Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming Soon  
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 587 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23788 times:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...ate-very-soon-perhaps-within-days/

Leeham.net is reporting that the 787-10 will be considered by the Boeing board for authority to offer (ATO) very soon. In fact, it may be considered at the October meeting.

This is a lot sooner than many have predicting - end of 2012/ beginning of 2013. Just last month (Aug), it appeared that the 777-X might receive ATO sooner than the -10

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...7-10-to-come-later-than-suggested/

The timing seems to comport very well with the latest chatter about Boeing struggling with how to best define the 777-X.

Should the Boeing board grant ATO for the 787-10 soon, what is the best estimate for EIS and which airlines will likely order (and how many)?


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23718 times:

I expect the B781 to be about 20,000 lbs. lighter than A359, with MTOW that is about 35,000 lbs. less than A351. B781 at 323 seats(marketing) will have 9 more seats than A359.

Quote:
The straight-forward stretch of the 787-9 will have less range (about 6,900nm) than either the -8 or -9 models, which comfortably top 8,000 nm but it is expected to carry around 323 passengers, putting it squarely in the class of the 777-200ER and the A350-900.

At 6,900nm, the airplane will cover most missions required by airlines. By foregoing a new wing and added fuel tankage, the operating weight of the airplane is expected to be roughly equal to the 787-9. A slightly higher-thrust engine will be required. Rolls-Royce announced a higher thrust version of the Trent 1000 now powering the 787 at the Farnborough Air Show, and insiders said this engine is specifically intended for the 787-10.


User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23716 times:

Personally, I think 787-10 will be the best seller in the 787 family. The proposed P2P long-haul routes seem to be impossible in this bad economy. Most airlines tend to use 787 to replace 763 or 332. So why not to buy a larger one?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
Should the Boeing board grant ATO for the 787-10 soon, what is the best estimate for EIS and which airlines will likely order (and how many)?

I could see EIS around 2016-2017, aiming for the next tranche of A330-300 and 777-200ER replacements.

As for airlines that order it, I think EK could be a customer (depending on range) and I could see it popular with United States and Asian carriers.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days ago) and read 23203 times:

I put my chips on Lufthansa or Emirates signing up for a bunch of copies.
[edit] ...and then everyone else moving their orders up for the larger version....

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:07:08]

User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days ago) and read 23100 times:

what market is the 787-10 geared towards? what aircraft can/will it replace?

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days ago) and read 23059 times:

Ok, so the way I understand it, the 787-10, at current specs, would give airlines more capacity and sacrifice range. Is Boeing planning on tweeking the weight to add range while keeping the capacity the same?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
what market is the 787-10 geared towards? what aircraft can/will it replace?

Missions up to around 10 hours / up to 9,000 km currently being flown by 777-200s, 777-200ERs, 777-300s, A330-300s and A340-300s.

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:51:38]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9025 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22774 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
By foregoing a new wing and added fuel tankage, the operating weight of the airplane is expected to be roughly equal to the 787-9.

It has to be heavier than the 787-9, longer fuselage, and more seats etc to accommodate the additional passengers.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22521 times:

Wow, I am excited. I have to believe that Boeing must have designed some level of -10 during the -9 phase. It will be interesting to see how Boeing ramps production up.

Quoting zeke (Reply 8):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
By foregoing a new wing and added fuel tankage, the operating weight of the airplane is expected to be roughly equal to the 787-9.

It has to be heavier than the 787-9, longer fuselage, and more seats etc to accommodate the additional passengers.

I think it is about MTOW, so it means carrying less fuel.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
This is a lot sooner than many have predicting - end of 2012/ beginning of 2013. Just last month (Aug), it appeared that the 777-X might receive ATO sooner than the -10

Wonder if EK changed its mind and told B: Give me the -10 first. Your metal wing 777X schedule looks better than the CFRP one.   


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22500 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1):
I expect the B781 to be about 20,000 lbs. lighter than A359, with MTOW that is about 35,000 lbs. less than A351. B781 at 323 seats(marketing) will have 9 more seats than A359.

Boeing Posts Updated 787 Characteristics (by aerobee Dec 23 2011 in Tech Ops)

In a posting to the above thread Ferpe gave his reasons why he thought the OEW would be about 131t.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22257 times:

EK has probably been the primary launch customer target for a long time. Is EK finally ready?

http://www.radarvector.com/uploaded_images/787-10X-779064.jpg

So the 781 seat counts went from 290 to 323 with 9 abreast assuming 33 rows of Y.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2965 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21895 times:

QF's 10 A333's will be up for replacement early next decade -- I could easily see them ordering this aircraft (or perhaps just utilising existing options in place of the 789). There will also be some 744 capacity to replace, though I daresay that'll be handled by the 789's supposedly arriving from 2016.

User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5403 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21749 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 11):
EK has probably been the primary launch customer target for a long time. Is EK finally ready?

Would this aircraft make sense for EK? Totally, without any further context. It's probably the most fuel-efficient aircraft on the horizon for their Europe and Asia missions.

Will they buy it? I'm not convinced, for three reasons:

1) EK seems to be focused on growing aircraft size rather than frequency, and they already have a "small" (only in EK's world!) aircraft of nearly the same size on the way -- the A350-900.
2) Tim Clark's unhealthy obsession with 8000+ nm range when the bulk of his routes don't require it. Yes, he needs an 8000+ nm aircraft or two. No, his entire fleet doesn't need to be capable of it, but sometimes he doesn't seem to see that.
3) EK couldn't leverage the 787 family -- both of the other members are too small for EK to use, and unlike the A350 the 787 can't grow bigger without major changes.

Personally, I think the dead-obvious customers for this aircraft are the big European airlines. It has just enough range to fly all their North American and East Asian routes with a decent cargo load. It will also be a good 777-300A replacement.


User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21595 times:

So, how many existing orders do we expect to be converted to the -10?


...are we there yet?
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21204 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
what market is the 787-10 geared towards?

The markets which are showing the most interest in the 787-10 are:

Europe-North America
Europe-Middle East
Intra Asia

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
I think the dead-obvious customers for this aircraft are the big European airlines.

  

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 4):
I put my chips on Lufthansa or Emirates signing up for a bunch of copies.

  

Quoting flylku (Reply 14):
So, how many existing orders do we expect to be converted to the -10?

Few existing orders will have conversion rights to the 787-10. It would be unusual to give a customer conversion rights to a future derivative which is not defined at the time of the sale.

Quoting justinlee (Reply 2):
Personally, I think 787-10 will be the best seller in the 787 family.

The 787-10 will have limited ability to carry cargo on routes longer than about 4000nm. This will limit its attractiveness to operators who are are making money with belly cargo on those 10 hour routes.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 20480 times:

If the authority to offer is being brought forward it is because one of the primary prospects for the 787-10 has decided they want the frame and is prepared to order. It might even be a couple going together and saying they will both order to get the aircraft launched. I would think one had to be Lufthansa if for nothing else than CM giving them as a litmus test for the 787-10 idea (only enough aircraft gives you efficiency) in a TechOps thread.

Which one the second would be (if there is a second) would be more of a guess.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19905 times:

So for the benefit of the thread here is a try to give the ballpart Payload-Range of the main contenders in such a race for the Lufthansa order, the 787-10, the 350-900 and as comparison the 330-300 (which Lufthansa already have). It is based on the data leaked for the 787-10 like 6800nm range, 193t MZFW etc:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart787-10333359.jpg

This is a chart using spec values to make things comparable, for a realistic ariline config one would have to deduce almost 10t of extra cabin furnishing, a real crew size, catering, papers and LD3 container empty weights. Just move the 0 axis up 10t and you look at what is a realistic net payload.

What would have convinced Lufthansa to buy the 787-10 instead of the 350-900 would be its larger payload carrying capability at legs under 8 hours. Fuel burn for the 359 and 781 are very similar on a 10 hour leg at some 5.5t/h average. When comparing fuel burn vs payload the 781 would have an advantage (this is with a nominal OEW of 135t for the 359 and 131t for the 781).

This is all according to my model so should be consumed with a fair size grain of salt  , it should be a tick better then my old charts however as I now have the model do the whole diagram. Previously I used my old extrapolation method for max fuel and no payload breakpoints (not to reliable points as explained previously).


Edit: Friend of rationality would ask why the 789 which is some 8-7t lighter would not have a larger MZFW advantage over the 787-10, well I used the RR T1000-TEN for the 787-10 and the normal T1000 C for the 789.

[Edited 2012-09-28 23:35:08]


Non French in France
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19512 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):

Sir, presume weight in lbs and range in nm in your graph?

Thanks.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 15):
It would be unusual to give a customer conversion rights to a future derivative which is not defined at the time of the sale

But not unheard of

Quoting comorin (Reply 18):
Sir, presume weight in lbs and range in nm in your graph?

I suspect the weights are in kg. - 60 000lb sounds very low as a max structural payload for a 300 seater. Pounds would also not align to the spec payload ranges for these aircraft.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
Fuel burn for the 359 and 781 are very similar on a 10 hour leg at some 5.5t/h average. When comparing fuel burn vs payload the 781 would have an advantage (this is with a nominal OEW of 135t for the 359 and 131t for the 781).

Conversely, by 5 500Nm ESAD, your chart suggests a 25% payload advantage for the A359, which only grows as the range increases.

It's easy to see why weight creep is an important issue for the A359, though. If early frames are 5t overweight, they lose 1/2 that advantage at long range, and are disadvantaged at shorter range.

For me, they key dynamic is that I don't expect either plane to have a meaningful operating cost advantage over the other.
So it will be for the airlines to choose which fits their operating model better..

Rgds


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19249 times:

I would think the big 3 in China and big 2 in Japan will get the 787-10 in good numbers over the next 10-15 years.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 19125 times:

It is kg and nm (will put it on the chart from now on), click on the chart to see things better.

Should my assumption be correct one can wonder how an all Airbus 220-360 pax fleet could choose the 787-10. Well I can see Lufthansa looking at 787-9 and 350-900 and -1000 and telling Boeing to come forward with a 787-10 to stay in the race. LH would with a 787-10 and 350-1000 fleet be picking the best replacement possible for their 330-340 fleets and keeping their A and B strategy very much alive.



Non French in France
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 19016 times:

It wouldn't be a big order, but NZ would be ordering them to replace the 77W I am sure.The benefits for NZ of a single fleet type family would largely outweigh the negatives.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18500 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
So for the benefit of the thread here is a try to give the ballpart Payload-Range of the main contenders in such a race for the Lufthansa order, the 787-10, the 350-900 and as comparison the 330-300 (which Lufthansa already have). It is based on the data leaked for the 787-10 like 6800nm range, 193t MZFW etc:

Thanks for that. Based on that, the 787-10 is going to be one hell of an A333 replacement aircraft, with more range, more payload and more seats. It should be very attractive to airlines that require an aircraft for high capacity, high payload regional routes.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 22):
It wouldn't be a big order, but NZ would be ordering them to replace the 77W I am sure.The benefits for NZ of a single fleet type family would largely outweigh the negatives.

The 787-10 won't have enough size to replace the 77W - especially since NZ uses 10-abreast on the 77W. Although range shouldn't be a problem for NZ. On paper the 787-10 has a 6,900nm range, while NZ's longest route (AKL-YVR) is just 6,121nm. It may not be able to do a return trip into a strong headwind without weight restrictions.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18365 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
The 787-10 won't have enough size to replace the 77W

I don't it is a dealbreaker. The 78X is of a size that will justify full flights year round for a number of destinations on their network, vs the the 77W which is more limited in its use to only LAX & LHR


25 airbazar : All things being relatively equal (A359 vs. 781), I just don't see LH burning political goodwill and ordering a Boeing. They could have ordered 787's
26 Stitch : I also continue to believe that LH would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator and therefore are, IMO, unlikely to order the 787-10 instead of the A350-
27 flylku : Understood, but anything can be negotiated for the right price. I think it was the head of Cathay that said the 777-300 was the model Boeing should h
28 flyingcello : But have LH not publicly stated, or at least suggested, that they want to continue to dual source their fleet between A and B? Maybe the 748 is enoug
29 LHCVG : Yes that is correct. This has been publicly debunked numerous times - because of LH Technik alone, setting aside fleet planning per se, they are ofte
30 Stitch : I'm sure they have. And again, the LH Group is composed of more airlines than just LH, so even if LH themselves do not find a home for the 787, that
31 Ronaldo747 : Their policy is to have a mixed fleet from different producers. In the medium term they will have an all narrowbody-Airbus fleet and the 747 is the o
32 SQ22 : I don't know if the rumors regarding 787-10 and LH are true, but I know that they have a big MRO business and to run this business not only for A cust
33 Aesma : What does ATO actually entail ? Does Boeing have to provide numbers (including prices) ? Well, EIS is 5 years from now, I sure hope the economy will n
34 flightsimer : But didn't LH just say a few months ago they were very much interested in a 787-10 and would love to launch if it materializes? Let me see if I can fi
35 CM : True; open-ended conversion rights are possible for customers which receive highly incentiveized deals. More typically, conversion rights specify the
36 Post contains links flightsimer : Yup they did. "Nico Buchholz, Lufthansa senior vice-president of corporate fleet" made the statement at ISTAT 2012. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/a
37 CM : ATO only happens after a full business case can be evaluated by the Board of Directors. This will include: Technical risks and readiness of the propo
38 Aesma : Thanks, but what I meant is what would actually be offered ? Presumably slots, for a price, with guarantees on performance, final price, etc.
39 Post contains images CM : Everything you mentioned, including a "firm concept", which is decision gate 3 in the Boeing gated development process (similar to Airbus' "maturity
40 LAXDESI : Leeham article suggests 6,900 nm design range. What is your source for 193t MZWF? 193t MZWF for B781 will give it about 12,000 lbs. MSP advantage ove
41 Stitch : Aspire Aviation.
42 LAXDESI : Thanks. Operationally, B781 does not have a large advantage over A359 on sub-4000 nm sectors. I also don't expect it to have a meaningful advantage i
43 ferpe : I first guessed about 192t myselves when I sketched the frame after the first data was leaked and then IIIRC Aspire wrote about the same size MZFW. Y
44 Stitch : The 787-10's longer cabin should allow an additional two rows of Economy (18 seats) and six LD3 positions. Aspire Aviation's sources give an OEW of a
45 airbazar : Yes they keep saying that and yet, they keep ordering from Airbus. The only reason they ordered the 748i is because Airbus has nothing in that size.
46 zeke : Airbus normally has variable weights, the MTOW graph you have there would change for a regional sector. They normally have a range of MZFWs and assoc
47 LAXDESI : I have B781 at about 4.5 feet longer than A359. I suppose two additional Y rows are possible, but I am inclined to go with 9 seat advantage(one row)
48 ferpe : Sure, I only calculate the max performance. I've understood from you and others that one paper derate then in the practical case to gain lower charge
49 ferpe : Re the 781 cabin and cargo capacity vs the 359, I have them as: 781: 54.5m cabin and 44 LD3 359: 51.8m cabin and 36 LD3 The difference in pax should b
50 DocLightning : This is a very interesting graph and I thank you for it. I wonder what specific design characteristics give the 787-10 its payload advantages. Bigger
51 ferpe : The 781 sacrifices MTOW for efficiency, by that it can not fill the tanks to fly those 16 hour legs that the 359 can and still have the cabin full (t
52 Post contains links astuteman : IIRC Boeings last thoughts were that it would be a 5.5m, or 18 ft stretch of the 787-9 which would yield about 6 700Nm nominal range http://www.fligh
53 Post contains images PW100 : I don't think you need to remember many folks here. That's like SYD-YYR, going the wrong way and using LHR as a waypoint! . . . I'm sure you mean km'
54 ferpe : I have the frame spacing down as 0.61m and have the note that the 787-10 is a 10 frames stretch = 68.9m I also have the 788 cabin as 42.3m, add 10 fr
55 Post contains images astuteman : Based on the commentary from Boeing, as highlighted in the Flgihglobal article, the 787-10 might have become a 9 frame stretch to protect the range.
56 StickShaker : Such "exceptions" could become more common in the future. When considering derivatives of a given base model with similar gross weights there is a fa
57 Stitch : I have a cabin (not fuselage) length of 51.80m for the A350-900 and 53.89m for the 787-10 (assuming a 5.5m stretch), which would be 70 inches, which
58 Post contains images astuteman : That's pretty much where I get to - about a 2m-2.1m cabin length difference. However, Ferpe is currently assuming a 6.1m 10-frame stretch. My underst
59 CM : Absolutely agree. However, the success of this strategy is far from guaranteed. Imagine if Boeing had come out with the 777-300ER first and then had
60 Post contains links and images Stitch : Well he claims they're from "sources", but that could be chicken entrails for all we know. That being said, Guy Norris published a piece today noting
61 columba : LH will order it but the question is when. They said that they will not order any new planes before 2014. You say that in every thread regarding this
62 Stitch : LH has long-wanted a larger 747 to slot in-between the A340-600 and A380-800. That being said, if Airbus offered a ~400-seater, I believe LH would hav
63 Post contains images ferpe : I read the article as things are going to plan for the 787-9 which is nice, but it does not say things will be lighter then planned. Many parts are a
64 mham001 : So we know what the article says about that... "We're ecstatic with where we are with weight. When we hit firm configuration, we locked in on a numbe
65 columba : LH would have a hard time ordering new planes now. They don´t have the best press right now with all the strikes and the idea of a low cost airline
66 Post contains images airbazar : I don't disagree with anything you say, hence why I said, "all things being equal". However that being "quintessentially German" that you speak of al
67 StickShaker : As you say the industry focus was somewhat different back then - programs such as the 767 and 777 introduced a base model and then followed those wit
68 flyingcello : The 787-10 is going to be 9 or 10 frames longer than the -9, with the stretch both ahead of and behind the wing. Will this be achieved with 'plugs' in
69 Stitch : I have not seen any formal plans, but the most likely scenario is that Boeing will not add any additional plugs, but instead increase the length of v
70 SEPilot : If that is the case, why did they launch the 748i? I am also in the camp that believes that there is a big market for a medium range large capacity w
71 Stitch :
72 astuteman : As a point of order though, the A330-300 has been consistently substantially cheaper to operate than its 300-seat counterpart from boeing - the 777.
73 Post contains links KarelXWB : Here is a nice analysis: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/1...emains-formidable-bae-eads-merger/
74 Stitch : Aspire Aviation is suggesting a 10% lower operating cost (I assume their numbers come from Boeing).
75 TP313 : 10% lower operating cost at what range? If one looks at ferpe's payload/range chart (conceeded it is just an estimate) any advantage in operation cos
76 WarpSpeed : In addition to route structure, might a -10 vs. -900xwb decision be weighed on fleet commonality reasons with 787-8,-9/777 operators favoring the -10
77 Stitch : And the 777-200 had a better payload-range chart than the A330-300 so there was a point when the A330-300's operating advantage would diminish compar
78 TP313 : They will also be closer in weight, which is why I think your analogy with the 333/772ER doesn't aply so much to this case...
79 Stitch : The 787-10 offers more passenger (and especially) cargo capacity, though. So even if the trip costs are close, the 787-10 will have a revenue advanta
80 CM : Despite its larger size and pax load, the -10 should sill have a slight operating weight advantage over the -900, as well as lower ownership cost. It
81 TP313 : We're not talking ULH here. If you check the payload range charts (ferpe's estimates), you'll see that, for example in any Europe - US West Coast rou
82 Stitch : And so does the 777-200ER and A340-300 over the A330-300. Hence many airlines have both models in their fleets. So we may see A350-900s doing the lon
83 TP313 : Exactly!
84 LAXDESI : My model(based on current estimates for A359 and B781) suggests payload advantage to A359 beyond 5,050 nm. However, B781 is expected to have 6 more L
85 astuteman : I'm sure it's possible to construct such a figure on seating configurations. On an overall operating cost basis, if Ferpe is right that the fuel burn
86 LAXDESI : Here's what I have for A359 and B781(Aspire estimates for B781 on MZFW): ....................................B787-10......................A359 Fusela
87 Stitch : Yes, if Boeing follows the "freighter" model where they raise MZFW to increase payload at the expense of range. Boeing knows the 787-10 won't be able
88 sunrisevalley : I don't see much relevance in MSP. Passenger aircraft belly cargo is largely in the 160 to 180kg/m3 density range and this pretty much ensures that t
89 LAXDESI : Thanks. The current MZFW estimate for A359 seems too low relative to the proposed B781. I wonder if a future revision to A359 specs. will show a high
90 LAXDESI : Good point. The additional 6 LD3 positon of B781 should provide(over A359) additional volume limited lift of nearly 10,000 lbs for many missions.
91 ferpe : The OEMs can tailor the MZFW to suit the frames usage (within limits), you pay with empty weight however for more MZFW. 359 For the 359 we have an of
92 Stitch : The A350-900 is designed as an over-8000nm airframe, so it needs to have significant TOW available to tank fuel (the current MTOW-MZFW allows for 76
93 B777LRF : .... if not more. You wouldn't load cargo in LD3s out in the real world if you can help it; they're not able to hold big boxes and are limited to a m
94 frigatebird : Ok, so which airlines would order the 78J? BR, SK, LH have publicly stated their interest, BA as well, TG, NH and JL should like it as 773 replacement
95 SEPilot : That is precisely why the A330-300 has done so well. More range capability adds dead weight as well as having to carry more fuel, and so the shorter
96 Post contains images astuteman : At 9-abreast it will certainly have a better CASM than the A359 - it will hold more passengers and more cargo. I don't believe it will be meaningfull
97 Post contains images sunrisevalley : Assuming a cubic capacity of 10.6m3 this gives a density of about 500kg/m3. Is this normal or is it on the top end of the range? Or am I missing some
98 Post contains images StickShaker : These other factors seem to be often forgoten with the A.net mindset that its all about SFC/CASM and nothing else matters. A marginal improvement in
99 columba : I am very sure that LH will order it they have said very clearly that they are very much interested in it and I believe they have a lot to say in tha
100 morrisond : So why do they need 76,000 lb of thrust engines if the 787-10 has same takeoff weight as 789? Is 789 runway performance really poor or are they going
101 sunrisevalley : For starters what capacity is there for additional fuel within the wings? Or must it be in the form of AFT's in the belly?
102 Stitch : Better field performance? The 787-10's rotation angle could be a bit worse than the 787-9 due to the extra length of the fuselage. The 787-10 should
103 JerseyFlyer : Has any airline (e.g. Air Asia which runs 9-abreast A330s "regionally") worked out whether a 10-abreast A359 configuration is feasible for short- to
104 Stitch : Airbus has developed a 10-abreast configuration for the A350 at the request of an unnamed potential customer.
105 Polot : Doesn't AirAsia X want to put 10 abreast seating in their A359s?
106 frigatebird : 10 abreast Y in an A350 should be same seat 'width' as 9 abreast Y in an A330, so AirAsia could very well be one of those. Another I've heard is Air
107 sunrisevalley : I was thinking in the context of a higher MTOW version. However there is no indication that this is likely at this time.
108 LAXDESI : A350's fuselage is about 13 inch wider, and one would expect the cabin to be about 16-17 inch wider. So 10-abreast A350 seems feasible. Anyone with m
109 Stitch : The current fuel tank volume for the 787 family is just over 126,000 liters, which works out to just over 101 metric tons. In an airline's DOW, I'd e
110 sweair : What would be the range of the 787-8LR? Some serious fuel amount..
111 sunrisevalley : Looking at it via Piano X , for range at max. passenger load, assuming OEW's of 115.5t ( 242-seats); 125.4t (285-seats) and 131t ( 323-seats) the fue
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...
787-10 Closer To Reality? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 15:38:21 by DAYflyer
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
787-10 EIS Moving To The Right, 777-X Up Next? posted Tue Aug 14 2012 20:59:37 by WarpSpeed
Gulfstream/United Soon To Offer YNG-CLE Route? posted Wed Dec 21 2011 14:21:53 by YNGguins
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
QF CEO Joyce: Prefers 787-10 To A350/777 posted Fri Oct 22 2010 15:20:50 by QFA787380
BBD To Offer 4 New Platforms Within 10 Years posted Thu Jul 31 2008 05:32:20 by OyKIE
Boeing Close To Defining 787-10 posted Tue Nov 13 2007 10:52:59 by T773ER
Airbus To Offer 787 Style Darkening Windows On A35 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 09:57:07 by NYC777
787 Nose And Tail Fuse Coming To Everett Today! posted Thu May 10 2007 20:00:05 by IAD787