Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Vietnam Airlines Switches 787 Order To -9s - FI  
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 582 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12803 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ines-switches-787-order-to-9s.html

From the article:

"...the carrier has had to switch to the -9 because the -8s no longer meet the carrier's performance requirements. Minh explains the -8s are now too heavy to economically operate long-haul routes from Vietnam to Europe and North America.

"The -8 doesn't meet the performance guarantee as they told me," Minh told Flightglobal on the sidelines of this week's SkyTeam meeting in New York. "We found the -8 is a heavy -8; it's not the original -8 they committed to."


I find the stated rational for the switch to the -9 contrary to my understanding that the -8 has exceeded aerodynamic performance expectations to overcome the weight issues it faces. And, contrary to my understanding (as heard from Boeing (S. Fancher?)), it would appear that the -8 will not meet all customer contractual obligations (at least not for Vietnam Airlines).

Something does not seem right here. If Vietnam Airlines really wanted the -8, might they simply switch delivery slots to take those built after a major block point change to benefit from the weight reduction efforts? They could probably get them before the -9 slots they have been quoted. Along the same line, the switch would make more sense if it were to take advantage of the -9's expected design enhancements over the -8. After all, the -9 is to benefit significantly from the lessons learned from the -8 development. The article reads like they are being forced into taking the -9 because of the "heavy" -8. However, in the end, they will take delivery of a superior plane; albeit a few years later than expected.



[Edited 2010-06-23 20:08:21]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
91 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 12543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
Something does not seem right here

It's an interesting conundrum.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
However, in the end, they will take delivery of a superior plane; albeit a few years later than expected.

True. That doesn't help them today. They quote the good old A330's and possibly 777's as the back-up. Getting to be familiar, this...  
Quote:
"We can't wait. We have to add more A330s and maybe more 777s until the time we can replace all of it."

I found his comment about having to order both the 787-9 AND A359 purely because they need the lift quite interesting.

Quote:
He adds Vietnam Airlines plans to use its 787-9s and A350-900s on similar missions but the carrier needs to acquire both types because neither manufacturer has enough slots to meet the carrier's requirement for 55 to 60 widebodies by 2020.

Rgds


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12222 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
"The -8 doesn't meet the performance guarantee as they told me," Minh told Flightglobal on the sidelines of this week's SkyTeam meeting in New York. "We found the -8 is a heavy -8; it's not the original -8 they committed to."

Strange. VN wasn't in line to receive the first 787's anyway??? Certainly their leased birds would be delivered when all the performance issues should have been ironed out. So, I think there is more to that, maybe someone at VN has miscalculated - perhaps calculated with 8-abreast Y seating while they want to go for 9-abreast.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 1):
Quote:
He adds Vietnam Airlines plans to use its 787-9s and A350-900s on similar missions but the carrier needs to acquire both types because neither manufacturer has enough slots to meet the carrier's requirement for 55 to 60 widebodies by 2020.

That requirement, and their apparent need for short term lift, makes me expect an order for 10 new widebodies very soon. They have 10 A330's and 10 777's;
They've ordered 10 A350's and 16 787's;
There's a LOI for 4 A380's;
Leaves them 10 frames short. Wonder indeed whether they'll go conservative (with the number of seats) and opt for the A330, or think bigger and go for the 77W   
Or perhaps they'll find them in the leasing market, but I'm not so sure about that.



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,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12177 times:

VN also wants to start US services next year, according to this article For which the 777-200LR seems a perfect fit.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 1):
Quote:
"We can't wait. We have to add more A330s and maybe more 777s until the time we can replace all of it."

Which sounds to me like: OK Boeing, give us the discount on the 77L's we want or we'll only order from Airbus from now on...
  



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,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12113 times:

Having followed the news around the 787-8 for years, this cannot be a surprise. They has to add a lot of weight to get it certified. Boeing and others are touting the enormous improvements of the 787-9 compared to the 787-8. This says something about the -8 too, obviously there were a lot of improvement opportunities.. Airlines trying to switch to the -9 are also not news, probably more to follow.

User currently offlineVN777 From Vietnam, joined Nov 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12090 times:

VN added some 332(ex-LX) to their fleet last winter to upgrade intra Asia flying and to replace the 772 on the MEL and NRT flights.

I expect VN to look for more used 330's to use on the HAN-DME and SGN-SYD flights to free more 772 for Europe/US service.

Another option: 772A from CX and CZ still for sale? good enough for intra Asia and domestic flights.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 3):
VN also wants to start US services next year, according to this article For which the 777-200LR seems a perfect fit.

Planned with a stop in KIX. No need for the 77L at the moment.


VN777


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

I agree with most of the comments - or should I say questions above.This is like an article from Alice in wonderland.None of it makes (to me) any sense at all.

The 789 has the same wing,same fuel capacity , but a thirstier engine.And somehow this plane will do (range) what the "8" cannot do?

If the 787 cannot do point to point "long thin routes" then what can it do? Their aircraft - as stated above, are not the "heavy" first batch anyway.

Must be me - just don't kow what they are going on about.

And if you have to order other craft in the mean time, then why not just wait a little longer and go with one type?(either type) Far better in the long term I would have thought.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11987 times:

It will be the first of many. The subtle changes in specs* since the birth of the 787 will make the 788 virtually obeselete when the -9 turns up. I would say to a greater extent than what the 763ER did to the 762ER.

*based on what i've seen


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11924 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
The subtle changes in specs* since the birth of the 787 will make the 788 virtually obeselete when the -9 turns up. I would say to a greater extent than what the 763ER did to the 762ER.

*based on what i've seen

Can somebody show the numbers (range&fuel&weights) of the final production 788?

I am extremely sceptical about this too:

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
The 789 has the same wing,same fuel capacity , but a thirstier engine.And somehow this plane will do (range) what the "8" cannot do?

I mean the LR version of the 789 would have to be .... exactly what the 788 is! Why does the 788 not have the legs of the 789? Ok, smaller tanks and less fuel. That may be the reason but not the explanation. Why decided Boeing to give the 788 an inferior range than the larger model?

Can the improvements of the 789 not be phased back into the 788 design?

If yes: Everything else the same would mean that the 788 MUST have quite some more range and not less!

If no: What's wrong with the 788 design? What changes of the 789 are not backward compatible?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30618 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No matter how much empty weight Boeing removes from the 787-9, it will still be heavier than a 787-8 of the same production time. And the 787-9 carries less fuel (if just) than the 787-8, yet Boeing feels it will have a pax+bag range ≥8200nm when it enters service.

VN signed their order in 2005 with deliveries planned for 2009 and 2010. So they were likely going to receive planes in 2012 (perhaps late 2011), by which time much of the 787-9's weight reduction techniques would have been implemented in the 787-8. They appear to have not yet chosen an engine (per Wiki), however both GE and RR would have improved engines in service by that time with additional improvements on the way.

Has anyone heard if the 787-8 is fuel volume limited at MTOW?

[Edited 2010-06-24 04:00:14]

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 11819 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 8):
Can somebody show the numbers (range&fuel&weights) of the final production 788?

This page has some figures...

A350 And 787 Specification (by OyKIE Sep 18 2009 in Civil Aviation)

As you can see, based on these figures, the -9 weighs only 5t more than the -8, yet boasts superior range, pax and LD-3 capacity and i believe payload.

Mind you, it's early days yet, that could change.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 8):
Can the improvements of the 789 not be phased back into the 788 design?

The reason the -9 can fly further is because of the -9s increased MTOW meaning it can carry more fuel, even thought they both have the same tank size. Yes it could be engineered back to the -8, obviously though Boeing doesn't think it's worth it perhaps because A) It might not be worth the OEW hit or B) They've sold so many -8s it doesn't really need a sales boost.

I suspect 90%+ of missions won't need that performance anyway.


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1040 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 11736 times:

VN might really want the -9 after seeing it's performance or appreciating that their growth is bigger than when they ordered the -8. If CO is running AKL IAH in 2011, VN could run Saigon New York. They may be stirring up confusion for better terms on interim lift.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
The 789 has the same wing,same fuel capacity , but a thirstier engine.And somehow this plane will do (range) what the "8" cannot do?

As I understand it, at spec, the 787-9 is supposed to carry 290 pax 8 000Nm, while the 787-8 carries 250 pax 7 650Nm, about a 5% range advantage

If you get underneath the headlines, I suspect you'll find that the extra length of the 787-9, and its 20t greater MTOW (note - assumes 227t for the 787-8 and 247t for the 787-9) are delivered with an OEW probably only about 6t higher than the 787-8 (as most parts of the aircraft except the fuselage are pretty much the same.)

If I'm right, the resulting 14t of extra lift is distributed between payload and fuel. Allowing about 4t for the extra "nominal" payload (290 pax vs 250 pax) suggests the 787-9 will carry c. 10t more fuel in its "nominal" configuration (I make it c. 100t vs 90t).

I calculate the drag of a fully loaded 247t 787-9 to be about 5% greater than a fully loaded 227t 787-8 - i.e. it's fuel burn will be about 5% higher.
Ergo, if it's carrying 10% more fuel, but burning 5% more, it's likely to fly about 5% further.

Which is exactly what its supposed to do  

On top of that, it is suggested that the 787-9 will enter service with more maturity than the 787-8, which might extend it's range advantage some more.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 10):
The reason the -9 can fly further is because of the -9s increased MTOW meaning it can carry more fuel, even thought they both have the same tank size.

  
Correct (IMO)

Rgds


User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11345 times:

Where are they going to use the 787-9?

I can see


SGN-FRA
SGN-LAX? potentially
SGN-CDG
SGN-MEL
SGN-SYD
SGN-DME
HAN-CDG
HAN-FRA
SGN-LHR? potentially

The thing about the 8s though, is that they have the flexibility to replace the 332 on regionals, and sub in for the 77Es on the long hauls.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11346 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
It will be the first of many. The subtle changes in specs* since the birth of the 787 will make the 788 virtually obeselete when the -9 turns up.

With a 3.54:1 B788 to B789 sales ratio respectively, I don't see your prognostication will become true.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineLufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 692 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11131 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 2):
Strange. VN wasn't in line to receive the first 787's anyway??? Certainly their leased birds would be delivered when all the performance issues should have been ironed out. So, I think there is more to that, maybe someone at VN has miscalculated - perhaps calculated with 8-abreast Y seating while they want to go for 9-abreast.

I highly doubt that a major company would spend hundreds of millions buying aircraft without double triple checking every single piece of the deal.

My guess is that maybe Boeing promised some under the table figures during negotiations in 2005 that they thought they could deliver by the time they were manufacturing VN's birds, and now realise they are not able to. I would also imagine that VN would know these were not published figures, and the contract would be written accordingly allowing for an easier model swap.



Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11094 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 14):
With a 3.54:1 B788 to B789 sales ratio respectively, I don't see your prognostication will become true.

I'd say the high ratio supports my claim that there will be many more conversions to the -9 in the future.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 10805 times:

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 13):
SGN-FRA
SGN-LAX? potentially
SGN-CDG
SGN-MEL
SGN-SYD
SGN-DME
HAN-CDG
HAN-FRA
SGN-LHR?

No SGN-SEA?  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 10720 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
No SGN-SEA?

Not as much demand as the others

I forgot to expand. It's

SGN-KIX-LAX


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6531 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 10285 times:

Interesting. Surely a heavy plane is not a good thing, but I thought it was somewhat less so for long haul ? If the aerodynamics are better, I mean. But maybe they are not better enough, and we know that the more weight, the more fuel is needed, which adds more weight.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10035 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 14):
With a 3.54:1 B788 to B789 sales ratio respectively, I don't see your prognostication will become true.

I'd say the high ratio supports my claim that there will be many more conversions to the -9 in the future.

Not really IMHO...maybe you can expound upon it a little bit more.... 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9414 times:

Exactly what i heard about the Boeing 787-8.

It is in fact a lame dog and far away from contracted performance.

The first examples do not perform better than Airbus new high Take-Off-Weight A332.

And that is frustrating for an aircraft with that promoted new technolgies in comparison to the A332!


Is Vietnam Airlines the last one to switch from the -8 to the -9?


No, i think it just started and that could be very umcomfortable for Boeing very soon.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 20):
Not really IMHO...maybe you can expound upon it a little bit more

Because in order to convert from the -8 to the -9 you need to have an order for the -8 in the first place.

Of course nothing can happen with the pre-789 EIS deliveries. But when the 789 begins to firm up, and assuming it does not change radically, i believe we will see conversions from many many airlines. I'll stick my neck out and say at least 100 of the current 788s will be converted to -9s.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Could this be more of a case, that while Boeing is reaching its guaranteed performance of the original 787, the airline is looking at the all over specs of the two planes as design and manufacturing mature, and decided that the 787-9 would better meet their needs (which could have changed a little in the last 5 years).


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9301 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 21):
It is in fact a lame dog and far away from contracted performance.

But Boeing has said they will be able to meet their performance guarantees. Are they lying?


25 BoeEngr : Boeing has not publically released performance data.
26 Post contains images tarheelwings : Is that why an extremely well run and successful company like LAN has taken the early 787 slots that have been made available by other airlines?
27 Stitch : Boeing has publically stated the plane is meeting the contracted performance guarantees for at least the initial tranche of deliveries (LN007-LN019).
28 Post contains images 328JET : @ taarheelwings LAN is replacing their B763s first with the ordered B787s. For that purpose a B788 could way 20 tons more and could still be operated
29 RJ111 : That's some good spin. If there's nothing wrong with them why were they given up in the first place?
30 Stitch : Well the Chinese wanted them for the 2008 Summer Olympics. Since they couldn't get them then, they have been deferred. The QF Group went back and fort
31 BMI727 : I agree, but not necessarily because the 788 will have any shortfall or be a bad plane, but because I expect the -9 to be just that good.
32 motorhussy : Can probably add SGN-AKL and would have thought any flights to the U.S. and/or Canada would leave from HAN. Regards MH
33 Post contains images bikerthai : Maybe not, but once a week would be nice. Most of the expatriate and business travel goes through SGN. Hochiminh is the economic center. Government t
34 hawkercamm : I would say SGN-LHR and SGN-LAX will be A380s in the future. The initial rush of B788s were for B767 replacements for use on medium ranges 3000-5000n
35 hawkercamm : I wonder if VN were able to screw a compensation deal out of Boeing to change from B788 to B789. Allowing for delays and reduced spec (Fuel Burn, Payl
36 BMI727 : I don't know about compensation, but I'm sure that Boeing is more than happy to do this since it would allow them to move other 788 deliveries up. Ev
37 Post contains images Stitch : Well if operators can find a use for 1000+ of them over the next couple of decades, it's "good to suck". That they're publically carping about the 78
38 EA772LR : I disagree. There are 675 orders for the 788, and granted several of those could turn into -9 orders, still, obviously the airlines feel the 788 is a
39 LAXDESI : As China gets more expensive as "factory of the world", other countries in the region will likely pick up the slack. Vietnam stands to gain as more pr
40 Post contains images tarheelwings : Performance problems of the first 787s? Funny, I wasn't aware that 787s had entered commercial service, pray tell what airline has begun using them..
41 delimit : How odd. I thought that was the entire purpose f the 787; to be able to fly a very thrifty plane long distances should allow routes that cannot be su
42 hawkercamm : What do you think the average sector length is for the A332 or 763ER? Probably 3500nm to 4000nm. The B777, A340, B747 and A380 will be greater.
43 328JET : @ EA772LR Why it should be un-comfortable for Boeing if Airlines decide the B789 is a better product than the B788? The answer is simple: The more air
44 frmrCapCadet : 737/320s have gotten bigger, more range as time went by 330s replaced 757/767, and were a little bigger, with more range as time went by not sure how
45 Post contains images Jacobin777 : That still makes it 2:1 788 to 789...... ..and now they want some of their original slots...which they can't get... You should let the carriers which
46 justloveplanes : Boeing themselves seem to be excited that 1) They will meet performance guarantees on the 788 (and they'll be beating most likely them by 2012 if GE
47 BMI727 : That is about what I am expecting. I'm on record here saying that I think that the 787-9 will be the top seller, regardless of how well the -8 meets
48 RJ111 : What's your point? Are you trying to imply i said that ratio would swing in favour of the 789?
49 rheinwaldner : Why should a equally high MTOW version of the 788 not be possible? I really don't get that! The A332 is like an A333 but it is shorter. Result: same
50 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Yes...
51 RJ111 : It's unclear as to whether it will though, there's a chance a 788LR might only fly 200nm-300nm further than a 789 with the same payload. It depends w
52 RJ111 : I'm sorry, i'm not continuting this sub-debate if you're A) going to be utterly vague and minimalistic (lazy) in your objections with my points and B
53 Stitch : A number of people have been singing the virtues of the A350-800HWG's C-market range, so maybe it will be different with that model... *shrug* If it
54 Post contains images delimit : Excellent post. The only explanation that makes sense really is that the 8 is limited by its fuel capacity. To acheive more range, the 9 would need t
55 328JET : @ delemit "Airlines seem to be looking for a more economical plane of similar size to the 767. There are certainly enough of them flying that will soo
56 delimit : A 20-ish seat difference seems to be covers adequately by the word, "similar."
57 Post contains links panais : Have you looked at Keesje's Greenliner? http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...s/greenlinercabin.jpg?t=1197024141 This will address the weight issues
58 328JET : @ delemit The B787-8 has the size of the B764, which nearly nobody operates.
59 Post contains images delimit : I am trying to keep my comments to planes that are actually being produced. And a 763 in a domestic configuration seats more than either example of t
60 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm quoting you..... ... ...you said the B788 will be to the B789 as to what the B762ER will be to the B763ER (or what the B763ER did to the B762ER).
61 justloveplanes : Boeing has sold quite a few 788's, more than the -9 for a reason, fits a broader mission profile. Sales might slow down for a bit while the lessons l
62 delimit : I should probably have been more specific in my comments. I meant over the course of the 787's life, and less about right now. The message from the s
63 Post contains images Stitch : It also has the size of the A332, which nearly everybody operates.
64 Post contains links bikerthai : But coming from a different threads, it seem the two airlines that operates them likes them: The New United And The 767-400ER (by 1337Delta764 Jun 24
65 RJ111 : Ok, then you are distorting my word, same difference. That is not apples to apples though so it's just another lazy argument, if you want apples to a
66 Jacobin777 : So what you are saying is when the B789 starts flying, the majority of sales from then on will favour the B789 over the B788?
67 LAXDESI : I can't speak for RJ111, but I do think that B789 sales will exceed those of B788 when delivery dates are not an issue.[Edited 2010-06-25 10:59:46]
68 BMI727 : Remember that it wasn't always that way. The 787 was a much closer match with the 767 before it became 9 abreast in coach. And the airlines were the
69 Stitch : Well the 787-9 was available for order at the same time as the 787-8 and it had "defined" stats. So if some airlines who ordered the 787-8 really want
70 BMI727 : I think that a lot of airlines are going to see the 787-9 and realize that is is just that good. I think that will play a role too.
71 LAXDESI : Excellent point. But I have to believe that Boeing must have chosen the fuselage width to make 9 abreast a possibility. A true 8 abreast width(A330 w
72 Post contains images allegro : Well overall good news for Boeing ... seeing as the 789 costs more (oh, rats ... Stitch already made this point) ... a good thing for both parties it
73 Post contains images KPDX : Indeed my friend, indeed.
74 Post contains links hawkercamm : I agree... I think the B788 hit the sweet spot in terms of timing for replacement of early B762 http://www.airfleets.net/listing/b767-1.htm. In fact
75 Rheinbote : Not that hard to understand. Tomorrow's structurally more efficient 789 will have a better range than today's 788 which has less fuel efficient engin
76 justloveplanes : Good question is how many 788's are scheduled for delivery after 789 EIS? That will give a pretty good indication of the airline's perceived need of
77 EA772LR : That's not what you initially said, and why you said Boeing should be worried. You're saying the fact that customers may trade 788s for 789s a proble
78 delimit : Yes, but then, the 8 will be just that good as well, as the 9 improvements will be blended back into the 8. The only real argument in the 9's favor i
79 Stitch : Well Boeing can always raise the 787-8's MTOW to allow additional fuel to be tanked and 787-9 series engines can be put on the 787-8 if a customer ne
80 Post contains images EA772LR : Good point hawkercamm. I think we will see several -8s converted to -9s, but I think overall, the majority of -8s will be delivered, and probably onc
81 LAXDESI : For a 4,000nm mission, my model indicates that B789 will burn about 1,600 gallons more than B788. However, it can carry an additional 30,000 lbs carg
82 EA772LR : I don't see why Boeing can't or won't increase the 788's MTOW. Especially now that it will share the same wingspan (obviously not totally structurall
83 LAXDESI : In theory, Boeing can certainly create a 788HGW. It would have the 789 engines, and weigh about 10,000 lbs. less. It should have 789's MTOW, and abou
84 BMI727 : True, but I think that airlines would want a plane with more capacity and more range. I don't think it was a new wing per se, but just tip extensions
85 Post contains images 328JET : @ EA777LR That was not my point. I know that the A332 outclassed the B764. I just wanted to say that there is no real B763-replacement available from
86 Rheinbote : Yes. Basically, there's a trend away from the -8 to the -9 *right now* because i) the *current* -8 doesn't look attractive compared to the -9 specs a
87 behramjee : Firstly, it is impossible for a B 772ER to fly nonstop with a full payload SGN-LAX-SGN so even if SGN and HAN get Category 1 FAA rating which is neede
88 LAXDESI : Doesn't CO fly EWR-HKG on its 772ER, a route that is about 90nm less than SGN-LAX?
89 RJ111 : I don't know what the answer to the SGN question is, but EWR-HKG is a polar route bear in mind. Thanks for your input about the fuel burn disparity.
90 Post contains links LAXDESI : Here's some numbers from my threads in the technical forum for a 4,000nm mission: A332 16,823 gallons B788 14,239 gallons A358 14,874 gallons B789 15
91 behramjee : Yes but its payload restricted...even when AC & CX flew its A 343 HKG YYZ HKG it was payload restricted.
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...
Ilfc 787 Order To Be Announced At DXB Airshow posted Tue Oct 25 2005 00:18:24 by Dalecary
Skyway Airlines Moves ERJ Order To July04 posted Wed Mar 13 2002 00:40:11 by CO777-200ER
Vietnam Airlines To Order A359 By December 21! posted Fri Nov 16 2007 09:12:56 by KL808
Vietnam Airlines To Order 10 A321, 4 7E7 posted Sat Nov 20 2004 17:50:23 by Greaser
Vietnam Airlines Likely To Order 7E7's posted Wed Oct 6 2004 14:00:56 by American 767
Vietnam Airlines To Order 4 B777 And 5 A321 posted Sat Nov 3 2001 02:40:06 by Jiml1126
Vietnam Airlines Order 4 A380s. posted Wed Nov 11 2009 23:20:12 by FCKC
Vietnam Airlines, Tarom To Join SkyTeam Next June posted Thu Nov 5 2009 06:31:49 by LIPZ
TK To Decide About A380/787 Order Soon posted Fri Jul 3 2009 06:36:36 by NA
Vietnam Airlines To LAX? posted Sat Jun 14 2008 01:10:55 by The777Man