Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA Orders 11 More B787-9  
User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 240 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 18330 times:

Congrats to ANA and Boeing. The B787 must be working well for them, and this is clearly a great sign of confidence

Quote:
All Nippon Airways (ANA) has ordered another 11 Boeing 787-9s.

The aircraft will be delivered between the 2018 and 2021 fiscal years, says the Japanese carrier.

This brings its total order for the 787 aircraft to 66, divided between 36 787-8s and 30 787-9s. Boeing has delivered 13 787-8s to the aircraft's launch customer.

All of ANA's existing 787s are powered by the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, although the airline has not revealed an engine selection for its new order.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ways-orders-11-more-787-9s-376779/

[Edited 2012-09-21 02:34:59]

[Edited 2012-09-21 02:35:26]

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fantastic news! Congratulations to both ANA and Boeing!

PR from ANA:
www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/press/2012/pdf/120921.pdf


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18057 times:

Great news from ANA! Now, I am waiting for El Al to order 787s...


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18049 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
Now, I am waiting for El Al to order 787s...

That should happen sooner or later


User currently offlineFaddypainter From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17769 times:

Quoting AF185 (Thread starter):
All of ANA's existing 787s are powered by the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, although the airline has not revealed an engine selection for its new order.

Any chance they won't go with RR again?



I ♡ Farnborough LARS (West)
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17682 times:

I think the 789 would be a perfect plane for SAS, not too small not too big, opens up for longer routes if needed too. 2-4-2 cabin would be a perfect way to go..in my dreams..

User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17260 times:

Wow, a nice endorsement, I suppose. :P


Congrats to ANA and Boeing.



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8089 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ANA orders more 787-9's, where are they going to fly all these birds too ? ANA should fly to Newark with one to UA's New York hub, its funny how no Japanesse airline has ever flown to Newark.

User currently offlineboeingbus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17168 times:

This is an endorsement of the 787's reliability and profitability thus far.... Great news for Boeing in an otherwise shaky time after all the engine issues they are facing.


Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16827 times:

Only 11? They must not be happy with them. (JUST KIDDING. ITS A JOKE PEOPLE)

ANA must like the performance of the plane - I'm dying to hear some updated info on efficiency and performance from the first 787 carrier!

The press release says the 787-9 has similar fuel efficiency to the 787-8 but with more seats. What exactly does that mean? Are they saying on a per seat basis or that they both use the same amount of fuel to fly the same distance?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29657 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
ANA orders more 787-9's, where are they going to fly all these birds too ?

They need 25 for 777-200 and 777-200ER replacements, so that leaves five for expansion.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4091 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16089 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 9):
The press release says the 787-9 has similar fuel efficiency to the 787-8 but with more seats. What exactly does that mean? Are they saying on a per seat basis or that they both use the same amount of fuel to fly the same distance?

It sounds kind of like the 762 vs 763...similar overall fuel burn per trip, but the bigger airplane has more seats and more cargo space so better profitability. I expect the 789 will be the best seller of the 787 family over time.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16061 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 9):
The press release says the 787-9 has similar fuel efficiency to the 787-8 but with more seats. What exactly does that mean? Are they saying on a per seat basis or that they both use the same amount of fuel to fly the same distance?

According to aspire 2.4l/km per seat on the 789 compared to 2.6 on the 788.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 512 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14614 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):

Plus the -9 has a slightly longer range.

Congrats to both Boeing and ANA as well!

[Edited 2012-09-21 09:52:25]


Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14549 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
Great news from ANA! Now, I am waiting for El Al to order 787s...
Quoting AF185 (Reply 3):
That should happen sooner or later

Boeing gave them a loan for $40 million predicated on El Al buying or leasing 2 or more 787's. The version according to Wiki is the -8 for a delivery around 2015/2016. Assuming they would be replacing the 767's and older 777-200's I'd say they need a split of 10 -8's and 4 -9's.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...oeing-airbus-idUSL5E8H723720120607

Back to topic though, good to see the 787 performing as well as it is, as heavy as it is. The 787-9 looks to be a sure winner when it enters service. It wouldn't surprise me if we see more orders and/or conversions for the 787-9.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14126 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
According to aspire 2.4l/km per seat on the 789 compared to 2.6 on the 788.

That should read 2.4l/100km   A quick check of SAS A340-300 that would have the size of the 789 it reads 3.9l/100km and their A330-300 has 3.3l/100km

The 789 is a good replacement for the A340-300 if range is important, otherwise A more modern A333 or 787-10 might be ok?


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12957 times:

This is a massive vote of confidence in the 787...ANA clearly like their early 788s, even though these early frames are sub-optimal. Once the mature frames come through, things will look even better.

Although the gestation of the 787 has been a lesson in how not to project manage, we're starting to see that the engineering design is fundamentally right...it's going to be a great airplane for many years to come.


User currently offlinedeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12609 times:

ANyone know when we'll see the 787-9 prototype rolled out? I've looked and can't find info on how far along Boeing is with it. With all the interest and service to start by 2014 plus problems the 787-8 had I would think Boeing would be testing it as soon as 2013?

User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12012 times:

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 17):
ANyone know when we'll see the 787-9 prototype rolled out? I've looked and can't find info on how far along Boeing is with it. With all the interest and service to start by 2014 plus problems the 787-8 had I would think Boeing would be testing it as soon as 2013?

The first -9 aircraft should roll out next year, not entirely sure when exactly, but my guess is around Q2-Q3.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11993 times:

LN 129 I think will be the first 789, they are assembling about LN85ish right now, not that far away?

User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11613 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
I think the 789 would be a perfect plane for SAS, not too small not too big, opens up for longer routes if needed too. 2-4-2 cabin would be a perfect way to go..in my dreams..
Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
That should read 2.4l/100km A quick check of SAS A340-300 that would have the size of the 789 it reads 3.9l/100km and their A330-300 has 3.3l/100km

The 789 is a good replacement for the A340-300 if range is important, otherwise A more modern A333 or 787-10 might be ok?

Yep, the 787-9 is a 343 killer. The 777 was already a big competitor, but the 787 will sooner or later be the logical replacement for any 343 remaining. Better step in the train before it goes....



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11580 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 16):
This is a massive vote of confidence in the 787...ANA clearly like their early 788s, even though these early frames are sub-optimal. Once the mature frames come through, things will look even better.

Stepping back a bit, ANA is making a great move in terms of fleet commonality by replacing two distinct aircraft types (763s/772s) with one (787-8/9) type that is very compatible with its existing 773s. With the phase-out of its 747s, ANA will have successfully optimized its long-haul fleet for efficiency.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5080 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11514 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
Yep, the 787-9 is a 343 killer.

And a 333 killer, once it's available in volume. It's marginally less capable (in terms of payload) than the 333, but fuel efficiency of the mature frames is going to be better by a non-trivial amount.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinedeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11328 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
It's marginally less capable (in terms of payload) than the 333, but fuel efficiency of the mature frames is going to be better by a non-trivial amount.

WHy hasn't AIrbus countered this w/ an AIrbus 330NG or something? LIke 20 years from now assuming A350 is huge hit that will be more head to head more with the 777, the 787 assuming it continues to snowball will have market to self?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11186 times:

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 23):
WHy hasn't AIrbus countered this w/ an AIrbus 330NG or something? LIke 20 years from now assuming A350 is huge hit that will be more head to head more with the 777, the 787 assuming it continues to snowball will have market to self?

I think they want to protect the A350-800, but it is not a wise idea IMO. The idea of covering 787+777 with one family is a mistake. A 777-X sort of ng of the A330 would be a much wiser move, if they could live with the A350-800 being a still born.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5080 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11601 times:

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 23):
WHy hasn't AIrbus countered this w/ an AIrbus 330NG or something?

Up to this point, they've been relying on the A350 to counter the threat. I think the 359 will do a great job on the high end of the 333/789/772 capability range, but I think Airbus is a bit exposed on the low end. The 789 looks likely to be lighter than the 358 while having similar passenger capacity, more cargo capacity, and only marginally less range.

But then again I'm not sure Airbus thinks it could fully catch up by re-engining the 333, because a big part of the 787 advantage is weight.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AF185 (Thread starter):
Congrats to ANA and Boeing. The B787 must be working well for them, and this is clearly a great sign of confidence

I would say.

Anyone doubt ANA received a good deal? Even if just at options prices?

Quoting Faddypainter (Reply 4):
Any chance they won't go with RR again?

GE has some used engines going cheap. They just need a new low turbine and spool shaft.  
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 9):
Only 11? They must not be happy with them. (JUST KIDDING. ITS A JOKE PEOPLE)

  

We could have fun with that...

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11):
It sounds kind of like the 762 vs 763...similar overall fuel burn per trip, but the bigger airplane has more seats and more cargo space so better profitability. I expect the 789 will be the best seller of the 787 family over time.

Exactly. I've though the same since I heard of the 789. The 788 is the introductory model. Most will be the 789. The 787-10... will do far better than the 764 (more like the A333), but will have a smaller market.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13):
Plus the -9 has a slightly longer range.

Does it still? I'm expecting a higher MTOW 788 with uber range.

Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
A quick check of SAS A340-300 that would have the size of the 789 it reads 3.9l/100km and their A330-300 has 3.3l/100km

That fuel savings will pay the lease.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
Yep, the 787-9 is a 343 killer. The 777 was already a big competitor, but the 787 will sooner or later be the logical replacement for any 343 remaining.

The fuel savings alone would pay to park a brand new A343 (but only due to today's absurdly low interest rates), even if the A343 was new. Fuel pays the lease, maintenance savings add to the profit...

If an A343 is due for a D-check, its done. Better to spend the money on a 789 or A359.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
And a 333 killer

New sales killer. I've read plans to cut the A333 fuel burn ~4.5% (winglets and weight reduction). That won't end in service use, it will just kill new sales. But as noted, that will take volume. But the A333 will still have a home on shorter missions. But then again, besides EK, what airline flies that may sub 3000nm widebody missions?!? PS on UA doesn't count. That isn't enough to keep a subfleet going within an airline.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11819 times:

Probably another example of poor decision making by QF - slow of the mark, cancels/defers orders for 787 for QF whilst an early operator buys more.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11628 times:

Looking at how the A330 has improved over the years the 787 may just be in the beginning of being a very good aircraft, the 777 has also improved vastly with time.

This fact IMO should make Boeing think twice about NG:ing the 777. Compare the 747-100 in 1969 and the 747-8 in 2012..ok that would be one stretch but its the basic frame in some ways.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
Yep, the 787-9 is a 343 killer. The 777 was already a big competitor, but the 787 will sooner or later be the logical replacement for any 343 remaining.

It's been the logical replacement for the A343 for certain carriers for years now.


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
And a 333 killer, once it's available in volume. It's marginally less capable (in terms of payload) than the 333, but fuel efficiency of the mature frames is going to be better by a non-trivial amount

By any chance do you have a payload range chart? I'm really curious since A330-300 has a 20,000lbs higher operating empty weight, has a 33,000lbs lower maximum take off weight, has a 336 cu ft smaller cargo hold, has a 10800gal smaller fuel tank, and about 1500-1700nm less range then the 787. Got the numbers from wiki, not sure how accurate they are.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5080 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 30):
By any chance do you have a payload range chart? I'm really curious since A330-300 has a 20,000lbs higher operating empty weight, has a 33,000lbs lower maximum take off weight, has a 336 cu ft smaller cargo hold, has a 10800gal smaller fuel tank, and about 1500-1700nm less range then the 787.

I don't have the numbers here at work, but the short answer is that the 789's structural payload is slightly lower and its greater MTOW is to accommodate the greater fuel capacity (which combined with the more efficient engines leads to the much higher range). The 333 can carry a whole lot of weight, just not all that far.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 31):

Thank you for that answer, now it makes sense.


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 29):
It's been the logical replacement for the A343 for certain carriers for years now.

Indeed, but you can still find rather new A343 in service, that have been ordered while the first 787 slots were available. Quad-jet performances can explain some choices, but anyway, when it comes to fuel savings and efficiency, it seems that buying A343 (I'm thinking of SAA for example) was a poor decision...



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinetrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9469 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
where are they going to fly all these birds

Don't forget that ANA has relatively few international routes, but an incredibly extensive domestic network with some of the busiest routes in the world. HND to CTS, ITM, FUK have high frequency and NH already flies the 787 to smaller regional cities in Japan. So new 787s could be readily employed on domestic routes - typically with high density configurations.


User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6860 times:

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 27):

Probably another example of poor decision making by QF - slow of the mark, cancels/defers orders for 787 for QF whilst an early operator buys more.

Please, no QF bashing here.


User currently offlineAusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 35):
Please, no QF bashing here.

Not intented as QF bashing - just pointing out that in a tough market, some airlines in this region are able to see the investment required (initial order) and then see the benefits, which I assume are in performance and costs and have chosen to order more. Cudos to the ANA management for their initial foresight and activity managing the benefits of their new aircraft.


User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6106 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
where are they going to fly all these birds too ? ANA should fly to Newark with one to UA's New York hub, its funny how no Japanesse airline has ever flown to Newark.

If not for expansion, as other have related easily a 772/772ER replacement.
I doubt they go to EWR since they are going to double daily on JFK this October.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6897 posts, RR: 13
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

the extra 789s may also be used to increase capacity on the successful existing 788 flights like HND-FRA to free up 788s for growth opportunities and 'rightsizing'

User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

It's sad that ANA don't see themselves as a big international carrier in the future. I would have had more confidence in them if they were able to buy VLAs.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 39):
It's sad that ANA don't see themselves as a big international carrier in the future. I would have had more confidence in them if they were able to buy VLAs.

Are you serious?! I don't think many will agree with you.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Excellent news. And it was only 2-3 months ago, many here were calling the ANA CEO a liar when he talked about their pleasure with the planes. Apparently, he continues to dig that hole deeper.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18675 posts, RR: 58
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 39):
It's sad that ANA don't see themselves as a big international carrier in the future. I would have had more confidence in them if they were able to buy VLAs.

They fly 77W's. Those are VLA's. In fact, they're the third largest airliner currently available to order after the A380 and 748i. Just because they don't have two decks and four engines doesn't mean they aren't very large.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
They fly 77W's. Those are VLA's. In fact, they're the third largest airliner currently available to order after the A380 and 748i. Just because they don't have two decks and four engines doesn't mean they aren't very large.



True, I just don't get some people, a VLA has to have double decks? You can stuff close to 500 seat sin a 77W, 480 iirc..


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29657 posts, RR: 84
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting babybus (Reply 39):
It's sad that ANA don't see themselves as a big international carrier in the future. I would have had more confidence in them if they were able to buy VLAs.

I'm more confident that they can make money with a 215-seat 777-300ER than if they needed a 515-seat A380-800, but to each their own.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3944 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 39):
I would have had more confidence in them if they were able to buy VLAs.

Do you invest in stocks?


User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

...and I thought the window shade blinds fiasco would put them off....  

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First congratulations. Repeat business is the primary sign of client satisfaction! So a toast to Boeing and ANA.

It just "feels" so slow to see 787's! I recall flying my first 777 within a few months of its first flight with United. Then, like rabbits, in no time 777's were all over the place. I hope within 12 months I will be drooling at the windows of airports all over the world looking at such a beautiful airplane.

I guess I have to get my butt to Japan!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
I'm more confident that they can make money with a 215-seat 777-300ER than if they needed a 515-seat A380-800, but to each their own.

The way NH configures their long-haul aircraft, the A388 would probably only seat 350 passengers.
NH buying the A380 is another topic, highly doubtful but always receives good amount of discussion.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

The 789 and the 333 are very similar with the 789 a nudge ahead in almost all aspects and a clearly longer range, here what my deliberations say;

..................................333......................789
MTOW t.....................240......................251
OEW t........................120.....................124
Max payload t..............55.......................57
Range max payl.nm...4800....................3800
Range full pax..nm.....8000....................5800
Fuel burn t/hr................5.5......................6
Cabin area/length......266/50...............266/48
LD3 positions...............32.......................36

The 789 can seat 9 abrest in reasonable comfort, for the 333 it is charter class. So even though the 333 has a longer cabin (about 2 Y rows) the 789 could take more pax in a modern config, at 8 abrest the 333 nudges ahead. The 789 really shines in cargo and range, both at MSP and full pax+bags, it also burns about 8% less trip fuel.

So your fuel burn per seat difference really comes down to 8 vs 9 abreast and whether your city pairs are within a 10 hour flight. On overall cost it will be the 789s lower fuel/maintenance vs the price aggressiveness of Airbus selling a dated model.

So any way you look at it the 789 is one flexible hauler, it has a good MSP, good range any way you look at it, a nice and flexible cabin (eg 8 abrest economy+ vs 9 abrest economy) and is economical on fuel and maintenance. The only reason ANA is taking 788s at similar trip fuels is because of delivery positions, every 767 and 777 they can replace is a cash-in, especially at the prices they bargained for the first order  .

The only reason someone would buy a 788 today would be purchase price. As building cost and delivery positions will be close to a wash when both will be in full production I expect the 788 to fade away eventually like the 762/772s did especially as the 788 is a bit short on MZFW.

[Edited 2012-09-23 22:54:47]


Non French in France
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2246 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
The 789 and the 333 are very similar with the 789 a nudge ahead in almost all aspects and a clearly longer range, here what my deliberations say;

..................................333......................789
MTOW t.....................240......................251
OEW t........................120.....................124
Max payload t..............55.......................57
Range max payl.nm...4800....................3800
Range full pax..nm.....8000....................5800
Fuel burn t/hr................5.5......................6
Cabin area/length......266/50...............266/48
LD3 positions...............32.......................36

I believe your columns are mis-labeled.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2203 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 50):
I believe your columns are mis-labeled.

Worse than that, it is a total mixup  Wow!! Thanks for spotting it, here the correct version (I hope   )

................................A333..................B789
MTOW t.....................240......................251
OEW t........................120.....................124
Max payload t..............55.......................57
Range max payl.nm....3800....................4800
Range full pax..nm......5800....................8000
Fuel burn t/hr................6........................5.5
Cabin area/length.......266/50...............266/48
LD3 positions...............32.......................36


Of curse the reaction then is how come the 789 is heavier. Well it is a ULH frame with an MTOW of 251 ton and it has modern high compression (and therefore heavier) engines which due to their high compression ratio consumes less fuel. The Wikipedia OEW was for a 240t earlier variant, it was not raised when the frame was extended to 251t.

[Edited 2012-09-24 08:38:47]


Non French in France
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...
Aeroflot To Buy 11 More Airbus A330-300 posted Mon Jul 5 2010 08:26:49 by Thorben
Virgin Blue To Order 50 More Aircraft posted Tue Feb 23 2010 16:15:41 by QF744
Spanair To Order 11 New Airbii posted Wed Aug 19 2009 15:17:19 by ArniePie
ANA Orders Five More 787s? posted Wed Jul 1 2009 03:16:03 by Aviationbuff
Ryanair In Talks To Order 300 More Aircraft posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:11:30 by Pe@rson
Air Europa Orders 11 More E195 posted Fri Dec 19 2008 02:22:45 by MIgAiR54
ANA Orders Three More Q400s posted Mon Jun 23 2008 01:40:37 by Carpethead
Paramount To Order A350 Or B787 posted Thu Sep 20 2007 18:10:44 by Flying-Tiger
Arkia For 2 More B787-9 posted Tue Jul 10 2007 18:32:52 by Mptpa
Report: EK To Order 10 More A380s posted Mon Jun 18 2007 07:26:21 by Atnight