LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24531 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.
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.
justinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24529 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?
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 23872 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?
cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 23334 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.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5542 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 23313 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.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 22708 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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6588 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 22562 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.
The markets which are showing the most interest in the 787-10 are:
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.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21293 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.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20718 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:
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.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10601 posts, RR: 97
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20201 times:
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..
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19938 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.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2761 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19313 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.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7613 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19178 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
: 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
: 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-
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: True; open-ended conversion rights are possible for customers which receive highly incentiveized deals. More typically, conversion rights specify the
: Yup they did. "Nico Buchholz, Lufthansa senior vice-president of corporate fleet" made the statement at ISTAT 2012. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/a
: 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
: Thanks, but what I meant is what would actually be offered ? Presumably slots, for a price, with guarantees on performance, final price, etc.
: Everything you mentioned, including a "firm concept", which is decision gate 3 in the Boeing gated development process (similar to Airbus' "maturity
: 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