Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300  
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1160 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21172 times:

No real surprise here

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-table-as-answer-to-a330-300.html

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21128 times:

Not at all. But Boeing does seem to be accepting, and even liking, its current position. They believe the A350-1000 will have problems with the Trent XWB and that the 787, with improvements, can take on the A350-800/900 adequately. Should be interesting.


"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 20979 times:

787-10, a simple stretch, should turn out to be a low cost investment(assuming it keeps the same wing as 789) with good returns. A 20 foot stretch should add about 45 seats, with a range of around 7,000nm.


From the link in OP, some interesting take on A350-1000:
Boeing believes the A350-1000, currently with a promised EIS of 2015, will not have an adequate engine in the current iteration of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB and that EIS will be delayed to the second half of this decade, relieving pressure to do anything immediately with the 777-300ER.

[Edited 2010-12-20 12:11:00]

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12480 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20781 times:

Yes, but given the current problems with the 787 and the effects this is having on its customers, I wonder how receptive airlines will be. QF is about the only one which could be considered a dead cert.

As for the A350-1000, there may well be problems with the Trent engines, but the main competition for the 787-10 is most likely to be the A359, which has developed quite a significant following.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5016 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20588 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
but the main competition for the 787-10 is most likely to be the A359, which has developed quite a significant following.

It rather depends what sector lengths operators are looking for. There are an awful lot of A333's working up to just under 5000nm sectors. The 787-10 would work very well in this space. There would need to be a HGW version to take on the A359 for the 5500nm and up sectors.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20509 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
As for the A350-1000, there may well be problems with the Trent engines, but the main competition for the 787-10 is most likely to be the A359, which has developed quite a significant following.

The 787-10 should be cheaper than A350-10 at list prices, with better CASM for medium haul routes. 787-10(simple 20 foot stretch of 789) should have a slightly larger seating capacity than A359, and a lower OEW.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20324 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):
787-10, a simple stretch, should turn out to be a low cost investment(assuming it keeps the same wing as 789) with good returns. A 20 foot stretch should add about 45 seats, with a range of around 7,000nm.

Oh please, a simple stretch.... Maybe Boeing should try and get the 787-8 into service before they attempt a "simple stretch". This is all part of the drumbeat that accompanies another 787 delay announcement, its called creating the illusion of progress, you talk about the next project whilst convienently forgetting that you havent yet delivered the last project

[Edited 2010-12-20 13:10:19]


BV
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20172 times:

Basically sounds like what I've been saying for a while. I'm not sure that you could call it an A330-300 competitor, unless a lot of airlines are looking to go bigger. A better description would be an A350-1000 competitor with A333 type performance. The 787-10 in my mind, should be a plane sized the same or a bit smaller than the A350-1000 but lighter and more optimized for transatlantic, Europe to the Middle East, and intra-Asian flights. Then the 77W and possibly a following 777NG would be more optimized for longer flights and higher passenger capacities, just like EK wants. Airbus did the right thing in my opinion by going with one platform to control costs. But Boeing needs to follow up their advantage of already having two platforms to cover the same segment by optimizing better to the extremes, one of which EK seems pretty clear on wanting.

The big trick would be the order of projects. The main reason I could see for doing the 777NG first would be if there is a production bottleneck with the 787 where the time to produce a 787-10 exceeds the time to develop it. Otherwise, I think that incremental improvements from Boeing and GE will keep the 77W in good shape for most of this decade, regardless of whether the A350 becomes delayed or not. I wouldn't bank on Airbus screwing up to stay competitive if I were Boeing though.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):
A 20 foot stretch should add about 45 seats, with a range of around 7,000nm.

I'd go for a stretch of around 30-35 feet (maybe up to 40) and take a bit bigger hit on range. If people need more than 7000 NM, there is always the 777 and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for Boeing to develop another wing and landing gear for the 787 later.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19953 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
I'd go for a stretch of around 30-35 feet (maybe up to 40) and take a bit bigger hit on range. If people need more than 7000 NM, there is always the 777 and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for Boeing to develop another wing and landing gear for the 787 later.

I think the demand for a 20 foot stretch is likely to be higher than that for a 35-40 foot stretch. It would be more of a 77E(9Y) replacement and A359 competitor for medium haul routes.


User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
Basically sounds like what I've been saying for a while.

You and me both.  

In addition to being a logical step for A330-300 operators looking for capacity boosts, I could see this model replacing the 777-300 with TG, NH, JL and CX and I could see EK interested in it for Africa and EU missions. True, it will be about 5m shorter, you should still easily clear 400 people in two classes.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19582 times:

Hmm, strange.

The same people here which saw the B789 as a real B77E replacement (despite its smaller size), now see the bigger B781 as a perfect A333-replacement...

I think the B789 is already the best possible A333-replacement from Boeing.

The B781 is a little overkill for that mission...


User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-9 matches the A330-300 for cabin area and offers more belly volume.

The 787-10 would be larger than the 777-200ER and the A350-900 in terms of cabin area and belly volume, however it would not be able to match the range of either plane at the projected ~250t MTOW it would be limited to by the undercarriage (which I have heard is good for around 252t).


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5016 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19479 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
I think the B789 is already the best possible A333-replacement from Boeing.

For whatever reason CX were not convinced.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19444 times:

Quoting stitch (Reply 11):
For whatever reason CX were not convinced.

Probably they are looking at the de-rated "regional" version of the A350-800 with y9 to replace their A330-300s?


User currently offlinestitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 13):
Probably they are looking at the de-rated "regional" version of the A350-800 with y9 to replace their A330-300s?

The A350-800 is closer in size to the A330-200 than the A330-300.

Not sure how old CX's A330-300s are. It may be a case the bulk don't need replacing as of yet, so CX can wait to see how the 787-9 and A350-900 pencil out as a regional hauler and choose then.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4762 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 6):
Oh please, a simple stretch.... Maybe Boeing should try and get the 787-8 into service before they attempt a "simple stretch". This is all part of the drumbeat that accompanies another 787 delay announcement, its called creating the illusion of progress, you talk about the next project whilst convienently forgetting that you havent yet delivered the last project


I guess I have to agree with this. No doubt the B787 program will have more development opportunities in the near and not so near future. But if the A330 can come up with some additional hundreds of miles range, that would also count for the B787 and the A350-XWB.

So this statement:

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 1):
But Boeing does seem to be accepting, and even liking, its current position


Is overly optimistic and seems very arrogant from Boeing at this point in time. We are talking 2nd part of this decade anyway before the B787-10 is a reality. The same may go for the A350-1000. But all of this is highly speculative. Lets get the B787 going in 2011 and the B789 going in 2014. That will be major undertakings by itself. With the production ramp-up problems it will be 2016 at the earliest before we see new versions of the B787, which I repeat still is a promising plane which I like to see out there a.s.a.p. It is nice very to see though that the A330 and A350 are also very, very promising planes, maybe even more promising.  .


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19345 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
The same people here which saw the B789 as a real B77E replacement (despite its smaller size), now see the bigger B781 as a perfect A333-replacement...

I do see the B789 as a real replacement for B77E for many long routes, and a replacement for A333 on medium haul routes.

I agree with you that B787-1000 is too large to be an A333 replacement, unless you are looking to increase capacity. It may end up with trip costs of an A333, but with much larger capacity. It will also be a worthy competitor to A359 on medium haul routes with lower CASM.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19121 times:

By the time a 787-10 fies, the A333 will be 25 yrs in service. The extra 5 rows a -10 would be welcomed in an industry that grows 4-5% per year.. Like the DL A333's stuffed with LD3s and alliance passengers (average LF>85%) it would be hard to beat e.g on the Atlantic.

A few years back I looked at a similar medium range, high capacity Airbus. Similar to the 767 the engines were/are the main investment. If it had been launched at the time, it would have be the inter regional TATL champion for years to come.. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/218686/


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4762 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
A few years back I looked at a similar medium range, high capacity Airbus


Well, the A330 is still being improved, so will get better and better, even by Boeing's expectations. (who would have thought that?). That stretch you proposed a few years back is now maybe not necessary due to the size of the A350, though the latter might suffer from the weight of the long-range capability the aircraft has (just as the B787).

The B787-10 would certainly be a very good CASM alternative if sacrifices to the range are made. Maybe the fuselage of the A345 would counter it quite nicely, creating your A330-400 after all?  .


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18985 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):
Boeing believes the A350-1000, currently with a promised EIS of 2015, will not have an adequate engine in the current iteration of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB

Perhaps. But one also has to wonder if the GEnx and T1000 will adequately meet the needs of whatever the 787-10 turns into...   


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18831 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
The extra 5 rows a -10 would be welcomed in an industry that grows 4-5% per year.. Like the DL A333's stuffed with LD3s and alliance passengers (average LF>85%) it would be hard to beat e.g on the Atlantic.

The 5 extra rows, along with one extra seat per row in some classes, would give it about 20-25% more capacity than the A333. I would expect its OEW(my estimate) to be about the same as A333, with lower fuel trip costs, and perhaps 30-35% lower seat fuel burn cost.

B787-10 may also be a good replacement for many of United's 77E routes(but not of CO's routes). The old CO has 17 789 on orders, and that may be a consideration as United evaluates a possible 787-10.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18790 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
Perhaps. But one also has to wonder if the GEnx and T1000 will adequately meet the needs of whatever the 787-10 turns into...

I would think a simple 20 foot stretch with a very small increase in MTOW should not be that difficult for GE or RR to accommodate. IIRC, the current 789 can not grow much in MTOW without major changes to the undercarriage.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18706 times:

What will power the 787-10? GE says the GENX is at it limits at ~75klbs.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18681 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 21):
I would think a simple 20 foot stretch with a very small increase in MTOW should not be that difficult for GE or RR to accommodate. IIRC, the current 789 can not grow much in MTOW without major changes to the undercarriage.

I suppose the trick is to find a spot between too little of a stretch (which is hardly worth it) and too much which demands a new main undercarriage, bigger engines and so on. Certainly, earlier discussions of a proposed 787-10 worried that it would be too big (too much) for some existing systems on the -8 and -9.

I doubt that any -10 will end up being "simple".


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18640 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
What will power the 787-10? GE says the GENX is at it limits at ~75klbs.

I think the 789 requires 71 klbs, so 75 klbs may be adequate for a simple 20 foot stretch.


25 Post contains images stitch : I would expect the 787-10 would have an MTOW at best about 5t more than the 787-9, so the current engines should be good enough with a slight thrust
26 wsp : Sounds like a good add-on investment, if you expect that you can't fill the available production slots with the models that you have already committed
27 JoeCanuck : The 330 is an amazing plane. It just keeps chugging along well after it was already supposed to be put to sleep. I don't doubt that even if the 787 wo
28 zeke : I assume you mean with that comments, at an average load of 210 lb/pax with nothing else, i.e. no cargo ? I see the 787-10 as being a 5000 nm aircraf
29 2707200X : The 787-10 would be good for a plus sized replacement to the A330-300 as it would be larger but I think it is more of a successor to the 777-200 in in
30 BMI727 : How do you figure that? A 40 foot stretch over the 788 would make it 226 feet, just 7 feet longer than the A350-900 and well below the A350-1000. A 3
31 zeke : I must have it wrong then, I had in my mind that the proposed 787-10 was approaching the length of the 747-8 which is the longest aircraft.
32 thegeek : If it doesn't, why would there be a point in making it? FWIW, wiki reckons the Boeing planes are almost 10t lighter. I expected that there would be a
33 9V-SVC : Sorry, I may sound harsh but Boeing should concentrate on sorting out their 787 issues instead of commenting on Airbus A350-1000 and Trent XWB engines
34 zeke : Only around a 2t split between the A330-200 and -300 OEW. The 788 I heard was around 115, not the 100t in Wiki. The references listed in wiki do not
35 JoeCanuck : I think that is a very safe bet.
36 astuteman : Boeing reckon the difference is around 3 tonnes or so. I'd suggest they're more likely to be correct. The OEW of the 787-8 was last given by Boeing a
37 LAXDESI : Yes. As per wiki, the A333's OEW is 274,000 lbs, and the expected OEW of 789 is 254,000 lbs. I do think that the initial 789s will be heavier than th
38 DocLightning : Do you think QF needs an aircraft in that size and range capacity? I'm really starting to wonder why Airbus doesn't go for an A330 NEO. I know the re
39 thegeek : No, there is also SFC, among others. Most of these indicators should be about the same. But if the OEW is about the same, a 787-10 would be less capa
40 Post contains links LAXDESI : Assuming that GEnX engine, along with minor aero tweaking, reduce fuel burn by about 10%. here's what my model suggests: A332(HGW)'s range will go up
41 Post contains images PM : It might also be observed that it's quite a compliment for Boeing to be wondering in late 2010 how to counter a competing airliner that first flew eig
42 astuteman : 254 000lb is 115 tonnes. That might be the expected OEW of the 787-8, but I can't believe for one moment it's anything like the OEW of the 787-9.....
43 zeke : The A330-200 and A330-300 OEWs listed on wiki are thousands of pounds heavier than the figures published by Airbus, 10,000 pounds heavier in the case
44 LAXDESI : I am expecting that Boeing, in due course, will be able to reduce a lot of weight off 788 and get closer to the wiki numbers. I don't expect the init
45 Post contains images Rheinbote : Anyway, with 787-9 EIS already expected to slip into 2014, we won't see a 787-10 before 2016 the earliest. Looking at the current order book versus p
46 AirbusA6 : With the 777, Boeing inititally produced a relatively simple A model stretch (777-300) before following up several years later with the significantly
47 Burkhard : You cannot fight the A333 and the A359 with one model - it always would be too much aircraft against the A333 and too little against the A359. Let th
48 parapente : I can only imagine that this press release was for......A -Netters! One of the most stupid releases I have read for a long time.It really worries me o
49 Post contains images frigatebird : And more Recently, in the thread about the demise of the 787-3, I threw in the 787-10 as a possible future short/medium haul widebody. Nice to notice
50 AirNZ : Except you seem to be forgetting that, as yet, they can't even get the 788 certified and into service and yet you merely see putting the 787-10 up as
51 Post contains images EPA001 : I am not expecting this at all. If the B787-10 is a lot lighter than the A350-1000, it will serve a different market (medium vs. long-haul) because s
52 StickShaker : They will eventually when they start retiring their 333's. The 787-10 would fill that role nicely and enjoy all the commonality benefits with 788's a
53 JerseyFlyer : The obvious response from Airbus would be to push the A 350-1000 long-range back in order to develop optimised engines, but to produce a "simple stret
54 Post contains images EPA001 : Just as viable as the B787-10 being a "relatively simple stretch" of the B787-9. But this is all speculation for the further away future. Boeing has
55 Post contains links 328JET : I think the whole statement wbout the B787-10 is nothing more than PR in the moment. Boeing has no clue about a delivery date of the B787-8: http://ww
56 AA777223 : Does anyone have a rendering of what a 20ft and 40ft stretched 787-10 would look like?
57 Post contains images stitch : Flight did a picture of one, which I paired with an A350-900 (though the A350 did not end up with the A380's nose).
58 AA777223 : Does the 787 picture you posted represent a 20 or 40 foot stretch?
59 stitch : I would expect we're talking a 6m stretch here. The "787-11" would be the 12m stretch, designed to replace (at least in passenger capacity) the 777-3
60 Post contains links LAXDESI : http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...he-price-of-boeings-787-sales.html From the above link: The 787-8 and -9 product development planners aim for t
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...
Is The Aeroflot - 787 Deal Back On? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:38:33 by NYC777
Why Did BA Opt For The Trent895 As Opposed To 892? posted Sun Aug 12 2007 01:26:17 by EA772LR
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
Driving On The I-5...plane Crashes Next To Me! posted Sun Apr 9 2006 01:15:04 by BA0284
787 Simulators Are On The Way posted Thu Jun 2 2005 15:31:37 by MidnightMike
Was The 767 Boeing Answer To The L1011 And DC10 posted Sat Feb 26 2005 20:58:25 by 747400sp
Virgin-BMI Merger 'Back On The Cards' posted Tue Jan 25 2005 18:05:47 by Horus