rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 9502 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.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9217 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.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8861 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.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8767 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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8752 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.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3953 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8709 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.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1316 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8688 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.
zkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1500 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8572 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!
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8452 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.
csturdiv From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1351 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 8384 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.
328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6805 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.
hawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 401 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6621 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!
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6338 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.
ZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 924 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6264 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...
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3953 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2157 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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1884 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.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3953 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1316 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2004, 1500 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 924 posts, 
So Boeing does have incentive to ensure good operating economics. 
Printer friendly format 
