March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co., the world's second- largest commercial-aircraft maker, will build a stretched version of its 787 jetliner that seats about 300 passengers, spurred by demand from customers including Emirates airlines.
``It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it,'' Michael Bair, head of Boeing's 787 program, said today on a conference call with reporters. ``We now have three versions and there have been a few customers, most notably Emirates, that have asked us to look at a stretched version with roughly 300 seats.''
The stretched 787 would be called the 787-10 and enter service in 2012, Bair said. Boeing is working with Emirates now to see if the 787-10 meets their requirements and ``a fair amount'' of engineering work has already been done, he said. Chicago-based Boeing is counting on the fuel-efficient 787 Dreamliner to win back dominance of the $60-billion-a-year jetliner market from Airbus SAS.
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
FlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 644 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12187 times:
What would be the difference in pax capacity between -9 and -10 in a 3 class config? 15-25?
I'm still not convinced that it would be a good business case for Boeing to develope the -10 if they'll only strech it to 300 pax, the difference is too small, IMO. This might be another 764ER.
This, however, does counter Airbus' A359 and will prevent EK and other airlines to go with Airbus A359 without looking seriously at the 787.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12162 times:
Thank Airbus.
Airbus, in order to "save" money, decided to use the 787 engine family to power their heavier jet. Further, by making the 350-900 slightly bigger than the 787-9 and go against the 772, they forced Boeing to respond with an even bigger plane.
By doing so, they basically got the engine family into the range that supports a 787-10 without Boeing haven't to force the issue right away, and dared Boeing to offer the 772 replacement in 2012 instead of 2015.
If Airbus had asked for a new engine family or matched the 787-9 on size, the 787-10 would be a much more difficult prospect.
Just my opinion.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12125 times:
I think the development of a -10 is costing Boeing less than we know. They have spent years investing in sytems that allow them to develope planes with less cost and in less time. This, combined with the seemingly simplicity of carbon fiber fusalage makes this a low risk proposition. The only real issue is the 777-200 sales competition.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12090 times:
Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2): What would be the difference in pax capacity between -9 and -10 in a 3 class config? 15-25?
The question is, is this difference assuming 3-3-3 787-9 and 2-4-2 787-10? The quoted passenger ranges on the 787-9 are 250-290. I think the 40 passenger difference probably has to do with the ability to do 3-3-3 on the 787.
Does anyone have the specs for the proposed length of stretch for the 787-10?
Mptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12047 times:
Well
This screams like an EK order!! Hmmm many be QR will have a change of heart too....
Secondly, I gree with Ikramerica... The engine story is better for RR and GE now that they have both airframers needing similar thrust. It is much easier and lower cost for additional engineering work to stretch than a new one at this time. It might be a 767-400 type, but I think there is more interest in this size from more airlines that the 767-400 did.
It is better to be cannibolized by your own than by another, mainly when you know the other is lurching in the sideline. 25 seats may not sound like a lot, but when you ue that as a factoring quotient for CASM and other KPIs, a percentages upwards in cost base will make a difference.
May be there is life for 787-10 at QF, AC, SQ and the like... we shall see.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12021 times:
Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2): What would be the difference in pax capacity between -9 and -10 in a 3 class config? 15-25?
I think it's more like 40 (in theoretical 3 class).
Remember with initial 8Y concept, the 788 is 210pax and the 789 is 250pax according to B's current numbers. In 9Y they are 250 and 290.
The 787-10, i would expect, to be 290 in 8Y and 335 in 9Y, or that ball park.
The 764ER was late to market and outperformed by the 772. It only made sense for 2 carriers, and even then, part of me wonders if both wouldn't rather have 772s now instead. CO might be wishing they made a 763ER+772ER fleet decision vs. a 762ER/764ER/772ER decision at this state of the game.
The 787-10 is on time for the market and outperforms the 772, in theory.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12021 times:
The 787-10 is a direct 777-200ER replacement. It will have basically the same pax load. This would go in direct competition with the A350-900, while the 787-9 would match the A350-800.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11941 times:
Unless this is the official launch of the 787-10, this is actually old news, since
we already pretty much knew for a long time the 787 was going to be stretched at some point; it is the natural growth of basically every plane around and has been hinted at several times already
Quoting Glom (Reply 6): I thought the only sticking point was getting the engines. Does this mean that RR and/or GE have committed to them?
Not yet officially, but they are expected to (for certification in 4 to 5 years)...
Which is also why Mr Bair said:
Quoting Kalakaua (Thread starter): ``It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it''
They're waiting for the right engine. (Just as Airbus is to launch the A350-1000 with).
Kaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11876 times:
Airbus isn't going to launch a 350-1000 variant. A 359HGW is on the works which would provide even better range and payload capability than the A market 359. This is something I would like to know more about, the range of the 787. If the current MTOW is kept, then I don't think that airplane will go far.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5758 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11876 times:
Here we go again! The 767-400ER was a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental. The world tour was just to grab bonus orders, and the 767-400ERX was a niche aircraft for Kenya Airways, until the order was canclelled. NO MONEY WAS LOST ON THE PROJECT! If this was not the case, the 767-400ERX would have been the only 767-400 model offered due to its greater range, and Delta and Continental might have rejected due to engine incompatiblity with the existing 767s.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): The 764ER was late to market and outperformed by the 772. It only made sense for 2 carriers, and even then, part of me wonders if both wouldn't rather have 772s now instead. CO might be wishing they made a 763ER+772ER fleet decision vs. a 762ER/764ER/772ER decision at this state of the game
Boeing initially wanted Delta and Continental to order 777-200ERs to replace the L-1011 and DC-10 fleets. They both thought the aircraft was too big for that mission, and then Boeing offered them a 777-100 model. The 777-100 was rejected for its high weight for its size. The 767-400ER was then offered to meet their specifications.
CASE CLOSED!!!
[Edited 2006-03-27 22:08:32]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11830 times:
Kudos to Boeing Company for finally realising that they have to build the 7810X!
Quoting Kalakaua (Thread starter): The stretched 787 would be called the 787-10 and enter service in 2012
TOO LONG. The aircraft is needed much sooner. 6 years? It's like waiting for another A380. Great(!)
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11830 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): Remember with initial 8Y concept, the 788 is 210pax and the 789 is 250pax according to B's current numbers. In 9Y they are 250 and 290.
3 class 787-8's in Boeing's original 223 pax configuration has only 22 rows of 8Y, so the converting that to 9Y yields 245 pax. The lower and upper bounds likely take into account different ratios of three different classes as well as 8 versus 9 abreast. If they increase fuselage length by the same amount the average will shift by the same amount. The range might be quoted as some what larger though.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): The 764ER was late to market and outperformed by the 772. It only made sense for 2 carriers, and even then, part of me wonders if both wouldn't rather have 772s now instead. CO might be wishing they made a 763ER+772ER fleet decision vs. a 762ER/764ER/772ER decision at this state of the game.
You are probably right. Though in at least Delta's case the problem was the pay demands of the pilots.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, RR: 79 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11830 times:
The B787-10 gives Boeing the potential to replace anything between B762 and B772ER with only one family - and Airbus has lost its advantage of offering a slightly larger plane.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11830 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 11): Unless this is the official launch of the 787-10, this is actually old news
No, it isn't. I know you hate everything Boeing, but it is new news.
Why?
Because it gives an EIS of 2012, and CONFIRMS that it is a matter of WHEN, not IF, this plane is built, from someone at Boeing who holds weight.
First time this type of statement has been made. It means they have been designing it and have been offering it, and it seems to imply that there will be a launch customer announcement coming quite soon, when taken with the looming 787 order press statement also released today...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11774 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 12): Airbus isn't going to launch a 350-1000 variant. A 359HGW is on the works which would provide even better range and payload capability than the A market 359. This is something I would like to know more about, the range of the 787. If the current MTOW is kept, then I don't think that airplane will go far.
It would beat the A359 on account of the lower OEW, allowing for better efficiency and more fuel with the same MTOW and payload.
The A359HGW engine choice might be an issue that complicates matters, particularly on the GE side with GP7200 being talked about as the power source.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11774 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17): Because it gives an EIS of 2012, and CONFIRMS that it is a matter of WHEN, not IF, this plane is built, from someone at Boeing who holds weight.
So basically it is news, because it is the first time Boeing themselves mention it, but not because it is something unexpected: If you do a search on A.net, you'll find it was pretty much agreed here by all a strechted 787 was going to be launched and that it would be launched around 2012, depending on engine availability.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1704 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11636 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13): Here we go again! The 767-400ER was a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13): The 767-400ER was then offered to meet their specifications.
CASE CLOSED!!!
Umm... No.
Boeing offered 767-400 against EVERY SINGLE ONE RFP from carriers interested in evaluating it against A330-200. It was NEVER build exclusively for DL and CO. Only DL and CO ended up buying it. Kenya cancelled their order and went with 777-200ER.
What killed 767-400 was the lack of cargo capacity. If you need one reason why Boeing went ahead with 787 in the configuration as we know it now, besides the fuel efficiency, it's the cargo capacity and ability to carry two rows of LD3s on the cargo deck.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11601 times:
Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2): What would be the difference in pax capacity between -9 and -10 in a 3 class config? 15-25?
Quoting NorCal (Reply 5):
Does anyone have the specs for the proposed length of stretch for the 787-10?
The difference in cabin and overall length between the B787-9 and the B787-10 will be 20 feet (6 meters). In a 3 cabin configuration, that would be an additional 6 C seats and 5 rows of 8 or 9 abreast Y seats plus two more lavs.
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 12): This is something I would like to know more about, the range of the 787. If the current MTOW is kept, then I don't think that airplane will go far.
The MTOW of the B787-10 will be higher than the 540,000 lbs of the B787-9. The undercarriage of the B787-8/9 is good for 562,000 lbs and Boeing are developing a stronger undercarriage with four more wheels for the B787-10, which suggests that MTOW will be above 560,000 lbs. The lift capacity of the wing is not much more than 600,000 lbs, so I expect the MTOW of the B787-10 to be in the 570,000 to 600,000 lbs range.
Note that a B787-8ER with 580,000 lbs MTOW and an extra 80,000 liters of fuel capacity would fly SYD-LHR nonstop with a full passenger load against the worst headwinds. CASM would be substantially lower than that of the B777-200LR.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11557 times:
Perhaps there is a link between this announcement and the pending orders announcement?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17): No, it isn't. I know you hate everything Boeing, but it is new news.
Why?
Because it gives an EIS of 2012, and CONFIRMS that it is a matter of WHEN, not IF, this plane is built, from someone at Boeing who holds weight.
Um, actually I have to agree with Sabena Pilot, which almost never happens. PLEASE Dont faint. It was Randy who said it would be built with an EIS of 2012 about 4 or 5 months ago. I believe there was a whole thread devoted to it here on anet.
But I do see this as a strong re-affirmation of the project, and it DOES confirm engineering has been going on behind the sceens on the project. It also confirms EK interest, and others as well. So you are both actually right.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11489 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): Note that a B787-8ER with 580,000 lbs MTOW and an extra 80,000 liters of fuel capacity would fly SYD-LHR nonstop with a full passenger load against the worst headwinds. CASM would be substantially lower than that of the B777-200LR.
AFAICT, the -8 doesn't need a MTOW weight greater than 540,000 lbs to get to that point. It needs 500-510K lbs to get a still air range of around 10,000nm with full fuel tanks. Another 30K lbs with additional tankage should push it beyond 11000nm.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
BoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11426 times:
IMO, A 2012 introduction date is perfect for the early model 777-200 and 200ER replacements. You will see Singapore, BA, UA, AA, AF jump on the 787-10 model.
Congrats Boeing!
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
25 Ikramerica: Whatever, man. You are the expert. So, in retrospect, the 764ER was the right decision for CO and DL instead of the 772ER, even though both now wish
26 Ikramerica: We all know that nothing gets decided in an a.net forum. Otherwise, there'd be all sorts of cool new planes that aren't about to happen. I'll place m
27 Tifoso: Sabenapilot is right, there is no new news here. Here's the quote from Randy's blog entry on the 8th of February, 2006. Edit: Oops, seems like DAYFly
28 Dalecary: I read in one report that Boeing said the -10 would have the same 8600-8800nm range of the -9. So, at least one of GE/RR must have met Boeing's demand
29 Zvezda: The B787-10 will have the size and payload of the A340-500. It will probably also have the range. Certainly, the B787-10 will have lower trip costs a
30 Leelaw: She doesn't seem to have much life left in her these days anyway.
31 United787: Here it is on Crain's Chicago http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19986
32 Dalecary: I have read some contradictory info on the -10s range. Some reports have stated same range as the -9 but Bair has been quoted in other reports as sayi
33 1337Delta764: I can't speak for Continental, but in the case of Delta, the 767-400ER was intended to be a high-density domestic airliner, while the 777 was intende
34 Singapore_Air: Hardly. The 7810X is needed in 2007. But 2012 is better than anything I suppose. ---- I guess we wait. Singapore Airlines Limited vs. EK. Who shall o
35 Aither: So much for the fragmentation / point to point claims... airlines are asking bigger aircraft in the end.
36 Atmx2000: Don't be silly. Boeing has sold around 250 -8s. That there is a market for a 300pax aircraft should be obvious by the fact Boeing sold somewhere arou
37 Lehpron: 2nd? That's a can of worms. Hmm, was this about the A320 vs. 737 deal? Does anyone happen to know where the sweet spot of pax is, i.e. which series m
38 TeamREGAL: I'm not so sure about that. Even though it's been discussed many times over, I don't think that the 787-10 and 772ER will technically be in the same
39 Zvezda: No, the B787-10 will have a range well beyond that of the B777-200ER.
40 CX747: When Boeing builds the 787-10, that will be the end of the 777-200ER line. The -10 does everything the -200ER does but cheaper and more efficiently. W
41 Mham001: I'm not understanding why some folks have such a problem differentiating between a possibility and a definitive. The blog does not once say they will
42 Mptpa: I agree. The BLOG was a teaser and was NOT definite. Today's is an Announcement stating it WILL be built, and a definite EIS. This sounds like an earl
43 Ikramerica: Launch sounds like it will come from EK. The plane seems to be being tweaked to fit their needs, according to Bair. They obviously don't want to annou
45 CWFan: So what's the best guess on range? Some of you guys are saying it can do LHR-SYD (is that 11k miles?). Some of you say 8500k or less. What's a guy to
46 Kaneporta1: I'm in awe how you people know 'everything' about an airplane that has just been announced and will fly in 6 years (at least). And it's really funny h
47 OyKIE: According to this article there are other airlines waiting for the 787-10 http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4505 That Boeing intends t
48 Bmacleod: So the 787-10 will effectively be a successor to the 777LR? I guess AC might switch some 777LR options to the 787-10 if it goes ahead...
49 Zvezda: Thank you. No. I studied physics at university and these things are not difficult to calculate to the level of accuracy required at A.net. To do thes
50 Tifoso: This was to be expected. For anyone following the 787-10 story, it was quite obvious that the program was going to happen, and like Bair said it was
51 DeltaWings: Would it be feasible to improve the 777-200ER, plus offer the 787-10. Through that they could still give customer an option, especially for those that
52 Zvezda: Technically feasible, yes. Economically feasible, no. Boeing looked into further B777 improvements and decided to stretch the B787 instead. From here
53 Atmx2000: I estimate that a -10 at the wing max 600K lbs MTOW would have range better than the -9. But it is not likely that we will see that weight initially.
54 Zvezda: That's about my expectation -- nearer 560K and about the same range as the B787-8.
55 BoomBoom: Range with passenger payload: 787-3: 4,020 miles, 290 to 330 passengers 787-8: 9,780 miles, 210 to 250 passengers 787-9: 10,120 miles, 250 to 290 pass
56 OyKIE: I can imagine that you don't need the accuracy of airliners need, to get along on A.net, but still I am impressed. You know allot about planes.
57 Zvezda: Thank you for the kind words, but there are others here who know far more than I do.
58 Jacobin777: physics....eh!......chemistry is where its at... actually, come to think of it, many of my chemistry classes were cross-listed with physics.. its all
59 Ikramerica: As was already stated, there are range and payload differences, but also, AC is taking all their 772LRs in the next 3 years. The 787-10 won't be avai
61 Planemaker: There is little point in arguing over fragmentation/no-fragmentation since both will happen. I don't know if anyone else finds it interesting that th
63 Atmx2000: My only surprise is that they think they can get away without having sub 300 seaters. I find it hard to imagine that they will be able to match traff
64 Trex8: since no one is answering in the tech forum, what thrust levels will a 787-10 need? Given the stories about GE possibly using a GP7000 for a A359HGW,
65 Zvezda: The decision to proceed was based on a promise by RR of an 80K thrust Trent 1000.
66 Texfly101: Speaking specifically to the issue of 787-10 replacing the 777 derivatives, it is just more than replacing the 777 airframe numbers. It is also about
67 Ikramerica: And GEnx could probably reach 80k as well. That is 150% of the 53k baseline. The GE90 has this same range in engine thrust: 76.5k to 115k. The curren
68 Boeing nut: Boeing has already stated that this will be considered once the 787 "freight train" has slowed down a little. Although I agree that the 772ER may be
69 OyKIE: The GE90 has two different fan sizes. To date alle GEnx engines shares the same fan size. If GEnx got a bigger fan could they be able to reach 100 00
70 Zvezda: No, the GEnx has two fan sizes: 104 inches and 111 inches.
71 Ikramerica: Not to mention they don't all share the same compression stages. They do share the same core. I know the 748i fan size is a bit smaller than the 787,
72 Trex8: here's all the sordid details from the 06 AWST source book 111in fan envelope GEnx 1A72 72K thrust A358/9 GEnx1B54 53.2K 783 GEnx1B64 63.8K 788 GEnx1B
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11310 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, 
From Greece, joined May 2005, 719 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1704 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
