Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SIA Launch Customer Of The 787-10?  
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 18303 times:

I was reading a interesting piece over on Aspire Aviation's website about the 787-10 (link below). They claim that Singapore Airlines is negotiating to be the launch customer as early as November, and that BA is in advanced discussions for 60 as well. It would certainly be nice to see the 787's orders in the black for this year.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/1...7-10x-launch-implications-on-777x/


harder than woodpecker lips...
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12598 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17971 times:

It wouldn't surprise me; however, I wonder where LH and QF will figure in the list of customers. Both (particularly LH) were strongly rumoured to be interested.

BA doesn't really surprise me (although the number does!), because its already a 788 and 789 customer.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I could very easily see SQ converting their 787-9 order to the 787-10X and then adding to it. They have the A350-900 on order for long-haul missions, so the 787-10X would work great around Asia and Australia as an A330-300 and 777-300 replacement.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17531 times:

From the link in OP:
Boeing Claim
In a presentation this May, Boeing Capital Corporation (BCC) managing director (MD) aircraft programmes and evaluations Brad Till puts the 787-10X as having an around 4% lower relative trip cost and an around 8% lower relative seat-mile cost than the 299-seat Airbus A350-900 on a 6,000nm mission.

Airbus Claim
Airbus has long contested the cost saving brought by the carbon-composite 787 Dreamliner, with its chief operating officer (COO) customers John Leahy claiming the cash operating cost (COC) per seat of a 300-seat A330-300 is 17% lower than the 777-200ER and is only 1% and 6% higher than the 787-8 and -9, respectively. The direct operating cost (DOC) of an A330-300, Airbus asserts, is 10% lower than both the 777-200ER and 787-8, whereas the 787-9′s DOC is 4% higher than that of an A330-300.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17046 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
whereas the 787-9%u2032s DOC is 4% higher than that of an A330-300.

In my view any cost comparisons involving the 787 series are speculative at the best. Any airline worth it's salt does not need a A or B hustler to tell it it's business.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17022 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 4):
In my view any cost comparisons involving the 787 series are speculative at the best.

What about NH, JL, AI, UA, and ET?


User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16943 times:

IIRC Air New Zealand was going to be the launch customer for the 787-10. Though I may be wrong and times change.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 6):
IIRC Air New Zealand was going to be the launch customer for the 787-10. Though I may be wrong and times change.

Air New Zealand is the launch customer for the 787-9 and they will be the first operator of the model.


User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16751 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Air New Zealand is the launch customer for the 787-9 and they will be the first operator of the model.

Oh yes, that was it!


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4883 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16180 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm pretty sure BA has said in last few years they don't want to be a launch customer for anything though maybe a variant is different.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
I'm pretty sure BA has said in last few years they don't want to be a launch customer for anything though maybe a variant is different.

As a 787-8 and 787-9 customer, that's kind of a moot point, now.  


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15522 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I could very easily see SQ converting their 787-9 order to the 787-10X and then adding to it. They have the A350-900 on order for long-haul missions, so the 787-10X would work great around Asia and Australia as an A330-300 and 777-300 replacement.

There was a front page article yesterday here in the newspapers stating that SQ is halting recruitment of pilots due to delays / postponements of deliveries of A350s and 787s. That would line up with conversion of the 787-9 to 787-10 order, also because the 787s are going to replace A333s and those only need to be replaced from about 2017 onwards.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13604 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
What about NH, JL, AI, UA, and ET?

I find it hard to believe there is suffcient data accumulated thus far that could be extrapolated out to be useful. Anyway I believe Leahy's assertions predate the 788 EIS.


User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12609 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
What about NH, JL, AI, UA, and ET?

If Boeing gives the green light on the 7810, which it looks like they will, what would that mean for UA's A350 order? UA has a substantial 788 order and a modest 789 order, so it seems like a no brainer to go for the plane in the same family instead of ordering a completely new type. As a UA and Boeing fanboy, I hope that this turns true.

Also, would the 7810 start the beginning of the end of the 777?



A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12485 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 14):
If Boeing gives the green light on the 7810, which it looks like they will, what would that mean for UA's A350 order? UA has a substantial 788 order and a modest 789 order, so it seems like a no brainer to go for the plane in the same family instead of ordering a completely new type.

Unlikely. The 787-10X won't have the long range capability of the A359, and UA needs a proper long haul aircraft that is larger than the 789.


User currently offlineZuluAlpha From Thailand, joined Mar 2010, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10741 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 1):
I wonder where LH and QF will figure in the list of customers

I don't think QF will be as high in the list now, with the unfortunate cancellation of their firm 789 orders .. and with QF only having options post 2016



CRJ CR7 D10 DHT DH8 DH2 DH3 DH4 EMB ER3 E90 F28 J32 M80 SH6 320 332 333 380 717 732 733 734 738 743 744 752 762 763 772
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10721 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 14):
If Boeing gives the green light on the 7810, which it looks like they will, what would that mean for UA's A350 order?

Nothing. UA ordered A350s to replace their 747s.
The 787-10 could, however, be used in the future to replace some of their 777-200s and -200ERs, used on transatlantic routes, if necessary.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10400 times:

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 15):
I don't think QF will be as high in the list now, with the unfortunate cancellation of their firm 789 orders .. and with QF only having options post 2016

If anything, I'd have thought QF would convert 789 options to the -10X for delivery early next decade to replace some of the A333s and regionally flying 744s. All up, I don't think they're likely to take more than 20-25 aircraft...

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Quoting qf002 (Reply 14):
If Boeing gives the green light on the 7810, which it looks like they will, what would that mean for UA's A350 order?

The system appears to be screwing up again -- not my quote...


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 759 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10291 times:

I see the 787-10 as setting a new benchmark in terms of CASM and flexibility that genuinely deserves the much abused "game changer" tag. This one aircraft can literally replace all 772 models and all 330 models and do a better job (in most cases) than the proposed 777-8X. It (787-10) will be so good that it threatens to kill the 777-8X before it even gets of the paper (computer screen). Not only that, it undoubtedly has the best business case of all 787's and will produce a handsome return on investment for Boeing.

I'm comfortable to stick my neck out and suggest that the 787-10 will easily sell more than 1000 frames (subject to slot availibility) and could possibly even eclipse sales of the 788 and 789 - happy to be challenged on that one.

I also suspect that the success of the 787-10 will give Airbus no choice but to respond with a similar type of aircraft once the base 350 models are in service - most likely a 35J at 359 gross weights with similar range to the 787-10.

This is all crystal ball stuff but hey - that's what A.net is about.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9783 times:

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 15):
I don't think QF will be as high in the list now, with the unfortunate cancellation of their firm 789 orders .. and with QF only having options post 2016
Quoting qf002 (Reply 17):
If anything, I'd have thought QF would convert 789 options to the -10X for delivery early next decade to replace some of the A333s and regionally flying 744s. All up, I don't think they're likely to take more than 20-25 aircraft...

Yeah I think so too. The A333s will need replacing early next decade and the 787-10 would be perfect, especially for flights to Asia, NZ and East to West coast flights.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9631 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
I'm pretty sure BA has said in last few years they don't want to be a launch customer for anything though maybe a variant is different.

I recall BA saying when ordering 788s and 789s that they wanted all their widebodies to be capable of flying all thier routes (which the 767 could not). The article suggests the 7810 can do this.

The suggestion that the 788 and 789s would be passed to IB also makes sense - Madrid has capacity to support additional thin long haul flights whereas LHR does not.

Will Airbus respond with a simple stretch A359 which would have excellent CASM although be bigger than the 7810?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9453 times:

Quoting mffoda (Thread starter):
I was reading a interesting piece over on Aspire Aviation's website about the 787-10 (link below).

if their previous history of such announcements were taken into account, it would likely be wrong. Keep copies of the article, they tend to change the text without annotating edits.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7205 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 14):

Yes, but we all know that the A350's are slated to replace 747s. Capacity wise, it's not a close replacement IMO. However a 777-8/-9 frame would be much closer to the 747 capacity wise while giving them the latest in twin technology.

Now another key thing that favors the 777 is that it shares a common type rating with the 787. Why introduce another new type (A350) when you can get another that shares commonality with the 787. If they were planning on using other airbus aircraft I could see them keeping the A350, but all apparent clues to me are saying they are moving towards an all Boeing Fleet.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Although it might make sense for UA to go with the 787-10 instead of the 359, the 787-10 isn't going to be able to reliably service the routes flown by the 744's. This would include SFO - HKG and ORD - HKG along with SFO and LAX to SYD and/or MEL.

The 787-10 would have to take what would likely be significant weight penalties, especially west-bound to fly those routes. The alternative would be to fly the 789 which won't be able to fly as many folks or cargo. To top it off, they would forfeit some serious $$ to Airbus on the cancellation.

I would think UA has the flexibility in their contract with Boeing (sCO and sUA) to convert some/all of the options to any of the 787 types. They have 50 options between the two orders so can certainly exercise them to get the 787-10. Given the age of the sUA 772's, that would seem to make sense.

I remember reading that UA didn't shut down the possibility of a VLA order such as the 748. A lot depends on how the world economy recovers and which international routes are most profitable. An order for the 777-9X would make sense in the future but I don't see them doing that for a while given the 359 order.

[Edited 2012-10-23 09:14:10]

User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 20):
Will Airbus respond with a simple stretch A359 which would have excellent CASM although be bigger than the 7810?

I think that was the original 3510. The one before the uprated engine variant.


25 Post contains images astuteman : The A350-1000 always had a wing chord extension, a slightly different Trent XWB, and triple bogie landing gear instead of twin.. Rgds
26 qf002 : I was just responding to the suggestion that the 787-10 could replace the role of the A359 in UA's fleet, which is ludicrous. That said, I don't thin
27 Post contains links JerseyFlyer : I think this announcement concludes this thread! http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...0s-transfers-787s-to-scoot-378005/
28 Stitch : Not necessarily. SQ still has new A330-300s coming in on lease, so they don't need the 787-9 right now. Sending them to Scoot gives that carrier an e
29 EPA001 : I guess you could very well be right with this analysis. It is premature to dismiss the B787-10 for SQ or any other customer. Especially at this stag
30 kaitak : A good day for Airbus! I'm actually surprised at the A380 top up; I had thought that when they announced their last A380 delivery, a few months ago, i
31 seabosdca : The 787 is a particular challenge for SQ because they are so focused on a premium economy model. 9Y economy configurations in the 787 won't work for S
32 Atlflyer : Can an 8-abreast Y 787-10 compete with a 9-abreast Y A359 on routes less than 6900nm? Probably not, so that is why SQ chose more A359s rather than the
33 Post contains images EPA001 : In that area SQ and CX seem to be applying the same standards. Which is quite telling and makes the couple of inches or centimeters it offers more in
34 Post contains images Stitch : On a CASM basis, of course it will be more attractive. Except it isn't inches or centimeters. It's 7.6 millimeters. Again, I think people are putting
35 Post contains images EPA001 : Per seat you are correct. I was referring to the fuselage width. .
36 kaitak : If we compare the fleet as it is at the moment - 102 aircraft and take that some ten years down the road, what kind of mainline fleet will we be looki
37 TP313 : Should this be true, then there will be no 777-9X. Not only that, but there would be no need for even a simple "777-300ER-MAX" re-engine. But we alre
38 kaitak : Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand. The 777-9X is meant to be a re-engined, longer (physically) and longer range aircraft,so it will be signifi
39 TP313 : Well, why should Boeing spend above $5 Billion dollars, when their current offer in that segment will manage to be already on par with the 350-1000?
40 Stitch : Airbus floated such an idea back in 2008 - the A350-900 "Regional" would have had an MTOW of 238t (-30t). The issue with that, however, is that the s
41 seabosdca : For most airlines, I would agree. But SQ has made a big, big deal of having the widest seats in Economy, and we've seen claims that CX ruled out the
42 astuteman : That's a place I've arrived at also I think it doesn't really matter too much what emphasis "people" put on it. It's the emphasis the "airlines in qu
43 Stitch : But you can't fit 18" seats in an A350-900, either, unless you shrink the aisles to 16 inches. And if you do that, you're going to increase turn time
44 astuteman : As it appears did CX.. It's what they said... *shrug* Rgds
45 Post contains images Stitch : CX said it was one of the criteria. I expect the extra length of the A350-900 might have played a bigger role (more seats) and the higher MTOW allowin
46 astuteman : Apologies Stitch. It was CX I was referring to. It IS my understanding though that SQ were (up to now) configuring their 787's at 8-abreast. Rgds[Edi
47 Post contains images Stitch : I don't recall SQ noting what configuration they planned to fly, but 2-4-2 on the 787 would allow wider seats than 3-3-3 on the A350 (~2.5cm). Anyway
48 cmf : Didn't SQ announced the 787 order before the A350? Even if it took longer to make it official.
49 AngMoh : It is the reverse: they bought the 787 because they did not like the fuselage of the A350 Mk1 as it was too narrow. SQ had a major input on the fusel
50 zeke : Not to mention that Jetstar Singapore will be the first part of the QF group to receive 787, not like SQ has copied what QF has done at all with esta
51 ferpe : I think I have shown in the TechOps 787 weight thread that Aspires weight figures for the 787-10 does not add up no matter how one looks at it. It se
52 sweair : I still think LH will be the 787-10 launch customer, SQ is a small customer now, mostly Airbus orders going forward, I think the VIP status of SQ in S
53 BoeingVista : There is talk locally that the 788's will be redirected to QF mainline cityflier to replace 767's actually, has been for quite some time now.
54 qf002 : Talk which has been quashed by QF very publicly on multiple occasions. It's not going to happen.
55 BoeingVista : Qantas tends to have the memory of a may fly when it comes to long term strategies, I don't discount this possibility.
56 columba : SQ still has one of the largest 777 fleet in the world and is a big 787 customer even if they will be operated by Scoot. In the end Boeing would not
57 Post contains links ferpe : This seems to confirm my thinking: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...consider-a-mixed-787-fleet-378060/ seems Scoot will be taking all 787 varia
58 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe almost the same will be true then for SQ. They might be taking A359's and A3510's in their fleet.
59 Stitch : Unlikely. Scoot will fly the 787 and SilkAir recently placed a 737MAX order to replace their A320s. Considering how LCCs are growing, both are likely
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...
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Lufthansa And The 787-10 posted Tue Jul 10 2012 13:47:27 by columba
Alitalia Launch Customer Of Wheeltug For Its A320s posted Wed May 9 2012 02:24:27 by 777
SK Eyeing The 787-10 posted Tue May 8 2012 13:05:15 by NDiesel
The Value Of The 787 posted Fri Apr 2 2010 20:32:28 by will777
Boeing's Management Of The 787 Program posted Sun Jul 12 2009 14:16:07 by TomB
Long Term Effects Of The 787/A350 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 23:40:30 by BMI727
FlightBlogger: "One Year On: The Story Of The 787" posted Tue May 6 2008 02:29:32 by 797charter
Will The 787-10 Be Built posted Thu Apr 10 2008 13:54:18 by N1KE
First Photo Of The 787 Cockpit (Mockup)! posted Wed Jan 23 2008 17:12:34 by 797