Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5151808/

Topic: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: N328KF
Posted 2011-05-24 13:52:02 and read 42455 times.

This is not a launch, but a concept drawing:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...boeing-lifts-the-cover-on-new.html

As Jon Ostrower says, it looks like a couple of fuselage plugs were inserted. It's not as long as the longest previous estimates, but is still a significant addition.

[Edited 2011-05-24 13:55:32]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2011-05-24 13:57:26 and read 42441 times.

"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

A few numbers would be nice, comparisons with the A351 and 77W even more so.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-24 13:59:18 and read 42407 times.

My original guess was going to be a:

2m stretch to the forward end of Section 43
2m stretch to the forward end of Section 46
1m stretch to the forward end of Section 47

Somebody did a sketch of a 787-10 showing a "Section 42" between Sections 41 and 43 and FB notes this may be in effect with the new design.

So maybe 2m forward of Section 47 and a new Section 42 of 2-3m length?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong

The original 787-10 design was believed to be a 6m stretch of the 787-9. To match the 777-300ER in floorspace, the stretch would have needed to be around 10-12m.

[Edited 2011-05-24 14:00:21]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dfwrevolution
Posted 2011-05-24 14:49:19 and read 41931 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

Probably necessary to maintain a viable range envelope.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: qfa787380
Posted 2011-05-24 15:21:08 and read 41560 times.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 3):
Probably necessary to maintain a viable range envelope.

Still, 43 extra seats is still a fair size increase. Ideally, I think Boeing would like the -10X to have a 20% capacity increase over the -9 or 54 more seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-24 16:36:24 and read 41105 times.

I wasn't keen on this but now I'm a believer. A relatively simple stretch, trading seats for range. This gives them the fuselage needed for a longer range version which will be more complicated since it will need more gear, power and wing.

I wonder what the range will be...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: NYC777
Posted 2011-05-24 17:02:11 and read 40552 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

A few numbers would be nice, comparisons with the A351 and 77W even more so.

I really doubt this is to compete witht the 77W or the A350-1000. It's more of a 772 replacement and to compete agaainst the A350-900.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-24 17:09:46 and read 40384 times.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 4):
Still, 43 extra seats is still a fair size increase. Ideally, I think Boeing would like the -10X to have a 20% capacity increase over the -9 or 54 more seats.

I know from Boeing that the 2007 concept was to seat 321 in a Boeing OEM three class layout at 9-abreast in Economy. So they likely pulled the final two rows of seats, which would have been a center row of four with a lavatory on either side. So we're talking a 4m stretch as opposed to 6m.

Looking at the concept art, the row of four windows with a join on either side exactly matches the "Section 42" extension I have seen in some suggestions. So my guess is a 2m "Section 42" slotted in between Sections 41 and Sections 43 and a 2m extension of the front of Section 47.

So OEW should be a bit less than the OEW increase between the 787-8 and 787-9. I'd guess around 8t more than the 787-9, so assuming the 787-10's MTOW is also 251t, between the extra empty and payload weights, I'd guess fuel will be reduced between 15-20t. So I would expect a similar fuel load at MZFW as the 787-8.

[Edited 2011-05-24 17:16:09]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: KFlyer
Posted 2011-05-24 18:02:55 and read 39198 times.

Stitch, not two rows. It will still seat 313 ( 270+43 )

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: YXXMIKE
Posted 2011-05-24 19:04:20 and read 37974 times.

Don't blast me if I get this wrong, but a higher density possibly lower range plane would this full a 762 plug? Good high density transcon with better fuel efficiency than a 777?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 413X3
Posted 2011-05-24 20:05:39 and read 36907 times.

Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-05-24 20:59:11 and read 35965 times.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

No, no 787 stretch without a significant rework of the wing and other parts could really challenge the 77W.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
To match the 777-300ER in floorspace, the stretch would have needed to be around 10-12m.

That would roughly match the length, but I would imagine floor space would be somewhat lacking still. Capacity in a nine across configuration would be about the same too, though.

Honestly, I find the 5 meter stretch a bit short. I think 8 or so would be closer to the mark, if for no other reason than I think that the A350-1000 is the plane the 787-10 should be aimed at more than the A350-900. Maybe Boeing would have to go back to the original -9 wing or get the powerplant makers to make some improvements to keep a reasonable range, but if the -10 is only going to be a 5 meter stretch, I have to wonder if Boeing isn't kicking themselves for not adding a bit of length to the -9 when they had the chance.

And while we're at it, what is the X in -10X? Or maybe there isn't a tangible feature to warrant the X, and Boeing is just spinning it.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: nipoel123
Posted 2011-05-24 22:03:04 and read 34988 times.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Aside from the distinct 787 nose, meaning most planes will have a similar fuselage. They are, after all, tubes with wings. Some are prettier than others though...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-24 22:40:29 and read 34447 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):

Honestly, I find the 5 meter stretch a bit short.

I suspect any longer of a stretch and the extra weight would take too much off of the range to make it worth while...at least if they wish to stay with the -9 wing, engines and bogies.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-05-24 22:56:42 and read 34204 times.

Going by the additional windows looks like 1 additional row of seats forward of the wing, and 4 additional rows of seats aft of the wing.

6+(4x9)=42 seats

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2011-05-25 00:09:40 and read 33213 times.

That would be one sexy looking 787. I hope Boeing gathers enough traction on the market to launch it and build it.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 00:39:11 and read 32788 times.

With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-25 00:42:24 and read 32702 times.

It sounds like a 4-5m stretch only.

That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: kiwiandrew
Posted 2011-05-25 00:45:13 and read 32672 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):

With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.

Maybe NZ could become the launch customer for the 787-10 as well as for the -9. They will be looking for replacements for their 777-200ERs in a few years. I am sure that they were one of the carriers mentioned as being potentially interested the first time the -10 was suggested. Of course they still have to wait for Boeing to start work on their -9s, so maybe they won't be in too much of a hurry to be a launch customer again.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-05-25 00:58:53 and read 32432 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.

It will actually require a lot of redesign, not that it will be all that noticeable from the outside. The composite barrels ply directions and thickness would need to redesigned to take the additional loads of the longer keel.

They also may decide to reduce the side if the horizontal and vertical stabilisers as the additional moment arm would mean the current design is too heavier than required.

I would also not be surprised to see changes to the landing gear similar to the 300ER for tailstrike prevention.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-25 01:15:04 and read 32204 times.

"Same wing, same engine", according to Albaugh. OK, so we most likely won't see the wing extension originally planned for the -9, that I can believe. But I hope the engine will deliver a bit more thrust than the -9, wouldn't it?  
Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.


   It will be targeted as a A333 replacement, which would be a very lucrative market potentially. Not just for North American airlines, I suspect European and Asian airlines would be interested as well. They wouldn't mind a little bit of extra capacity combined with lower operating costs compared to the A330-300.

But that 787-10X needs to be significantly cheaper to operate than an A350-900, or it will be doomed   

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 18):
Maybe NZ could become the launch customer for the 787-10 as well as for the -9. They will be looking for replacements for their 777-200ERs in a few years.


As 328JET said, this is not a 77E replacement, and certainly not for NZ who needs the range of the 77E. Besides, most 777-200ER's are relatively young and need not to be replaced soon.

I do hope for a launch order by AF/KL though   

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2011-05-25 01:20:39 and read 32098 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):
It will be targeted as a A333 replacement, which would be a very lucrative market potentially. Not just for North American airlines, I suspect European and Asian airlines would be interested as well. They wouldn't mind a little bit of extra capacity combined with lower operating costs compared to the A330-300.

Asia has a massive number of widebodies operating relatively short routes, this would be a perfect replacement for the 773A as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-05-25 01:36:48 and read 31858 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Going by the additional windows looks like 1 additional row of seats forward of the wing, and 4 additional rows of seats aft of the wing.

6+(4x9)=42 seats


Counting the windows they have added a section of 4 windows up front + an extra body join space the size of a window and extended the tail section forward with 4 windows.

Does 4 + 1 windows length increase forward of the wing only give you 1 row of business class seats? On the 789 (picture from latest ACAP broschyre) 5 windows gives you 2 J rows:



Why do they do a double join forward of the wing? Going from 788 to 789 they exteded section 43 from the door forward with 5 windows but for the 781 they don't increase this section, instead they kind of bolt a plug between section 43 and section 41. I don't quite get why they put a section 42?? in there, it give you 2 join areas, couldn't they just extend 43? Poking around I found this:

787 Components For 787-9? (by DfwRevolution May 13 2007 in Civil Aviation)

"the autoclave that Kawasaki is using for the section 43 is 17 meters long. The section 43 it self is 7,5 meters on the 787-8 and 10 meters on the 787-9. So there is a long way for Kawasaki to go until they are maxed out."

So the need for a plug is not there really. Seems the -10 extension is really quick and dirty  .

If you really need to produce a plug to sit there with 2 joins, what do you do? Rob the 2nd and 1st class of windows? Not to optimal.

[Edited 2011-05-25 02:29:58]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-25 02:04:54 and read 31458 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 21):
this would be a perfect replacement for the 773A as well.

It's a bit lacking in capacity for a 773 replacement, CX for example has 398 seats in their 773's. A350-1000 would be better suited for that role.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2011-05-25 02:28:16 and read 31140 times.

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
This is not a launch, but a concept drawing:

First I was wondering why Boeing presents the new version in a different livery. But I suppose this is due to the fact that currently it's just a concept whereas the other two version shown in the picture are already launched and in case of the 788 already in prodcution.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Exactly what I thought when I saw this picture.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: parapente
Posted 2011-05-25 02:56:56 and read 31375 times.

It seems to have taken 20 posts to get round to what Boeing themselves have said what this plane will be. A 333 killer. Thats what it is (intended to be) - period. They origonally had hoped to be able to create a 772er replacement - but now they cannot (without huge changes)- so they arn't. Nothing complicated about this.
The primary prupose of the 787 is to replace the 767 and 332. The secondary aim due to it's longer range and low operating costs is to open up more point to point opportunities (thus negating the "old" 747/380 hub and spoke system).
The third element is clearly to cover the growing presence of the higer volume/medium range aspects that the 333 offers.

Boeing are "naked" over the 772er replacement market - no big deal, you cannot be all things to all people.The 359 has a "lock down" on that market segment.And while they are doing that Boeing steals the 330 replacement market - swings and roundabouts really.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: CHRISBA777ER
Posted 2011-05-25 03:05:06 and read 31278 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 24):
Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Exactly what I thought when I saw this picture.

Me too. Sexy.  

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: DLDTW1962
Posted 2011-05-25 03:43:59 and read 31008 times.

The 787-10 drawing almost looks like the B757 or A321 only wider and longer.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: qfa787380
Posted 2011-05-25 04:33:02 and read 30182 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
It sounds like a 4-5m stretch only.

That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.

It is a stretch with 43 more seats to make it a nominal 313 seater v 270 for the 789. Of course it is a 77E replacement as it will have over 7,000nm range(I suspect around 7,200nm), which is marginally less than the 77E. It will also be a 333 killer and I wouldn't be surprised to see large 333 operators like CX look very closely at the -10X.
Just because an airplane isn't an exact match for capacity/range, doesn't mean it can't replace it.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 04:37:50 and read 30117 times.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 18):
Maybe NZ could become the launch customer for the 787-10 as well as for the -9.

Just a quickie GC range map from Aukland puts most of the Western Americas and most of Eastern Asia within a 6500nm range...probably theoretically doable with cut and paste stretch.

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):

Of course there is more to a stretch than just parts bits...but it looks like they plan on as much commonality as possible...which includes lots of expensive bits like gear, engines and wings and systems. As with the main wing, perhaps they won't fool with the tail feathers...or if they do, it'll be a cheap and dirty size reduction which should give less grief than an enlargement would.

Since they are already going to be using plugs to go from the -8 to the -9, perhaps they can just use more of the same plugs...after all, aren't the openings cut out after curing?

Regardless, they still haven't given a great deal of info about what the specs might be but it is interesting anyway.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Worldliner
Posted 2011-05-25 04:38:29 and read 30066 times.

Looks great. This should appeal to some airlines after capacity on medium range routes, might see North American airlines wanting to replace their TATL 757's and 767's, this could be a great product for Boeing.

Boeing deliberately restricting this to keep the 77W order coming in? Good/Bad idea in the long run?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 04:44:23 and read 29986 times.

Is it just me that finds it stunning that an aircraft that can potentially fly almost 1/3 of the way around the globe non stop carrying over 300 passengers is 'medium ranged" ...?

Sometimes I just get swept away by the geeky goodness of it all...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 06:06:03 and read 28553 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):
"Same wing, same engine", according to Albaugh. OK, so we most likely won't see the wing extension originally planned for the -9, that I can believe. But I hope the engine will deliver a bit more thrust than the -9, wouldn't it?

I have to believe the 787-10's MTOW will also be 251t and that the 787-9's MTOW was raised to this to lay the foundation for the 787-10. So at that point, 787-9 engines will be fine.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2011-05-25 06:26:44 and read 28092 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 25):
The primary prupose of the 787 is to replace the 767 and 332.

And the 343... the 787-9 is pretty much a drop-in 343 replacement.

I agree with the rest of your analysis.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: AA777223
Posted 2011-05-25 06:57:17 and read 27396 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 23):
It's a bit lacking in capacity for a 773 replacement, CX for example has 398 seats in their 773's. A350-1000 would be better suited for that role.

I agree. This is kinda a "half" plane.

As we all know, despite how everyone tries to characterize it, from a true capacity (NOT range) perspective:

The 788 is a 763 sized bird, the 789 is a 764 sized bird, and the 7810 is a 772 sized bird.
The 358 is a 764 sized bird, the 359 is a 772 sized bird, and the 3510 is a 773 sized bird.

Now, from a range and capabilities perspective:

The 788 seems about 77E ranged, the 789 seems better-than-77E, but-not-77L ranged, and the 7810 seems more capable than the 772A, but not quite 77E ranged... more like 773A ranged, which when you look at it, is a simple stretch of the 772ER, hence it being less capable than the 772ER, but significantly more capable than the 772A - just like its relationship to the 789!

The 358 seems 77E ranged, the 359 better-than-77E, but-not-77L ranged, and the 3510 seems just about 77E ranged, but not quite 77W ranged, which (I realize the range of the 77e and 77W are almost identical, many haven't noticed. Check Boeing's range maps!) I discount only because it has similar range to 77E, but has seriously paylod difficiencies compared to the 77W. So to load it like a 77W, puts its range close to that of 773A - which is slightly less than the 77E, not slightly more like the 77W.

So, that's how I see the 777, 787, A350 craft fitting themselves into the market. I see the 7810, as a less capable 772ER replacement - similar in size, slightly deficient in range. Just as 328JET said, it would be a great TATL mover. For our TPAC friends, I see them having to drop down to -9 models of each aircraft, though I see the A350 variant of the -10 model as slightly more capable. Now, I am curious to see how these new aircraft, with different capacity, range and payload combinations will slot into the needs of airlines around the world. Should be really interesting, if you ask me! I just wanted to write out the market as I see it, because I am having a hard time rationalizing how all these aircraft will fit into fleets as compared to the current 777s, A330s and A340s.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 06:57:39 and read 27401 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 22):
So the need for a plug is not there really. Seems the -10 extension is really quick and dirty

When airframes say "plug" they almost never literally mean a plug, as in a separate piece of fuselage an an extra circumferential splice. They just mean they're increasing the length of one of the existing sections.

"Plug" = extension of existing fuselage cross-section with no other cross sectional changes.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: panais
Posted 2011-05-25 07:14:24 and read 27047 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 25):
A 333 killer.
Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 28):
It will also be a 333 killer and I wouldn't be surprised to see large 333 operators like CX look very closely at the -10X.
Just because an airplane isn't an exact match for capacity/range, doesn't mean it can't replace it.

You wanted to say replacement instead of killer? Because by they time that this B787-10X is available for delivery to airlines, the A333 would have been replaced by the A350-800. Lets be careful of what we are saying.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 07:18:31 and read 26990 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
When airframes say "plug" they almost never literally mean a plug, as in a separate piece of fuselage an an extra circumferential splice. They just mean they're increasing the length of one of the existing sections.

Based on that concept picture, it looks very much like a "Section 42" plug is being placed between Sections 41 and 43 . Section 47 looks like it's being extended at the front, as well.

There were worries that making Section 42, 44 or 46 longer might mean that they could not fit them in the Dreamlifter, so I think they might have done a Section 42 plug to get around this, even if it was not the desired choice compared to just making the existing sections longer.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-25 07:51:03 and read 26322 times.

For me the question raises if the airlines really should order both the A350 AND the B787-10 to replace the B77E, A343s and A330s...?


It is all about cost savings today which results in less aircraft types per airline.


IF the A350-900 can replace all mentioned three aircraft types AND is also very flexible in terms of range, i see a limited market for a simple stretch B787-10.

You can use an A350-900 on the atlantic, on the pacific and also from the mid-east to australia, so why adding a second type, that can just cross the atlantic..?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-05-25 07:54:06 and read 26226 times.

Boeing's Airport Compatibilty Brochure shows 280(3 class) seats for 789. So the 313 seat 787-10 is only 33 seat larger than 789. I would think a 4m stretch would be sufficient to accomodate 4 additional rows of Y.

Given that the proposed seat count for 787-10 is similar to that of A359, it will be reasonable to assume that both will be of equal length. Here's a comparison of the two:

General Specifications:
....................................B787-10.......................A359
Fuselage Length..............219.5..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Cabin Length...................169..........................169
Cabin Width......................18............................18.4
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................313..........................314(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000...................423,300
OEW..........................268,000...................292,000 (OEW for B787-10 and A359 are my estimates)
MSP...........................132,000...................131,300
Design Range..................7,000.....................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price..........................$248......................$268 million(787-10 number is my estimate)

B787-10 is lighter, and is likely to be cheaper than A359. On short/medium haul routes, B787-10 is likely to burn less fuel, and at the same time carry as many passengers and cargo as A359.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 07:56:40 and read 26260 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 38):
You can use an A350-900 on the atlantic, on the pacific and also from the mid-east to australia, so why adding a second type, that can just cross the atlantic?

If the 787-10 is more economical crossing the Atlantic than the A350-900 is...

We have seen airlines fly the A330-300 and the 777-200ER instead of the 777-200 and 777-200ER. The A330-300 is more economical than the 777-200, so even though the 777-200 allows an operator to leverage the infrastructure of the 777-200ER, the A330-300 ends up making more money for the airline.

It's also why we saw airlines who used to fly 777-200ERs on regional missions move to the A330-300 (as the latter improved in performance over time) because they did not need all of the performance of the 777-200ER and they could make more money flying the A330-300. So I could see airlines not needing the full performance envelope of the A350-900 across all missions looking at the 787-10, as well.

I've long thought the 787-10 would make an excellent "bridge" aircraft for customers operating the A330-300 and 777-300 and I think Boeing has identified a niche they can exploit and sell a few hundred copies in. And with the development costs "low", that can be a profitable niche for them.

[Edited 2011-05-25 08:02:18]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2011-05-25 08:00:57 and read 26113 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 34):
The 788 is a 763 sized bird, the 789 is a 764 sized bird, and the 7810 is a 772 sized bird.
The 358 is a 764 sized bird, the 359 is a 772 sized bird, and the 3510 is a 773 sized bird.

Not quite. On capacity, it's closer to this, assuming 9Y 787s:

788 = A332 = 764
789 = A358 = A333 = A343
7810 = A359 = 772
A3510 ~= 773 (A3510 is a bit smaller)

Your range estimates are also off a bit, particularly for the A350s. The A358 should have excellent range, better than any 787 (but you pay for it with excess weight and reduced cargo volume). The A3510 will have similar range to the 77W with passenger load only, but will not do as well when loaded up to MZFW.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 34):
I realize the range of the 77e and 77W are almost identical, many haven't noticed.

They've been growing farther apart as the 77W improves, and there is also the wild card that even a restricted 77W can have awfully good economics.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-25 08:01:32 and read 26158 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 38):
For me the question raises if the airlines really should order both the A350 AND the B787-10 to replace the B77E, A343s and A330s...?

If you already operate the A350, no, adding the 787-10 wouldn't make much sense (unless you are EK or plan to mimic them   )
But if you are a 787 operator and don't need the range of the A359? Or better: if you haven't decided on either, and are contemplating A358/A359 or B789/B78J?

I'm pretty sure the A359 will outsell the 787-10X around 3 to 1. But that could potentially mean hundreds of 78J's sold that would have otherwise gone to the A359, enough to make it a commercial success....

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-25 08:03:58 and read 26093 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
So I could see airlines not needing the full performance envelope of the A350-900 looking at the 787-10.

Yes and no.

You need two fleets which are big enough to justify a second similar sized aircraft.
That rules out a lot of potential customers.

The question really is, when is the B787-10 entering service in comparison to the A359? Is it really worth to wait or is the difference in operation costs only marginal, which means waiting would be a waste of time?

Interesting times ahead for us a.netters!  

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 08:06:17 and read 25990 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
You need two fleets which are big enough to justify a second similar sized aircraft. That rules out a lot of potential customers.

I disagree, but as you say, we'll know in a decade.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-05-25 08:16:41 and read 25819 times.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 28):
It will also be a 333 killer and I wouldn't be surprised to see large 333 operators like CX look very closely at the -10X.
Just because an airplane isn't an exact match for capacity/range, doesn't mean it can't replace it.

CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: AA777223
Posted 2011-05-25 08:25:22 and read 25610 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 41):
On capacity, it's closer to this, assuming 9Y 787s:

I was assuming based on 8Y, admittedly. I think it is uncivilized to put 787s in a 9Y arrangement. I feel the same about 10Y on the 777. Your point is understood, nonetheless.  
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 41):
Your range estimates are also off a bit, particularly for the A350s. The A358 should have excellent range, better than any 787 (but you pay for it with excess weight and reduced cargo volume). The A3510 will have similar range to the 77W with passenger load only, but will not do as well when loaded up to MZFW.

Thanks for straightening me out a little. I've had a very difficult time understanding how these 5 aircraft (777, 787, A330, A340, A350) align.

[Edited 2011-05-25 08:42:33]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2011-05-25 08:48:12 and read 25070 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 46):
I was assuming based on 8Y, admittedly. I think it is uncivilized to put 787s in a 9Y arrangement. I feel the same about 10Y on the 777.

In that case you were pretty close. But I think 9Y 787s will eventually be universal. Their seats and aisles aren't like 10Y 777s -- they're like 10Y 747s, which people have accepted without complaint for a long time.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 46):
Thanks for straightening me out a little. I've had a very difficult time understanding how these 5 aircraft (777, 787, A330, A340, A350) align.

They are all pretty close together, competing for the heart of the widebody market...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-05-25 08:53:14 and read 24984 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
You need two fleets which are big enough to justify a second similar sized aircraft.
That rules out a lot of potential customers.

After all of the mixed 330/777 fleets have developed, I think it's entirely plausible that we'll continue to see such buying patterns from many carriers in the future. I would not be surprised to see many airlines choose a dual 787/350 fleet for a variety of reasons, including range, payload, acquisition cost, operating cost, etc.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-25 08:57:23 and read 24899 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
I would not be surprised to see many airlines choose a dual 787/350 fleet

I expect that as well.

But more like smaller B787-versions and bigger A350-versions in one airline.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2011-05-25 09:19:07 and read 24444 times.

With many airlines choosing combined 787 A350 fleets, this could win a few extra orders for the 787 that would otherwise have been filled by default with A359s (even when the range of the A359 for those routes isn't required)

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

Is that true or just speculation? I presume SQ, for example will go with 8Y on their 787s, seeing that their 77Ws have very wide seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 09:22:07 and read 24382 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50):
Is that true or just speculation? I presume SQ, for example will go with 8Y on their 787s, seeing that their 77Ws have very wide seats.

It appears to depend on the aisle. At 19.5" aisles, it looks like seat cushion width at 9-abreast on an A350 will be 17.5". If you go with 17.25" aisles, then seat cushion width can increase to 18". Mind you, with no A350 ACAP, these are guestimates based on Airbus PR information.

Per Boeing, a 777 at nine-abreast can offer 18" seat cushion width and 19.5" aisles.

Also per Boeing, a 787 at nine-abreast can offer 17.2" seat cushion width and 18" aisles.

[Edited 2011-05-25 09:26:55]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-05-25 09:34:45 and read 23972 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 49):
But more like smaller B787-versions and bigger A350-versions in one airline.

I understand why that makes sense, but to me having both types in my fleet means that I could choose to have overlapping models for different missions. Again, the A330/777 combo comes to mind. If I already operate the 787-9, for example, I might choose to order some -10's for use on routes where the range is not needed. Lower acquisition cost (perhaps), lower operating cost (perhaps), and flexibility in crew training in maintenance. It works both ways, though, and I might choose to get more A350-900's rather than 787's for other reasons.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-05-25 09:38:41 and read 23956 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50):
Is that true or just speculation? I presume SQ, for example will go with 8Y on their 787s, seeing that their 77Ws have very wide seats.

A330s becomes very attractive when compared to 8-abreast 787s.

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

A350 cabin is about 5" wider than B787's cabin. Would that be enough for CX to go 9-abreast on A350s?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-05-25 09:56:12 and read 23531 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
If the 787-10 is more economical crossing the Atlantic than the A350-900 is...

That's a good philosophy, but I think that Boeing needs to be aiming at least as much for the A350-1000.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
You need two fleets which are big enough to justify a second similar sized aircraft.
That rules out a lot of potential customers.

If fuel prices rise, that bar gets lower.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 53):
A350 cabin is about 5" wider than B787's cabin. Would that be enough for CX to go 9-abreast on A350s?

It's all about the money. If those 5 inches don't translate into money, it isn't likely to matter.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 10:02:26 and read 23431 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 54):
That's a good philosophy, but I think that Boeing needs to be aiming at least as much for the A350-1000.

The only way I see that happening is with some major changes to the wings, undercarriage and engines that would create a new "sub-family" of aircraft.

Boeing did just that with the "Longer Range 777s" (777-200LR and 777-300ER) so that might be the track they take with the 787...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2011-05-25 10:05:13 and read 23364 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
Based on that concept picture, it looks very much like a "Section 42" plug is being placed between Sections 41 and 43 . Section 47 looks like it's being extended at the front, as well.

It could be though that the "missing window" of the old join remains simply for simplicity and continuity purposes, but it's not a join location.

Or the artists left it that way because Boeing is unsure which section will be extended?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
Per Boeing, a 777 at nine-abreast can offer 18" seat cushion width and 19.5" aisles.

Seat cushion width or between armrests?

SQ puts 19" seats on the 77W, same as the A380. Would the aisles be 15"? Seems narrow.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-05-25 10:19:44 and read 23050 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
The only way I see that happening is with some major changes to the wings, undercarriage and engines that would create a new "sub-family" of aircraft.

They are going to have to do that eventually, but spending so much time worrying about the A350-900 and making what is really a half measure 787-10 with only a 5 meter stretch may not be the best strategy overall. Considering what tweaks are could happen between now and whenever a -10 could hit the market, I am not so convinced that a longer stretch would not be viable.

If Boeing had to do it again, I bet they would just have made the -9 a little bit bigger.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 10:32:37 and read 22837 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
Per Boeing, a 777 at nine-abreast can offer 18" seat cushion width and 19.5" aisles.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 56):
Seat cushion width or between armrests?

Looking at the drawing in the ACAP, it sure looks like they are measuring the width inside the armrests and not including (part of all of) the armrests themselves.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: tistpaa727
Posted 2011-05-25 10:38:19 and read 22726 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 25):
It seems to have taken 20 posts to get round to what Boeing themselves have said what this plane will be. A 333 killer.

Exactly. I see this decision as leaving room for Boeing to introduce the 777NG mid decade to take on the A350-1000 and the upper end of the market. Of course, this basically cannibalizes the 748 but that is for another thread...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 11:54:05 and read 21505 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
The only way I see that happening is with some major changes to the wings, undercarriage and engines that would create a new "sub-family" of aircraft.

That's my sneaking suspicion...I can easily see two 787 families. The new -10 fuse will be the largest of the smaller models and will also be the basis for the smallest of the higher payload/range models, which would require more gear, wing and engines.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-05-25 12:21:29 and read 21103 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 60):
That's my sneaking suspicion...I can easily see two 787 families. The new -10 fuse will be the largest of the smaller models and will also be the basis for the smallest of the higher payload/range models, which would require more gear, wing and engines.

In that case 787-10(LR) will compete directly against A359 for long haul routes, and 787-11(assuming a 20 foot stretch of 787-10) will compete against A350-10. There won't be much of a difference between 787-10/11 and A350-9/10.

Here's what the Boeing line up would look like:
788............242 seats(3 class, 9-abreast)...$185 million list price
789............280 seats...............................$218 million
787-10.......313 seats (3 class, 9-abreast)...$250 million (my estimate)
787-11-------360 seats.................................$270 million(my estimate)
773NG.......390 seats(3 class, 10-abreast)...$295 million(my estimate)
748............467 seats.................................$308 million

Edited to add info. on 788 and 789.

[Edited 2011-05-25 12:42:24]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: qfa787380
Posted 2011-05-25 15:38:49 and read 19389 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

I don't believe you and can almost guarantee CX will revisit the 787, when the -10X is offered. It certainly could replace their 333 fleet.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2011-05-25 16:04:26 and read 19269 times.

As I understand any smaller plane with the range and similar or better CASM can be considered a competitor, just not in all circumstances.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 16:11:14 and read 19231 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 61):
There won't be much of a difference between 787-10/11 and A350-9/10.

I suspect that is a long term possibility. It might be a real over reach but there have been rumours that Boeing might make a CFRP wing for the 777...so this wing might possibly be used for the -10LR, -11 and 777NG, much like occurs presently between the 772 and 773. A heavier 777 would need an extra gear set or some outrageous 8 bogie sets.

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

CX uses 17.5" seats on their 333's...the 787 can fit at least 17.2" seats at 9 abreast...not a huge amount, I think. That by no means guarantees that CX would consider a 787-10, but I doubt that one thing would rule it out.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 17:30:23 and read 18976 times.

Quoting tistpaa727 (Reply 59):
Of course, (a 77NG) basically cannibalizes the 748 but that is for another thread...

The 747-8 really has to play in her own sandbox, as small as that sandbox might be. Boeing can't raise the MTOW of the 777-200LR/777-300ER any more and I don't really think we're going to see an 80m 777-400ER, so the 747-8 would still have an advantage in passenger capacity and payload weight, as well as operations out of fields where a twin would have issues in an engine out situation.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: IcelandairMSP
Posted 2011-05-25 17:44:17 and read 18937 times.

Slightly off-topic, but why did Boeing decide to design the 787 to a width that would be generous at 8-abreast and a little tight at 9-abreast when it seems that the majority of airlines are going to go for the 9-abreast versions? I understand that the 17.2" widths of the seats isn't the worst thing to have to deal with, but it seems as if Boeing was trying to peg the 787 as offering fewer seats = more comfort rather than accepting that the vast majority, if not all airlines looking at the airplane are going to be trying to go for the highest-density layout, particularly in economy.

I figure with many big customers of the 777 like EK and AF going 10-abreast in spite of the extreme tightness, if the 777 were but a few inches wider and all airlines would go 10-abreast. Their 787 again tries to split the difference between two row layouts, but why not just do what the A350 would do and just accept that you give a comfortable 9-abreast cabin because that's the most likely configuration airlines will request and, thus, passenger comfort is actually augmented and not compromised?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-25 17:51:44 and read 18924 times.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 66):
Slightly off-topic, but why did Boeing decide to design the 787 to a width that would be generous at 8-abreast and a little tight at 9-abreast when it seems that the majority of airlines are going to go for the 9-abreast versions?

I expect it was a decision to be able to offer nine-abreast seating with the same seat width of the 777 and 747 at ten-abreast while offering more comfort than the A330/A340 at eight abreast. This gave an airline the option to decide on comfort or capacity or a mix of both (eight-abreast for Premium Economy and nine-abreast for Economy).



Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 66):
I figure with many big customers of the 777 like EK and AF going 10-abreast in spite of the extreme tightness, if the 777 were but a few inches wider and all airlines would go 10-abreast.

Many of us believe Boeing will work to reduce the thickness of the 777's walls to make 10-abreast the standard because the A350XWB cannot do ten-abreast (see below before flaming, please).



Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 66):
heir 787 again tries to split the difference between two row layouts, but why not just do what the A350 would do and just accept that you give a comfortable 9-abreast cabin because that's the most likely configuration airlines will request and, thus, passenger comfort is actually augmented and not compromised?

The original A350 design, using the A330/A340 fuselage diameter, was unable to offer nine-abreast seating unless the seats were around 16" wide. Boeing likely expected Airbus to at best respond with an "A330neo" which could be countered with nine-abreast seating on the 787 as no network carrier would offer 16 inch wide seats.

When Airbus decided to start fresh, they scaled the A350XWB's cabin to allow nine-abreast at equal comfort to the 777 and more comfort than the 787 in the same configuration. However, Airbus did not allow for a ten-abreast configuration except, again, when using 16" seats which, again, no network carrier will offer.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-05-25 19:15:53 and read 18768 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
CX uses 17.5" seats on their 333's...the 787 can fit at least 17.2" seats at 9 abreast...not a huge amount, I think. That by no means guarantees that CX would consider a 787-10, but I doubt that one thing would rule it out.

That is not correct, we have had new EY seats installed for some time across the fleet, and is set for another upgrade by the end of 2013. The A350/787 decision has been made, the A350 was ordered, 30 firm + 30 options, which can be a combination of A350-800/900/1000.

When selecting the A350 they compared it to every other new aircraft on the market in the class, and the types already in the fleet. The analysis was done for every route, and new routes planned, and on each frequency that is planned with seasonal loads. The A350 from an economic standpoint suited the route network much better, and generated the most for the bottom line, it even outperformed the 777-300ER on most routes/frequencies by some margin. In the new 4 class configuration the A350-1000 carried just 2 seats less than the 4 class 777-300ER, and the A350-900 in 4 class provided about 10% more seats than the A330-300 currently does in 2 class.

They did not use the Boeing marketing numbers for the analysis, that used the configuration which suited our business model, and that was being rolled out across the fleet.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-25 19:42:22 and read 18627 times.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 66):
Slightly off-topic, but why did Boeing decide to design the 787 to a width that would be generous at 8-abreast and a little tight at 9-abreast when it seems that the majority of airlines are going to go for the 9-abreast versions?

My assumption was that Boeing was going for a more comfortable 8 across and it was customers who decided to try for nine across and it caught on and has become the standard.

Quoting zeke (Reply 68):

That is not correct, we have had new EY seats installed for some time across the fleet, and is set for another upgrade by the end of 2013. The A350/787 decision has been made, the A350 was ordered, 30 firm + 30 options, which can be a combination of A350-800/900/1000.

I'm just going by Seatguru for seat sizes. I have no opinion at all about why they choose what planes they fly. What is the seat width in economy on the CX 333's?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-05-25 20:01:40 and read 18596 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 69):
I'm just going by Seatguru for seat sizes. I have no opinion at all about why they choose what planes they fly. What is the seat width in economy on the CX 333's?

Could I suggest instead of purporting to have knowledge of what is installed, state the source that you got your information from when you made your original claim. The seat width is not what you have stated and passed off as fact.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-25 23:34:10 and read 17907 times.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 62):
Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is close to 2" smaller than what we have installed on other aircraft. When transferring between types, passengers will notice the difference.

I don't believe you and can almost guarantee CX will revisit the 787, when the -10X is offered. It certainly could replace their 333 fleet.

I agree, CX could always decide to go 8-abreast on the 787-10X, it should still have more seats than an A333 (the 787-10X should be 10-12ft longer), offer a huge cargo space - which would appeal to CX - and burn less fuel. Whether that's enough to justify a subfleet of 787's instead of ordering more A359's for commonality reasons is another matter of course. But I'm sure CX experts will have a look and a thorough analysis    But I believe CX's fleet is big enough to warrant both A359 and 787-10, and I retract my earlier comments thereabout.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-26 02:18:12 and read 17721 times.

One question is open:

WHEN can we expect the -10 to enter service?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-05-26 02:57:39 and read 17666 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 69):
My assumption was that Boeing was going for a more comfortable 8 across and it was customers who decided to try for nine across and it caught on and has become the standard.

One of the Boeing configuration guys visited Australia recently to give lectures on the 787, and this was one of the configuration decsions he was involved with. In deciding on the final cross-section they were at the point that an uncomfortable 9-across was just barely possible, so they chose to increase it enough to allow 9-across with 17.2" seats as on 10-across 747s.

He said that their research showed that above this width passengers don't notice an improvement in comfort with moderately more width. I'm not convinced about this.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 04:07:15 and read 17510 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 73):
so they chose to increase it enough to allow 9-across with 17.2" seats as on 10-across 747s.

...which, coincidentally enough, is a mere 0.3" less width per seat that what SEATGURU.COM reports as standard width for many A333's with their 8 across economy format.

One might not notice a huge difference in seat comfort at that should the -10 end up being the A333 replacement some are suggesting it can be.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-26 04:11:59 and read 17487 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 72):

One question is open:

WHEN can we expect the -10 to enter service?


It needs to be officially launched first before anyone can answer that question - and that will happen only if Boeing can secure launch orders for at least 20 of them, I believe. So, which airline could order at least 20 787-10's?

IIRC, first production slots for any new 787 sales campaign won't available before 2018.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: columba
Posted 2011-05-26 04:24:04 and read 17455 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75):
So, which airline could order at least 20 787-10's?

I know, I say that all the time but Lufthansa has stated interest in the 787-10. They need an aircraft the size of the A333/A343 and I guess they could live with the range of the 787-10 for their transatlantic network.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 04:36:12 and read 17418 times.

6500nm from FRA covers all of N.America, most of S.America, all of Africa and all of mainland Asia. I'd say that is pretty decent coverage.

Now they just have to speed up production a wee bit and maybe get the -9 up and flying first.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 05:02:46 and read 17357 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 73):
He said that their research showed that above this width passengers don't notice an improvement in comfort with moderately more width. I'm not convinced about this.

Speaking only for myself, I have found that the seat design makes a difference. I find an A320 family plane to be more comfortable than a 737 Classic, but when I am in a 737NG with an identical (or even newer) seat design to the A320, I really can't tell the difference.

So on a 787 and A350 with the same seat design, I expect I would not notice the .3 to .8 inches of extra seat width the A350 offers. But again, I speak only for myself.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 05:13:20 and read 17297 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
I have found that the seat design makes a difference.

I agree. I have had very comfortable 6 hour flights with OS from DXB to VIE...they had excellent seats on their 738s. Conversely, I flew on an older AeroSvit Classic with leather seats that were like butter.

I have been almost brought to tears by EK seats, even on a short jaunt from Tehran to Dubai. The LH Recaro seats of a few years ago were almost universally despised by those I knew who's butts had the misfortune to be crushed by them.

Width is a consideration, but(t) by far not the only one.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: AA777223
Posted 2011-05-26 08:21:40 and read 17022 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
Now they just have to speed up production a wee bit and maybe get the -9 up and flying first.

Hell, they still need to get the first 788 delivered. Until they do that, I won't count on them successfully creating a new aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2011-05-26 08:57:40 and read 16939 times.

Success: 3 380s a month, and 7 787s a month

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-26 13:49:21 and read 16664 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 76):
I know, I say that all the time but Lufthansa has stated interest in the 787-10.

Did you...?  

We all know that Lufthansa will not wait until 2018 to replace their 343s...
And before 2018 i do not see the -10 delivered.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 13:57:52 and read 16619 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 82):
And before 2018 i do not see the -10 delivered.

I think Boeing could theoretically offer it before then, but it would require order conversions from existing 787-8 and/or 787-9 customers.

Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if the 787-9 team have been developing the 787-10 in parallel.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-26 14:12:05 and read 16534 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if the 787-9 team have been developing the 787-10 in parallel.

I doubt that this team had the time to develope two variants at the same time....


Let´s assume EIS of the B787-8 this year.
EIS of the B787-9 late 2013, or most likely early 2014.

That looks like 2018 for the -10.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 14:18:00 and read 16531 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 84):
I doubt that this team had the time to develope two variants at the same time....

The key is, they really aren't two different variants. We're talking a 2-3m fuselage plug ("Section 42") and a 1-2m longer Section 47 and that's about it. Same wings. Same engines. Same undercarriage. Same systems.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-26 14:31:23 and read 16476 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
The key is, they really aren't two different variants

Didn´t you say the same about the B787-8 and B787-9?
That means we now have three different lengthes of the same aircraft...?

They are very similar, but not equal.
And the fuselage needs to be modied not only in length, but also in strengths.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 15:00:53 and read 16430 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86):
Didn´t you say the same about the B787-8 and B787-9?

I would imagine I did not, since the 787-8 and 787-9 have many changes between them.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 15:31:31 and read 16371 times.

There will be more similarities between the -10 and the -9 than between the -9 and -8.

Except for maybe making the fins smaller to squeeze in a bit more drag reduction, all of the systems are supposed to be common between the -9 and -10; engines, wing, gear..so any work on one is automatically work on the other.

That commonality is exactly the appeal of the project.

As for the joins; they have to strengthen the 9 compared to the 8, so it is not hard to imagine they haven't thought of additional fuse strengthening going from the -9 to the -10.

I am sure that Boeing has already worked out that longer means stronger.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-05-26 16:30:55 and read 16268 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 82):
And before 2018 i do not see the -10 delivered.

I think Boeing could theoretically offer it before then, but it would require order conversions from existing 787-8 and/or 787-9 customers.

Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if the 787-9 team have been developing the 787-10 in parallel.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if the 787-9 team have been developing the 787-10 in parallel.

I doubt that this team had the time to develope two variants at the same time....


Let´s assume EIS of the B787-8 this year.
EIS of the B787-9 late 2013, or most likely early 2014.

That looks like 2018 for the -10.


I have a question.... Does the 787-9 and -10 have more in common then the A350-900 and -1000 as far as MTOW. Landing gear and Engines??

Shouldn't that provide some insight into which one is easier to produce??




USER PROFILESEND INST


[Edited 2011-05-26 16:38:29]

[Edited 2011-05-26 16:39:12]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: travelhound
Posted 2011-05-26 16:53:52 and read 16251 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 54):
That's a good philosophy, but I think that Boeing needs to be aiming at least as much for the A350-1000.

The only way I see that happening is with some major changes to the wings, undercarriage and engines that would create a new "sub-family" of aircraft.

Boeing did just that with the "Longer Range 777s" (777-200LR and 777-300ER) so that might be the track they take with the 787...

With the amount of 77W's in service and on order it just might be the case there is a limited market for a 787-10 sized aircraft with 77W range required in the 2015-2020 period.

.... but from 2020 onwards the market for a 787-10ER / LR with upgraded wings, undercarriage and engines might become a good replacement aircraft for airlines currently operating 77W's. Especially those that operate 787-8's and 9's.

[Edited 2011-05-26 16:55:36]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 17:18:40 and read 16211 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 89):
I have a question.... Does the 787-9 and -10 have more in common then the A350-900 and -1000 as far as MTOW. Landing gear and Engines?

The 787-10 is (effectively) a straight stretch of the 787-9. So the only physical difference between them should be the length of the fuselage (and perhaps some modification to the tail). They should have identical maximum take-off and landing weights, though zero fuel weight and operating empty weight will be higher for the 787-10. They should also have identical fuel tank volume, but the 787-10 won't be able to fill the tanks as full as the 787-9, so it won't be able to fly as far.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: HiJazzey
Posted 2011-05-26 17:50:02 and read 16133 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 73):
He said that their research showed that above this width passengers don't notice an improvement in comfort with moderately more width. I'm not convinced about this.

Neither do I. I'm fat, so it's a major issue for me. The width of the seat is a deciding factor. I used to look for 777s because of the comfortable 18" seat (or even better 19" on SQ), but thanks to EK these are becoming fewer and fewer. The difference is very noticeable. It is the difference between sitting very still in agony lest your elbows intrude the space of your neighbour and well a more civilised experience. This is what pisses me off in todays aviation industry. The premium cabins have become extravagantly spacious while in economy you're being squeezed. The polarisation is alarming.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2011-05-26 17:55:23 and read 16111 times.

IMHO, it makes complete sense to integrate the development of 787-9 and -10X. The 787 project is so far behind schedule that only fast time-to-market can mitigate the threat of 350.

Though the -10X may not be the most optimized design, maximum production and support commonalities with 787-9 will be extremely attractive to Boeing as well as airlines. Who knows, we may see earlier than expected -10X EIS if production commonality is like that of the 737s.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-05-26 17:56:42 and read 16115 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 91):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 89):
I have a question.... Does the 787-9 and -10 have more in common then the A350-900 and -1000 as far as MTOW. Landing gear and Engines?

The 787-10 is (effectively) a straight stretch of the 787-9. So the only physical difference between them should be the length of the fuselage (and perhaps some modification to the tail). They should have identical maximum take-off and landing weights, though zero fuel weight and operating empty weight will be higher for the 787-10. They should also have identical fuel tank volume, but the 787-10 won't be able to fill the tanks as full as the 787-9, so it won't be able to fly as far.



Fair enough... But my comment was based on the ease of introducing a -10 vs. -1000 as you have just provided some details above (The 787-10 is ((effectively) a straight stretch )... based on the comments about the time frame/ estimates it would take to get her into service vs. the -1000??

Some are speculating that the -1000 will be easier and quicker then the -10??

In other words... If the -9 is available in say 2013/14 and the -900 is now expected in 2014?? Why would it take till 2018 for the -10 and be faster for the -1000?

It just seems to me that some people are overly optimistic about one manufacturer vs. the other... No?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2011-05-26 18:22:32 and read 16051 times.

Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing? Using that same wing for the -10 might be stretching it a little too far. (pun intended)
I wouldn't be surprised if fuselage strengthening wasn't that big a factor. It's kind of hard to get my head around the loads in this type of structure, but it might be stronger than it needs to be bending wise because they had to built it that heavy for other reasons, like impact resistance and radial (?) flex. It seems like bearing more of the load through the skin instead of a frame would make it naturally stiffer.

I'm still upset they didn't break the wing.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 18:34:36 and read 16067 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 94):
Some are speculating that the -1000 will be easier and quicker then the -10?

Within the A350 family, the A350-800 is a pure shrink of the A350-900. The A350-1000 will be more than a straight stretch, with tweaks to the wings, undercarriage and other systems.

When Boeing first launched the 787, the 787-10 would have been it's own variant, with a higher MTOW than the 787-9. Over the intervening years, the 787-9 has grown to the same weights planned for the 787-10. Some of that was to recover performance from the 787-9 being heavier than planned, but much of it was driven by the 787-9's customers, who wanted a plane capable of loading a great deal of fuel to fly very long distances.



Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing? Using that same wing for the -10 might be stretching it a little too far.

The 787-10 will have the same MTOW of the 787-9, so wing performance should be effectively identical in terms of loading and such. And I expect the extra weight of the 64m span would have a greater negative impact on the 787-10 than the positive impact of the aerodynamics and fuel burn because the 787-10 is MTOW and fuel weight limited as-is.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-05-26 18:38:13 and read 16032 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing? Using that same wing for the -10 might be stretching it a little too far. (pun intended)




I'm afraid we're going to have use the same argument on the A350-800/ 900... No?

And is the -1000 gonna have the same wing??

[Edited 2011-05-26 18:45:34]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 19:18:47 and read 15959 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 94):

It just seems to me that some people are overly optimistic about one manufacturer vs. the other... No?
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing? Using that same wing for the -10 might be stretching it a little too far. (pun intended)

The -9 and the -10 should have the same weight, so same wing shouldn't be an issue. This is why it is deemed as a relatively simple stretch, even compared to the 350-900 and -1000. I believe, (feel free to correct), that the 350-1000 will be a substantially heavier plane than the -900, requiring modifications to many parts that won't be required of a simple, (again, relatively), -9 to -10 stretch.

It's not magic since the tradeoff for a greater OEW will be the shorter range dictated by the same MTOW.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-05-26 19:42:20 and read 15917 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 98):
It's not magic since the tradeoff for a greater OEW will be the shorter range dictated by the same MTOW. What the...?



I know Joe... And thank you for all your patients... I guess what I was driving at was the ability of either manufacturer to deliver the -10 vs. -1000 @ a certain date?? Once again... Some think it is easier to deliver the -1000 then the -10?? I for one don't understant the timeline as to how that is possible??

I'm sorry if thats not clear enough... ( but on my behalf... I've been to the BUP... wait PUB.. yeah thats it!)   

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-26 19:49:39 and read 15902 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 99):
Some think it is easier to deliver the -1000 then the -10?? I for one don't understant the timeline as to how that is possible?

I would think Boeing would need less time to deliver the 787-10 after the 787-9 than Airbus would need to deliver the A350-1000 after the A350-900 if you "normalized" items like engineering, production and financial resources and such (in other words, if neither OEM was constrained in any of those areas and could dedicate an equivalent level of resources to each project) because the 787-10 does not appear to incorporate the level of changes compared to the 787-9 as the A350-1000 likely will incorporate compared to the A350-900.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-05-26 20:02:14 and read 15865 times.

Thanks Stitch... I'm done for the evening...

Anyone need a beer while I'm getting up?   

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-05-26 21:20:52 and read 15794 times.

The 787-10 is supposed to have the same MTOW as the -9, therefore it can keep the same wing planform, engines and undercarriage as the -9.

If you want to use the increased cabin and cargo payload capability you need to increase it's payload carrying capability (Maximum Structural Payload, MSP) i.e. increase the MZFW. Increased MZFW means higher loads are transmitted from the heavier body to the wings, the weight that is taken out to keep the MTOW is fuel and fuel sits in the wings where the lift sits, so fuel does not increase loads neither on body nor wing center but the MZFW does.

That means:

- increased strenght of the fuselage sections, especially the center one = design changes.

- increased strenght of the center part of the wing where it meets the heavier body+payload = design changes.

You also need to look at how the longer body influences your flying, do you need FBW changes/limits to avoid tailstrikes at rotation, landing etc, do you need to reangle the flaps to get more lift at lower alfa?

In addition you need to beef up systems like air cond and water fill and waste to the extra 30 pax. Electrical system should be OK i guess, the extra 30 pax does not consume that much compared to deice etc.

In addtion you have to redo a lot of the cabin detail desing depending on how you accomodate the extra 30 pax in terms of catering, lavatories etc,

Then you need to recertify the aircraft.

So there is a bit of work to do  

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-26 21:23:26 and read 15778 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 99):
I know Joe... And thank you for all your patients... I guess what I was driving at was the ability of either manufacturer to deliver the -10 vs. -1000 @ a certain date??

With less work required that is entirely unique to the -10, (in comparison to the situation with the -1000), it is supposed that, overall, the -10 is the easier to produce variant.

The primary modification which is unique to the -10 over the -9, is the stretch, and all the work that entails...but that's the big thing.

The -1000 needs a stretch as well as engines, some wing work, etc.

So basically, it really should be easier, (not necessarily quicker), to get the -10 to market than the -1000...all else being equal.

If the -10 and the -1000 were the first planes being made, then we have a different story. Everything would be all new for both, nothing derivative on either so they would both require about the same amount of work...making a HUGE generalization.

So it's the sequence being the third derivative that gives the -10 a manufacturing advantage, (not necessarily performance over the -1000)...fewer unique bits to make.

At least that's how I see it.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-05-26 21:26:58 and read 15771 times.

Re if you can already cater for the design changes for the -10 in the desing of the -9 like the increased wing stresses. You can't even if you wanted to, the -9 shall be the variant that flyes long and efficiently, i.e. you fight every fraction of the kg or lb you even pay deerly to chage from steel to titan etc to gain a kg or two.

This means you can not just let hundreds for kg sit there for future use, you would steal that from the payload on every delivered -9, no way, you have to increase those dimensions on the -10 when it comes.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-05-26 21:39:34 and read 15799 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 94):
It just seems to me that some people are overly optimistic about one manufacturer vs. the other... No?

When Boeing themselves have said that a 787-10 won't be appearing "anytime soon", I don't think it's unreasonably to speculate that it won't be appearing "anytime soon", no matter how much theorising about the art of the possible we might do...
We DO know that Airbus fully intend to deliver us the A350-1000 by late 2015. It remains to be seem whether they achieve that. But they DO intend to.

If you really want someone to criticise someone about being pessimistic about the likely EIS date of a 787-10, it might just be worth looking "a bit closer to home" than within the A-net membership....   

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-05-26 22:14:29 and read 15709 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing?

I suspect that being "suboptimal" depends a lot on what you're doing. The 787-9 probably lost some performance at the extreme end, but for shorter flights the lighter wing could possibly perform better.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 98):
that the 350-1000 will be a substantially heavier plane than the -900, requiring modifications to many parts that won't be required of a simple, (again, relatively), -9 to -10 stretch.

It is. The -900R and -900F are planned to be based off of the -1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-05-26 23:09:56 and read 15631 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 82):
We all know that Lufthansa will not wait until 2018 to replace their 343s...
And before 2018 i do not see the -10 delivered.

I guess LH will have to wait until 2018, because neither the 787 nor the A350 will have production slots available before that... Maybe A or B can squeeze some in, but not enough to replace all of LH's A343s I think. Same goes for AF/KL, how long can they postpone their decision? I don't think A or B will reserve production slots forever.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 105):
Boeing themselves have said that a 787-10 won't be appearing "anytime soon",

Correct, I also think 2018 would be realistically the earliest EIS date.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
So there is a bit of work to do

Thanks for the summary   

Quoting mffoda (Reply 97):
And is the -1000 gonna have the same wing??

The A350-1000 will have some modifications to the wing, giving it a slightly bigger wingarea compared to the -900 and -800.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: doclightning
Posted 2011-05-27 10:02:59 and read 15298 times.

Quoting HiJazzey (Reply 92):
The width of the seat is a deciding factor.

Really? Obviously, it's not insignificant, but I consider pitch to be more important.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-27 15:04:05 and read 15002 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
That means:

- increased strenght of the fuselage sections, especially the center one = design changes.

- increased strenght of the center part of the wing where it meets the heavier body+payload = design changes.

You also need to look at how the longer body influences your flying, do you need FBW changes/limits to avoid tailstrikes at rotation, landing etc, do you need to reangle the flaps to get more lift at lower alfa?

In addition you need to beef up systems like air cond and water fill and waste to the extra 30 pax. Electrical system should be OK i guess, the extra 30 pax does not consume that much compared to deice etc.

In addtion you have to redo a lot of the cabin detail desing depending on how you accomodate the extra 30 pax in terms of catering, lavatories etc,

Then you need to recertify the aircraft.

So there is a bit of work to do

Exactly.

And as there is a lot to do and Boeing is not known for efficient project managements in the last years, i believe 2018 EIS is realistic.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 107):
I guess LH will have to wait until 2018, because neither the 787 nor the A350 will have production slots available before that... Maybe A or B can squeeze some in, but not enough to replace all of LH's A343s I think. Same goes for AF/KL, how long can they postpone their decision? I don't think A or B will reserve production slots forever.

Lufthansa doesn´t need to replace all A343s from the beginning, they are only looking to replace the oder 257t version first.

And, yes, i believe that Airbus has some capacity to produce some A350s for AF or LH before 2018. They are in the top 5 of the most important Airbus customers.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-05-27 20:26:09 and read 14750 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 109):
And as there is a lot to do and Boeing is not known for efficient project managements in the last years, i believe 2018 EIS is realistic.

They must be pretty inefficient to need 7 years to do a "simple stretch".  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-05-27 23:55:28 and read 14590 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 110):
They must be pretty inefficient to need 7 years to do a "simple stretch"

Depends what else they feel needs prioritisation Dave.

The 787-9 enters service in 2013.

BOEING have said the 787-10 ain't going to happen "anytime soon"

That certainly seems to imply tht those hoping for a 2014 EIS for the 787-10 might be being less realistic than those suggesting 2018..

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: VH-BZF
Posted 2011-05-27 23:59:53 and read 14553 times.

I think Qantas would order this - yesterday!

BZF

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-28 00:34:27 and read 14505 times.

I like the somewhat subtle change in mindset from Boeing that seems to be occurring. They got burned by trying to be a bit too revolutionary with the 787 in the first place...and now that they actually have tons of data on the -8, they are employing the KISS principle on the comparatively conservative -10 concept.

They seem to realise that not every project has to be all things to all potential customers.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: scbriml
Posted 2011-05-28 01:40:28 and read 14421 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
It is. The -900R and -900F are planned to be based off of the -1000.

Explain "based off of the -1000"? The R and F are both variants of the -900.

IIRC when they were first mentioned, they were going to be -900s with the -1000's engines and MTOW. However, that was a while ago now.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-05-28 01:55:00 and read 14395 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 114):
IIRC when they were first mentioned, they were going to be -900s with the -1000's engines and MTOW.

That's exactly what "based off the -1000" is. Same as the 777-200LR and 777F being based off of the 777-300ER. Essentially, it's the same plane without the longer fuselage.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-05-28 07:05:07 and read 14189 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 111):
Depends what else they feel needs prioritisation Dave.

Of course, but "prioritisaztion" is one thing, ability is another. His comment:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 109):
And as there is a lot to do and Boeing is not known for efficient project managements in the last years, i believe 2018 EIS is realistic.

seemed to address "ability". But I'm open to correction.  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-28 08:02:16 and read 14108 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 111):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 110):
They must be pretty inefficient to need 7 years to do a "simple stretch"

Depends what else they feel needs prioritisation Dave.

The 787-9 enters service in 2013.

BOEING have said the 787-10 ain't going to happen "anytime soon"

After all that debacle with the dreamliner, Boeing will be very careful with a new derivative.
They will not start a new version before the previous one is delivered and so they will focus on the EIS of the -9 first.

A lot of airlines are waiting and have already paid deposits, so that version -9 has priority about a quick EIS of the -10.

Some people seem to believe that all problems are fixed with the dreamliner program, but thats untrue.
The B787-8 is still in flight testing and overweight, the B787-9 is 3 years behind schedule, the production ramp-up has to be achieved to deliver the already ordered 800 airplanes, othwerwise Boeing will face cancelations or late-delivery-fees.

So, in the moment, it is too early to start the -10, but ok to talk about it and get feedback from potential customers.

 

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-28 08:45:03 and read 14021 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
The -900R and -900F are planned to be based off of the -1000.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 114):
Explain "based off of the -1000"? The R and F are both variants of the -900.

They're going to incorporate the same triple-sxle main wheel trucks of the A350-1000. I also expect them to adopt the same wing tweaks as the A350-1000. Both will have MZFW's closer to the A350-1000 than the A350-900 (the A350-900F's should be the highest of all), so any structural modifications/reinforcements developed for the A350-1000 to support higher MZFW's than the A350-900 should be incorporated in both models.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-05-28 20:53:19 and read 13611 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 117):
So, in the moment, it is too early to start the -10, but ok to talk about it and get feedback from potential customers.


Ok, so you are saying that they will not prioritize it now, and not that they aren't capable. Is that correct?  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-28 22:06:12 and read 13518 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 119):

They don't have to prioritize the -10 now...no more than Airbus has to prioritize 350 variants based on the -1000. Doing the -9 is doing most, (of course not all), of the critical work on the -10.

Since Boeing is not talking about a 787 model heavier than the -9, it is any potential higher weight version that is not a priority. That makes it seem more likely that they will take on the -1000 with some version of the 777.

Is anybody else thrilled that we're not hearing the term 'game changing' tossed around anymore...? Or did I just ruin it...?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-29 14:52:37 and read 12949 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 119):
Ok, so you are saying that they will not prioritize it now, and not that they aren't capable. Is that correct?

You got my point!  

They have other new aircrafts in the main focus right now.  

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JayinKitsap
Posted 2011-05-29 14:57:27 and read 12936 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 34):
So, that's how I see the 777, 787, A350 craft fitting themselves into the market. I see the 7810, as a less capable 772ER replacement - similar in size, slightly deficient in range. Just as 328JET said, it would be a great TATL mover. For our TPAC friends, I see them having to drop down to -9 models of each aircraft, though I see the A350 variant of the -10 model as slightly more capable. Now, I am curious to see how these new aircraft, with different capacity, range and payload combinations will slot into the needs of airlines around the world. Should be really interesting, if you ask me! I just wanted to write out the market as I see it, because I am having a hard time rationalizing how all these aircraft will fit into fleets as compared to the current 777s, A330s and A340s

Thanks for the good summary, many people here on A.net just tend to cheer on their team.

Yes the 787-10 is just a stretch without added MTOW. But the 789 is a near 8,000 NM range plane, so having a 7,000 NM plane with an awesome payload will be a big winner in the days of $100+ oil. Look at all of the 763ER and 330 routes out there, now a bigger plane with gobs of payload.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-29 15:00:29 and read 12934 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 117):
the B787-9 is 3 years behind schedule,

Yes and no...the 787 program as a whole is 3 years behind schedule but there is nothing to indicate that the -9 schedule itself has slid further in relation to the rest of the program.

So far, all of the problems, (and by the same token, all of the solutions), have been with the -8, and any applicable solution with carry over into the -9 program...and downstream to any other derivative.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-29 15:03:28 and read 12924 times.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 122):
Yes the 787-10 is just a stretch without added MTOW. But the 789 is a near 8,000 NM range plane, so having a 7,000 NM plane with an awesome payload will be a big winner in the days of $100+ oil. Look at all of the 763ER and 330 routes out there, now a bigger plane with gobs of payload.

I wonder if an aircraft in the middle of the size and range of the -9 and -10 wouldn´t be a better idea instead of both sizes?

That aircraft could really replace all B77E, A343s and MD11s without any small capacity reduction.


Ok, i agree that it would be too equal in size to the A359... And Boeing and Airbus do not like to build airplanes which are exactly comparable and same-sized...


 

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-29 15:14:46 and read 12871 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 124):
I wonder if an aircraft in the middle of the size and range of the -9 and -10 wouldn´t be a better idea instead of both sizes?

I suspect they are looking to offer a choice between passenger load and range. On the other hand, they ultimately have to build what customers want and if enough of them line up behind one concept...that's probably what gets built.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-29 15:29:30 and read 12835 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 125):
that's probably what gets built.

Hopefully the airlines do not decide now, that the -10 suits their needs better than the -9 and change their order like some did from the -8 to the -9...

Probably the step in size from the -8 to the -10 has more appeal for an airline which want to operate two versions, but does not neet so much range? A bit like the A332/333 combo today? No so many airlines will operate three sizes.

Maybe Boeing would destroy its own market for the -9 if they start the -10 too early?

Just some thoughts from me.

 

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-29 15:41:19 and read 12861 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 126):
Hopefully the airlines do not decide now, that the -10 suits their needs better than the -9 and change their order like some did from the -8 to the -9...

Actually, I don't doubt some will but if they can keep the -9 and -10 similar enough, it might not be too much of a disruption to the line.

I think Boeing would rather scavenge their own orders than have others take them.

I am just pleased that while things could still go wrong, we are getting to the point where it is plausible to start talking about the next few steps.

There has been mostly good news for a while from all the newest aircraft programs...thank the gods...much more interesting than the endless gloom we have suffered.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-29 16:37:34 and read 12793 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 124):
I wonder if an aircraft in the middle of the size and range of the -9 and -10 wouldn´t be a better idea instead of both sizes?

The extra OEW would hurt the range. Part of the significant increase in MTOW for the 787-9 over the years has been to allow it to tank more fuel to meet customer requests for greater range.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-30 08:22:16 and read 12375 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
The extra OEW would hurt the range.

I know but most routes are well below the mentioned 7000Nm range of the -10.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JayinKitsap
Posted 2011-05-30 10:57:56 and read 12169 times.

Remember to look at the payload range curves. Some airlines will need the -9 to be at the full payload or a great payload for the ranges of their route structure. For example, the -9 might have belly space for extra cargo on the route, but the -10 is falling down the curve farther so would end up on that route with lower total revenue and probably more cost.

The 789 can be a smaller but more efficient plane for nearly all routes except for the longest ranges.

The 787-10 can be a bigger, higher capacity and comparable range plane to the 330, 767, and many 772 routes. It would be an incredible freight hauler that carries pax on a bunch of routes.

The -9 fits the requirements well for many airlines, and the less range of the -10 just doesn't work for the envisioned routes. However, other routes the -10 would be very good. Some will have both planes, some will have just one model. A common model would be worse in both cases.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-30 14:58:03 and read 11930 times.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 130):
Some will have both planes, some will have just one model. A common model would be worse in both cases.

I am not so sure...

I think the capacity and capability gaps between the A358/359 and 35J is a better idea and will force some airlines to operate all three types.

The capacity differences of the three B787 models are are bit too narrow to justify a fleet of three different sizes.
A lot of airlines will order more than one version for sure, but not all three i suppose.

But i might be wrong!

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-30 16:36:58 and read 11825 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 131):
I think the capacity and capability gaps between the A358/359 and 35J is a better idea and will force some airlines to operate all three types.

The capacity differences of the three B787 models are are bit too narrow to justify a fleet of three different sizes.

  

A350-800: 270 passengers
A350-900: 314 passengers (16% more)
A350-1000: 350 passengers (11% more)

787-8: 242 passengers
787-9: 280 passengers (16% more)
787-10: 317 passengers (13% more)

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: N328KF
Posted 2011-05-31 09:41:08 and read 11355 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 127):
I think Boeing would rather scavenge their own orders than have others take them.

This is Apple's MO and they learned quickly to obsolete themselves before someone else does. There are worse business models to copy.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-31 11:09:55 and read 11225 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 131):

A350-800: 270 passengers
A350-900: 314 passengers (16% more)
A350-1000: 350 passengers (11% more)

787-8: 242 passengers
787-9: 280 passengers (16% more)
787-10: 317 passengers (13% more)

I know that we do not agree, but i really see no reason to operate both the -9 and -10, when the -8 is already part of the fleet.

Better buy a -10 fleet only and misuse some of the birds with -9 seating capacity to reduce the number of subtypes.


The A350-family has the advantage of offering a big range on all three tpyes, that was the reason that i wrote "capability" in my post above.

The size of the B787-members is a bit strange.
The smallest member is not small enough to replace the B763, the biggest not capable enough to replace the B77E or A343 when it comes to range.

Appearantly B787 operators need something on top - like a B777 or A350.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-31 11:22:14 and read 11180 times.

As market conditions change, so do products. There is no reason why a 787 has to be a direct size replacement to the 767, no more than a 321 has to be a direct replacement for a 757.

The 787 is designed to supersede the 767, not replace it exactly. Bigger, with longer range yet costing about the same to operate.

With the hundreds of 788's on order, somebody must have thought the plane is a good idea.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-05-31 11:33:01 and read 11138 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
With the hundreds of 788's on order, somebody must have thought the plane is a good idea.

It is a very good idea, but more as a A332-competitor, which is very equal in size.
I think a fleet consisting of B787-8s and B787-10s would be perfect. One longranger, one peoplemover.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-05-31 11:50:41 and read 11078 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 136):
):

I doubt there will be many airlines with all three models. I think offering more options to the customers is a good thing.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-31 12:22:23 and read 11017 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 134):
The A350-family has the advantage of offering a big range on all three tpyes, that was the reason that i wrote "capability" in my post above.

Well Boeing could always deploy a "787-10ER" with higher MTOWs and modification to the wings and undercarriage just as Airbus is doing to the A350-1000 (as it compares to the A350-900) to provide more range.

But I expect that decision to wait until whatever happens to the 777. Boeing looks like they can secure hundreds more deliveries through the end of the decade, so the need to make that decision looks to be not too critical, at least in the near term.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: travelhound
Posted 2011-05-31 16:28:44 and read 10746 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 137):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 136):
):

I doubt there will be many airlines with all three models. I think offering more options to the customers is a good thing.



I can see QF operating the 787-8 for domestic and the 787-9 & 787-10 for international opps. I just feel the 9 & 10 models will really compliment each other.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-05-31 17:21:07 and read 10700 times.

We all need to remember that the original 7E7-8 MTOW was 216t and the 7E7-9 was 227t. This gave Boeing 27t of MTOW growth for the 7E7-10 model, which should have been plenty to allow it to fly the original 8000-8500nm with passengers and bags (no revenue cargo) and Boeing scaled the undercarriage to support a ~250t MTOW, appropriately.

The 787-8 will now enter service with an MTOW of 228t and the 787-9 at 251t. Much of that is to recover payload-range due to heavier than planned MEW and lower than planned SFC. In the case of the 787-9, a good bit of that MTOW growth is to allow the plane to fill it's tanks more at MZFW to increase it's range at the request of 787-9 customers, even before the MEW overages and SFC misses were known and needed to be accounted for.

So instead of having 20-27t more MTOW than the 787-9, the 787-10 will now have an identical MTOW. And with a higher MEW, OEW, MSP and MZFW, that means that the plane will not be able to fill it's tanks as much as the 787-9 and therefore will not be able to fly as far.

That being said, I would not be surprised if the 787-10 could tank the same amount of fuel as the 787-8 and fly about as far (14,000km) which would be close to the pax+bags range of the 777-200ER and about 1000km less than the current spec pax+bags range of the A350-900. And yes, I understand the A350-900's range should get better, as well, so let's say by 2020 a 787-10 will fly 14,000km and an A350-900 will fly 15,500km. However, the 787 will carry more passengers and significantly more cargo (by volume).

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-06-01 02:30:29 and read 10416 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 140):
That being said, I would not be surprised if the 787-10 could tank the same amount of fuel as the 787-8 and fly about as far (14,000km) which would be close to the pax+bags range of the 777-200ER and about 1000km less than the current spec pax+bags range of the A350-900. And yes, I understand the A350-900's range should get better, as well, so let's say by 2020 a 787-10 will fly 14,000km and an A350-900 will fly 15,500km. However, the 787 will carry more passengers and significantly more cargo (by volume).

You now mean the 787-10ER variant with new wing, undercarriage, stronger engines etc I suppose.

Sure, that will be a very attractive aircraft, going there in 2 steps (10 then the 10ER) makes sense if there is enough customers which would like the -10 compared to depart ship and get a 350-900 before the -10ER will also be a possible variant. It will all come down to their models already in use (787 or not) and their route structure.

The 787 is a very elegant construction, once fully developed I am sure it will replace almost all 777 variants, having the 8, 9, 10 in the market soon will be nice.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-01 03:11:57 and read 10375 times.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 139):
I can see QF operating the 787-8 for domestic

The B787-8 is a very heavy bird for shorter flights

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-06-01 04:20:18 and read 10314 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 142):
The B787-8 is a very heavy bird for shorter flights

That may be the case, but that is exactly where QF plans to use it. The first 787-8 were to go to JQ then as the 787-9s were delivered the -8s would go to QF domestic. Not sure what the current plans at QF are since they seem to change every few months.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-01 05:59:44 and read 10211 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 141):
You now mean the 787-10ER variant with new wing, undercarriage, stronger engines etc I suppose.

No, I mean the 251t MTOW 787-10. Like the 787-8, it's going to be fuel weight limited.

A 787-10ER should at minimum be able to match an A350-900 in range and perhaps offer better because, like the 787-9, it would be fuel volume limited.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-01 13:41:41 and read 9970 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 144):
A 787-10ER should at minimum be able to match an A350-900 in range and perhaps offer better because, like the 787-9, it would be fuel volume limited.

At the time Boeing will have its B787-10ER ready, Airbus will have its A350-900R ready...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-01 13:46:07 and read 9982 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 145):
At the time Boeing will have its B787-10ER ready, Airbus will have its A350-900R ready...

I'm skeptical Airbus will launch an A350-900R, personally, but if they do then chances are it will play in a different market niche that the 787-10 just as the 787-9/A350-900 do compared to the 777-200LR.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-03 02:46:48 and read 9635 times.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...10-variant-over-the-next-year.html


In my eyes the most important point in the article:

- B787-10 will not have sufficient range to replace the B777-200ER.


That looks like Boeing will have to rework the B777 to cover that market.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: parapente
Posted 2011-06-03 04:12:41 and read 9553 times.

Re Reply 147.

Exactly right. Origonally they stated that the "10" would be a 772er replacement - now it won't (can't) be.But it certainly covers the 772,also the 333 and indeed 772er where extreme range missions are not required.

All this with a "simple" stretch. What they are guaranteeing is that it's range will better the A333 (even in the new extendede range format).

Not sure Airbus can do much about that as they appear to be maxed out on range (weight/undercarriage etc). I really don't see them about to re engine as it probably would not be enough (and cost a shed load).More engine PIP's? Dunno - are there any?

What they might be able to do is tweek the wing slightly.Perhaps use some AWAITOR learnings? Perhaps change wing tips to sharklets?

However either way. 1.For those who already have good sized fleets of 330's I doubt it will make financial sense to change.2.For those who don't need the 7810 range the differences will be smaller.3.Then there is the wait.When would (EIS and delivered) a dash 10 be available?. 5 Finally how will it(10) compare with the 359?(which on present plans will be available too.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: travelhound
Posted 2011-06-03 05:24:23 and read 9443 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 147):
That looks like Boeing will have to rework the B777 to cover that market.



All those many years ago when Boeing started marketing the 787 they sold them as being complimentary to the 777.

The simple reality is if you need a plane in the 787-10 or 777-200 size range within a 5 year time period your choice is probably limited to the 777. By that time Boeing will probably have a fairly clear road map forward on the 777's future.

On the same point I suspect Boeing are touting the 787-10 as a means of bringing the 787 program into profit. I suspect by introducing this plane earlier and with the 787-10 being based on the 787-9 and not the 8 model Boeing will have a lot of opportunity to correct some of the wrongs of the past (suppliers / outsourcing).

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-03 07:02:04 and read 9361 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 147):
In my eyes the most important point in the article: B787-10 will not have sufficient range to replace the B777-200ER. That looks like Boeing will have to rework the B777 to cover that market.
Quoting parapente (Reply 148):
Exactly right. Origonally they stated that the "10" would be a 772er replacement - now it won't (can't) be.But it certainly covers the 772,also the 333 and indeed 772er where extreme range missions are not required.

The 787-9 now replaces the 777-200ER. It carries as many people (at 9-abreast). NH have already converted some of their 787-8s to 787-9s to use as 777-200ER replacements and once 787-9s start to enter the fleets of 777-200ER operators, I will not be surprised if they are used to replace them, as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dbo861
Posted 2011-06-03 07:04:53 and read 9346 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 134):
Better buy a -10 fleet only and misuse some of the birds with -9 seating capacity to reduce the number of subtypes.

Isn't it pretty much the same as operating both the 73G and 738? They'll share the same parts and the same pilots will be able to operate both. I don't see why it would be an issue to have both the -9 and -10.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-06-03 12:11:43 and read 9198 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 147):
- B787-10 will not have sufficient range to replace the B777-200ER.

Neither did the A330, and just look at how that turned out. The simple fact is that the 777 is too much plane for a lot of flights. You don't need that much weight to get across the Atlantic. Hell, you don't even need an A330 to get between the US and Western Europe, as Delta and Continental have demonstrated.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 149):
The simple reality is if you need a plane in the 787-10 or 777-200 size range within a 5 year time period your choice is probably limited to the 777.

...unless you can convert some 787-8 orders.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-06-03 12:29:45 and read 9146 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
The 787-9 now replaces the 777-200ER. It carries as many people (at 9-abreast).

  
789 at spec. is likely to weigh about 40,000 lbs. less, has 4 more LD3 positions, and is cheaper by about $15 million at list. One would expect 789 to have much lower CASM than 772ER even if it loses about 9 Y seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-03 14:43:11 and read 8974 times.

Guys, i cannot follow your logic...


1. You assume that the smaller B789 will replace the bigger B77E.
2. You assume that the bigger B787-10 will replace the smaller A333...


Why do you believe that one market is getting smaller and one market is going bigger...?


I would agree if you say that both the A333 and B77W need a slightly bigger replacement.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-06-03 16:13:57 and read 8858 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 154):
Why do you believe that one market is getting smaller and one market is going bigger...?

 
Let's get a few things straight:
1. One aircraft replacing another DOES NOT have to have the same capacity.
2. The capacity of the replacing aircraft may be GREATER OR LESS than that of the aircraft it is replacing.
3. One aircraft replacing another DOES NOT have to have similar range.
4. One aircraft type can be replaced by MORE THAN ONE type.
5. One aircraft type can replace MORE THAN ONE type.
6. Airlines DO NOT need to designate one type as a replacement for another.
7. One airline may find DIFFERENT types to be suitable replacements for the same type in their current fleets.

Bearing all this in mind, your continual drivel about this being too big, that being too small, this having too little range, and market changes on a worldwide scale for a given size of aircraft is more like an ass backwards remake of Goldilocks than anything resembling the global airliner market.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-06-03 16:16:07 and read 8855 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 154):
1. You assume that the smaller B789 will replace the bigger B77E.

If it has a higher profit potential, why not? Maybe slightly less passengers and slightly more cargo at a lower acquisition cost makes sense to some carriers?

Quoting 328JET (Reply 154):
2. You assume that the bigger B787-10 will replace the smaller A333...

Again, if it has a higher profit potential, why not?

Two caveats:

1. I said "If".
2. That won't apply for everyone.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-03 16:50:13 and read 8837 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 154):
Guys, i cannot follow your logic...


1. You assume that the smaller B789 will replace the bigger B77E.
2. You assume that the bigger B787-10 will replace the smaller A333...


Why do you believe that one market is getting smaller and one market is going bigger...?

The 787-9 has fuselage is almost EXACTLY the same length as the 777-200. For an airline like NZ, VS, or DL that uses the herringbone Business Class seat and 9-abreast in Economy, you can fit b]EXACTLY[/b] the same number of seats in a 787-9 as a 777-200ER. And the 787-9 has more cargo volume. So moving from a 777-200ER to a 787-9 is a lateral move "same" to "same".

We've seen airlines replace 747-400s with smaller 777-300ERs and A340-600s. And a whole bunch of people, I believe yourself included, have been arguing that the smaller A321-200neo can replace the larger 757-200.

How can this be?

Because it made economic sense. The fewer seats you offered sold for more money (due to demand) and you saved money on operating costs, so your profits rose.


As to the A330-300, a good number of people seem to believe that air traffic will increase, requiring either more frequencies or larger planes. Airbus is finding customers for the A380-800 due to the inability to add frequencies and the lower operating costs - and higher operating profits - of flying a larger plane with lower CASM.

When you get to big for the A330-300, the next two steps are the 777-300ER and A350-1000. Yet both of those planes are designed to fly upwards of 8000nm. This makes them less efficient on shorter mission stages.

Airlines that a decade ago were flying 777-200ERs on 6-8 hour missions are today flying A330-300s. Why? Because the A330-300 can now fly a 6-8 hour mission, even if it can't fly the 9-12 hour missions a 777-200ER can. And on that 6-8 hour mission, it's more efficient than a 777-200ER.

The same should be the case with the 787-10. It will fly the 6-8 hour mission of an A330-300, do it for a lower operating cost and offer more seats and cargo space to generate more income and meet traffic growth into congested airports.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-06-03 22:44:06 and read 8614 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 157):
Airlines that a decade ago were flying 777-200ERs on 6-8 hour missions are today flying A330-300s. Why? Because the A330-300 can now fly a 6-8 hour mission, even if it can't fly the 9-12 hour missions a 777-200ER can. And on that 6-8 hour mission, it's more efficient than a 777-200ER.

True.

789 is more efficient than 772ER on 9-12 hour mission.
789 is more efficient than A333 on 6-8 hour mission.
789 is competitive or better than A359 depending on mission length, once you account for differences in acquisition cost.

Even if Boeing never offers 787-10, 789 will remain as an excellent alternative for operators looking to replace 772ER and A333. Below are links to couple of threads comparing 789/333 and 789/359.

B789 Versus A359 Analysis (by LAXDESI May 20 2011 in Tech Ops)
B789 Versus A333 Analysis (by LAXDESI May 20 2011 in Tech Ops)

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-06-04 03:29:33 and read 8385 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 158):

789 is more efficient than 772ER on 9-12 hour mission.
789 is more efficient than A333 on 6-8 hour mission.
789 is competitive or better than A359 depending on mission length, once you account for differences in acquisition cost.

They are false statements, they are not based upon fact. One could demonstrate how each of the three of those statements could be reversed depending on the airline and route operating the two aircraft.

Without listing all the ground rules, and massive assumptions made to come to your conclusions, such statements are misleading at the best. You do not have any factual performance data on the 787-9 (Boeing does not have accurate data either), or the A350 (Airbus does not have accurate data either).

Can we stick to the facts, your "XYZ vs ABC Economic Analysis" threads are works of fiction in the most part, not based upon any real performance or economic data and fails to capture the sort of mission rules any airline would use when making a selection comparison.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-04 03:47:18 and read 8329 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 159):

Since when is speculation not allowed by forum rules?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-06-04 03:48:42 and read 8334 times.

I guess I have a question, the A350-1000 has already "killed" the 777W in all the threads we have discussing what Boeing has to do to upgrade the a/c to be competitive, is it a case that Airbus discloses much better quality information that one can make "valid" assumptions on performance, capabilities etc. but Boeing release poorer quality info which makes any assumptions spurious at best?

Just a question.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-06-04 05:40:50 and read 8233 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 160):
Since when is speculation not allowed by forum rules?

Expressing ones opinion is much of what this forum is all about. However one should not be dressing up ones opinion to appear as fact, when it is nothing more than speculation.

I have no problems with people entering into a constructive dialogue about what they perceive the possible cost benefits of various airframes are, however when absolutes like "will" are used to make the statement appear factual, I think it prevents other people from expressing their views, which may well be equally valid.

For example, it is entirely plausible that a 772ER will be more efficient to operate on various sectors over a 789 due to the reduced financing cost for a fully paid off 772ER.

Quoting par13del (Reply 161):

Just a question.

The quality of information provided by the manufacturers to potential clients is far more comprehensive than what is available publically. The performance specifications are very detailed, and allow airlines and consultants alike to run the performance model in their flight planning system across a real network, with real (or statistical) winds/temps and real route constraints.

What maybe the best airframe for one customer over one route network, may not be the best airframe for another customer over another. However larger customers will tend to move in the same direction as the mix of routes will average out the extremes.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-04 05:55:33 and read 8190 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 162):

Expressing ones opinion is much of what this forum is all about. However one should not be dressing up ones opinion to appear as fact, when it is nothing more than speculation.

He has stated many times that his calculations are estimations. Since, for example, the 789 doesn't exactly exist at this moment, any comment on it is speculation.

Since any comparison of something that doesn't exist is speculation, so any interpretation of it being factual is a problem with interpretation more than delivery.

To me, it has always been very clear that his opinions have always been dressed up as opinions...and opinions are certainly allowed to be presented by anybody. I don't think I've seen a post expressly forbidding contrary opinions.

All the word 'will' does is show ones strong belief in their opinion...I don't see how it would scare even the meekest poster away from expressing theirs.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 05:58:14 and read 8173 times.

Ok, guys, i know what some of you believe.

The longer range airplane is getting a smaller replacement and the shorter range airplane is getting a bigger replacement.
I don´t buy that argument..

Most airlines will try something different when it comes to a replacement of the B77E and A333 in their fleets:


They will look for a single airplane type to replace both with one shot.
That might be B787s or A350s or maybe updated B777s.

I don´t expect that the economics of the A350 and B787 are so different that it makes sense for most airlines to go both ways.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-06-04 06:12:44 and read 8145 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 162):
For example, it is entirely plausible that a 772ER will be more efficient to operate on various sectors over a 789 due to the reduced financing cost for a fully paid off 772ER.

Ah hah, I knew you used to read the NW DC-9 threads  
Quoting zeke (Reply 162):
Expressing ones opinion is much of what this forum is all about. However one should not be dressing up ones opinion to appear as fact, when it is nothing more than speculation.
Quoting joecanuck (Reply 163):
To me, it has always been very clear that his opinions have always been dressed up as opinions...and opinions are certainly allowed to be presented by anybody. I don't think I've seen a post expressly forbidding contrary opinions.

All the word 'will' does is show ones strong belief in their opinion...I don't see how it would scare even the meekest poster away from expressing theirs

Personally I believe that you are both correct as there is not right and wrong in this, some take everything on technical merit - language included see the spelling police - others are more informal, as long as we get along I'm fine asking for clarification every now and then, usually based on the poster I use the evil assumption mantra.

Cheers

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-04 06:57:48 and read 8065 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 164):

Actually, I'm not a believer that one plane has to be a straight across replacement for another...especially as an airline and economic conditions evolve.

For example, Southwest has decided to switch some of their -700's to -800's. They've seen their needs evolve and in some instances, the smaller plane will not do the job as well as the larger plane.

Airline needs change all the time. I believe there will be a large market for the 787-10 with the 789 MTOW, but that doesn't mean that all the purchases will be like for like replacements. It is just as likely that it would go to create all new markets as replace any particular plane. It could also go to replace a much larger or much smaller plane as airlines see there business models evolve over their markets.

An airline might even keep a somewhat less efficient aircraft to maintain commonality within their fleet.

There is no right answer for every airline...which is why there are so many choices in airliners.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 07:12:20 and read 8045 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 166):
There is no right answer for every airline...which is why there are so many choices in airliners.

Which is a huge benefit of strong competition, i would say.  

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-04 07:36:06 and read 8006 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 167):

Indeed...and these forums would get really boring really fast if we only had one plane to talk about.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 07:39:46 and read 7996 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 168):
Indeed...and these forums would get really boring really fast if we only had one plane to talk about.

That is the main reason A and B starts new aircraft programs, i suppose...

Making money doen´t seem to be the driving factor today...

 

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-04 08:14:57 and read 7929 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 164):
The longer range airplane is getting a smaller replacement and the shorter range airplane is getting a bigger replacement.
I don´t buy that argument..

But the 787-9 is not a smaller plane than the 777-200ER in many airline's configurations. I expect many carriers could drop their 777-200ER seating chart unmodified into a 787-9.

And Airbus themselves feel that their A330-200 and A330-300 customers will want larger planes, as the A350-800 and A350-900 are both larger in terms of passenger capacity.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-06-04 08:18:22 and read 7907 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 163):
He has stated many times that his calculations are estimations. Since, for example, the 789 doesn't exactly exist at this moment, any comment on it is speculation.

I believe his post is a follow up of sorts from his previous post earlier, which clearly shows he is using estimations based on the incomplete information available:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 153):

789 at spec. is likely to weigh about 40,000 lbs. less, has 4 more LD3 positions, and is cheaper by about $15 million at list. One would expect 789 to have much lower CASM than 772ER even if it loses about 9 Y seats.

I guess the below "facts" were fine, though:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 134):
The A350-family has the advantage of offering a big range on all three tpyes, that was the reason that i wrote "capability" in my post above.
Quoting 328JET (Reply 134):
The size of the B787-members is a bit strange.
The smallest member is not small enough to replace the B763, the biggest not capable enough to replace the B77E or A343 when it comes to range.

Wouldn't such statements imply that different routes/missions must need the same aircraft capabilities? So are these "facts" fine but LAXDESI's "facts" not? ............interesting..............

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 08:51:32 and read 7874 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 171):
Wouldn't such statements imply that different routes/missions must need the same aircraft capabilities? So are these "facts" fine but LAXDESI's "facts" not? ............interesting..............

Sorry, i don´t get your point...

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 08:57:22 and read 7877 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 170):
But the 787-9 is not a smaller plane than the 777-200ER in many airline's configurations. I expect many carriers could drop their 777-200ER seating chart unmodified into a 787-9.

And Airbus themselves feel that their A330-200 and A330-300 customers will want larger planes, as the A350-800 and A350-900 are both larger in terms of passenger capacity.

The B789 has one seat less than the B777 in each row of the economy class in most airlines configurations.

For sure 9y are possible in the B787, but most airlines which have 9y in the B777 will end with 8y in the B787.
9y will be more interesting for airlines which have 10y in their B777s or plan to operate shorter flights with the B787.

About the A350-800 and -900:

Yes, they are bigger than the A332/333, but their main advantage is payload/range as they are real A342/343 replacements.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2011-06-04 09:35:54 and read 7801 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 159):
They are false statements, they are not based upon fact. One could demonstrate how each of the three of those statements could be reversed depending on the airline and route operating the two aircraft.

Implicit in his post is that it all depends. Indeed each should be reversed is some circumstances. And it will be thus with the 350 versus 787 family.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-04 10:01:42 and read 7747 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 173):
The B789 has one seat less than the B777 in each row of the economy class in most airlines configurations.


I was not aware of any 787-9 customer having announced their Economy Class seating configuration other than British Airways. I'd like to update my records, so can you kindly provide a list of said carriers and a link to their 787-9 seat maps?

Thanks.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-06-04 10:55:23 and read 7645 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 162):
For example, it is entirely plausible that a 772ER will be more efficient to operate on various sectors over a 789 due to the reduced financing cost for a fully paid off 772ER.

What is the point of comparing a fully paid 772ER to new 789? My analysis is about the future prospects of two competing aircraft. Btw, my numbers also suggest the following:

A359 is more efficient than 772ER on 9-12 hour mission.
A359 is more efficient than A333 on 6-8 hour mission.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 163):
He has stated many times that his calculations are estimations. Since, for example, the 789 doesn't exactly exist at this moment, any comment on it is speculation.

Thanks for seeing my posts for what they are: An attempt to compare two aircraft with incomplete data, with my assumptions and estimates laid out in the OP of the thread where I do the comparisons.

From time to time, I do an update on competing aircraft when more data becomes available by starting a new thread.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 11:03:36 and read 7666 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 175):
I was not aware of any 787-9 customer having announced their Economy Class seating configuration other than British Airways. I'd like to update my records, so can you kindly provide a list of said carriers and a link to their 787-9 seat maps?

Thanks.

YOU are saying that a B789 can replace a B77E ever and ever again, not me...

I didn´t count how often you wrote it here, so YOU must be sure about the same seat numbers on both airplanes.


I never agreed as i am very confident that their is a gap!

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-04 12:03:06 and read 7573 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 177):
YOU are saying that a B789 can replace a B77E ever and ever again, not me...

I didn´t count how often you wrote it here, so YOU must be sure about the same seat numbers on both airplanes.

And that is because I know the physical dimensions of the cabin of both airplanes and they are effectively identical in length, so they can fit the same number of rows of seats.

Now when it comes to number of seats per row, the 777 and 787 can both fit 1+2+1 using suites or 2+2+2 using seats in First Class. The 777 and 787 can also both fit 2+3+2 in Business Class (21" seat width for the 777 and 19" seat width for the 787). For those airlines that use the "herringbone" 1+2+1 configuration for their Business Class seating, the 777 and 787 can both handle that configuration. And for those airlines who have gone to 2+4+2 in Business Class on their 777s (UA and BA, for example), they should be able to fit the same in the 787 (with narrower seats and/or aisles).

So that just leaves Economy as the only cabin where a 777 can demonstrably fit one additional seat per row more than the 787, but I have always acknowledged that in my posts.

So for those carriers who have 1+2+1 or 2+2+2 abreast in First Class, 1+2+1, 2+2+2, 2+3+2 or 2+4+2 in Business Class and 3+3+3 in Economy Class, they will be able to sit the same number of rows, seats per row and total seats in a 787-9 as they do in a 777-200ER.



Looking at the SeatGuru seatmaps of current confirmed 787-9 customers who are also 777-200 family operators:

A CA 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as a CA 772
An NZ 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an NZ 77E
An NH 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an NH 77E
A KE 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an KE 77E
An SA 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an SA 77E
An SQ 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an SQ 77E
A VN 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as a VN 77E

And looking at the SeatGuru seatmaps of the following 787-8 customers who are also 777-200 family operators, if they chose to add the 787-9:

An AC 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an AC 77L
A DL 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as a DL 77E or 77L
A BA 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as a BA 77E
A UA 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as a UA 77E
An AM 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an AM 77L
An AI 789 can have the same number of rows, seats per row, and total seats as an AI 77E or 77L

Frankly, I don't see a current 787 customer who is also a 777 operator who flies 10-abreast on their 777-200 family products per the SeatGuru map. Now, those customers may choose to go 10-abreast in the future (or are taking 10-abreast on new deliveries of the 777-300ER like NZ is). Even AF and KL are 3+3+3 on their 777-200ERs per SeatGuru and EK looks to already have eschewed the 787-9 in favor of the A350-900 to replace their 772s and 77Es.

[Edited 2011-06-04 12:04:43]

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-06-04 12:03:42 and read 7579 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 172):
Sorry, i don´t get your point...

You don't need to. It was directed at another poster.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 175):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 173):
The B789 has one seat less than the B777 in each row of the economy class in most airlines configurations.


I was not aware of any 787-9 customer having announced their Economy Class seating configuration other than British Airways. I'd like to update my records, so can you kindly provide a list of said carriers and a link to their 787-9 seat maps?

Exactly. Somehow those "facts" are fine, though.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 177):
YOU are saying that a B789 can replace a B77E ever and ever again, not me...

I didn´t count how often you wrote it here, so YOU must be sure about the same seat numbers on both airplanes.


I never agreed as i am very confident that their is a gap!

"Can" and "Will" are two entirely separate things. But to be fair to, if both aircraft can accommodate 9 abreast in Y, and both aircraft are identical in length, then it would seem "possible" that they might accommodate the same neighbor of people depending on carrier selection.

It is amazing how you state seating configurations for carriers - that have NEVER been publicly announced - as fact, yet you call Stitch out for talking about possibilities.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 12:18:34 and read 7544 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 179):
It is amazing how you state seating configurations for carriers - that have NEVER been publicly announced - as fact, yet you call Stitch out for talking about possibilities.

I NEVER did that.

Stitch is expecting the B789 to replace the B77E, not me.


But by comparing the floor sizes and cabin width of both airplanes i highly doubt most airlines will squeeze in 9y in the B789.

It is comparable with 10y in the B777 which still is not the standard, thanks to god, in the B777.
Some airlines do, most do not.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-04 12:22:40 and read 7530 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 180):
But by comparing the floor sizes and cabin width of both airplanes i highly doubt most airlines will squeeze in 9y in the B789.

Per statements by Boeing, something like two-thirds of 787-8 and 787-9 customers intend to fit nine-abreast in their aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-04 12:24:39 and read 7521 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 181):
Per statements by Boeing, something like two-thirds of 787-8 and 787-9 customers intend to fit nine-abreast in their aircraft.

Show us a link, please.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2011-06-04 12:53:02 and read 7499 times.

So the big question is how many of these 78-10 puppies will EK take. And how many will QR and EY take to keep up with the neighbors.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-04 13:10:39 and read 7472 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 182):
Show us a link, please.

As requested: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh.../2006-02-21-dreamliner-seats_x.htm

Quote:
Senior Boeing sales executive Randy Baseler said typical seating in the 787-9 version of the aircraft would rise to about 280 from 259 if airlines switched to having nine seats per row in economy class rather than eight as Boeing had expected.

Two-thirds of 787 buyers have decided to fit nine seats in each row in economy, executives from the Chicago-based manufacturer said at the (2006) Singapore air show on Tuesday (21 February).

And this article from October 2010 reaffirms that most customers are still planning 9-abreast: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-meet-boeings-777-200e.html

Quote:
Boeing says that the majority of 787 customers have selected nine-abreast seating in economy, allowing them to go to a near-777-style configuration.

You might want to read the entire article, since it just happens to be about how an airline can replace a 777-200ER with a 787-9.   

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2011-06-04 13:52:01 and read 7410 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 184):
And this article from October 2010 reaffirms that most customers are still planning 9-abreast: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl....html

The linked article suggests that 789 will burn nearly 12,000 gallons less fuel flying its design range of 8,135 mile than 772ER flying its design range of 7,725 nm. That is nearly $36,000 savings in fuel cost alone per trip, or about $12 million annually..

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-06-04 14:34:01 and read 7316 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 180):
I NEVER did that.

Well, you said this:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 173):
The B789 has one seat less than the B777 in each row of the economy class in most airlines configurations.

And this:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 173):
For sure 9y are possible in the B787, but most airlines which have 9y in the B777 will end with 8y in the B787.
9y will be more interesting for airlines which have 10y in their B777s or plan to operate shorter flights with the B787.
Quoting 328JET (Reply 180):
Stitch is expecting the B789 to replace the B77E, not me.

No, that's not what he said. He said they "can".

Quoting 328JET (Reply 182):
Show us a link, please.

Oh please. Show us a link to your assertions about 8 abreast in the 787.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 413X3
Posted 2011-06-04 14:38:50 and read 7306 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 185):
That is nearly $36,000 savings in fuel cost alone per trip, or about $12 million annually..

Which sounds like a lot, until you look at lease payments for both frames.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-06-04 15:45:04 and read 7210 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 180):
But by comparing the floor sizes and cabin width of both airplanes i highly doubt most airlines will squeeze in 9y in the B789.

It is comparable with 10y in the B777 which still is not the standard, thanks to god, in the B777.

The 787 can fit 9 across with 17.2" seats (same as a 10-across 747) and normal aisles - the coss-section was expanded specifically to allow this. My understanding is that the 10-across 777s are more cramped than this, so they are not comparable.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-06-04 16:04:22 and read 7181 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 166):
I'm not a believer that one plane has to be a straight across replacement for another...

Nobody in their right mind is. This rush to anoint one type as the replacement for another type is just stupid.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: travelhound
Posted 2011-06-04 16:09:28 and read 7169 times.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 187):
Which sounds like a lot, until you look at lease payments for both frames.

I think it has to be remembered airlines normally have to manage their aircraft stock over a 20 year period and lease repayments / financing costs / capital come out of a general pool or a budget rather than a one off basis for each aircraft.

This is why we still see older uneconomic aircraft flying today. Their replacement has to be funded from an airlines ability to fund the replacement aircraft. From a business perspective it is probably "run of the mill sort of stuff" for airlines to operate uneconomic aircraft due to funding arrangements / budgets. In the whole scheme of things an airline probably isn't doing to badly if their aircraft are economic for 18 years and 2 years not.

On the same point, ideally it is good business for an airlines to have a capital works program that is fairly consistent year on year. This is why the average airline fleet age is a fairly important number, as it gives a strong indication of where an airline is at.

I would assume one of the reasons QF cancelled 15 of their 787's, was not because they didn't like the aircraft or because the A330 had similar operating costs, but because the 787 delays forced QF's hand in ordering (and subsequently funding) additional A330's. If we do the cost / benefit numbers the pendulum probably swung towards retaining a larger A330 fleet over a longer period of time at the expense of a sole 787 fleet.

If a particular aircraft brings in a operational saving of $12,000,0000.00 / year as has been suggested with 772ER and 787-9 comparison, I would suggest a prudent board would allocate some of these savings back towards accelerating a fleet renewal program (if required). The benefits may just mean a competitive advantage or greater ability to realise profits.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: ruscoe
Posted 2011-06-04 17:49:29 and read 7025 times.

There is a lot of talk about x section comparisons.
IMO the x section of the 350 series is one of its failings.

It carries around extra weight, with no increase in seating capacity, due to the width. (Except for an extraordinarily small number of operators who will go 10 abreast on the 350)

I know the argument is often put that the 320 series has collected some sales because of it's wider fuselage, but you need to consider how many xtra sales they would have got from having a significantly lighter structure in the more modern airframe with a narrower fuselage. The 320 can carry palletised freight, but the 787 and 350 are the same in this regard.

It remains to be seen, but the 787 should be able to carry a similar number of passengers and freight, initially a shorter distance, compared with a similar model 350, at less cost, and the extra seat width really won't make any difference.

Ruscoe

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-06-05 00:36:27 and read 6808 times.

Quoting ruscoe (Reply 191):
It carries around extra weight, with no increase in seating capacity, due to the width. (Except for an extraordinarily small number of operators who will go 10 abreast on the 350)

I don't think the paradigm is anywhere near as simple as that in reality.

It will ultimately depend on the customer airline MO. Sometimes it will be an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage

Also in my opinion, for what its worth, the extra cost associated with an extra 5" of cross-section on 230-odd inches is so far in the weeds as to be buried by other variables.

A350 sales don't seem to be particularly stalled  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-05 01:12:45 and read 6756 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 192):
Also in my opinion, for what its worth, the extra cost associated with an extra 5" of cross-section on 230-odd inches is so far in the weeds as to be buried by other variables.

What's happening now, is Boeing is working on the lighter end and Airbus is working on the heavier end. I suspect Boeing will eventually beef up the wings, trucks and engines of the -10 to get to the heavier weights and there is nothing stopping Airbus from mating their current fuses to lighter wings, etc, to regain their 330 market.

Each new model will offer improvements over the previous ones as current composites technology gets refined and new processes hit the production line.

In the next decade, Airbus and Boeing will each have quite effectively covered, with all new CFRP planes, the entire range currently being served by the 767, 777, a330 and a340...heck, maybe even as low as the 757.

The fuselage diameter will be the least important or telling metric.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-06-05 02:08:36 and read 6713 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 193):
In the next decade, Airbus and Boeing will each have quite effectively covered, with all new CFRP planes, the entire range currently being served by the 767, 777, a330 and a340...heck, maybe even as low as the 757.

I think that's where we're headed too   

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-06-05 06:10:39 and read 6502 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 188):

Yes and the competing A350 can offer 18 inch seats.
Also the A350 offers more space for future bigger business/first class seats in each row.

Quoting ruscoe (Reply 191):
It remains to be seen, but the 787 should be able to carry a similar number of passengers and freight, initially a shorter distance, compared with a similar model 350, at less cost,

As you wrote: Initially on shorter distance and that is the main difference between the concepts of the A350 and B787.
Airlines which need more range have to wait for later versions of the B787 or order B777s or A350 in addition to their B787s.

I would guess we will see a variety of different fleets in some years time:


1. Airlines which are happy with either the A350 or early B787 models only.
2. Airlines which are operating B787s and A350s.
3. Airlines which are operating B787s and B777s.
4. Airlines which are operating B787s,A350s,B777s.
5. Airlines which are operating early and late B787 models.


I have to admit that very interesting times are ahead in the medium size market.

Isn´t it perfect for enthusiast like we are?

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-06-05 13:42:42 and read 6296 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 195):
Yes and the competing A350 can offer 18 inch seats.

Sure, but that's not what my reply was about. You say that a 9-across 787 is comparable to a 10-across 777, and that's not the case. The consensus around here is that 10-across in a 777 is unreasonably cramped, but you won't find the same complaints about 747s. Boeing's research suggests that beyond the 17.2" seat passengers don't notice with small (e.g. 0.8") increases in width.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-05 14:10:36 and read 6238 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 196):
The consensus around here is that 10-across in a 777 is unreasonably cramped, but you won't find the same complaints about 747s.

Of course, individual airlines will vary, but looking at Boeing's figures for an OEM configuration, a set of three seats for the 777 is 59" armrest to armrest and 59.5" for the 747. For the center set of four, it's 78 inches for the 777 and 84 inches for the 747, but the 747 is actually two sets of two seats where the 777 is a single set of four, so some of that extra space is eaten by the dual armrests in the middle.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2011-06-05 15:00:13 and read 6149 times.

Let's suppose the 9 abreast 787 seats will be 17.2" and the A350 seats will be 18" wide, giving us a difference of 0.8".

0.8" x 9 seats is 7.2 inches. The interior width of the 787 is reported to be 4" less than the interior width of the A350. To use 18" seats, they would have to restrict aisle width compared to the 787 by 1.6" per aisle...which isn't impossible, of course. It probably wouldn't be noticed by most.

To have aisles the same width, with the 787 using 17.2" wide seats, the A350 can use 17.64" wide seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-06-05 15:07:22 and read 6142 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 198):
To use 18" seats, Airbus would have to restrict aisle width compared to the 787 by 1.6" per aisle...which isn't impossible, of course. It probably wouldn't be noticed by most.

To have aisles the same width, with the 787 using 17.2" wide seats, the A350 can use 17.64" wide seats.

Here are my calculations from Reply 51:

At 19.5" aisles, it looks like seat cushion width at 9-abreast on an A350 will be 17.5". If you go with 17.25" aisles, then seat cushion width can increase to 18".

Per Boeing, a 777 at nine-abreast can offer 18" seat cushion width and 19.5" aisles.

Also per Boeing, a 787 at nine-abreast can offer 17.2" seat cushion width and 18" aisles.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/