Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SK Eyeing The 787-10  
User currently offlineNDiesel From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 84 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13768 times:

Please delete if duplicate.

SAS management joined the B787 on its flight from OSL to Torino last week, claiming they're interested in the 787-10 to replace their A340/330s. Information manager K.M. Johansen already plans to put 315 passengers in a three-class layout (Y, Y+ and C) claiming the 787-8 is too small for SAS' operations. A decision on whether to get the 787-10 or the A350XWB will fall sometime this year.

Link to article in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/reise/artikkel.php?artid=10065583

Perhaps DY's soon-to-arrive acquisition of 787-8s will be favored by pax flying to NYC or BKK in terms of passenger comfort, giving SK a run for their money? The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age. Also, IIRC SAS has had problems with the capacity on their long haul fleet often being too big for their operations, yet both the Airbuses hold 265 pax in a three-class layout. Increasing that capacity to 315 seems somewhat ambitious perhaps?

As for fleet harmonization, wouldn't last year's decision to replace the MD80s with A320s be an indicator as to what long haul aircraft SK would end up with?

NDiesel


Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with Aviation
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13591 times:

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
As for fleet harmonization, wouldn't last year's decision to replace the MD80s with A320s be an indicator as to what long haul aircraft SK would end up with?



Only the MD80s at CPH are replaced by A320, making CPH an all Airbus hub. The 737 classics at OSL and the MD80s at ARN are replaced by 737NG's.

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
SAS management joined the B787 on its flight from OSL to Torino last week, claiming they're interested in the 787-10 to replace their A340/330s. Information manager K.M. Johansen already plans to put 315 passengers in a three-class layout (Y, Y+ and C) claiming the 787-8 is too small for SAS' operations. A decision on whether to get the 787-10 or the A350XWB will fall sometime this year.



They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13259 times:

Quoting EBGARN (Reply 1):
They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.

Translated quote from the article:

"On the long, tiring flight, it is important to comfort on board. The prolonged 787-10 will be able to take 315 passengers in a SAS-edition, says Johansen. It has a shorter range than the 787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes."

If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7617 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12899 times:

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
Perhaps DY's soon-to-arrive acquisition of 787-8s will be favored by pax flying to NYC or BKK in terms of passenger comfort, giving SK a run for their money? The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age.

Nah. I don't think the vast majority of people will care. Cost of the fares is the main driver for people.

The 788s are certainly awesome, but the A330s and A340s are fine airplanes that are quiet and offer the practical 2-4-2 seating arrangement.

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
Also, IIRC SAS has had problems with the capacity on their long haul fleet often being too big for their operations, yet both the Airbuses hold 265 pax in a three-class layout. Increasing that capacity to 315 seems somewhat ambitious perhaps?

I do find it ambitious too. As others have argued, the 789 with its seating capacity of 250-290 (3 vs. 2 classes) would be a much better replacement for the SK widebodies than the 787-10.

Quoting EBGARN (Reply 1):
They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.

Absolutely agree.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 2):
If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.

Well, just because the 789 is ULH-capable does not mean that a non-ULH airline should not order it. CPH-BKK and CPH-NRT are both less than 5,000 nm and the range of the 789 is 8,000 nm, but so what? The 789s will be way more efficient than the A343s no matter how long the routes are.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12827 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 3):
but so what?

So, heavier (or same weight (MTOW)) planes with more range (and less seats) then the 787-10 will be more efficient? Do I have you correctly?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7617 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12709 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
Do I have you correctly?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I mean is this: the 787-900 might have too much range for SK's needs, yes, but SK would still benefit from ordering the 789 as a replacement for its current widebodies. The 789 will be more efficient than the A333s and especially more efficient than the A343s, which are quads.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12564 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 2):
Translated quote from the article:

"On the long, tiring flight, it is important to comfort on board. The prolonged 787-10 will be able to take 315 passengers in a SAS-edition, says Johansen. It has a shorter range than the 787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes."

If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.

Where did he get 19-hrs from ? I think he has confused it with the A345 or 77L. 16-hrs maybe 17-hrs as it matures is a more realistic value.

SAS's NRT-CPH sector , about 11-hrs. Sort of a walk in the park. PIANO X suggests they should get close to max.volume limited payload ~ 45t for this sector. BKK-CPH is a little further so would loose a little.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3083 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12217 times:

I think the A350 family would be the best fit fo SAS.

A mix of A358's and A359's, with the possibility for a larger plane in the future.

However, 789 and 7810 could fit this role as well (although Boeing would need to confirm the 787-10 variant first).

I think SK will go Airbus, unless Boeing gives them a great deal.

BTW, doe anybody know when SK could potentially get the birds delivered?

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12178 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I mean is this: the 787-900 might have too much range for SK's needs, yes, but SK would still benefit from ordering the 789 as a replacement for its current widebodies. The 789 will be more efficient than the A333s and especially more efficient than the A343s, which are quads.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
So, heavier (or same weight (MTOW)) planes with more range (and less seats) then the 787-10 will be more efficient? Do I have you correctly?

just because they can do 8000 miles does not mean you need to fill the tanks to capacity. A higher MTOW does not mean that it has to me met either. You can get great efficiency if below MTOW, especially when fuel transport costs are taken into equation (basically, the more fuel on board the heavier the plane, the less efficient it is until it burns it and becomes lighter).

So, if loads are there, it can fly with 100% passenger/luggage/cargo by volume load and be at 30% below MTOW. That is a very sweet financial spot if it can be achieved consistently.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11802 times:

With LH also having a stated interest in the 787-10, is there the possibility of a joint STAR Alliance order for the 787. We also know that LX is looking for a larger type and while the A350 must be most likely, LX is also owned by LH.

I agree that the 787-10 seems, at first glance, a bit big for SK, BUT with new products such as J Class flatbeds and Y+ taking up more space, the actual seating capacity of a 781 could be considering less than the c.315 stated.

Again, the real question is: when it Boeing going to take the leap!?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
Again, the real question is: when it Boeing going to take the leap!?

I could think we might see it around the time Boeing starts assembly of the first 787-9. The Trent 1000 Package C engines that will hang off it have started their testing at Derby, England.

Also, Rolls noted back in June that they intend to perform the same core scaling on the Trent 1000 for the 787-10X that they are on the Trent XWB for the A350-1000 so I wonder if Boeing has found some MTOW growth for the model?


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1376 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10537 times:

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age


There is no doubt, however, that these planes will be significantly older before they can be replaced either with 787s or 350s


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9429 times:

The 787 will be a better fit for SAS as they have no need for larger airframes. The 789 is a perfect fit in size and capacity, but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus and too large for its needs. Why change the red ink in the financials  

User currently offlinemnfrean From Norway, joined Apr 2011, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9279 times:

Hi!
I think the 787-10 will be a good fit for SAS in the future, they are probably taking passenger growth into consideration so 315 seats should fit perfectly if/when it arrives.



Best regards mnfrean - Fredrik
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1376 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9069 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus and too large for its needs



I think that is nonsense. I can't see any government interference as to which frame SK should go for - in particular not now when the overall trend in most Scandinavian countries is for privatisation of state owned enterprises (in SK's case that will mean a sale to LH or another major player in the industry when and if they want/can afford it). Government interference will simply make SK less saleable. From an employment standpoint I think that there is very little difference between SK choosing Airbus or Boeing as aircrafts today are truly global products sourced from all corners of the globe. This is in particular the case when it comes to the 787 and the 350.


User currently offlineNDiesel From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8139 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus

Hope not. To buy Airbus simply to boost the EU economy (marginally) rather than get Boeing if the latter can make the airline capable of more efficient business seems like a bad idea.



Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with Aviation
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4055 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

How does SAS plan on paying for these aircraft ? - That's what I wanna know ...

User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17126 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 16):
How does SAS plan on paying for these aircraft ? - That's what I wanna know ...

Our tax money...



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NDiesel (Reply 15):
rather than get Boeing if the latter can make the airline capable of more efficient business seems like a bad idea.

Unless, of course, an Airbus can do the same thing. And there's zero reason to believe it can't.

Quoting mnfrean (Reply 13):
I think the 787-10 will be a good fit for SAS in the future, they are probably taking passenger growth into consideration so 315 seats should fit perfectly if/when it arrives.

So, would a 314-seat, 3-class A350-900 be any less perfect?   


Seriously, both the A350-900 and the 787-10 look to be a good fit for SK.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
So, would a 314-seat, 3-class A350-900 be any less perfect?     

When using "perfection" as the criteria, on the shorter missions SK is considering using the planes for, the 787-10 might end up being more efficient as it is larger than the A350-900, but should be lighter. I'm not sure what SK's cargo loads look like, but the 787-10 should have 44 LD3 positions to the A350-900's 36.

That being said...


Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
Seriously, both the A350-900 and the 787-10 look to be a good fit for SK.

Agreed..


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

If all of their missions are under 5000nm, why not just ditch the A340s in favor of some of the new higher gross weight A333s? The 789 is a long time away with where they'll be in line, not to even mention the 7810. The A333IGW can probably be obtained in a much shorter timeframe.

What would be the fuel burn delta between an A333 and a 759 on a 4500-5000nm mission? Less than the cost of the capital to replace all A333/A340, I would think. Then maybe they'll be in a better financial position somewhere 4-5 years down the road, at which point they can look at their options with the 787 and A350.

$0.02.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1434 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2870 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 20):
why not just ditch the A340s in favor of some of the new higher gross weight A333s?

It's a bit more complicated than driving the old banger down the dealers, and swapping it for a new set of wheels. Like what to do with the A340s, penalties for getting out of lease or a not-very attractive selling price? Or taking delivery of new A330s; that'll need to be financed and SK are hardly aflush in cash. Besides which, it's going to take a while before Airbus can offer slots on the production line - in the order of years rather than months.

But can an A330 really haul 265 pax + cargo out of Bangkok and back up to Copenhagen, against the winter winds of the Northern hemisphere and the heat of the Tropics? The A340 can, 'cause quads can sometimes do things twins can't - especially in hot conditions and when overflying very tall mountains - like the Himalayas.

http://i48.tinypic.com/303iwir.gif

Back on track: I too will join those who think the -10 is one size too large, but I also think the -9 is tailor made for SAS. The Himalayas? Navigate around them  Wink

[Edited 2012-05-10 17:35:28]


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
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...
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Will The 787-10 Be Built posted Thu Apr 10 2008 13:54:18 by N1KE
What Engines Will The 787-10 Use? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 17:39:06 by EA772LR
When Will The 787-10 Be Launched posted Tue Jan 9 2007 22:47:32 by T773ER
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch
Where Is The 787-10? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:11:18 by AA1818
SK And The 787-8 Or 787-9 posted Fri May 26 2006 18:45:57 by EuroBonus
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Will The 787-10 Be Built posted Thu Apr 10 2008 13:54:18 by N1KE
What Engines Will The 787-10 Use? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 17:39:06 by EA772LR
When Will The 787-10 Be Launched posted Tue Jan 9 2007 22:47:32 by T773ER
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch
Where Is The 787-10? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:11:18 by AA1818
SK And The 787-8 Or 787-9 posted Fri May 26 2006 18:45:57 by EuroBonus
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
SK And The 787-8 Or 787-9 posted Fri May 26 2006 18:45:57 by EuroBonus
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9