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, 591 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 23854 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: 47
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 23784 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 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 23782 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, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 23721 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, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23269 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, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23166 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, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23125 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, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23048 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, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22840 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 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22587 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, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22566 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 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22323 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, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 21961 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 offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 21815 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, 809 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 21661 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 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21270 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, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20546 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, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19971 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 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19578 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, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19454 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, 876 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19315 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, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19191 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, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19082 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, 2614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18566 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, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18431 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


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 18402 times:

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 when they ordered A333's and they didn't. That to me tells me that theiy have bet the house on the A350 for their next widebody replacement order.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 A350-900.

That being said, within the LH Group of airlines, I could see the 787-8, -9 and -10 finding a home with OS and SN and perhaps SK (with all staying Airbus for narrowbodies),

[Edited 2012-09-29 06:16:03]

User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 809 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17473 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 15):
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.

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 have built first. I am wondering if in the end the -10 will be the most popular 787 model.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17153 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
I also continue to believe that LH would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator

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 enough to satisfy this though...


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17053 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 28):
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 enough to satisfy this though...

Yes that is correct. This has been publicly debunked numerous times - because of LH Technik alone, setting aside fleet planning per se, they are often willing to have a more diverse fleet than you might expect.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 28):
But have LH not publicly stated, or at least suggested, that they want to continue to dual source their fleet between A and B?

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 does not immediately preclude the LH Group. OS, for example, could use the 787-8 to replace the 767-300ER and the 787-9 to replace the 777-200ER. And I agree with those who believe that an LH Group airline operating the 787 would be beneficial to Lufthansa Technik's ability to service 787 aircraft for other carriers.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16980 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 25):
I just don't see LH burning political goodwill and ordering a Boeing.

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 only Boeing-built aircraft. And there is some commonality with the GEnX, it would make sense to buy 787s.


User currently offlineSQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16872 times:

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 customers they need good relations with B as well. And how to get good relations with B? If they have the right product on offer buy it.

Believe me they always have to keep their several businesses in mind.

I think B don't care if LH Group is going to order planes for LH, LX, oS or SN as long as they are going to order some and then LH Technik will get all the things it wants to be able to do mx for some Boeing types as requested by LH Technik.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6663 posts, RR: 11
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16642 times:

What does ATO actually entail ? Does Boeing have to provide numbers (including prices) ?

Quoting justinlee (Reply 2):
The proposed P2P long-haul routes seem to be impossible in this bad economy.

Well, EIS is 5 years from now, I sure hope the economy will not be that bad then ! Now, fuel prices, it's another story.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16571 times:

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 find the article.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16565 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 19):
But not unheard of

True; open-ended conversion rights are possible for customers which receive highly incentiveized deals. More typically, conversion rights specify the models to which a slot can be converted.

Quoting flylku (Reply 27):
I am wondering if in the end the -10 will be the most popular 787 model.

It is certainly possible. In the past decade, rising fuel prices have heightened industry interest in the largest (lowest CASM) models within a family. This has not yet played out for the A351 or 747-8i, but it has certainly resulted in recent success for the A330-300, 777-300ER, A321, 737-900ER, 737-9, etc. This is particularly true for the A330-300, which has outsold the A330-200 in recent years.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
the 787-10 is going to be one hell of an A333 replacement aircraft

The late success of the A330-300 despite it's "limitations" is not lost on Boeing. Not every airline and every market needs 8000nm range, even though that seems to be the bar the OEM's have set for most recent widebodies. The 787-10 will be a notable exception in this regard.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 25):
I just don't see LH burning political goodwill and ordering a Boeing.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
I also continue to believe that LH would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator

LH is quintessentially German in their engineering and business culture. They are technically very competent, detail oriented, thorough, pragmatic, and agnostic to perceived outside pressures. Decisions are built on consensus from the bottom up, not the top down and leadership relies heavily the recommendations from below in order to make their decisions. LH is one of the only airlines I have ever worked with where the initial technical engagements for a fleet evaluation included junior engineers who felt comfortable/empowered to pepper senior technical leadership from Boeing with questions about the design and performance of the airplane. As the evaluations progressed, more and more senior LH leadership would participate, each new wave building on the work done by the level beneath them. In my experience, this approach is unique in this industry and I find it quite refreshing. I do not believe for a minute the executive leadership at LH would disregard their fleet evaluation team if a recommendation did not square with some perceived nationalistic or political dynamic. It is just not how the culture of decision-making within LH works. They will buy the airplane they believe works best for their business. At best, Euro-centric influence will be a tie breaker, not a weighted factor.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16597 times:

Yup they did.

"Nico Buchholz, Lufthansa senior vice-president of corporate fleet" made the statement at ISTAT 2012.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...be-787-10x-launch-customer-369681/



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16493 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 33):
What does ATO actually entail ? Does Boeing have to provide numbers (including prices) ?

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 proposed configuration
Non-recurring costs (development & production system)
Recurring (unit) costs
Expected launch customers / units
Expected sale price per unit
Expected units over the life of the program
Expected competitor response (near term/long term)
Impact of capital costs on near-term Boeing cash and other business objectives
etc.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6663 posts, RR: 11
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16296 times:

Thanks, but what I meant is what would actually be offered ? Presumably slots, for a price, with guarantees on performance, final price, etc.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16140 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 38):
what I meant is what would actually be offered ?

Everything you mentioned, including a "firm concept", which is decision gate 3 in the Boeing gated development process (similar to Airbus' "maturity gates"). Gate 3 is preceded by authority to show a configuration to airlines and followed by a launch decision by the board.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 36):
"Nico Buchholz, Lufthansa senior vice-president of corporate fleet" made the statement at ISTAT 2012.

From Jon's Flightglobal article:

Quote:
Nico Buchholz, Lufthansa senior vice-president of corporate fleet, sees the aircraft as an ideal fit for the carrier as the airframe is not over-optimised to fly further than necessary for its route network.

Hmmm....   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 16):
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.

I am actually Nico's PR manager, it just took him a while to come out with the statement I had recommended about the 787-10  


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15997 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
It is based on the data leaked for the 787-10 like 6800nm range, 193t MZFW etc:

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 over A359.

Assuming 193t MZWF for B781, my model suggests that B781 will burn about 500 gallons($1,500) more than A359(much larger wings) for a 4,000 nm trip. However, B781 will have 9 seat advantage and about 6,000 lbs. advantage in cargo capability.

I expect the B781 to have a lower list price than A359 based on current list prices for B789. On second thought, the difference is likely to be negligible.

[Edited 2012-09-29 13:09:50]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 40):
What is (the) source for 193t MZWF?

Aspire Aviation.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15870 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 40):What is (the) source for 193t MZWF?
Aspire Aviation.

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 in net acquisition cost.

A carrier (like CX) with regional and long-haul routes may be inclined to use A359 for both. I can also see LH ordering A359(instead of B781) and A351 to replace about 65 A330/A340.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15827 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 40):
What is your source for 193t MZWF

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. You can't load that cabin and cargo floor otherwise I guess.

Re fuel burn, I get about 43t for both on a 4000nm trip. Re your fuel burn difference, what engines do you use on the 787-10? I have put on the T1000-TEN which is about 2% better then the PIP2 T1000 and 1% better then a final GEnx. I get this engine to only lack 1% TSFC to the TXWB.

[Edited 2012-09-29 14:00:48]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 42):
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 in net acquisition cost.

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 around 120 tons for the 787-10, which if true would be more than 10% less than the A350-900. That being said, I'd be surprised if it is that light since the 787-8's OEW is given by Boeing as 112t and Airbus believes the weight of the 787-9 without cabin fittings to be 8 tons higher than the 787-8 without cabin fittings. The Manufacturer Empty Weight growth from the 787-9 to 787-10 should not be as great as from the 787-8 to 787-9 as the 787-10 will use the same wings, undercarriage and many other components as the 787-9.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15447 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 31):
Their policy is to have a mixed fleet from different producers.

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. However, in every other size category, Airbus has something to match Boeing. Lufthansa Technik doesn;t need LH to order 787's. They have many customers other than LH, including being the maintenance company for JL's 787's.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15184 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):

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 associated MTOWs to suit the sector being flown.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):

Probably made up then, he is a glorified blogger that window dresses things to make it sound official. He has been wrong so many times, and changes things without annotating the edits.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15071 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
The 787-10's longer cabin should allow an additional two rows of Economy (18 seats) and six LD3 positions.

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) for B781. You are right about additional six LD3 positions over A359, if B781 turns out to be an 18 foot stretch of B789.

I am also sceptical about B781(simple stretch) ending up with 425,000 lbs. MZFW (25,000 lbs. higher MZFW than B789). A359 MZFW is at about 423,000 lbs.

As of today, I am using 415,000 lbs.MZFW and MSP of 135,000 lbs for B781 in my model.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15006 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
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 associated MTOWs to suit the sector being flown.

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 charges if one consistently use the frame on shorter sectors.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14894 times:

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 be 3 y rows which is significant but the difference in cargo space is remarkable. As CM writes you can't use it fully on sectors over 8 hours if your cabin is full. If your load factors is low you can compensate with lots of cargo however, you have the place. This might make the 781 the better alternative much dependent on your network and it's load factor variations.

So if you have a 70% cabin you would take some 13 LD3 for the bags, it leaves you 13 LD3s for cargo in the 359 and 21 in the 781. What would those 8 LD3s represent in money on a normal freight market?

[Edited 2012-09-29 21:57:47]


Non French in France
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19717 posts, RR: 58
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14832 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
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 a very interesting graph and I thank you for it. I wonder what specific design characteristics give the 787-10 its payload advantages. Bigger hold/smaller tanks?

Quoting flylku (Reply 27):
I am wondering if in the end the -10 will be the most popular 787 model.

For most boeing models, the stretches have done better than the originals. The 763 did a lot better than the 762. Same is true for the 77W, 737, and 727. So it wouldn't shock me.

Remember, also that not every airline needs 13,000 nm of range. Range adds weight to an airframe. The vast majority of intercontinental flights are under 10 hours in duration; sometimes as long as 12 or 13. 14 is rare. So stretches that remove some of the extreme range often do well.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14803 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50):
I wonder what specific design characteristics give the 787-10 its payload advantages. Bigger hold/smaller tanks?

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 (the tanks are big enough). By starting with a lower TOW it can keep a smaller and lighter wing, it's span is 60m vs the 359 65m and then the 359 ads winglets onto this for an effective span of some 66m vs the 781s 59m. The wingareas are 370 vs 443 m2.

Further, the base design of the 787 series is more tight then the 350 series, look in the last posts on the 350 prototype thread, the 787 is built snug for efficiency, the 350 has higher legs and more engine clearance for expandability. The 781 exploits this design philosophy (which on the other hand makes a 787-10ER a bit harder to do).

[Edited 2012-09-29 23:17:00]


Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14646 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 47):
You are right about additional six LD3 positions over A359, if B781 turns out to be an 18 foot stretch of B789.

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.flightglobal.com/news/art...be-787-10x-launch-customer-369681/

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
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 A350-900 will have a length of 66.9m

The 787-9 will have a length of 62.8m

If my recollection is correct, the 787-10 as currently proposed would have a length of 68.3m.
That's 1.4m longer than the A350-900. If so, what would cause its cabin to be 2.7m longer?

rgds


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14469 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50):
Remember, also that not every airline needs 13,000 nm of range

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's!



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14351 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 52):
If my recollection is correct, the 787-10 as currently proposed would have a length of 68.3m.
That's 1.4m longer than the A350-900. If so, what would cause its cabin to be 2.7m longer?

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 frames for 789 and 20 for 781 and you have 48.4 and 54.5m, pls correct if wrong.

Re 359, it has a longer nose and tail, the 787 architecture is more compact here as well (measure on the drawings from the ACAPs, especially the nose has a considerable difference). Somehow B has managed to make the cargo compartment much longer then the 350, a whopping 8 LD3s diff for an extra 2m in lenght for the 781 vs 359. A large part is a smaller dimension wingbox+MLG well but also very efficient nose and tail designs.

[Edited 2012-09-30 05:06:24]


Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 54):
I have the frame spacing down as 0.61m and have the note that the 787-10 is a 10 frames stretch = 68.9m

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.

Which funnily enough would match my figure of 68.3m.  

Rgds


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14126 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 35):
The late success of the A330-300 despite it's "limitations" is not lost on Boeing. Not every airline and every market needs 8000nm range, even though that seems to be the bar the OEM's have set for most recent widebodies. The 787-10 will be a notable exception in this regard.

Such "exceptions" could become more common in the future. When considering derivatives of a given base model with similar gross weights there is a far larger market for stretched frames with lower CASM than there is for shrunken frames with ULH capabilities. For example the 787-10 has a far bigger potential market than any (similar gross weight) ULH 788R.
If the 787-10 is a great success (which it should be) then expect Airbus to eventually respond with a stretched 359 (a lightweight reduced range 35J).
Boeing dont have a monopoly on the formulae.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 47):
I have B781 at about 4.5 feet longer than A359.

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 should be sufficient for two rows of Economy at 32-33" pitch.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
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 should be sufficient for two rows of Economy at 32-33" pitch

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 understanding echoes yours, at 5.5m (9 frames).

Of course the specs have yet to be published, so there's some speculation going on..  

rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13915 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 56):
Boeing dont have a monopoly on the formulae.

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 introduced the 777-300 as a "lighter weight, shorter range, high efficiency derivative". I don't think this would have changed the outcome. The 777-300 has some real efficiency advantages over the 777-300ER, but gives up nearly 2000nm in range. Only 60 copies of the 777-300 were sold with the 777-300ER selling well over 600 and orders still coming in.

Fuel prices and industry focus were a bit different back when the 777-300 came out. Also, it was always Boeing's strategy to increase the design weights and make the 777-300ER, so the airlines knew the 777-300 was just an "interim" frame from the day it rolled out of the factory. Still, it shows there is no guarantee the market will jump on a lightweight/high efficiency derivative that sacrifices mission performance.

The exact same scenario exists for the 767-300 vs 767-300ER where orders are 104 versus 603, respectively.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13809 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Probably made up then, he is a glorified blogger that window dresses things to make it sound official. He has been wrong so many times, and changes things without annotating the edits.

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 the 787-9's projected empty weight has evidently gone down since firm configuration due to being able to engineer out excess structure that proved to be not necessary.

So perhaps the 787-10 will indeed be a lightish bird...


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13779 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 4):
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....

LH will order it but the question is when. They said that they will not order any new planes before 2014.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
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 A350-900.

You say that in every thread regarding this topic, even though LH has commited themselves to the 747-8I. I read every statement from LH regarding this topic very closely. In a brochure that was published celebrating their 50 year long relationship with Boeing (don´t know many other airlines celebrating such an event) they said that one of the advancements the new 747-8Is offers is engine commonality with the 787....read between the lines......

If they would have wanted to order the A350-900 they would already done so....they want the 787-10 it is better fitted for LH needs.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 61):
You say that in every thread regarding this topic, even though LH has commited themselves to the 747-8I.
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 have bought it.

Quoting columba (Reply 61):
If they would have wanted to order the A350-900 they would already done so....they want the 787-10 it is better fitted for LH needs.

Well I'd love to see a 50-frane 787-10 order from LH to replace their A330-343Xs, A340-311s, and A340-313Xs. Maybe they're ready to pull the trigger on such an order, which would be more than enough to convince the Board to ATO it.

[Edited 2012-09-30 09:42:08]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13495 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
That being said, Guy Norris published a piece today noting the 787-9's projected empty weight has evidently gone down since firm configuration due to being able to engineer out excess structure that proved to be not necessary.

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 ahead of schedule but that is not the same as they are lighter.

I have also found the 9 frames stretch info, it was in the same Aspire post as the MFZW of 192.8t (425 000lb). Ok, changes the number of seats but not LD3, or does it? Might be 42 LD3 now then? The lowered parasitic drag of 0.61m will not be noticeable in my diagram (the uncertainties are far greater   )



Non French in France
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13439 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
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.

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 number and we've just come down on that".....Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) is just over 50,000 lb. more for the stretch and currently set at 553,000 lb. Boeing has managed to keep the weight target fixed since the firm configuration freeze in 2010, before which the MTOW was around 545,000 lb.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12768 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
, which would be more than enough to convince the Board to ATO it.

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 floating around. They said that they will not order any planes before 2014 but I guess it will be earlier than that.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12402 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 35):
They will buy the airplane they believe works best for their business. At best, Euro-centric influence will be a tie breaker, not a weighted factor.

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 also means having a tremendous pride and a degree of bias towards everything German. You see that in everyday living in Germany, and it's naive to assume that such feelings don't cloud their decisions, however small it may be. The evidence speaks for itself, I think. The only relevant Boeings in LH's fleet is in a size category where Airbus has no match. The 737's are already slated to be replaced by A320's.

Quoting columba (Reply 61):
You say that in every thread regarding this topic, even though LH has commited themselves to the 747-8I.

It's the only option in the size. Everywhere else that Airbus has a competitor ,LH has picked an Airbus. They could have replaced the 737's with 73NG. They chose A320's instead, although I can see how containerized cargo can be an advantage to LH.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
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 have bought it.

  

Quoting columba (Reply 61):
If they would have wanted to order the A350-900 they would already done so....they want the 787-10 it is better fitted for LH needs.

They want a plane that delivers as advertised, "out of the box". They were burned by the early A340's and now they chose to wait and see, especially since they are not in a hurry. The A333 is a mighty goo dplane and is avaliable now. The A346 is not too shaby either.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12352 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 59):
Fuel prices and industry focus were a bit different back when the 777-300 came out. Also, it was always Boeing's strategy to increase the design weights and make the 777-300ER, so the airlines knew the 777-300 was just an "interim" frame from the day it rolled out of the factory.
Quoting CM (Reply 59):
The exact same scenario exists for the 767-300 vs 767-300ER where orders are 104 versus 603, respectively.

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 with far more capable (range wise) derivatives. The strategy for developing new platforms now seems to be one of commencing with 8000nm+ capable base models and then developing derivatives based on that model that may have more or less range.

Quoting CM (Reply 59):
Still, it shows there is no guarantee the market will jump on a lightweight/high efficiency derivative that sacrifices mission performance.

With regards to the 773 I'm not sure if it is an accurate analogy to todays world - much has changed since then.

The massive success of the 330 series appears to have influenced the type of (contemporary) derivatives offered as it has demonstrated a massive market for medium haul aircraft with unbeatable CASM - a market that was ignored for a few years. Its too early to judge whether this will be a feature of all contemporary and future programs but I suspect it will.
The success or otherwise of any such derivative also depends upon what the competition is offering.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11804 times:

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 the fuselage, or will the forward and rear fuselage sections actually grow? I would imagine that plugs would create a weight penalty themselves, as the extra joins would add weight. However, growing the existing fuselage sections may have manufacturing costs too...anyone know what the plan is?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 68):
Will this be achieved with 'plugs' in the fuselage, or will the forward and rear fuselage sections actually grow?

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 various sections. Somebody posted three possible options:

1) Use the same Section 42 plug as on the 787-9 and extend Sections 43 and 44.
2) Extend Sections 42 and 47
3) Extend Section 44


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11656 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
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 A350-900.

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 widebody-anyone ever hear of the A330-300? It doesn't have the range of the 777, but it has certainly sold well. Operators can buy 789's for the long range routes and 7810's for the rest, and have more commonality than operators with A359's and A3510's.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 70):
If that is the case, why did they launch the 748i?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
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 have bought it.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11368 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 70):
I am also in the camp that believes that there is a big market for a medium range large capacity widebody-anyone ever hear of the A330-300?

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.

I don't expect the 787-10 to offer a meaningful operating cost advantage over the A350-900.

That said, it's range capability will be more A330-200 than A330-300, so it should do just fine.

Rgds


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10683 times:

Here is a nice analysis: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/1...emains-formidable-bae-eads-merger/

Quote:
Launch of 787-10X imminent, firm configuration H2 2014, roll-out H1 2017 & EIS 2018/19



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 72):
I don't expect the 787-10 to offer a meaningful operating cost advantage over the A350-900.

Aspire Aviation is suggesting a 10% lower operating cost (I assume their numbers come from Boeing).


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 72):
I don't expect the 787-10 to offer a meaningful operating cost advantage over the A350-900.

Aspire Aviation is suggesting a 10% lower operating cost (I assume their numbers come from Boeing).

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 costs that the 787-10 might have will go up in smoke above 5000nm.

That is what Astuteman is pointing out:considering all different missions, some airlines will have a route structure where the 787-10 will have a lower operating cost, others will have a route structure where the 350-900 will have lower operating costs.
So, in average, there may not be any meaningful cost advantage...


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10143 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 75):
So, in average, there may not be any meaningful cost advantage...

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 even for routes above 5000nm and vice versa for the -900xwb? Of course, there will be those airlines that can deal with multiple types and split an otherwise single OEM order to optimize route economics. Seems rare that one product tends to have a "knock-out blow" over the other.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TP313 (Reply 75):
If one looks at ferpe's payload/range chart (conceeded it is just an estimate) any advantage in operation costs that the 787-10 might have will go up in smoke above 5000nm.

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 compared to the 777-200. However, enough missions were flown below that point that the A330-300's operating cost advantage was strong enough that it handily outsold the 777-200.

Also, the 777-200ER can handily out-fly an A330-300, but again, if you don't need that performance, why pay for it? So we see former 777-200ER operators moving to the A330-300 when it comes time for replacement.

And I expect the 787-10 will be closer to the A350-900 in payload-range than the A330-300 was to the 777-200ER.

[Edited 2012-10-04 07:54:19]

User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10095 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
And I expect the 787-10 will be closer to the A350-900 in payload-range than the A330-300 was to the 777-200ER.

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...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TP313 (Reply 78):
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...

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 advantage.

Anyway, I expect the 787-10 and A350-900 to complement each other as the A330-300 and 777-200ER did.

[Edited 2012-10-04 08:58:58]

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 78):
They will also be closer in weight

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 also will be equipped with the Trent 1000 TEN engine, negating any real SFC difference between the engines. If you can fill the seats and don't need ULH capability, the 787-10 will cost less to own and operate, and should make more money than the A359.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9921 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 80):
If you can fill the seats and don't need ULH capability

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 route, the 359 will have a payload weight advantage over the 787-10.

[Edited 2012-10-04 09:52:51]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TP313 (Reply 81):
If you check the payload range charts (ferpe's estimates), you'll see that, for example in any Europe - US West Coast route, the 359 will have a payload weight advantage over the 787-10.

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 longer missions to the West Coast and the 787-10 handling the missions to the East Coast and upper Midwest, each maximizing it's respective performance envelopes.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9853 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
So we may see A350-900s doing the longer missions to the West Coast and the 787-10 handling the missions to the East Coast and upper Midwest, each maximizing it's respective performance envelopes.

Exactly!


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9874 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 81):
Quoting CM (Reply 80):If you can fill the seats and don't need ULH capability
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 route, the 359 will have a payload weight advantage over the 787-10.

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 LD3 positions.

I remain sceptical that B781 will have nearly 14,000 lbs. higher MSP than A359. I expect the gap to be much smaller.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
Aspire Aviation is suggesting a 10% lower operating cost (I assume their numbers come from Boeing).

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 burns are similar, I don't see which of the cost drivers is going to be meaningfully different.
Fuel costs similar, nav and landing fees similar, maintenance similar, crew costs similar

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
So even if the trip costs are close, the 787-10 will have a revenue advantage.

Yep. I can buy that. At 9-across anyway (which may not suit airlines like SQ and CX of course).
And it will have more cargo capacity, as you say.

So if the costs are similar"ish" the choice is between slightly higer revenue, but slightly lower range capability, or slightly lower revenue, and slightly higher range capability.

Both will be pretty sweet planes IMO

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 84):
I remain sceptical that B781 will have nearly 14,000 lbs. higher MSP than A359. I expect the gap to be much smaller

It should be a fair bit lighter - it has considerably smaller wings than the A350-900, and smaller engines too.

Rgds


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9739 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 85):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 84):I remain sceptical that B781 will have nearly 14,000 lbs. higher MSP than A359. I expect the gap to be much smaller
It should be a fair bit lighter - it has considerably smaller wings than the A350-900, and smaller engines too.

Here's what I have for A359 and B781(Aspire estimates for B781 on MZFW):

....................................B787-10......................A359
Fuselage Length..............224..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................323..........................314 (@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................425,000....................423,300
OEW..........................280,000....................292,000
MSP...........................145,000....................131,300
Design Range................6,800........................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engines.......................76,000 lbf..................84,000 lbf.

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.50...........................0.49
OEW/MZFW......................0.65...........................0.69
MZFW/MTOW....................0.77..........................0.72
MTOW/Wingarea...........158............................124 (A351 has lower wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.73...........................3.52 (A351 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

MZFW for 781 jumps by 25,000 lbs. relative to B789, with no change in MTOW relative to B789. Does this jump in MZFW seem feasible?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9638 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 86):
MZFW for 781 jumps by 25,000 lbs. relative to B789, with no change in MTOW relative to B789. Does this jump in MZFW seem feasible?

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 to match the A350-900 on payload-range and they won't want it to as that would hurt the 777-8X.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9458 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 84):
I remain sceptical that B781 will have nearly 14,000 lbs. higher MSP than A359. I expect the gap to be much smaller.

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 the capacity is volume limited and that the MSP limit is unlikely to be breached.
My take on the 787-10 based on Ferpe's work through of the Aspire numbers is 131t OEW. Using the TK methodology to calculate the add on, I come up with 135.5t DOW. This is what I have put into PIANO-X with adjustments for engine power, fuel burn and drag.
A 12-hr sector is good for ~40t and a fuel burn of 67.7t and there are a great many 12hr sectors in both directions from the main European airports that this aircraft will work very well on if its payload meets the market needs. I calculate its volume limited payload ( cargo at 160kg/m3) , 42 LD3 less 12 for baggage at 53.4t which it will haul ~4500nm. for a fuel burn of 55t . Draw a 4500nm ( or 4100nm for westbound ESAD) from HKG in GC Mapper . This takes in an awful lot of city pairs.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9396 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
Yes, if Boeing follows the "freighter" model where they raise MZFW to increase payload at the expense of range.

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 higher MZFW, and thus MSP as large as B781. Time will tell.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9359 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 88):
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 the capacity is volume limited and that the MSP limit is unlikely to be breached.

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.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9323 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 89):
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 higher MZFW, and thus MSP as large as B781. Time will tell.

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 official figure of 192t (423388lb), we have not reason to doubt that. Given the target OEW of some 135t, cabin length (51.8m) and cargo capacity (36LD3) it is a balanced figure.

781
This frame is selling on loading more then the 333 and 359 and still flying very interesting legs (see Sunrisevallyes post). It has longer cabin (53.3m), more cargo space (>40LD3) then the 359. You can be pretty sure B will equip it with enough MZFW to match and even beat the 359. Given that is is some 4-5t lighter a MZFW in the area of the 359 seems right, it gives it the competitive advantage that it needs. I therefore believe Aspires leaked 192.8t (425klb) is on the money.

I thus see both MZFW making sense, why would the 359 need more MZFW? I think they are fighting hammer and tongs to reach their target OEW, not to increase it.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 89):
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 higher MZFW, and thus MSP as large as B781. Time will tell.


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 tons of fuel to be carried (the 787-9 can lift 70t at MZFW and the 787-10, 58t).

Airbus was kicking around the idea of an "A350 Regional" back in 2008, but that was just a paper de-rate of the MTOW from 268t to 238t and did not mention any increases in MZFW or MSP.



I see the 787-10 being the 777-300 to the 787-9's (and A350-900's) 777-200ER.

The 777-200ER and 777-300 both had the same MTOW option of 287t, but the 777-200ER's MZFW was 195t vs. 225t for the 777-300. That 30t higher MZFW allowed the 777-300 to lift 5t more payload, but it also cost it 2000nm of range at MZFW because the 777-300 could only tank 62t of fuel vs. 92t for the 777-200ER.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 90):
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.

.... 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 max. weight of 1587kg. But instead of 6 x LD3 (60.4 inches wide x 2) you might be able to load 2 x P1P (88 inches wide x 2), depending on the lock configuration. A P1P in the FWD lower-deck should have a max weight of around 5500 kg each. Getting around 3 tons on a LD contoured pallet is not unusual for general cargo carriers, so around 13K lbs is a good ball-park figure.

It sounds as if LH are very much in love with the -10, and being a very large cargo carrier one can understand where some of that might come from. If there's one thing the A340-600 is good it, it's providing lower-deck cargo space. Seems like the -10 is right up the same alley and for LHC, with the night-flight ban in mind, that might be a marriage made in heaven (pun intended).



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9125 times:

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, and to me it looks like the perfect 744combi replacement for KL. Perhaps CX will be interested as well, as a replacement for the oldest Dragonair A330s. But most other A333 operators won't be in a hurry to replace them yet...


146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9156 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 72):
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.

I don't expect the 787-10 to offer a meaningful operating cost advantage over the A350-900.

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 range plane will be cheaper to operate. And since the 7810 and A359 will be fairly close in payload capacity but the A359 will have more range, I would expect the 7810 to be cheaper to operate, and have a better CASM. If it doesn't, nobody will buy it. At the same time, the A359 will do fine for those carriers who want or need the extra range, just as both the A333 and 777 have done fine; they have different missions.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 95):
I would expect the 7810 to be cheaper to operate, and have a better CASM. If it doesn't, nobody will buy it

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 meaningfully cheaper to operate than the A359.

Bear in mind that the range difference is only about 1 300Nm or so. To me, as I said before, it then becomes a trade-off between slightly more payload vs slightly more range (not to mention all the other factors like fleet commonality, financing/acquisition cost, backlog/availability etc )

It will sell just fine  

And its range is only ever going to grow

Rgds


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 8427 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 93):
A P1P in the FWD lower-deck should have a max weight of around 5500 kg each.

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 something   


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7938 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 96):
(not to mention all the other factors like fleet commonality, financing/acquisition cost, backlog/availability etc )

  


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 CASM can easily be completely outweighed by fleet commonality issues or acquisition cost.
It has been popular to quote the 330 as the way to go below 4000nm and the 788 above 4000nm. In reality that threashold will vary above or below 4000nm for each indiviual airline depending on its own indiviual circumstances - there is no one rule for everybody.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7774 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 94):
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, and to me it looks like the perfect 744combi replacement for KL. Perhaps CX will be interested as well, as a replacement for the oldest Dragonair A330s. But most other A333 operators won't be in a hurry to replace them yet...

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 that programm. I could also see SK ordering it, seems to be the right plane for them as well.

BA -with the exception of the A380 - has a history of flying Boeing widebodies and they have already the 787-8 on order. With KLM I would wait and see how the current A350/787 order is split up between AF and KLM. But since KL already have the A330-200 and just got the A330-300, the A350-900 could also be wearing KL colors. Also I believe AF A330s are older and could be replaced first with 787s.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7236 times:

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 to go to 270 T takeoff weight from the get go with the same wing but probably stronger gear? Assuming heavier gear (and assuming it still fits in the same gear bays) but same wing as 789 what kind of range would it have with the higher thrust engines?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7178 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 100):
or are they going to go to 270 T takeoff weight from the get go with the same wing but probably stronger gear?

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?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting morrisond (Reply 100):
So why do they need 76,000 lb of thrust engines if the 787-10 has same takeoff weight as 789?

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.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101):
For starters what capacity is there for additional fuel within the wings?

The 787-10 should be fuel-weight limited, so there is no need for additional tankage.

[Edited 2012-10-07 06:40:58]

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6923 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 96):
At 9-abreast it will certainly have a better CASM than the A359

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 mid-length widebody routes? If so the CASM for a "regional" A 359 would of course increase proportionately.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 103):
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 mid-length widebody routes?

Airbus has developed a 10-abreast configuration for the A350 at the request of an unnamed potential customer.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6716 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Airbus has developed a 10-abreast configuration for the A350 at the request of an unnamed potential customer.

Doesn't AirAsia X want to put 10 abreast seating in their A359s?


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 105):
Quoting Polot (Reply 105):

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 Caraibes, who were interested in the A350-1000 with 10 abreast Y.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6444 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
The 787-10 should be fuel-weight limited, so there is no need for additional tankage.

I was thinking in the context of a higher MTOW version. However there is no indication that this is likely at this time.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6466 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 106):
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 Caraibes, who were interested in the A350-1000 with 10 abreast Y.

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 more accurate cabin numbers?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 107):
I was thinking in the context of a higher MTOW version. However there is no indication that this is likely at this time.

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 expect usable payload for a 787-8 with full tanks would be about 10 tons, with probably 25 tons for the 787-9 and 20 tons for the 787-10. So I would think higher TOWs would be dedicated to payload weight and not fuel weight.

Even the "787-8LR" with a 251t MTOW could tank 89 tons of fuel at the same 162t MZFW as the 787-8.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

What would be the range of the 787-8LR? Some serious fuel amount..

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
In an airline's DOW, I'd expect usable payload for a 787-8 with full tanks would be about 10 tons, with probably 25 tons for the 787-9 and 20 tons for the 787-10. So I would think higher TOWs would be dedicated to payload weight and not fuel weight.

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 fuel load is 89t, 98t and 84.5t respectively. So if I understand you correctly based on these values, the 788 could use a MTOW increase of (101t-89t) 12t and the 789 and 787-10 3t and 16,5 t respectively to add payload weight.???


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