Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANZ Concerned About 789 Weight Gains  
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2258 posts, RR: 5
Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10086 times:

I thought the 789 would be that 787 version that receives extensive changes to keep the performance promises. This seems to be the first sign of troubles keeping the promised capabilities off the 789.

http://atwonline.com/airline-finance...ncerned-about-787-weight-gain-1216

Quote:
Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe told ATW that a weight increase on the Boeing 787-9 could impact its operating plans for the aircraft.


19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9801 times:

""We have some ideas but we are not talking about it. But the Pacific Rim, South America and to China are places we are looking.”

isn't that pretty much most of NZ's route map anyway ? but I dont know how SouthAmerica would work with the 787-9

a quick plug at GCMap.com show that the great circle path to any one of SCL/EZE/GRU involves going over ETOPS-240 prohibited space - meaning a substantial rerouting that requires higher-than-normal yields to break-even

i fault Boeing on this one by promising too much plane, then under-delivering, which both cuts into their reputation and requires penalty payments.


User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31249 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The only weight increase I have heard for the 787-9 is in MTOW.

That being said, there is still at least 5 tons more MTOW Boeing could put into the plane, so if the OEW is going up, MTOW can rise to counter it.

The 787-9's engines will also have better than spec SFC, so that should help NZ in the payload weight vs. fuel weight department.

Boeing's CEO last noted nominal range was looking to be 8100-8200nm...

[Edited 2010-12-17 08:26:26]

User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9445 times:

Quoting stitch (Reply 2):
That being said, there is still at least 5 tons more MTOW Boeing could put into the plane, so if the OEW is going up, MTOW can rise to counter it.

it only partially counters it. Corresponding rise in MTOW can only keep the range/load constant, but trip costs still increases with changes to OEW.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9351 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 3):
it only partially counters it. Corresponding rise in MTOW can only keep the range/load constant, but trip costs still increases with changes to OEW.

An important metric will be design fuel burn, and I wonder if Boeing expects to meet this metric with better than expected gains from engine/aero.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9336 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 1):
i fault Boeing on this one by promising too much plane, then under-delivering, which both cuts into their reputation and requires penalty payments.

It's a little early to fault anyone, considering the first -9 isn't even in production yet.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9293 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 1):
i fault Boeing on this one by promising too much plane, then under-delivering, which both cuts into their reputation and requires penalty payments.

Boeing have emphasized many times that they will meet their commitments to their customers. There is no evidence at this time to support the assertion in the quote.

Quoting stitch (Reply 2):
The 787-9's engines will also have better than spec SFC, so that should help NZ in the payload weight vs. fuel weight department.

There are strong indications that the aerodynamics are better than forecast . This will also help.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 1):
a quick plug at GCMap.com show that the great circle path to any one of SCL/EZE/GRU involves going over ETOPS-240 prohibited space - meaning a substantial rerouting that requires higher-than-normal yields to break-even

It will be at least 2-years after EIS for the type to be eligible for 240-min and 3-yrs for 330-min. This assumes the engine/airframe combination are pretty well flawless after EIS. It is a "young" combination after all and will likely take time.
Witness the A380 engine/airframe maturing tribulations.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1642 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9272 times:

As a general point.When the 77W was going through testing one heard all the good news in real time.The 788 is more or less finished (testing) and the 789's performance figures (all of them) must (I would have thought) be known.But I am unaware of anything final and official being publihed.

Once again one gets these "leaks" abot the 787 from 3rd parties.Sometimes even from Airbus (our HGW 330/2 version will match the 787,s range etc).

When (unless I have missed it) will they publish and end the endless speculation. Clearly NZ and Quantas have heard some hard facts (that we don't know) and they don't like it seems.


User currently offlinezkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9156 times:

better start getting the cheque book out and get some 77W's and 77L's snapped up before all the other 787' customers beet them to it and then there a sitting duck ..... seems there is going to be a problem with the 787-9 program and its not even been made yet!


CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9036 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 8):
As a general point.When the 77W was going through testing one heard all the good news in real time.The 788 is more or less finished (testing) and the 789's performance figures (all of them) must (I would have thought) be known.But I am unaware of anything final and official being publihed.

Boeing doesn't publish problems up front, it will keep them quiet.
Yes, performance may look good, but many figures are "preliminary". You know the weight when you put the fully certified aircraft on a scale. Anything else is just "estimates".
The -8 is currently ~4-5t overweight in OEW, and Boeing probably fighting hard to regain this.

More weight does have an effect on range, but it also effects field performance. Especially in hot airports this can be narrow for a stretched aircraft.

And: if the -9 is not trouble free (but who is these days?), then the -10 is dead. I haven't read anything official about it for years anyways.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently onlinecsturdiv From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 1504 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8968 times:

When is the 789 line expected to begin? Also when I saw the topic, I could not help to think back to the first season of South Park when Cartman was drinking Weightgain 2000 to help him bulk up.


An American expat from the ORD area living and working in Australia
User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31249 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7902 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 11):
When is the 789 line expected to begin?

The last plan was to have PAE start producing 787-9s (along with 787-8s) in 2013 with CHS starting with 787-8 production at that time.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7389 times:

I was always doubting the capability of the B789 as a replacement of the B77E, which is the idea at ANZ and others.
A lot people will remind my concerns.

I still doubt that the decision to use the same wing as on the B788 was a good longterm solution.

It was great to have a lower risk solution for EIS of the B789, but that´s it basically.


There are some airlines, which ordered both the B789 and the A350 - for a good reason.

The A350-900 is a litle bigger than the B789, much heavier as well, but also much more capable.


I see the main market for the B789 as a replacemnt of the A330-300 on flights up to 10 hours.

And the main market of the A350 above 10 hours.


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7205 times:

I know that Boeing are putting a lot of effort in to improving the -9. However most of the modifications I have read about all seem to suggest high risk, very high risk and outland stupidly high risk option are being consider and implemented. This to me suggests Boeing are in limbo of their customer performance garentuees.

My current best info has the -8 5000kg over and the -9 a little more.

The -10 based on the -9 wing is a none starter.

Let's hope Boeing get the -8 and -9 into service asap and then begin the ER models to achieve the initially stated payload ranges!


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 14):
I know that Boeing are putting a lot of effort in to improving the -9. However most of the modifications I have read about all seem to suggest high risk, very high risk and outland stupidly high risk option are being consider and implemented. This to me suggests Boeing are in limbo of their customer performance garentuees.

That's the down side of "weight saving campaigns". Usually these solutions have been analyzed before and were not chosen due to cost, risk or other reasons. When desperation kicks in, these solutions are becoming famous again.
Take for example the replacement of CFRP floorbeams with those made from titanium.
Saves ~200kg per airframe, but probably will have a cost disadvantage.
Again proves that experienced engineers were not invited when the specs were made.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 1040 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6848 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 1):
We have some ideas but we are not talking about it. But the Pacific Rim, South America and to China are places we are looking.”

His deputy Norm Thompson recently (end November) said Guangzhou, Brazil and India is what they are looking at...

Cheers
micha


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 13):
The -10 based on the -9 wing is a none starter.

Stitch claimed on good authority that the 788 wing was good for north of 290t MTOW. Do you see the -10 getting close to that? I thought it would be limited to ~260t unless another undercarriage truck is added.


User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

edited as in wrong NZ thread!

[Edited 2010-12-18 06:05:16]

User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 13):
I know that Boeing are putting a lot of effort in to improving the -9. However most of the modifications I have read about all seem to suggest high risk, very high risk and outland stupidly high risk option are being consider and implemented. This to me suggests Boeing are in limbo of their customer performance garentuees.

What in the world are you talking about?



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 12):
I still doubt that the decision to use the same wing as on the B788 was a good longterm solution.

I believe this is the root concern. More weight with less wing area is not the answer for the best efficiency on long haul.

Quoting zkojh (Reply 8):
better start getting the cheque book out and get some 77W's and 77L's snapped up

77L will have a higher CASM than the 789, even with all the weight gain.

The 77W is in need of a refresh. If anything, NZ would switch to the A350.    So Boeing does have incentive to ensure good operating economics.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 12):
I see the main market for the B789 as a replacemnt of the A330-300 on flights up to 10 hours.

I see that market and 'long thin.' The 789 will perform with better efficiency than the A332 on the out to 7,400nm 'still air' routes. The issue for NZ is they really needed over 8,000nm still air range for good payload on too many routes.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
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...
US Airways Pilots 'Gravely Concerned' About Merger posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:59:41 by OttoPylit
Boeing Not Concerned About 787 Problems posted Thu Jul 20 2006 15:21:49 by EI321
ATC At GRR Concerned About Mold posted Tue Nov 1 2005 22:35:20 by KarlB737
John Leahy (Airbus) Still Not Concerned About 7E7? posted Fri May 7 2004 15:00:30 by Navion
Bush Concerned About Strikes posted Tue Feb 6 2001 19:43:29 by D L X
A Couple Questions About UA, QF, ANZ, And Ansett posted Mon Mar 4 2002 03:08:52 by Alitalia777
Complaints About Delta Prompt Meeting - TVC posted Thu Dec 16 2010 08:25:34 by KarlB737
Tell Me What You Know About Omni Air posted Fri Dec 10 2010 21:23:02 by mayor
Norwegian About To Get First B738 / W Sky Interior posted Thu Dec 9 2010 15:15:19 by Mortyman
Question About US Airways (East) Operation posted Wed Dec 8 2010 13:52:57 by planenutz