moment in
commercial aviation, and heralded
a new FAA certification called ETOPS,
or Extended-range Twin-engine
Operational Performance Standards.
On top of the inherent reliability of
the two jet engines, this certification
also adds a number of requirements
related to system redundancies, fire
suppression, and communications
systems. The aforementioned 767 now
carries an ETOPS rating of 180 minutes,
16 aerop olis w w w.a er op olis.my
meaning it can be up to three hours
away from a diversion airport. This
puts nearly all of the world in play,
excepting areas of the Southern Ocean,
a small patch of open water over the
South Pacific, and of course Antarctica.
The ETOPS certification process also
extends to the airline itself, as there
are certain maintenance, staff, and
passenger plan standards that must all
be met.
So with ETOPS in force, airlines are
able to fly twin-engine jets over big
oceans. And the ratings for todays
newest passenger planes are mind-
boggling. The 787 Dreamliner received
a whopping ETOPS rating of 330
minutes thats giving it five and a
half hours of flight time to a diversion
airport, which, apart from flying over
Antarctica, puts virtually the entire
planet in its approved flying range.
So while a route from Melbourne,
Australia to Santiago, Chile would
have only been impossible in the
recent past either for certification
reasons (no twin-engine plane could
have legally flown this route) or for
economic reasons (demand isnt high
enough to fill a huge four-engine
plane) not only is it possible with
the 787 today, this route is actually
flown by Chiles Latam Airlines. All over
the world, new lower-demand city
pairs like this are seeing new routes
connecting them. Its more efficient
for airlines to fly in this point-to-
point manner (rather than use the
less-efficient hub-and-spoke system),
and its far more time-saving for
passengers, too.
This is all possible because the
composite materials used in the 787
allow it to be simultaneously lighter
and stronger. This in turn allows it fly
much further and more efficiently,
the very definition of a win-win for
airlines. As the pioneering aircraft
built primarily with composites, the
Dreamliner was designed from the
start to be 20% more efficient than
the 767.
So the combination of a simple
rule change in the 1980s and the
lightweight efficiency of the 787 have
opened up all sorts of direct-connect
city pairs. And the Airbus A350 one-
ups even the Dreamliner: its ETOPS
certification is an astonishing 370
minutes, meaning it can legally fly
up to six hours and 10 minutes away
from the nearest diversion airport.
These two planes have made routes
that were previously impossible
either financially or logistically
very attractive and now, a growing
range of smaller city pairs are
available for direct flights worldwide.
So for the airlines, the 787 has
absolutely delivered on its promise
of outstanding fuel efficiency and
operational flexibility. So how was this
remarkable aircraft a game-changer
for passengers? Apart from being
able to fly directly and generally at larger than usual and can be dimmed
a lower cost to cities that before
would have required one or more
stops, the benefits these aircraft offer
to passengers have been somewhat
reduced by none other than the
airlines themselves.
COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE
Unlike many commercial jets, including
its predecessors, the 787 Dreamliner
was conceived, designed, and built
with passenger comfort firmly in mind.
Once again, the primary catalyst for
change was the aircrafts composite
materials. This construction allows
the cabin to be pressurised to a lower
equivalent altitude during flight, and
also allows a higher humidity, which
makes a noticeable difference over
an hours-long journey. Passengers
report feeling less fatigued and
dried out after long flights aboard
the Dreamliner. Similarly, the Airbus
A350 utilises composites and delivers
corresponding improvements in
cabin humidity and pressure. Air
filtration is better, too, able to not only
scrub harmful pathogens out of the
recirculated air, but even able to trap
volatile organic compounds, which
contribute to headaches and nausea
among some passengers.
Special computerised coloured LEDs
provide the cabin lighting and are
used to simulate daylight, dawn, dusk,
and other lighting schemes to help
passengers cope with hopping across
several time zones. Additionally, the
windows on the 787 are some 65%
regular international travellers are
though not totally blacked out
using electrochromic technology. Also
lending a hand to passenger comfort,
noise levels from the engines are
dramatically reduced by the unique
design of the nacelles. (The serrated
trailing edge of the nacelles also
makes the 787 an easy aircraft for
planespotters to identify.) Meanwhile,
on the Airbus side, many passengers
have reported that the A350 is so
quiet in flight, they no longer need
ear plugs to sleep or noise-cancelling
headphones to watch a movie.
Though manufacturers can make
planes that deliver a less dry and
more altitude-friendly cabin, deciding
air line extras
how to arrange the seats and how
many of them to put in the cabin is
ultimately the decision of the airlines.
So while the 787 was designed with
passenger comfort in mind, it didnt
take airlines long at all to compromise
that comfort, at least for most of
their passengers. Boeing initially
envisioned the 787 with eight-abreast
seating in economy class, but youll
have to look long and hard today to
find this plane in that configuration.
Most airlines quickly moved to a
nine-abreast seating arrangement
in economy, generally resulting in
seats that are about 17 wide (or less),
with a pitch of 31-32 and many
times, the space under the seat is
impeded by the in-flight entertainment
electronics box. If you are not eager
to sit in a seat like this for upwards
of 10 hours, youre not alone: many
flatly refusing to fly the 787 in economy
class. From the perspective of many
passengers, the airlines badly missed a
golden opportunity to deliver a better
experience to their customers with the
super-efficient 787.
Boeings only competition, meanwhile,
responded to complaints about seat
width by redesigning its A350 while
it was still on the drawing board to
boast a 18.4-foot (5.61m) cabin width,
compared with 18.0 feet (5.49m) for the
787. It seems those five extra inches
of cabin width for the Airbus A350
work in its favour: its enough width to
allow a bit more room for nine-abreast
passengers, but not enough for the
airlines to add another seat to the
row. For the time being, however, the
Dreamliner has been purchased and
deployed by far more airlines than its
Airbus rival.
Ultimately, passengers will fly these
planes and decide what is and what is
not acceptable, but it seems that while
aircraft manufacturers are making
efforts to deliver efficient aircraft that
promise increased levels of passenger
comfort, many airlines are determined
to counter that in their competitive
pursuit of lower fares, which provably
draw more customers, which of course
results in higher profit margins.
a er op oli s w w w. a ero p o l i s . my 17