Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Could Be Back On The Table  
User currently offlineterryb99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20550 times:

from ATW;

"Boeing's proposed 787-10 stretch may be back on the radar as the 787 and 747-8 programs are retiring risk, according to a new report from New York-based Bernstein Research. "

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=19864

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20496 times:

First, did Boeing ever say that the -10 was ever off the table?

I still think that the 787-10 should be built, even if it does mean a fairly large amount of effort.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1331 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20472 times:

Not surprising.

Boeing really needed to get some data from the 787-8 before finishing up the 787-9.

I think they really needed that data before they could do the plans for the 787-10. Also with it looking like the 787-8 would never fly   at one point and years and years of backlog on the -8/-9 - why even think about the -10?

But now the -8 is flying and data on loads, structure, fuel flows, etc is available they can decide what to do, what to offer, when the production line might have room, what airlines would buy, etc. Shop the power points around the world.

Seems to me with the current backlog, the -10 should not be hurried, but its plans and/or 777NG plans need to be in place to counter the A350.


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 570 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20408 times:

From the article:

"Airlines originally were pushing for a 50-seat stretch over the 787-9 with identical 8,500-nm. range, while Boeing wanted a straight payload/range trade with a 7,000-nm. range."

Well, that certainly makes good sales sense.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 20065 times:

If Boeing decides to make the "777-8" and "-9" the pure 10-abreast airframe, the proposed 787-10 would sit nicely between the shorter Triple Seven and the 787-9.

I'm all for it. Unlike the ill-fated -3, 787-10 is a sure bet.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8007 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19592 times:

With an increase in the wingspan for better range the 787-10 can compete directly with the A350-900 in the size and range category.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19541 times:

The 777-200/200ER/200LR order backlog has dried up to a few dozen.

The A350-900 has a backlog of hundreds.

I think a upgraded 777-200ER/LR will still be heavy.

A 787-10 seems required. I would go for a straight forward light variant able to fly 90% off all flights efficiently. A sluightly different segment then the A350-900.

A direct A350-1000 competitor would be a 787-11..


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7025 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19191 times:

My guess: Launch Customer Lufthansa, they wanted the plane for a long time and were very reluctant ordering the A350.
The 787-10 would offer engine commonality with the 747-8I and another Boeing type to their Airbus dominated fleet.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 18919 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
A direct A350-1000 competitor would be a 787-11..

Wouldn't that be one stretch too far for the 788 frame? Some people seem to think the 787-10 is already pushing it. If the -10 gets a bigger wing and higher MTOW, I guess it would also need new (bigger) main gear. The -11 would need an even higher MTOW... so even bigger wing? Or make the same wing for the -10 and -11?

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would offer engine commonality with the 747-8I and another Boeing type to their Airbus dominated fleet.

LH to me seems like a great candidate for the a350 to be honest. The a350-900 can replace the a343 and eventually the a333 (but those are brand new). The a350-1000 can replace the a346 down the line. They don't seem to have a need for anything smaller, so no a350-800 (or 788).

Engine commonality has also not really played a role with LH so far. The 737, a319, a320 and a343 fleets have CFM engines, the a321's have IAE engines, the a333, a346 and a380 fleets have RR engines and the 744 (and 748) GE. Not to mention the PW engines on the upcoming C-series fleet.

But... LH has surprised before with their aircraft orders, so who knows....

Another airline that may be quite interested in the 787-10 (especially with 8500nm range) is AF/KL. IIRC they are planning a big order this year...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 18844 times:

A 787-10 would only be successful if it has the range of the 787-8, or at least that of the 777-200ER. A simple payload/range trade won't be more than a niche aircraft, not very appealing for airlines IMO. The A350-900 offers a lot more flexiblity, airlines have proved in the past that they don't mind a little extra weight penalty or higher price tag as a result.

I can't see a 787-10 with around 8000NM max range being realised without a major (and costly!) redesign   

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
My guess: Launch Customer Lufthansa, they wanted the plane for a long time and were very reluctant ordering the A350.

I just don't really understand their reluctance, it seems like a perfect replacement for their A340 fleet.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would offer engine commonality with the 747-8I

Correct, although there are quite some differences between the GEnx-1B and the -2B.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
another Boeing type to their Airbus dominated fleet.

Also true, but I doubt that will play a major part in their decision making. We would have seen a 77W in LH colours if that were the case IMHO.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4592 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 18778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
A direct A350-1000 competitor would be a 787-11

Which I do not rule out as an option for Boeing to develop. Especially if they would drop the plans for the B777-make-over.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):
Wouldn't that be one stretch too far for the 788 frame? Some people seem to think the 787-10 is already pushing it. If the -10 gets a bigger wing and higher MTOW, I guess it would also need new (bigger) main gear. The -11 would need an even higher MTOW... so even bigger wing? Or make the same wing for the -10 and -11?

I would guess the new landing gear and wing would be necessary for the B787-10/11 family if Boeing was to go along that path. It is a tough choice when you can also redevelope the B777 which is still a very good airframe. But the more modern option is to go for the B787-10/11 imho.  


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18216 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 5):
With an increase in the wingspan for better range the 787-10 can compete directly with the A350-900 in the size and range category.

I agree. Boeing should do what it takes to make the 787-10 a strong performer and then leverage the developments into a 787-9LR. Boeing should make sure that the 787-10 can at least cover all 777-200ER flights and possibly even the 777-200LR as well. This would allow the 777NG to be optimized for the 77W size and not make compromises.

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
A direct A350-1000 competitor would be a 787-11.

More likely a 777NG I bet.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
Which I do not rule out as an option for Boeing to develop.

I wouldn't rule it out either, and depending on how many changes need to be made for a 787-10, the 787-11 might become a very attractive prospect. But at this point, I think that whether the -11 becomes an option depends on what the -10 actually becomes.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18115 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
I think a upgraded 777-200ER/LR will still be heavy.

I wonder if they are taking a serious consideration to Tim Clarks wishes for a 777NG? He wants the 777-200 to be stretched in halfway compared to the 777-300ER stretch and has named it the 777-250, and he wants the 777-300 to be stretched even further to a 777-400. That way the payload/range would probably make the 777-250 a better performer and it makes sense if the simple stretch 787-10 is what Boeing is planning for.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 9):
A 787-10 would only be successful if it has the range of the 787-8, or at least that of the 777-200ER. A simple payload/range trade won't be more than a niche aircraft, not very appealing for airlines IMO.

The A330-300 shows that range is not always critical. On missions up to 5000Nm the A330 is a incredible performer. I am sure the 787-10 would be as well.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 9):
I just don't really understand their reluctance, it seems like a perfect replacement for their A340 fleet.

Would be nice to see Lufthansaa do the same as UA. Taking both the A350 and the 787. They opted for the 747 as well as the A380   



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineairfrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18061 times:

This makes sense, and also points that Boeing is gearing up resources for a 737 replacement/737 re-engine, and wants to focus on filling this need with the 787 family, rather then a revitalized 777.

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16298 times:

I hope Boeing goes for a 63m+ wingspan, higher MTOW and triple-bogie with ~8200nm range to really compete with the A359. Then Boeing will have the 788 market to itself, the 789 to handle the A358, the 7810 to handle the A359, and the 777EW or whatever Boeing does with that to handle the A3510. Sounds like a smart move to me.




We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15092 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 4):
If Boeing decides to make the "777-8" and "-9" the pure 10-abreast airframe, the proposed 787-10 would sit nicely between the shorter Triple Seven and the 787-9.


This makes sense from a product differentiation strategy. Rather than going head to head with the A359, a 787-10 that is a straight stretch with no major updates (i.e. same-sized wing, slightly strengthened landing gear) could offer enough range for many carriers and rival the CASM of the A359. A 787-10 with a range of 7,000 NMi would still be considered Trans-Pacific with Trans-Atlantic routes being serviced nicely as well. Carriers wanting more range (middle-eastern and the Aussie/Kiwis carriers? ) could look to the 777-8 and -9 which, if updated and stretched from the current 777 base, would also compare favorably with the A359 and A350-1000 on a CASM basis. A 787-10/777NG combo could squeeze the A359 into being a niche plane. Also, the lower investment and quicker time to market makes that simple stretch option appealing. As Richard Aboulafia noted in a recent newsletter ( http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=311 ) building planes with big wings to provide more range caters to one market at the expense of others. As such, with a simple stretch 787-10, Boeing could offer the marketplace the right-sized plane (i.e. most efficient) for most missions.

One thing is certain, it is good to hear whispers of new product proposals again. Just recently it seemed like the 787-10 was on the back burner and the program was retrenching with the virtual elimination of the 787-3 Now, as Boeing retires more risk and digests the data from the 787 certification testing, we can look forward to Boeing moving from performing triage on the 787 program to maximizing its potential.

[Edited 2010-03-31 12:13:41]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5079 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14969 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
This makes sense from a product differentiation strategy. Rather than going head to head with the A359, a 787-10 that is a straight stretch with no major updates (i.e. same-sized wing, slightly strengthened landing gear) could offer enough range for many carriers and rival the CASM of the A359. A 787-10 with a range of 7,000 NMi would still be considered Trans-Pacific with Trans-Atlantic routes being serviced nicely as well.

I like this way of thinking.

The 787-10 "straight stretch" shouldn't just compete with the A359 CASM, it should handily undercut it. It will be substantially lighter with similar engine technology. The aircraft has the potential to be as dominant within its range envelope as the A330-300 has been.

And Boeing always has the 772LR (or an updated variant) available for customers who need more payload range. It will fall slightly behind the A359 in CASM even at 10-abreast, but it can do things the A359 can only dream of.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6673 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13653 times:

I think the fate of the 787-10 is inextricably intertwined with the fate of the 777. If they opt for an upgrade of the 77W and basically abandon the 772, then the 787-10 makes sense. If they opt for an entirely new 777 replacement, then it depends on how big it will be. If it is going to be a direct replacement then the 787-10 makes no sense. If it starts at the 77W and goes bigger than we will see the 787-10. It's really too early to know which way they'll go. Much will depend on how the 787 actually performs, and how the economy performs. It will also depend on how good the A350 is as well, especially the A350-1000. We have a lot of time before we know the answer to that.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5265 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13554 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
A 787-10/777NG combo could squeeze the A359 into being a niche plane.

I don't know if I agree with this completely. At the end of the day, the A358/359/3510 are one family across a decent range of sizes. The 787/777NG combo has a broader range of capacities, but at the expense of two different families. While I respect what the Boeing option might bring to the table, I can't help but think a single family solution will provide enough of a buffer to keep the A359 from being just a niche plane.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8488 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
My guess: Launch Customer Lufthansa

My guess : Launch Customer Air New Zealand .

Second carrier to order the 787 way back when it was still the 7E7 , launch customer for the 787-9 . They have already stated that their longhaul plans are based around the 787 and the 77W . They currently have 8 777-200ER which could very easily be replaced with 787-10s . They have been rumoured for quite some time to be interested in the -10 if Boeing develop it .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13127 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 2):
Also with it looking like the 787-8 would never fly

Nobody at Boeing ever believed the 787-8 would never fly. The additional costs to get it airborne weren't known yet, so was the performance of the bird IRL. But it would fly. When A or B start developing a totally new airliner, they are actually betting the company. There is a slight difference in financial risk between A and B, but that is discussed in another topic. When they fail, the company goes busted. Both companies have enough knowledge and experience to know what they are doing, and really do not start doing huge investments when they know there is a small possibility the plane will never have it's maiden flight.

Thinks start do be completely different when taxpayer money gets more and more involved, though.   



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5079 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13012 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 19):
My guess : Launch Customer Air New Zealand .

Unless Boeing finds additional performance somewhere in the engineering process, the "straight stretch" 787-10 will be rather range challenged for NZ's needs.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12966 times:

I suspect a decision about the -10 will not come until after a firm decision on what to do with the 777. If the 777 is going to receive an update of, say, new wings and other weight savings tech, I think Boeing will do that before tackling the -10.

However, if Boeing decides on a clean sheet design for the 777, then I think they may get the -10 out of the way first.

That is, of course, only if the 787-10 is to become a reality at all.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12764 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
I don't know if I agree with this completely.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
I can't help but think a single family solution will provide enough of a buffer to keep the A359 from being just a niche plane.

Works for me! I retract my "niche plane" assertion although I was thinking that a 777NG would have updated avionics/cockpit to offer more commonality with the 787. Any potential squeeze play would be felt when the B and A families collide in a competition over a carrier wanting a broad range of passenger capacities sourced from a single supplier. With the 787/777NG combo, Boeing could offer an broader array of capacities over the A350XWB's. However, these will be limited circumstances as we have seen how carriers are more than willing to go with a mix; United Airlines being a prime example given they changed tunes and split their widebody order between the 787 and A350.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11750 times:

A 787-10lr would do in the 772 family. Years ago Boeing already admitted as much but they conceded that they'd rather be the cause of the death of the smaller 777's than the other guys.

I think a new winged and long ranged 787 would allow them to stretch the 787 even further. The technology used to develop that wing could also be used as the basis for a 777ng rewing.

I really don't think Boeing is ready or willing to concede the 777 market to Airbus. They have plenty of options to use to fight back.



What the...?
25 Stitch : The critical stumbling block for the 787-10 right now is the lack of MTOW headroom the undercarriage supposedly has. Since initial design, the 787-8's
26 JoeCanuck : I reckon a new wingbox and gear would go along with the stretch. The 772 family is breathing it's last and I think a -10 will be a true 772 replaceme
27 BMI727 : I am of the opinion that Boeing should go ahead and invest in the necessary changes to the landing gear and wing to make the 787-10 work. The capacit
28 Post contains images StickShaker : Its an interesting argument - done the rounds a few times here on A.net. I think a "standard" 787-10 would be a bit light on payload/range for many T
29 kanban : I concur... it may be a ways down the pike however it will happen.
30 Post contains images EPA001 : I am of the opinion that Boeing should go ahead and invest in the necessary changes to the landing gear and wing to make the 787-10 + B787-11 work an
31 tdscanuck : 1) Why would they abandon a frame with a current backlog of 272 frames? That's at least another 3.5 years production, assuming zero sales for the nex
32 pnwtraveler : The early performance figures from the 788 and projected for the 789 mean that a further stretch is now very likely. The wing is a no brainer with sim
33 WarpSpeed : Is a new wing absolutely necessary for the -10? Couldn't the stretch just trade-off some range for increased lift capabilities and, per Stitch's theo
34 JoeCanuck : What is keeping the 787 fuse from being stretched to the same lengths as the 350? We already agree that an upweight version would require different g
35 tdscanuck : The wing. The A350 wing is sized for a much larger airplane. The 787-8 wing isn't particularly lightly loaded, but it's obviously good enough for the
36 Stitch : As to the wing, I suppose it depends on how much extra TOW Boeing is looking at. I've been told the undercarriage was designed for 254t (so ~250t MTOW
37 BMI727 : I think that Boeing should definitely consider a 787-11, but at this point I am more inclined to use the 787-10 to replace the short 777s and build a
38 Post contains images EPA001 : I think the wider (and lighter and maybe stronger) fuselage of the B787 could be made as long as an A340-600. At least that is what I am thinking abo
39 JoeCanuck : I think most, (including myself), have long ago agreed that a greater MTOW will require a new wing which would go along with the new gear. I was aski
40 Stitch : Per the "a.net experts", reinforcing CFRP should require less structure (by weight) than Al so a very long 787 should not suffer some of the weight p
41 Post contains images Jacobin777 : My guess would be EK. And before anyone says "EK has ordered a shed-load of A350's", we're talking about EK here.. . I think if anything, Boeing will
42 Stitch : GE have mumbled they feel they could scale to 85k for the A350XWB-800 and A350XWB-900, so it could be possible to do it with the GEnx1B - perhaps wit
43 JoeCanuck : Since the original 350 was going to use the same engines as the 787, can the 787-10 use the same engines as the 350?
44 WarpSpeed : Moreover, Boeing will listen to its customers and then, coupled with the competitive analysis noted above, take the appropriate tack on the 787-10, i
45 Post contains images Jacobin777 : True, I do remember GE offering Airbus suitable engines for the -800XWB and -900XWB models. 85K would work on a potential B787-10. See above. If Stit
46 StickShaker : I acknowledge all of the above technical issues will influence the configuration and specs of any 787-10 derivative, however there are other non-techn
47 Post contains images Baroque : OTOH I just looked at the new orders for the 777 for 2010 (not a good year) and it seems there would not be protecting very much - would they? Maybe
48 nomadd22 : I was wondering if Jon's article about CFRP not scaling down well because impact resistance requires a certain minimum thickness means that the 787-8
49 BoeEngr : 787-9 EIS is 2013.
50 RJ111 : Definitely necessary. Various OEW and MTOW changes have meant the 789 is going to strongly cannibalise the 788 and they can't really afford to have on
51 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...thus one of the "contemplations"...re-winging the B787 would be semi-costly. Again however, it all depends on what the final OEM for the XWB will
52 Stitch : In the past 12 months Boeing secured some $2.5 billion in market financing at very attractive rates (thanks to the Federal Discount Rate being 0% and
53 EA772LR : I'm not following that logic. If the 789's range remains the same and all other performance (at the expense of slightly higher fuel burn) remains equ
54 tdscanuck : Who said 152% is a mortal sin? That's pretty good. Ideally, you want to be 150.0000...0001%, but that's a very risky thing to shoot for. I don't foll
55 nomadd22 : Like it's my fault I had a confused, poorly worded post? I really don't know much about stretchability and compressability of CFRP. I was just thinki
56 tdscanuck : How much of a factor that is will be a big function of how large the overall aircraft is. Impact resistance probably has no bearing on the thickness
57 nomadd22 : I was thinking of Jon's article on the reason for CFRP not scaling down well for a 737 size craft as being the fact that the fuselage skin had to be
58 Baroque : My guess was that the original 789 wing was thought to be adequate for the 787-10 but somewhere it has been decided it is not. At that point, they ne
59 Post contains images BMI727 : Some of us actually are paying tuition. I probably learn more here though. My pet idea...even though I'm probably not the first.
60 StickShaker : If Boeing can get cheap finance for high risk projects (which have yet to prove themselves) in the current environment then I take my hat off to them
61 Stitch : I suppose it depends on what MTOW we're looking at. The original 787-10 MTOW would have been ≤250t and the 787-8's span has proven itself adequate
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...
"Israeli Airlines Could Be Barred From The U.S" posted Tue Jul 15 2008 10:54:17 by TodaReisinger
FR Is Back On The London - Brussels Route posted Wed Dec 13 2006 11:59:13 by HBDAN
First Choice And MyTravel Merger Back On The Cards posted Mon Nov 27 2006 13:23:44 by Gilesdavies
Some US Airlines Leave Money On The Table posted Sat Oct 14 2006 06:36:51 by BillReid
Air Canada Jazz Back On The Island posted Thu Jul 6 2006 18:09:59 by CRJpurser
PW6000 Engines To Be Offered On The A318 Elite. posted Tue Jan 24 2006 19:38:43 by WINGS
Frontier: "You Will Be Flying On The Wolf!" posted Fri Feb 4 2005 00:26:46 by Gigneil
Virgin-BMI Merger 'Back On The Cards' posted Tue Jan 25 2005 18:05:47 by Horus
Where Will Economy Class Be Located On The A380? posted Wed Dec 8 2004 14:27:35 by John
Go Thru Transit...back On The Same Plane? posted Thu Aug 19 2004 16:48:10 by Sky0000547