"...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.
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.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10851 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.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10742 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.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1316 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10675 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.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10616 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.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10553 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?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10529 times:
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?
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.
justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 872 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10365 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.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9139 posts, RR: 96 Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10161 times:
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.
vin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9974 times:
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9975 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.
Lufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 691 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9760 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.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9434 times:
vin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9349 times:
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4790 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8914 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
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8664 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....
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7996 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.
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7996 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)
delimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1432 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7930 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 Stitch: It also has the size of the A332, which nearly everybody operates.
64 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 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
74 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 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 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 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9139 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1199 posts, 
From Vietnam, joined Nov 2007, 53 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 691 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4790 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
