Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3213 times:
If the B777-300ER were to receive the same interior weight reduction offered to QF to enable the B777-200LR to fly SYD/MEL-LHR nonstop, would SQ be able to operate a 240 seat B777-300ER SFO/LAX-SIN nonstop?
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3950 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Take a look in the thread "Airbus A350 weight claims" .
In a reply Widebodyphotog shows that a -300ER can haul a payload of 79920 lbs over a distance of 7940nm.
LAX-SIN is a distance of 7621nm so east bound the payload could be quite bit better than that taking into account the average seasonal tailwind of about 40k.
However, westbound, taking into account that the tailwind now becomes a headwind of 40k the effective distance becomes about 8300nm and this would reduce the payload to about 76000lbs. At 210lb per passenger incl. baggage the 76000# would allow for about 360 passengers. Of course this assumes a 100% load factor which is not likely very often.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 1): At 210lb per passenger incl. baggage the 76000# would allow for about 360 passengers. Of course this assumes a 100% load factor which is not likely very often.
FlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 644 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2946 times:
I'm not sure how much cargo (If any) SQ is currently hauling on their SIN-LAX-SIN flight, so it might not be a big consideration for SQ if they decide to use 773ER on this route.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 1): However, westbound, taking into account that the tailwind now becomes a headwind of 40k the effective distance becomes about 8300nm and this would reduce the payload to about 76000lbs. At 210lb per passenger incl. baggage the 76000# would allow for about 360 passengers. Of course this assumes a 100% load factor which is not likely very often.
Sorry my friend, but for an effective distance of 8,300nm a generic 777-300ER would only manage about 45,000lb payload and would be limited to a TOW of less than 735,000lbs. Coincidentally that is about the maximum payload that SQ SIN-EWR-SIN leg sees.
Below MTOW payload with max fuel range performance drops off pretty dramatically for 777-300ER so it is unlikely that this aircraft would be considered for year round operation of this route. Furthermore a 250 seat comfort configuration aircraft would have a service ready OEW of around 387,000lbs, 17,000lbs more than the generic aircraft. That additional weight comes out of the allowable payload for the generic example and the lighter interior fittings would not reduce weight by that much.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Assuming a 80% passenger load factor then 20% of the 76000# (15200#) should be available for cargo.
Also in the mission that Widebodyphotog detailed, there was 12251lbs available before MTOW was reached. So some of that less the fuel needed to propel it, could be used for cargo.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2830 times:
Thanks Widebodyphotog. Would I be correct in understanding that a 562,000 lb MTOW B787-10X would be able to operate SFO/LAX-SIN more economically than a B777-200LR? I understand, of course, that the B777-200LR would be able to carry more cargo than the B787-10X.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2745 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): Thanks Widebodyphotog. Would I be correct in understanding that a 562,000 lb MTOW B787-10X would be able to operate SFO/LAX-SIN more economically than a B777-200LR? I understand, of course, that the B777-200LR would be able to carry more cargo than the B787-10X.
787-10 is a very grey area but at design payload of 300-310 passengers still air range is in the 8,300nm realm. At 8,300nm payload for 777-200LR is 108,000lbs for a generic airplane which allows for a considerable weight of cargo to be carried. Well beyond the volume limit at average cargo densities. As far as the economics of the two. Of course the 787 would use much less fuel but payload limited to roughly 65,000lbs Westbound. The 777-200LR gives very high payloads in both directions, but at dramatically higher fuel burn. So it depends on how much revenue you can extract from the belly and the cabin on either plane.
What I would say though is that because of the disparity in cargo rates East and West bound, SQ is probably pretty happy with the loads they get Eastbound. Westbound cargo rates are sometimes at or near cost so belly cargo my not be a huge influence on determining an equipment change.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2699 times:
Hmmm. It seems that the B787-10X in a 200 or so seat configuration would be perfect for SQ to operate SIN-SFO/LAX nonstop. The cabin is 8 inches wider and 49 inches longer than that of the A340-500. The B787's better cabin pressure, humidity, and filtration would be especially attractive on ultra-long haul operations.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): Hmmm. It seems that the B787-10X in a 200 or so seat configuration would be perfect for SQ to operate SIN-SFO/LAX nonstop. The cabin is 8 inches wider and 49 inches longer than that of the A340-500. The B787's better cabin pressure, humidity, and filtration would be especially attractive on ultra-long haul operations.
Could such a configuration make it EWR-SIN?
Just thinking out loud so to speak about 787-10, speculative reliable payload for SIN-EWR-SIN would be something less than 50,000lbs for a service ready airplane. Not spectacular but done with obscenely less amounts of fuel than the A340-500 uses for a similar year round payload, possibly around 40% less. And there is no way even the increased payload capability of the A340-500HGW would give enough additional revenue to offset fuel cost difference. If one did not mind wasting the copious belly volume then it may be a feasible alternative to A340-500 in terms of lowering trip cost and cutting up to 30 min off flight times on that particular route. The only downside I see is that 787-10 is at least four years away from reality if it ever comes to be at all...
For a route like SIN-EWR-SIN I'd hitch my wagon to to the 777-200LR. Payloads would be dramatically higher while reducing fuel burn up to 15% vs the current aircraft used, and with a reliable 70-80,000lbs of payload year round, there is plenty left to carry full volume cargo loads adding generous amounts of revenue. That should also just about offset the advantage in trip cost that the theoretical 787-10 would have.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): Just thinking out loud so to speak about 787-10, speculative reliable payload for SIN-EWR-SIN would be something less than 50,000lbs for a service ready airplane.
Great, that's more than enough for 200 passengers and their luggage. Some cargo could even be carried.
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): The only downside I see is that 787-10 is at least four years away from reality if it ever comes to be at all...
Agreed. I'm sure SQ wants something sooner.
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10): For a route like SIN-EWR-SIN I'd hitch my wagon to to the 777-200LR. Payloads would be dramatically higher while reducing fuel burn up to 15% vs the current aircraft used, and with a reliable 70-80,000lbs of payload year round, there is plenty left to carry full volume cargo loads adding generous amounts of revenue. That should also just about offset the advantage in trip cost that the theoretical 787-10 would have.
That makes it sound like the B777-200LR and the B787-10X would be just about equally profitable on the route. Aside from the issue of availability, I think that would favor the B787 because of the better cabin pressure, humidity, and filtration.
I would not be surprised to see SQ order the B777-200LR now and then the B787-10X later, knowing that the former can be converted to B777F.
I would love to see one of your terrific charts comparing B787-8/9/10/11 each at 562,000 lb MTOW. It seems to me that a B787-8 with such MTOW would have phenomenal range (obviously it would be fuel limited) and that even a 75 meter long B787-11X would have useful intercontinental range with nearly the passenger capacity of and much lower operating costs than the B777-300ER.
777D From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 300 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2442 times:
I think all of you guys can crunch the numbers. There is some serious brain power going on here
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
Well, this is the reason Boeing doesn't want to have a 787-10. Because it replaces their 5 month old 777-200LR.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2314 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 13): Well, this is the reason Boeing doesn't want to have a 787-10. Because it replaces their 5 month old 777-200LR.
Actually, the B787-10X would not be able perform all the missions that the B777-200LR can. Not even close. I believe the B787-10X can perform all or virtually all B777-200ER missions.
Sponsor Message: 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3950 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 644 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
