Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10X Formally Offered To Airlines  
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Per article in Aviation Week, Boeing sales department got green light to officially offer 787-10X for sale to the airlines and leasing companies:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_11_07_2012_p01-01-514119.xml


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
168 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

from the article

"Sources add that “nobody is using the word offerability at this point,” though the Boeing sales teams are now “allowed” to speak to airlines and present detailed marketing data for a product now deemed ready to move from product development to firm launch. Approval to offer is thought to have been given at the most recent board meeting, believed to have been held late last month."

Still does not look like it is formally being offered. Boeing has been talking to airlines about it for a while, not sure what significance this is, maybe they have locked in some performance guarantees.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5731 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5414 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Still does not look like it is formally being offered. Boeing has been talking to airlines about it for a while, not sure what significance this is, maybe they have locked in some performance guarantees.

No one said formally being offered. They can't formally offer it to airlines since they don't have final authority from the Boeig Board yet as reported in the article.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5426 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2):
No one said formally being offered.

Look at the title.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So effectively the 787-10X is now a done deal and the sales team are now empowered to start collecting MoUs / LoIs to support a formal Authority to Offer from the Board.

It's a similar situation to the 747-500X and 747-600X, which were "launched" at Farnborough 1996 (and subsequently secured MoUs from MH and TG) though the Board of Directors had not yet formally granted Authority to Offer (nor never did so once BA backed out).


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4702 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
So effectively the 787-10X is now a done deal and the sales team are now empowered to start collecting MoUs / LoIs to support a formal Authority to Offer from the Board.

I guess that is a correct assumption. Now we have to wait and see what kind of response the B787-10X will find among the potential customers. I guess she will do quite well since the offering looks to be quite a good one.  .


User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

Do you think that many current airlines awaiting delivery of the -8/-9 will switch orders to the -10?


Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are several airlines (which could include UA) that could change their 787 mix to include the 787-10. For example, the US West Coast to Europe is within the range of this a/c but offers an improved CASM and increased cargo capacity. That should be very attractive for airlines that don't necessarily need an 8,000 nm range aircraft but a lot of lift.

User currently onlinereality From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2):
No one said formally being offered

The title of this thread is misleading then: "787-10X Formally Offered To Airlines"


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United727 (Reply 6):
Do you think that many current airlines awaiting delivery of the -8/-9 will switch orders to the -10?

I don't expect to see major order conversions, but for those carriers who were planning to use the plane regionally, if their traffic patterns can handle the extra capacity, we could see some conversions.


User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
for those carriers who were planning to use the plane regionally, if their traffic patterns can handle the extra capacity, we could see some conversions.

So, technically, as for capacity, the -10 could be a regularly used Domestic player here in the US then??



Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting United727 (Reply 10):
So, technically, as for capacity, the -10 could be a regularly used Domestic player here in the US then??

I think Stitch was referring to Asian Regional players like CX and SQ.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United727 (Reply 10):
So, technically, as for capacity, the -10 could be a regularly used Domestic player here in the US then??
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 11):
I think Stitch was referring to Asian Regional players like CX and SQ.

Yes I was, but the 787-10 would also work well for Hawaii services for UA (replacing the 777-200s).


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Yes I was, but the 787-10 would also work well for Hawaii services for UA (replacing the 777-200s).

The 787-10 can also be excellent for short but high-demand EastCoast to Western Europe runs.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2):
No one said formally being offered

Think this has been covered....  
Quoting United727 (Reply 6):
Do you think that many current airlines awaiting delivery of the -8/-9 will switch orders to the -10?

I guess much will depend on the EIS that is being proposed..

Rgds


User currently onlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4474 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5421 times:

I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if the 787-10 is going to be more like the 764 in terms of sales. I hope I'm wrong.

User currently onlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5426 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 15):
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if the 787-10 is going to be more like the 764 in terms of sales. I hope I'm wrong.

Seriously doubt that. Probably much closer to the A333. It moves a lot of people very efficiently at enough range that it can be used on major trunk routes.

I think it should sell quite well.  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 15):
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if the 787-10 is going to be more like the 764 in terms of sales. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm very confident in predicting you will be wrong.  


User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 15):
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if the 787-10 is going to be more like the 764 in terms of sales. I hope I'm wrong

Considering the 764 is not even close to the same aircraft the 787-10 is in , I think you will be wrong  

764 - 245 Seats
7810 - 323 Seats

764 - 5,625nm
7810 - 6,900nm


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5428 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
So effectively the 787-10X is now a done deal and the sales team are now empowered to start collecting MoUs / LoIs to support a formal Authority to Offer from the Board

I believe you have stated numerous times in the past in particular with a number of airshow announcements that Boeing does not collect MoUs / LoIs without customers putting money down.

How does a customer put money down on a product that is not offered for sale ?

Seems like a catch 22 to me.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
I believe you have stated numerous times in the past in particular with a number of airshow announcements that Boeing does not collect MoUs / LoIs without customers putting money down.

In those instances I was referring to Commitments. Boeing have stated that a Commitment (such as for the 737 MAX) does require a deposit.

Boeing may or may not require a payment with an MoU or an LoI and this policy might depend on whether or not an airplane program has received formal Authority to Offer. When AA stated their intent to buy a re-engined 737, the Board of Directors had not yet given ATO to the 737 MAX. Same when MH and TG agreed to purchase the 747-500X and 747-600X back in 1996.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
How does a customer put money down on a product that is not offered for sale ?

By signing the MOU, getting out their checkbook and handing over some money. The same thing happened on the 737 MAX for nearly a year before Boeing's internal PD process caught up and permitted proper guarantees and actual firm orders (see link below). Some airlines even placed firm orders for the MAX before it was offerable (AA). They did this by signing for an existing airplane (the 737NG), but with substitution rights to a planned future derivative. People always believe there are set rules with concrete barriers in these processes. There aren't. If two entities want to make a deal, they will find a way to get it done (with lots of lawyers, of course).

http://www.aviationbrief.com/?p=4492


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 15):
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if the 787-10 is going to be more like the 764 in terms of sales. I hope I'm wrong.

The 767-400 was underpowered to begin with and then 9/11 happened. Terminal at that point.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

A quibble about some of the detail in Guy Norris' report...

quote...the 320-seater is expected to be a 6,700- to 6,750-nm-range aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of about 551,750 lb., just under 7,000 lb. more than the 787-9 stretch now in initial assembly.... finish of quote.

Boeing show the 789 at 553000# MTOW so is there a reduction of MTOW in the works for the 789 or does Mr Norris have his facts wrong?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 23):
Boeing show the 789 at 553000# MTOW so is there a reduction of MTOW in the works for the 789 or does Mr Norris have his facts wrong?

He appears to be using the older (2009-2011) 544,000 lb / 247,000 kg MTOW.

The 787-9 and 787-10 should have identical MTOWs of 553,000 lb / 251,000 kg.


25 SLCPilot : Hey B, everybody seems to think you're wrong, including me. It will be an offering that completes a family of aircraft, built at the start of a progr
26 cosmofly : Article assumes EIS 2018-2019. Both A359 and 789 EIS are targeting 2014. A351 targets EIS 2017. Could B also achieve -10 EIS 2017? Technically speakin
27 sunrisevalley : they have a team working on the 789 which must be close to complete engineeringwise . It seems to me it would be smart to keep them in place and move
28 Stitch : I expect production capacity will be the real determiner of EIS.
29 zeke : That is amazing considering how far apart they were launched. Will the 789 be able to launch in 2014 given they are so far behind with the 788, or wi
30 MCIGuy : IMO, and this is just opinion, this effectively kills the 777X and I think B will move on to a new "bigger twin" with a 2023-2025 EIS.
31 CM : All major structural sections for the first 787-9 are already manufactured and in pre-integration. There's no question the airplane is proceeding on
32 dc1030cf : I sense someone from the former British Colony may have a grudge or negative feelings towards the 787's maker. If this is indeed the case, please by a
33 Post contains images sweair : Endless love of Boeing from some posters
34 RickNRoll : This half an authority ot offer partly appears to be a fishing expedition. The 777X/NEO/HGW version probably depends on how much interest is shown in
35 Aither : "A330 killer"... 25 years later hopefully this is achievable... The 787-8 & 9 were too small. They finally realized not so many routes were really
36 thegeek : What? Range for payload. Knock me over with a feather. Add 753, A333 vs A332 for most of the time they were concurrently offered. I wonder if this is
37 AirbusA6 : Well Boeing previously stretched the 767 to create the 767-300A, before the definitive 767-300ER came a few years later. Then they stretched the 777-2
38 sunrisevalley : about 35t for a 5850nmESAD/ 12hr sector assuming a 136t DOW.
39 Post contains images ikramerica : No kidding. But the A333 is much improved over the years. Most aircraft sold now are A330 killers if you are talking about the first A330s. But some
40 Post contains images Stitch : The original 7E7 proposals were indeed sized around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER, however discussions with customers grew them to their current size,
41 YLWbased : I'd have the person you have describe "blocked and black-listed" should such feature is available on a.net. Back to the topic, it is great news that
42 Post contains images CXB77L : In the sense that the base 777-8X won't be required, leaving only a family of 2 comprising of the ultra long range -8LX and the -9X, I agree. I'm sur
43 KC135TopBoom : I could see DL converting the B-788 order (for the post 2020 time frame) to the B-7810X. Possibly increasing the order (from 8?). By the 2020 time fra
44 rheinwaldner : You understand the history correctly IMO. And to apply these principles to the future is only common sense. So your prediction will become reality wi
45 Post contains images FriendlySkies : Yes, that's why they have sold over 800 of them in less than a decade. Not every airplane out there is a 777 or A330.
46 MCIGuy : Exactly, but I think the -10 will do well, as you said, diminishing the case for the 777X.
47 klkla : The current order is 18 not 8. I also think AA is a very likely candidate for 787-10. ORD/JFK-LHR and MIA/JFK-Brazil and Argentina are examples where
48 JoeCanuck : The 777 fuse cross section will always be an advantage over the 787. What the 777x does, is diminish the business case for the 748i.
49 sunrisevalley : The South American routes are around about 10.5hrs northbound . The 787-10 would be good for about 46t payload Probably similar to the 77E but with a
50 VC10er : Does, or has United ever mentioned the 787 to Brazil? They certainly fill their 777's and 767's with many disappointed standbys. Also, are there any d
51 AA737-823 : ...and I'm sure that's EXACTLY how Boeing will pitch the aircraft to the carriers.
52 SonomaFlyer : Though they are opening up a new route with the 788 (DEN to NRT), most of the initial 787 routes will replace 767's and seasonally the 777. I'm sure
53 columba : Any idea who will be the launch customer ?
54 sunrisevalley : Both SQ ( for a subsidiary ) and LH have been mentioned.
55 Stitch : BA has also been mentioned and EK has long been a pundit favorite.
56 columba : I believe that LH will order the 787-10 at one point but right now the timing seems not to be right for them. Doubt they will be launch customer, SQ s
57 Post contains images MCIGuy : Here's a Boeing rendering showing the entire 787 family including the -10X. [Edited 2012-11-11 14:00:17]
58 Post contains links and images Stitch : And here is another Boeing image of the 787-10X: As well as a side-view from a few years back by Flight International:
59 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for posting. The B787-10X is imho the best looking one.
60 Post contains images cosmofly : Adding 74m 787-11 and 80m 787-12 will complete the family nicely.
61 sunrisevalley : Statements like this usually raise the question of how these increased lengths can be achieved and takeoff angles without tail drag can be maintained
62 cosmofly : New wing, center box, mlg.
63 RickNRoll : That won't happen for a while. More than enough to do with the existing hardware.
64 MCIGuy : I thought Boeing has stated that the -10 is as long as the 787 will go.
65 scouseflyer : and new engines basically meaning a new aircraft, which would be very expensive. the 777X would be far more likely IMHO than a -11 or -12
66 StickShaker : Its no more a new aircraft than the 35J is to the 359 - its part of an existing family. I see the 777X as the more expensive option (new composite wi
67 sweair : The 787 is suboptimal in the 77W size, when B has a product that is more optimal for this market why not use it? I dont get the thinking behind this.
68 JAAlbert : Didn't I read someplace that LH plans to rationalize its fleet around four aircraft types? I can't seem to find the post, but I don't recall the 787
69 Stitch : The LH Group didn't mention what any of those four types would be. It's assumed that the A380-800 and 747-8 will be two of those types, but we also k
70 affirmative : I'm guessing the "type 4" is the C-ceries which will be in LH Regional (which is technically a separate brand). Which means that the Lufthansa 4 type
71 AirbusA6 : If LH genuinely only want 4 types, then having A320/737 748i A380 as 3 of the types, means only one of the 787/A350/777NG which seems a rather artifi
72 PHX787 : Wow, incredible. I wonder what the range is going to be on this one.
73 affirmative : Given that the A350 series spans from the -800 to the -1000 and the 787 series from the -800 to the -10X that covers basically everything from the 33
74 BigJKU : The biggest problem with that logic from what I can see is that the 787-10 should be particularly suited to a lot of the routes that LH flys. Really
75 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G'day For LH likely the highest priority is to replace the A343 and A346. Particularly the A343 is getting close to the end of its economic life. Ther
76 Stitch : The 787-9 has almost exactly the same cabin area the A340-300 has - 257m2 vs. 259m2. The A340-300 cabin is two meters longer, but the 787-9 addresses
77 sunrisevalley : about 6700nm at max passenger load. About 35t payload for a 12hr sector,
78 PHX787 : Not bad at all. Has anyone been announced as a "launch customer" yet? I haven't really paid attention to this thread much
79 Post contains links KarelXWB : And here is a high-res render: http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/K64088.jpg The same render but 1920x1080, perfect as wallpape
80 Stitch : Speculation from Aspire Aviation is British Airways and Singapore Airlines / Scoot are interested. Emirates Airline has also long been considered a p
81 sunrisevalley : Unless LH enter the ULH league they have no sectors over about 13hr 30min. Now the 787-10 at about 136t DOW would do a little better than max. passen
82 columba : The link said 4 narrowbodies and 4 widebodies
83 Post contains links BigJKU : In related news Qatar Air seems to be looking at being among the launch customers for the 787-10. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...t-buyer-for-b
84 Post contains links 135mech : Yes, here it is... LH Plans To Reduce Aircraft Versions To 4 NB/ 4 WB (by Gonzalo Oct 17 2012 in Civil Aviation)
85 mogandoCI : Does anyone know how well the rumored specs of 787-10 stack up against the A350-900 on sectors 10 hours or shorter ?
86 Stitch : The cabin of the 787-10 will be about two meters longer, so it should hold another 18 passengers. It should also offer around six more LD3 positions
87 sunrisevalley : I am unable to make the comparison , check one of Ferpe's graphs they should help. I have the 787-10 in Piano-X again based on Ferpe's work . The mod
88 Lutfi : Will be interesting to see how CX replaces their 772A/ 773A/ A330 regional fleets. Derated A350-1000, or 787-10?
89 BlueSky1976 : So far Lufthansa, British Airways, Scoot and Qatar Airways were mentioned as most likely candidates in various press releases. I would also add ANA a
90 cmf : Isn't a LD3 about 1.5m? How does adding 2m allow 6 more LD3s?
91 Dan23 : I believe the difference in the size of the respective wing boxes accounts for the rest of the space for the additional LD3's.
92 ferpe : The OEW is somewhere around 130t for the 787-10X, otherwise things like capacity, range, engines etc compared to 788 and 789 does not add up. The 789
93 sunrisevalley : The 787-10 will be 5.49m ( 18' ) longer than the 789. The LD3 is 60,4 inches wide so the increase of 6 over the 789 sounds about right.
94 sunrisevalley : The 787-10 wing and wingbox is essentially unchanged from that of the 789. Remember both have the same MTOW
95 BigJKU : I believe he was speaking to the difference between the LD3 loading for a 787 of a given length vs an A350 of a given length.
96 qf002 : I think they mean the difference in the wing boxes between the 787 and the A350. The A350 has a larger wingbox so fits fewer LD3's into the same over
97 sweair : And just maybe a more effective front end and back end helps for cargo?
98 Stitch : The latest Boeing OEW figure for the 787-8 is 112t. Airbus projected the 787-9 to be 8t heavier than the 787-9, however that figure may be too high a
99 sunrisevalley : This would give a range of over 7400nm at max passenger load.. This is considerably more than has been bandied around thus far.
100 Stitch : The 787-10 should be fuel-weight limited like the 787-8, so maybe that has an effect on design range. Or perhaps the 787-10X is better than we expect
101 sonomaflyer : The -10 won't have a range of 7,400 with a max passenger load. The figures mentioned are way below that. Keep in mind the -10 is a stretch of the -9 w
102 XT6Wagon : Its a simple stretch and you expect it to lose some 2,000NM of range for passenger only configuration? yah, don't think so.
103 sweair : That would be a lot less than Boeings numbers, where did you get that number? Add 5t to the 789 that has a range of 8000nm and see what that does.
104 817Dreamliiner : True, even though the -10X will be fuel weight limited as Stitch said, I dont expect the range drop to be too significant, especially if it only gain
105 Post contains links kaitak : I noticed today that Seatguru has added the UAL 787 to its database and now that we know the length of the 787-9 and -10, I thought it might be fun/in
106 sweair : How many airlines will seat 323 bums in a 787-10 anyway? I think 310 is more realistic or just about 300+cargo.
107 KarelXWB : A number between 290 - 310 I guess.
108 kaitak : Well, if we take the config I've given above - rough as it is - and add the 18' (216"), that's the equivalent of 6 rows of premium economy (at 35-36"
109 sonomaflyer : The 787-10 is heavier and fuel limited as previously stated. We also need to be realistic about seasonal winds and typical passenger/cargo loads. We s
110 ferpe : This is only true for Airbus which also calls it MWE (Manufacturers Weight Empty) and I believe the powerplants are included (they weigh 12t or more
111 sweair : So how do you feel about 6000nm, that would be a tad low wouldn´t it? Its OK being negative but that is stretching it a bit I would say.
112 ferpe : Boeing has leaked 6750nm before the RR 1000-TEN was launched, this is smak on what also PainoX and my models says with the weights I gave, therefore
113 StickShaker : I think there will be a lot of operators running the 787-10 in a 2 class configuration as suggested by kaitak, particularly regional Asian and ME rou
114 sonomaflyer : Given the information Ferpe tossed in, I think a range of 6,750 nm sounds more reasonable. Its a nice bump over the 767 series with more capacity and
115 Post contains images astuteman : Haven't Boeing themselves quoted 6 650Nm for the GE version and 6 700Nm for the RR? I'm not even sure why we are having the debate (not aimed at you
116 sweair : B has given 6700nm and 6750nm for Trent1000-TEN. Now RR has some work to do if they want to achieve that target, they are 2% over SFC when GE gets it
117 Post contains images astuteman : Now GE have some work to do to get PIP2 into service and hit this target - they are 2% over. Trent1000-TEN should be spot on SFC....... The differenc
118 Post contains images sweair : No the TEN is to be 1% under SFC target, the current B version is 2% above and the coming C 1% above. The TEN will have to cut 3% at once. GEs PIP2 w
119 Post contains images astuteman : No it won't The TEN has to achieve 2% better than the C (according to your numbers) RR managed to reduce the SFC by 2% with Version B (according to y
120 Post contains links FRNT787 : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ales-pitch-ahead-of-launch-379022/ In this flight global article from yesterday, Randy Tinseth is quoted as 680
121 Post contains images CXB77L : Wishful thinking. The 787-10 trades range for capacity over the 787-9. A stretch to the proportions you suggest would have a further negative effect
122 frmrCapCadet : Despite reading almost all the threads for a long time I still am puzzled. The 737/320 are stretching their legs to do just over 6 hour flights. The 7
123 Stitch : In the current market, the A330-300 makes an excellent 9-10 hour plane. However, it entered service in the early 1990s and technology marches on. So
124 Post contains images cosmofly : CFRP barrel strength lends itself to efficient stretch, unlike its metal counter part. IMO the 787 barrel will have distinct advantages over even the
125 sonomaflyer : New Wing New Center Wing Box Redesigned Main Landing Gear These three items alone would be tremendously expensive to design. It takes this further st
126 817Dreamliiner : I dont get why some here want to stretch the 787 beyond the -10s length, I think the -10 is as long as it will go. Plus:
127 PIEAvantiP180 : Would it be possible to use the 777 landing gear and just engeneer the new 787 wing and wing box to carry it? It would use off the shelf idem and sig
128 sweair : The 777 will enable 10 across cabins, the 787 will never! 1 extra seat per row at the equal cabin length, you do the math!
129 rheinwaldner : A 787-based A351 competitor does not need more communality than the 77X. And the 77X with a cfrp wing will be the half of a new design. So the commun
130 JoeCanuck : A longer 787 would probably use much of the 777x wing. So what you get is less commonality to the 787 but more to the 777. It could also use the curr
131 9252fly : Anyone know what happened to the original wing that was intended for the B789. If my memory is correct, Boeing decided to use the B788 wing as it was
132 Stitch : It would have been about 3m longer in span and about 1.8t heavier in weight. Boeing identified that the reduction of aerodynamic efficiency was count
133 Post contains images RIX : - and somehow it works for them quite well (considering 748F sales too) 787-10IGW may make sense also as a base for yet another stretch, similarly to
134 Stitch : Airbus did the same with the A350 (slotting between the 787 and the Long-Range 777s), and yet they appear to have done okay, so maybe Boeing will fin
135 sonomaflyer : From my understanding, you can't simply bolt a 777 gear set onto the 787. The airplane works because each system and sub system was designed with the
136 MCIGuy : The 777 gear is also longer than the 787's, besides having three axles each. The 787 has relatively short gear for a wide body.
137 BigJKU : I agree with those that say, at least in this configuration, the 787 won't get longer than the 10. In 10-15 years I could very much see them redoing t
138 ADent : Due to weight growth in the 787 program, the added weight of the longer wing would have to come out of the payload of the B787-9 rather than increasi
139 9252fly : Good explanation. Does that mean the current wing on the 8 and 9 is also planned for the 10?
140 Stitch : I would expect so, since the 787-10 will have the same MTOW as the 787-9. It does sound like both GE and RR are working on more powerful engines (bet
141 sunrisevalley : This sugests that the 789 as Boeing has hinted to Aspire will come in a little lighter than expected. Adjusting the 787-10 to 130t OEW the range at 3
142 StickShaker : The issue as I see it is that the while the 77W has firmly established itself in the 350 seat market, the optimal 777X will be the 9 model at 400 sea
143 Stitch : Boeing's issue is they not only have to compete with the A350-1000, but also the A350-900. The 787-9 is a bit shorter than the A350-900, so it gives
144 XT6Wagon : You forget that the quoted range is passenger only. So most airlines buy 8,000NM planes for far shorter routes as they want to put in several tons of
145 astuteman : True. But the 787-10 is being quoted as having A330-200 range, which is by no means shabby. It's not too far off the range of the 744.. Rgds
146 StickShaker : Yes but as you point out, the 789 and 787-10 are both very healthy competitors for the 359. This is where it gets confusing, I tend to see the 8X as
147 rheinwaldner : Agreed. A new wing or at least a heavily modified wing would be fine for this 781HGW. A new wing is also on the agenda for the 77X though... If I loo
148 pellegrine : ????? A332 never had the range of the B744. We're talking 6,750nm versus 7,200nm. Pushing 7,000nm for the late-model A330-200s. 747-400s at 875,000lb
149 StickShaker : I think the latest iteration of the 332 (238t) is out to around 7200nm. Regards, StickShaker
150 Post contains images sunrisevalley : I trhink we do disagree . At least based on OEW. If you are working with DOW you are probably about right.
151 astuteman : ???? At pax only load the 787-10 is said to be c 6 700Nm. Or if RT's comments above are to be believed, 6 800 - 7 000Nm Standard A330-200's are 6 750
152 Post contains links kaitak : CX has expressed an interest in the 787-10, as a 333 replacement, but obviously also interested in its longer range. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/
153 frigatebird : To me, it shows the range for the 78J will be just fine. The extra range Airbus has found for its latest A330s primarily benefitted the -300. The -20
154 kaitak : Thanks, forgot about BR; I do recall that SK expressed an interest, although right now their corporate strategy is focused on "being here this time n
155 BigJKU : I have to think the 787-10 will do very well with US airlines as well. I can see it replacing a lot of their 777's and 767's as it is not burdened wit
156 Post contains links Stitch : But zeke has stated one of the reasons CX went with the A350-900 over the 787-9 was due to the narrower cabin of the 787 not allowing a "common Econo
157 Post contains links cosmofly : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_11_19_2012_p38-516663.xml "unidentified potential customers say a firm launch decision is not expected
158 Stitch : So the Board did grant Authority to Offer. At least we can put that to bed, now.
159 sunrisevalley : In the November 19 article Norris says.. The 320-seater is expected to be a 6,700-6,750-nm-range aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight slightly less
160 Post contains links and images CXB77L : I'm not entirely sure if it did or not. But it's not as long as the 80m 787 that you're suggesting. The main landing gear would have to be completely
161 sunrisevalley : From Piano-X; on the assumption that a 8-abreast in economy 787-10 has 297-seats , max. range with a 297 seat passenger load is ~ 7122nm. For this di
162 Post contains images mffoda : Thanks Sunrise. But, I don't play the Piano... Sorry But those per seat numbers look interesting... How many seats difference would make the fuel eve
163 BlueSky1976 : Not quite likely. Instead, I could imagine CX going for 2+4+2 in 787-10 economy class cabin, and 3+3+3 in the 777=9X. Unless, of course, CX orders -1
164 Stitch : I don't believe the 777X works at 3+3+3, unfortunately. I do not know what the minimum aisle width is per certification authorities, but assuming it'
165 817Dreamliiner : I remember reading somewhere (think it was flightglobal) that they would be adjusting the interior walls to allow an additional 4 inches in cabin wid
166 Post contains links 817Dreamliiner : Just did a quick google search and found it: From here: http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/
167 sweair : If LH would buy SAS maybe they would use the 787-10 for SK?
168 Post contains images EPA001 : Who knows? LH might order the B787-10X for themselves as well. But for your scenario to happen LH has to buy SAS first. .
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...
747-400ER Offered To Airlines posted Wed Apr 19 2000 23:11:16 by CX747
787-10 EIS Moving To The Right, 777-X Up Next? posted Tue Aug 14 2012 20:59:37 by WarpSpeed
LH Possible Launch Customer Of 787-10X posted Tue Mar 20 2012 03:55:50 by na
Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S posted Mon Jan 30 2012 02:51:25 by ferpe
Financial Question In Relation To Airlines posted Thu Oct 20 2011 09:19:34 by delta2ual
Local Subsidies To Airlines: FR & Others In Spain posted Sat Jan 8 2011 04:32:46 by r2rho
B-787 Delivery: Miffed AI To Seek $240m Refund Re posted Mon Aug 9 2010 10:04:20 by hawkercamm
Will Boeing 787 Suppliers Be Able To Keep Pace? posted Tue Apr 27 2010 15:08:27 by WarpSpeed
Blame For 787 Delay Goes Mostly To Suppliers? posted Wed Mar 3 2010 11:15:00 by Revelation
How Important Is Engine Manufacturer To Airlines? posted Tue Sep 1 2009 23:38:24 by LHCVG