Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Looks At Larger 787 For EK, BA  
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11179 times:

Article summary:
- version 787-10 with fuselage 6m longer than 787-9
- passenger seating essentially the same size as 772
- Boeing currently in "study phase"
- EK is close to making the selection
- BA wouldn't need the aircraft until 2010, but "production slots" would be available if opted for 787 over 350.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2490

Cheers

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4480 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11141 times:

How reliable is this website? I've never heard of it before.

Still, why would Boeing cannibalize its own market for the 772 by offering the -10 with equal capacity? Boeing the 772 and 787 are long range airliners, I dont see why Boeing would offer both if they basically did the same thing.


User currently offlineXkorpyoh From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11113 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 1):
till, why would Boeing cannibalize its own market for the 772 by offering the -10 with equal capacity? Boeing the 772 and 787 are long range airliners, I dont see why Boeing would offer both if they basically did the same thing.

787-10 = 772's suicide is better than getting killed by the bigger A350


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11118 times:

It's only PR BS so that EK delays further their A350 order.

User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11042 times:

The site is reliable. The post articles 5 days a week. They also publish ATW Magazine - Air Transport World.


319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10992 times:

Intersting.......considering EK has been hounding Boeing with this for quite some time...if Boeing does decide to go along with it, I think EK and possibly BA might step upto the plate and go with it.......

the 777-200 has served its purpose........the 777-300 and the 777-200LR are the two 777 series Boeing is focusing on now......



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10983 times:

The only news here is BA being interested. Last week's FI mentioned that Beoing had proposed the 787-10 lengthened fuselage/reduced range to EK and the 787-9 Heavy to QF( a 20t heavier,longer ranged,but not lengthened fuselage 789).

User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10955 times:

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 2):

787-10 = 772's suicide is better than getting killed by the bigger A350

To me I see this as a money-wasting issue. 772LR already has the same range as the 787 or close to it, why design an equal airplane if one has already been flying for (by this time) a good 3 years up on the A350?


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12110 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10769 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 1):
How reliable is this website?

ATW is a reliable web-site provding excellent aviation coverage 5 days per week


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10677 times:

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
Last week's FI mentioned that Beoing had proposed the 787-10 lengthened fuselage/reduced range to EK and the 787-9 Heavy to QF( a 20t heavier,longer ranged,but not lengthened fuselage 789).

...and this was discussed in length here for anyone who's interested:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2336415

But, yes, the fact that BA is interested in the -10 is new, and very interesting IMHO since they are already a big B772ER customer. Do you guys think that they are considering the B787-10 as an eventual B772ER replacement? 'Cause it's probably a bit too big for a direct B763ER replacement.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1304 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10496 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
the 777-200 has served its purpose

Yep, you better start considering to change your name....



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineHEGAN From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10407 times:

If the 787-10 can perform as well as the rest of the family is suposed to do, they should go ahead, but if the 787 was designed as a 757/767 replacement, and clearly it is a success. Strategicaly it is posicioned in one segment of the market, trying to compete in 2 segments could be risky.

If making the -10 as big as the 772, can affect its performance, and somehow can damage the all family image.

Agur,
HEGAN



HEGAN: Euskadiko Aeronautikako eta Espazioko Clusterra
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10287 times:

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
The only news here is BA being interested.

Another new to me is the length extension of the fuselage. About 8/12 ft longer than 350-900/772.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 10):
Yep, you better start considering to change your name....

773ER and 772LR will last a long long time.

Cheers


User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10268 times:

Zvezdas dream coming true....!

I hope this wont start killing the 772ER, but it probably will.



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 7):
To me I see this as a money-wasting issue. 772LR already has the same range as the 787 or close to it, why design an equal airplane if one has already been flying for (by this time) a good 3 years up on the A350?



Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 13):
I hope this wont start killing the 772ER, but it probably will.

The B787-10 will be able to perform most missions that the B777-200ER is capable of performing, but at a much lower operating cost and a much lower purchase price. The B787-10 will not be able to perform typical B777-200LR missions. The B787-10 will surely kill the B777-200ER but the B777-200LR still has a long life ahead.

For many missions, the B777-200ER cannot hold its own against the A350-900. Why would Boeing concede that market to Airbus when they can so easily hold on to it by stretching the B787-9? It's an easy stretch. They don't need to change the wing or add doors. The landing gear might or might not need some changes (does anyone here know?). Obviously, the fuselage needs to be extended, but that's easy with the composite construction. Also, a little more thrust will be needed than for the B787-9, but that's no problem because the engines for the A350-900 will have enough thrust for the B787-10.


User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10113 times:

One big difference between the 787-10 and the 772 will be the fuselage cross section. While the 777 has a maximum of 10 abreast (normaly 9), the 7810 will have a maximum of 9 abreast (normally 8), like the A340/50.
That was one thing i found better on the 777, compared to Airbus with the A340/350.

Now that the 787-10 will replace the 772ER, would B also consider to replace the 772 with, say a 787-5?



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10040 times:

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 15):
Now that the 787-10 will replace the 772ER, would B also consider to replace the 772 with, say a 787-5?

First, the B787-10 will be able to perform virtually any B777-200A mission and will do so at much lower cost. Anyway, over the last 7 years, NH ordered 3 in Dec 2001 and CX bought the prototype in Dec 2000 after Boeing gave up trying to sell it to UA.

Second, I do think a stretch of the B787-3 is possible, but perhaps only a 6 meter stretch (to 62 meters). The B787-3's wing may not be sufficient for a 68 meter long version. Then again, Boeing may wait until the B787-3 is flying, then calculate exactly how much they can stretch it without modifying the wing, and then that will be the length of the B787-4. It doesn't necessarily need to be the same length as the B787-9 or B787-10.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9958 times:

Quoting HEGAN (Reply 11):
If the 787-10 can perform as well as the rest of the family is suposed to do, they should go ahead, but if the 787 was designed as a 757/767 replacement, and clearly it is a success. Strategicaly it is posicioned in one segment of the market, trying to compete in 2 segments could be risky.



Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
The only news here is BA being interested. Last week's FI mentioned that Beoing had proposed the 787-10 lengthened fuselage/reduced range to EK and the 787-9 Heavy to QF( a 20t heavier,longer ranged,but not lengthened fuselage 789).

Presumably the MTOW increase for the 787-9H is part of the design for the the 787-10 proposal. As such it would seem to be a new base model to enable head to head competition with the A350.

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 15):
Now that the 787-10 will replace the 772ER, would B also consider to replace the 772 with, say a 787-5?

Wouldn't any 787-10 already have lower weights than the 772A, which after all was a heavy aircraft?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9939 times:

Interesting in that Boeing look like they could have learned the lessons of the 764 and 753. Namely that the stretch is desirable to airlines but needs to be available much earlier in the product cycle.

The only cloud on the Boeing horizon is going to be whether the 787 testing and early EIS data shows up any problems with operating composite bodies in airline service. This step really is as revolutionary as when the Comet and 707 first brought fast pressurised aluminium fuselages into airline use. Taking composite technology into a whole new field (as the Comet and 707 did when higher ceilings and speeds became regular) is not without its difficulties as there will be whole new ways of thinking and working to be devised.

Think of it like this. How will a 788 cope with a heavy landing at somewhere like Port Harcourt in Nigeria? We've seen the pictures of 763s with huge creases. How will composites react under similar extremes and how can they be economically repaired or patched up for ferry?

All this needs to be addressed by Boeing before they can start stretching the aircraft or the whole program could spiral hopelessly out of control and over budget.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9875 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 18):
How will a 788 cope with a heavy landing at somewhere like Port Harcourt in Nigeria? We've seen the pictures of 763s with huge creases. How will composites react under similar extremes and how can they be economically repaired or patched up for ferry?

Do we actually know that the MLW will be lower than the MTOW? It is for all aluminium aircraft and I think it would be for composite aircraft too, but I'm not certain. Does anyone know for sure?


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9830 times:

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 10):

Yep, you better start considering to change your name....



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
.the 777-300 and the 777-200LR are the two 777 series Boeing is focusing on now......



Quoting Sq212 (Reply 12):
773ER and 772LR will last a long long time.

thank you.. Smile



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9734 times:

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 15):
and then that will be the length of the B787-4. It doesn't necessarily need to be the same length as the B787-9 or B787-10.

787-3, 787-8, 787-9, 787-10.. 787-4?

Most aircraft I know were launched in 1 or 2 versions, this seems a costly roadmap to me.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9650 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Most aircraft I know were launched in 1 or 2 versions, this seems a costly roadmap to me.

Not all of them are coming at once, and really only the 788 and 783 are launched. And given the number of derivatives in the A330 and A340 family that were planned early on, there doesn't seem to be any thing unusual about Boeing's plans, other than the fact that three lengths are being looked at.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 7):
why design an equal airplane if one has already been flying for (by this time) a good 3 years up on the A350?

it's simple -- it's because the planes aren't going to be equal. the 787-10 will make the 772 look like a gas guzzler!

i see nothing wrong with boeing making their own plane obsolete. it's a sign that they are moving very very quickly and are in step with customer demands.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8226 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9531 times:

It will be interesting to see how Boeing engineered the base planes - the 783 and the 788. Were they designed within a limited range, or are the -10 (and -4) covered by the initial engineering? If the -10 and -4 were included from day one in terms of basic engineering then there are probably some very happy engineers (and salesmen) in the back room these days. Boeing would be very happy to cover everything from the 757 to the 350 with the 787.

The inclusion of BA is a surprise and shows that they are thinking about new planes a bit more than some of us thought.


25 Luisca : i think we are starting to see a new trend in aviation, Were one or 2 families will cover a wide range of airline needs. The lets call it proposed 787
26 MidnightMike : ATW, a very reliable website........[Edited 2005-09-26 17:23:52]
27 Atmx2000 : Range and pax capacitywise, a 787-10 will certainly be a replacement for both aircraft. But whether it, like the 359, will be capable of flying the f
28 Geo772 : You could say the same thing about the A330 and A340, the answer is that they would serve different customers. The 787-10 is unlikely to have the ran
29 BlueSky1976 : Well, given the fact that 787-9 has 15,300km range, the 787-10 range could be somewhere around 14,500km - 14,800km, which is bigger than 777-200ERs r
30 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Now call me a fool, but if EK is to order the 787-10 in let's say 60 firm + 60 options will you all be calling EK a foolish airline as you are all doi
31 Luisca : Yes, I would still call them fools, even tough I am a huge B fan, I just cant see EK needing that many planes.
32 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Not if they cancel their A380s and A346s
33 Gigneil : The 787-3's wing is identical to the other two. The only difference is the wingtip treatment. It will be as big as the 772ER and feature comparable r
34 Glom : I don't think people would be calling EK foolish for ordering 60+60 787s or A350s. People are considering the likes of 40 A380s excessive. 60 A350s f
35 Zvezda : Actually, the B787-10 will probably have better range than the B777-200ER, but will not have the payload capacity. The B787-9 is quoted by Boeing as
36 ODwyerPW : Take a look at Embraer's consecutive launch of 4 Derivaties. Initially, they were planning only the 170, 190-100 and 190-200. After discussions with c
37 YOWza : I suppose IL96s are in the works for EK too. Please... YOWza
38 ER757 : Yes! Whether it's the A350 or the 787 or some combination of the two. With all the A380's and other models they already have on order, how will they
39 Kaitak744 : At this point, there is no 767-200ER/757-200 replacement. The 787-8 replaces the 767-300ER. In the future, there may be a 787-5 or something to do th
40 DfwRevolution : >> The 787-8 replaces the 767-300ER. In the future, there may be a 787-5 or something to do the task. In my opinion, not likely. The 787-3/8 are the
41 DeltaWings : Id say this: The 787-8 replaces the 767-300ER, A300 B4 The 787-9 replaces the 767-400ER, A330-200, A340-200 The 787-3 replaces more or less the 767-3
42 Zvezda : It's really not nearly so simple. The B787 opens up markets that were not possible before. Also, for example, while the B787-10 supplants the B777-20
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TheOnion Looks At The 787 posted Thu Aug 3 2006 00:18:52 by Hb88
Boeing's Bullish At Qantas 787 Deal posted Thu Jul 28 2005 16:56:55 by CXoneWorld
American Looks At A340-500 For Asian Expansion posted Tue Feb 8 2000 14:11:46 by Jet Setter
Boeing 787-3 For Delta Hawaii Routes? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:30:06 by 1337Delta764
Festival Air Looks At Williams Gateway-IWA-For RFD posted Mon Jul 3 2006 16:15:54 by KarlB737
Boeing Pedicts Another Phenomenal Year For The 787 posted Wed Mar 29 2006 08:21:35 by OyKIE
EK: Want Larger A380 For Longhaul LCC posted Fri Apr 8 2005 10:00:38 by PANAM_DC10
Boeing Uses Old Dornier Ideas For 787 posted Mon Mar 21 2005 03:36:22 by Flying-Tiger
BA Looks At SJC posted Sat Nov 1 2003 23:52:05 by Legacyins
Looks Like A Bad News For Boeing... posted Wed Apr 10 2002 15:22:08 by Cruising