Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Speculation - SQ To Swap 789s For -10s  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 634 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11803 times:

SQ has selected 789s for regional routes and 359s for long range.

SQ's 789s have been delayed and it has not yet announced an engine choice. The 789 is better optimised for long range than regional applications. The 789 is due to replace 34 regionally-optimised 333s all of which are relatively new and many yet to be delivered.

What are the chances that SQ will be an early customer for the 7810? It is regionally-optimised and will be available in good time to replace 10-year old 333s. The engine selection may be being delayed so it can be better made on the basis of regional requirements for the larger frame.

They could of course take -10s in addition to -9s rather than instead of, but I am intrigued by the delayed engine selection and suspect there is more to it than "wait and see how the two engines perform side-by-side in Japan" or similar.

Any thoughts?

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11769 times:

To give additional context to JerseyFlyer's original post, here is a quote from the original press release announcing the order:

"Singapore Airlines' new 787-9s will be delivered from 2011 through 2013, providing growth as well as fleet renewal. The carrier intends to use the new airplanes on routes to North Asia, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East."



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11748 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
What are the chances that SQ will be an early customer for the 7810? It is regionally-optimised and will be available in good time to replace 10-year old 333s. The engine selection may be being delayed so it can be better made on the basis of regional requirements for the larger frame.

Is it really a good idea to operate the B787-10 and A350-900 given that these aircraft are very similar in size. The A359 is a longer range plane but the B787-10 is nonetheless a very long range aircraft.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11745 times:

From the other side of the commercial relationship, I suspect Boeing is heavily counting on order "upgrades" to the -9 and prospective -10 to undo some of the pricing damage so negligently inflicted on the program's bottom line (which I think was just a further manifestation of the divorce from reality that lies at the bottom of the 787 management fiasco).

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

Change their order to what? There is no 787-10 offered or even defined. But SQ have taken RR powered A333's as a stop gap and will most probably keep them until such time as better lift becomes availible.


BV
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11465 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 2):
the B787-10 is nonetheless a very long range aircraft.

No it's not. The B789 is the longest ranged version. IIRC the B7810 will have a range of about 4,000 nm against 7,000 odd nm for the B789 & A359.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11340 times:

Speculation:

787-1XXX does not exist, and has only been an A.net wet dream for the past 5 years.

SQ (one of the best run airlines in the world) isn't changing anything.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12407 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11030 times:

The 787-10X seems better suited to regional flights than the -9, largely because the -9 has longer legs than the -10. It wouldn't surprise me if SQ exercised some of its 787 options in favour of the -10, but I guess my question is: if it orders both, where would the 359 fit in?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10797 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In terms of passenger capacity, the 787-9 and A330-300 match up well and the 787-9 offers more belly cargo volume. So the 787-9 was a logical choice for SQ to select as an A330-300 replacement and it does give them the flexibility to use it for long-haul missions, as well, should the market evolve to warrant it.

I could see SQ adding the 787-10 as a 777-300 replacement and if SQ sees strong traffic (pax and cargo) growth on some current A330-300 routes, the 787-10 could accommodate it.



Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
My question is: if SQ orders both (the 787-9 and 787-10), where would the 359 fit in?

The A350-900 would offer 27 more Economy seats (so about 10%) greater capacity. I would expect SQ to use the 777-300ER's hard product so with the A350-900 likely having a greater payload lift, that would help it cope with those heavy First Class suites and Business Class seats on long-haul missions.


User currently offlineirelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9885 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
The 789 is due to replace 34 regionally-optimised 333s all of which are relatively new and many yet to be delivered.

I am curious to know what "regionally-optimised" means? Could you clarify?

-IR


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5307 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9887 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 5):
No it's not. The B789 is the longest ranged version. IIRC the B7810 will have a range of about 4,000 nm against 7,000 odd nm for the B789 & A359.

Closer to 6500 nm against 8000+ nm for the 789 and A359. The 787-10 will have substantially longer range than the A333 it will supersede.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12330 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9821 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 6):

787-1XXX does not exist, and has only been an A.net wet dream for the past 5 years.

Seems like Boeing's CEO woke up with sticky underwear too:

Quote:

Feb 23 , 2012

...

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said, “We will do the 787-10 by all likelihood. We’re now working through design concepts. Assuming the customer interest is there, later this year [a decision will be made], and we will have something to offer toward the end of the year.” He says the 787-10 will have a shorter range than the -9 but will be able to carry 40 more passengers, so “the economics are very good.”

The fact that the 787-10 is a stretch of the 787-9 means it will be in the realm of the 777 in terms of seating capacity. Albaugh, however, suggests otherwise. “We think we’ve got a good separation between the models. There’s 15% separation between the models. We’ve spread the sizing between them, so we don’t cannibalize any one aircraft.”

Ref: http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mst...On%20787-10%20Likely%20This%20Year

I guess it's a recurring dream, because last June he said:

Quote:

"The confidence we have in the [787]-9 now, really the weight we got out and the structural modifications largely get us to the point where you could do a -10 relatively easily," said McNerney.

He might have a bit more insight than the average a.netter, though.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 5):
IIRC the B7810 will have a range of about 4,000 nm against 7,000 odd nm for the B789 & A359.

I think it'll be a bit more.

From the previous article:

Quote:

Pressed about the -10 having a range above 11,100km (6,000nm), Boeing's CEO stated: "It is looking that way."

And in March 2011 he said:

Quote:

Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, says the -10 would seat just over 300, an additional 43 passengers over the -9, and estimates of the aircraft's range have centred around 12,700km (6,900nm).

The potential economics of the new jet are "eye-watering", adds Albaugh. However, he says that the 787-9, with its goal of flying 14,800 to 15,700km (8,000 to 8,500nm) with 250 to 290 passengers, must be "debugged" before the performance of the "-10X" is fleshed out.

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...a-good-airplane-udvar-hazy-354458/



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8189 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9420 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
Seems like Boeing's CEO woke up with sticky underwear too:

Are you sure he's not on a.net? It doesn't change the fact that the 787-1000 has not been launched and threfore doesn't exist.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9354 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 6):
787-1XXX does not exist, and has only been an A.net wet dream for the past 5 years

It has been confirmed by Boeing that they are working on it, many airlines such as Lufthansa have stated interest in it.
It is not a wet dream but a design concept that very likely will be launched by the end of the year.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9163 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):
Are you sure he's not on a.net? It doesn't change the fact that the 787-1000 has not been launched and threfore doesn't exist.

The same applies to the A380-900, and yet we have a(nother) active thread on it at this time.

Seriously folks, some concepts are just that - concepts. Others, however, are grounded in a practical reality, even if they are not yet an actual reality.


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8593 times:

Well, at least the 787-10 has been mentioned by B as a possible.

I am not aware of any John L's comments about the 389 in years.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting irelayer (Reply 9):
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
The 789 is due to replace 34 regionally-optimised 333s all of which are relatively new and many yet to be delivered.

I am curious to know what "regionally-optimised" means? Could you clarify?

It means it does not need to carry the extra structural weight (to support higher MTOW) needed to haul all the fuel necessary for long haul missions. Therefore, being lighter, it uses less fuel and so is more efficient on shorter regional missions.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why would SQ use the 787-9 rgionaly ? Cathay is getting the A350-900 to replace their A330-300 regional fleet.

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8189 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4922 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The same applies to the A380-900, and yet we have a(nother) active thread on it at this time.

I didn't say anything about the A380-900. At this point it doesn't exist either.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):
Why would SQ use the 787-9 regionally? Cathay is getting the A350-900 to replace their A330-300 regional fleet.

You'd have to ask SQ. They also ordered the A350-900, so they must feel the 787-9 is a better choice than the A350-900 for such missions.

zeke has stated CX ordered the A350-900 in part because of the wider cabin to provide a common seat width across their future fleet to provide their passengers with a consistent on-board experience.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4685 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
And in March 2011 he said:

Thanks Revelation for a great summary of what is coming from Boeing brass.

I for one have been modelling the 787-10 in PIANO-X with some help from Ferpe on some of the parameters .

It is not difficult to confirm Albaugh's quote of 6900nm for max range with full passenger load from PIANO-X modelling at a MTOW just under the weight constraint of the landing gear and an OEW based on ~ a 10t increment for each ~20 foot stretch.


User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7079 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

I wonder what SQ is thinking now that A330 is so much closer in efficiency than expected when the 787 was ordered.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
zeke has stated CX ordered the A350-900 in part because of the wider cabin to provide a common seat width across their future fleet to provide their passengers with a consistent on-board experience.

The SQ regional product which is used in the A330 should also be a match for the 787 (6 abreast J, 8 abreast Y), while the long range product as used in the 77W (4 abreast J, 9 abreast Y) should be a good fit for the A359, but could be a poor fit for 787 in regard to J (Y no problems as the A333 Y seat is the same as the 77W Y seat).


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 22):
The SQ regional product which is used in the A330 should also be a match for the 787 (6 abreast J, 8 abreast Y), while the long range product as used in the 77W (4 abreast J, 9 abreast Y) should be a good fit for the A359, but could be a poor fit for 787 in regard to J (Y no problems as the A333 Y seat is the same as the 77W Y seat).

SQ has 4 J abreast on its A340-500 planes, it can get a similar seat for the 787-9 which is wider then an A340 but narrower then the 777.


User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7079 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

The a345 is ultra long haul, and the 789 will be a regional flyer. Seating requirements in J are different.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 23):
SQ has 4 J abreast on its A340-500 planes, it can get a similar seat for the 787-9 which is wider then an A340 but narrower then the 777.

The 77W and A345 J seats are not exactly the same. The 77W seats have 51" pitch and the A345 seats have 64" pitch which I believe is to cater because they are slightly narrower so your feet can not go next to the passenger in front of you. The 64" will really eat into the available space for Y.

[Edited 2012-04-30 08:19:26]

User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
Seems like Boeing's CEO woke up with sticky underwear too:

I guess so. That range sounds horrible.

Quoting columba (Reply 13):
It has been confirmed by Boeing that they are working on it, many airlines such as Lufthansa have stated interest in it.
It is not a wet dream but a design concept that very likely will be launched by the end of the year.

I'm waiting. 5+ years now. Since A.nuts have been talking about it.

This plane is too narrow. Extensive modifications have to be made to make a 787-10. 787-9 isn't even there yet. 787-8s are barely out of the factory. Boeing has enough on its plate as it is.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 24):
The a345 is ultra long haul, and the 789 will be a regional flyer. Seating requirements in J are different.

Exactly which part of the 8000-8500nm range of 787-9 makes it "regional" ?   Throw in an couple aux tanks and it could do SIN-EWR.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12330 posts, RR: 25
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):
It doesn't change the fact that the 787-1000 has not been launched and threfore doesn't exist.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18):
I didn't say anything about the A380-900. At this point it doesn't exist either.

You have my vote for A.net "Pedant Of The Year"!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 20):

It is not difficult to confirm Albaugh's quote of 6900nm for max range with full passenger load from PIANO-X modelling at a MTOW just under the weight constraint of the landing gear and an OEW based on ~ a 10t increment for each ~20 foot stretch.

Cool - Is that based on the 789's baseline info?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 26):
guess so. That range sounds horrible.

Horrible? Who peed in your Cheerios?

Looks like 6900NM will do all of Europe, Asia, and Australia and almost all Africa from SIN:

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=6900nm%40SIN&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

Maps generated by the
Great Circle Mapper -
copyright © Karl L. Swartz.

Not too bad for SQ's regional fleet, IMHO.

If they want big range, there's other ways to get it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
Looks like 6900NM will do all of Europe, Asia, and Australia and almost all Africa from SIN:



Maps generated by the
Great Circle Mapper -
copyright © Karl L. Swartz.

Not too bad for SQ's regional fleet, IMHO.

If they want big range, there's other ways to get it.

GCMap doesn't have winds. Put 85% year round winds, and real airway routings, into your map and let's see the payload climbing out of SIN on a hot, muggy day.   Don't joke with me.  



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
Cool - Is that based on the 789's baseline info?

No it is based on 788 EIS information adjusted for expected post LN90 weights and some increase in parasitic drag. It is at MTOW and assuming 74K engines, 9400ft of runway is needed for 50' clearance on a standard +15C day.
The payload for a 12hr sector would be around 43t. with fuel burn at~ 69t.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12330 posts, RR: 25
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 29):

GCMap doesn't have winds. Put 85% year round winds, and real airway routings, into your map and let's see the payload climbing out of SIN on a hot, muggy day.   Don't joke with me.  

No problem, sunrisevalley has my back!  
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 30):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
Cool - Is that based on the 789's baseline info?

No it is based on 788 EIS information adjusted for expected post LN90 weights and some increase in parasitic drag. It is at MTOW and assuming 74K engines, 9400ft of runway is needed for 50' clearance on a standard +15C day.
The payload for a 12hr sector would be around 43t. with fuel burn at ~69t.

Ok, we'll settle this when you get the 787-9 baseline to plug into PIANO.

Pellegrine, how hot and muggy do you want it to be at SIN?  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 31):
Pellegrine, how hot and muggy do you want it to be at SIN?  

In the FWIW department, April is the hottest month in SIN with an average high of 32C. For the aircraft described in reply 20 and 30 , for a standard +17C day runway needed to reach 50' is right on 10000ft.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 31):
Ok, we'll settle this when you get the 787-9 baseline to plug into PIANO.

Pellegrine, how hot and muggy do you want it to be at SIN?
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 32):
In the FWIW department, April is the hottest month in SIN with an average high of 32C. For the aircraft described in reply 20 and 30 , for a standard +17C day runway needed to reach 50' is right on 10000ft.

PIANO? Who uses that anymore? Especially for airplanes which have no real world data yet...

SIN has always had adequate runways... I mean they used to run 742s/743s to the Mid East-Europe.

And the winds? And the real world airways? Going from SIN to Europe first of all is usually 150-250 nautical miles longer than the GC route because of airways over India, Central Asia, etc.

The winds alone can add another hour to 1:45 westbound.

So you have 1:20-2:30 which is not explained by your GC Mapper. What does 2 hours 30 mins add to your projected 787-10 fuel burn and payload capacity out of SIN westbound to Europe?



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30532 posts, RR: 84
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 33):
What does 2 hours 30 mins add to projected 787-10 fuel burn and payload capacity out of SIN westbound to Europe?

If SQ adds the 787-10, I would not expect it to be used for missions to Europe. That is what the 787-9 and A350-900 are for.


User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1560 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
If SQ adds the 787-10, I would not expect it to be used for missions to Europe. That is what the 787-9 and A350-900 are for.

   Just like SQ's A333s aren't used for missions to Europe. And Boeing intends to target the 787-10X against the A333....

By the way, I've heard from a reliable source that is for from certain SQ will use the 787 only regionally. Guess we will learn more when the seat configuration is known. With 9 abreast I guess we won't see the 787 deployed long haul.



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 offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
If SQ adds the 787-10, I would not expect it to be used for missions to Europe. That is what the 787-9 and A350-900 are for.

Ok boys, well that was the scenario proposed to me.

I don't see SQ swapping anything. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 33):
So you have 1:20-2:30 which is not explained by your GC Mapper. What does 2 hours 30 mins add to your projected 787-10 fuel burn and payload capacity out of SIN westbound to Europe?

In answer to your question. For example, timetable time SIN - MUC is 12hrs 20min. According to Flightaware for the last 9 days the sector time for the SIA flight has ranged between 11hr 50m and 12hr 14min and as I pointed out in reply 30 , for a 12hr sector payload is about 43t.


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 35):
By the way, I've heard from a reliable source that is for from certain SQ will use the 787 only regionally. Guess we will learn more when the seat configuration is known. With 9 abreast I guess we won't see the 787 deployed long haul.

Keep in mind "regionally" is up to 10 hours to CHC and a lot of flights of 5-8 hours to Japan, China, Korea, India, Australia and middle-east. Just because the 787s are not use right up to limits of its capability does not mean they are not used effectively.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):

You do realized American signed up for 100 Boeing narrow bodies before there was an official narrow body on offer from Boeing just last year right? Just because something has not been approved by the board for offering yet doesn't mean there is nothing there. I would bet money on it that Boeing knows right now what they will be able to accomplish with the -10 and is in talks with airlines already.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 37):
In answer to your question. For example, timetable time SIN - MUC is 12hrs 20min. According to Flightaware for the last 9 days the sector time for the SIA flight has ranged between 11hr 50m and 12hr 14min and as I pointed out in reply 30 , for a 12hr sector payload is about 43t.

??? What does a timetable versus Flightaware prove? Airlines commonly pad schedules for good reason. What is your point?



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 40):
??? What does a timetable versus Flightaware prove? Airlines commonly pad schedules for good reason. What is your point?

My point was just that; to show that the timetable time in this instance is not padded as you put it. Also it is an example of a westbound flight and what payload a 787-10 could be expected to haul for a 12-hr. sector such as SIN-MUC.


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...
ATA To Swap 4 753 For 4 73G's posted Wed Sep 7 2005 23:12:07 by Tundra767
Spirit Seeking To Swap Its A319s For A320s posted Tue Jul 14 2009 15:41:11 by OP3000
AA To Swap EWR-EGE For JFK-EGE posted Fri Jul 4 2008 05:48:29 by AJMIA
Just Burned DL Skymiles For SQ-F To HKG! posted Wed Mar 1 2006 01:05:17 by ASTROJET707
WSJ: SQ Likely To Tap Boeing For New Order-Sources posted Fri Dec 23 2005 05:22:14 by N328KF
Aeroflot To Swap Su-35s For Embraers? posted Tue Oct 19 2004 17:51:26 by Scbriml
More Information: SQ To Go For 7E7 Over A332? posted Tue Jun 8 2004 17:41:26 by BCAInfoSys
SQ And Air NZ To Be Blamed For Ansett's Problems posted Thu Sep 13 2001 13:34:22 by Anzett
JAL Considers To Use 787 For MAD, DUS, BER posted Tue Apr 24 2012 00:42:08 by columba
Aerosur To Swap 744s posted Tue Mar 20 2012 07:41:21 by na
Spirit Seeking To Swap Its A319s For A320s posted Tue Jul 14 2009 15:41:11 by OP3000
AA To Swap EWR-EGE For JFK-EGE posted Fri Jul 4 2008 05:48:29 by AJMIA
Just Burned DL Skymiles For SQ-F To HKG! posted Wed Mar 1 2006 01:05:17 by ASTROJET707
WSJ: SQ Likely To Tap Boeing For New Order-Sources posted Fri Dec 23 2005 05:22:14 by N328KF
Aeroflot To Swap Su-35s For Embraers? posted Tue Oct 19 2004 17:51:26 by Scbriml