Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Launching At Farnborough 2012?  
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 788 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 17177 times:

[Did a search, this one doesn't address Farnborough much]

This article from R-R's Carlisle has the classic "we-won't discuss-this" line from PR people regarding the 7810 when they might in fact be considering it (a la Airbus' Mobile FAL).

"We're talking to Boeing at the moment about the -10X," says Carlisle. "We're getting to quite detailed levels of discussion now, but I'm not going to comment on whether either company will make an announcement at Farnborough. We're certainly at the stage where we're looking to finalise an agreement with Boeing."

There was a similar statement from GE about a week ago, and there have been mumblings about a 2012 launch of the -10, and LH's ongoing interest in the frame. If they plan to go with a ~251t, 6,700 nm, 4-5 meter stretch of the -9, what would get in the way of launching it now? Is it too outlandish to expect a ~20 frame LH launch order?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 17159 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I honestly do not expect the 787-10X to be formally offered for sale until the 787-9 has completed her flight testing because Boeing needs that data to finalize the 787-10 performance guarantees.

User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 17031 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I honestly do not expect the 787-10X to be formally offered for sale until the 787-9 has completed her flight testing because Boeing needs that data to finalize the 787-10 performance guarantees.

I guess that would make some sense, be a little more humble and launch when they have a more solid idea of what the plane would look like. When would slots become available?


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5844 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 16564 times:

It's complicated, given the ambiguous nature of the 777X program, and any possible overlap with 787X derivatives.

I mean, if they build a 787-10, then what niche would that push a 777-8 into? These things need to be ironed out more fully, in my armchair opinion, so I suspect we'll not hear about it for a little longer.

That said, rumors about 787-10X aircraft have been flying since the airplane was called the 7e7....


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 16517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
I mean, if they build a 787-10, then what niche would that push a 777-8 into?

The 787-10 would be the A330-300 to the 777-8's A340-300/A340-500. The 787-10 would be aimed at missions under 10-hours while the 777-8(LR) would handle longer ones. Think TATL for the 787-10 and TPAC for the 777-8.


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 16379 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

I honestly do not expect the 787-10X to be formally offered for sale until the 787-9 has completed her flight testing because Boeing needs that data to finalize the 787-10 performance guarantees.


While I do see the logic behind this line of thinking, I honestly think ATO and subsequent Launch will come much sooner than that. There has been a lot of -10X momentum building both internally and externally, including high-level discussions with potential launch customers.

While I don't see anything formally happening next week, I would be personally very surprised if we don't see ATO granted before year-end, with Launch coming @ Q2 '13.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
I mean, if they build a 787-10, then what niche would that push a 777-8 into?
Stitch gave a pretty apt analogy = the 787-10 will be to the 777-8 what the A330-300 was to the A340-500. Seating-wise, they'll be quite close. But range and payload will be substantially more for the 778.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5012 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 16139 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2):
When would slots become available?

I think this would be the issue. Some of the carriers who have gone in heavy on the 788/9 might like to switch some slots to the -10 since it would fit their fleet needs better in the next 4 to 5 years. There are some carriers with A333's in the 13 to 15 yr old range who could be looking for an attractive replacement a few years out. Much has happened in the intervening years since some of these orders were placed. ILFC with 74 on order could be one looking for a third version . QF with 50 might find a 320 seater attractive for 'its Asian services.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13797 times:

I think Boeing learned the hard way on the 788 not to make any promises before they have the numbers down. I wonder though, how many 788 and 789 orders will be converted to 787-10 and how many "new" orders it will get.

Is this really a big market?


User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13316 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 5):
Stitch gave a pretty apt analogy = the 787-10 will be to the 777-8 what the A330-300 was to the A340-500. Seating-wise, they'll be quite close. But range and payload will be substantially more for the 778.

Considering the sales failure that A340-500 was (compared to the A330-300 or not), I wonder if it would be worth launching the 777-8 at all, if 787-10 already existed.

I'm thinking that in the end they'd end up in a situation where 787-10 would be superior on shorter ranges and A350-900 on longer ranges leaving the "small" 777 as sales failure. 777-9X is a totally different beast however...


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13083 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 5):
Stitch gave a pretty apt analogy = the 787-10 will be to the 777-8 what the A330-300 was to the A340-500. Seating-wise, they'll be quite close. But range and payload will be substantially more for the 778.

The 778X will have substantially more range than an A345?

Why? What possibly use is that for something other than LHR-SYD etc?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12668 times:

the 778X would have to be the freighter model.

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12190 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Thread starter):
Is it too outlandish to expect a ~20 frame LH launch order?

LH has stated interest in the 787-10 and was also often mentioned as launch customer but LH recently said that they won´t order any new plane before 2014 due to their financial problems but on the other hand aviation is fast business and yesterday news are often not valid tomorrow......also LH recently stated as well that they need larger aircraft because of the restrictions at many German airports.....I do hope that LH will order additional 747-8Is with some 787-10s soon  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1889 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11335 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9):
The 778X will have substantially more range than an A345?

No. It's range will be more around the one of 787-9, probably some 8,500nm. Boeing does, however, study the "777-8XLR", which would eventually replace the 77L with greater range.

Flightglobal used to have a page, where the future Boeing widebody product lineup was highlighted. Generally, 777-8X would be larger than proposed 787-10X and smaller than 777-9X. Think of it this way:

777-200ER/787-10



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 8):
Considering the sales failure that A340-500 was (compared to the A330-300 or not), I wonder if it would be worth launching the 777-8 at all, if 787-10 already existed.

The 787-10 and 777-8 will be about the same in cabin length (within a meter), with the 787-10 designed for regional missions and the 777-8 designed for long-haul missions: just like the A330-300 and A340-300 were originally designed and pitched to customers.

The 777-8 can take an extra seat per row in Economy, however, so it can carry more people: just as the A340-500's greater fuselage length allowed it to carry more people then the A340-300. And since the 777-8 and 777-9 will share many structural components, including fuel tanks, Boeing could offer an improved gross weight model of the 777-8 - the 777-8L - that could be used to load additional fuel weight (the 777-8 will be fuel weight limited due to it's lower MTOW - it won't be able to fill it's tanks before it hits MTOW).



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9):
The 778X will have substantially more range than an A345?

Why? What possibly use is that for something other than LHR-SYD etc?

Boeing expects the 777-8L will fly less than 100nm farther than the 777-200LR, so they're pitching the model as a replacement for the 777-200LR for operators who don't want to take a payload hit due to ambient airport conditions (hot and/or high) or winds aloft.


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 8):
Considering the sales failure that A340-500 was (compared to the A330-300 or not), I wonder if it would be worth launching the 777-8 at all, if 787-10 already existed.

If it was a stand-alone program, then my answer would be "No, absolutely not." However, the 777-8X would appear to be a straight shrink of the larger 777-9X, and thus will not cost much more to develop. Will it be a great sales success? No, but it will "round-out" the family.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 9):
The 778X will have substantially more range than an A345?

Sorry Chris, I should have phrased that better. I meant it's range/payload will be substantially more than the 787-10, not the A340-500. Although it will be a little better than the latter as well.

Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
the 778X would have to be the freighter model

It's almost guaranteed that a Freighter will be based on it, yes.

Quoting columba (Reply 11):
LH has stated interest in the 787-10 and was also often mentioned as launch customer but LH recently said that they won´t order any new plane before 2014 due to their financial problems

True, but I seem to remember there was some confusion with what exactly LH was saying - did they mean "no new orders" or "no new growth"? The former is pretty straightforward. The latter, however, simply means that whatever aircraft they take in between now and 2015 will be matched with a corresponding retirement.

I never did hear this clarified. . .


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5518 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 8):
I wonder if it would be worth launching the 777-8 at all, if 787-10 already existed.

From my perspective it's a good question. The 787-10X will be "regional" but should have enough range to do a whole lot of missions, including some not usually considered "regional" like East Asia-Europe, TATL, and even shorter TPAC. The A350-900 or -1000 will also have a weight advantage and can cover much longer ranges. Between the lighter weight and superior efficiency of the 787-10X/A350-900/-1000 and the greater capacity of the 777-9X, it's hard for me to see a substantial niche for the 777-8X.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):
From my perspective it's a good question. The 787-10X will be "regional" but should have enough range to do a whole lot of missions, including some not usually considered "regional" like East Asia-Europe, TATL, and even shorter TPAC.

The 7810's estimated 6700-6900 nm range puts it in the same ballpark as a 747-200B, which worked well on most routes, especially for European carriers who didn't need transpac abilities.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5012 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 16):
The 7810's estimated 6700-6900 nm range puts it in the

I believe Albaugh when pressed said in the about 6900nm range . They have to be something like 133.5t OEW to be there. Seems doable.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GE has been mumbling about more powerful engines for the 787-10 - in the neighborhood of 78,000 pounds of thrust. That could be to improve field performance, but it might also imply that Boeing thinks they can raise the MTOW beyond the 251t of the 787-9, which appeared to be a hard limit due to the undercarriage.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5731 times:

Could you make a 788 with the MTOW of the 789? As a mega long range 787?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
Could you make a 788 with the MTOW of the 789? As a mega long range 787?

Yes. While I do not expect the A350-800R to catch on, if it does, Boeing could respond with a 787-8LR.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5161 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
Could you make a 788 with the MTOW of the 789? As a mega long range 787?

Yes. While I do not expect the A350-800R to catch on, if it does, Boeing could respond with a 787-8LR.

The -8LR would be a simple project once the -9 is underway, but I'm not sure there's much of a business case for a 245 ton 788 for ULH routes. You might sell a few copies for the kangaroo route, but then airlines will be cannibalizing their transfer traffic. If you want more freight, you just go with the -9, because it's the one that's MTOW limited, and the high cargo density/low pax combo is unlikely to create a market for >30 788LR frames.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
Could you make a 788 with the MTOW of the 789? As a mega long range 787?

Maybe not for mega long range, but for more payload at maximum range or more range at maximum payload.
Or for the 788F.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5012 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Boeing could respond with a 787-8LR.

PIANO X tells me that if 10t TOW was added to the 788 bringing it to 229.53t , the range at max passenger (242-seats) would increase by ~800nm to about 8700nm. The fuel load would need to be ~93.9t of the available ~101t


User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
Is this really a big market?


I wonder the same, specially about how many new orders the -10 could get by itself (I mean, no as a conversion from previous -8 & -9 orders) But it looks like they are about to launch officially the frame.

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 8):
Considering the sales failure that A340-500 was (compared to the A330-300 or not), I wonder if it would be worth launching the 777-8 at all

About the new 777 there is nothing decided yet, Boeing even could develop a totally brand-new plane to replace the existing 777 family



Time flies! Enjoy life!
25 Post contains images sweair : It will be almost a free program to do, if the business case is there why not, the 788 and 789 will bare the bill for the 787 project mostly. It is r
26 Stitch : The A330-300 is a very hot property and the 787-10 is an A330-300 on steroids, so I think it will do quite well. Now, with so many A330-300s being pl
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...
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
748 And 787 At Farnborough posted Wed Mar 17 2010 05:11:58 by shankly
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE
787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3? posted Fri Jun 8 2012 11:20:21 by SKY1
Will QR's 1st 787 Be Ready For Farnborough? posted Mon Jun 4 2012 09:30:51 by TC957
787 Leaving DFW May 14th 2012 posted Mon May 14 2012 04:59:25 by N160LH
SK Eyeing The 787-10 posted Tue May 8 2012 13:05:15 by NDiesel
EVA Interested In 787-10/777X posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:41:32 by kaitak
Second 787 Assembly Line At CHS posted Mon Dec 12 2011 16:14:12 by Viscount724
16/10/2011 At FRA: B747 Ferrying Two Engines? posted Mon Oct 17 2011 07:24:07 by djb77