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, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5054 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


All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
168 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5118 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 onlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5672 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5098 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 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

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

Look at the title.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5108 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, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5104 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, 394 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5099 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, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5099 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 offlinereality From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5097 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5097 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, 394 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5097 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 offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 833 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5093 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5101 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 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5106 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, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5103 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 offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5105 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 offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5110 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5110 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 offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 833 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5121 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, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5112 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5110 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 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5111 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, 1317 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5111 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, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5111 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5116 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.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6342 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.


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 program, rather than an "add-on" towards the end of a program for two customers. Larger aircraft in families have typically (but not always as you point out) done well.

Cheers! P



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6351 times:

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 speaking, 787 systems are much more mature which can compensate for later launch date.

Immediate pressure on B's engineering may be significantly higher than A's, with more complex MAX work, tanker, and possibly 77X while A only has NEO. It is understandable why 77X may be pushed back.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 26):
Immediate pressure on B's engineering may be significantly higher than A's,

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 onto the 787-10


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect production capacity will be the real determiner of EIS.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6890 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 26):

Both A359 and 789 EIS are targeting 2014.

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 will they let their customers down ?

Cannot have it both ways ......



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6881 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 26):
and possibly 77X while A only has NEO. It is understandable why 77X may be pushed back.

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.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6896 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 29):

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 the current timetable, regardless of 787-8 backlog. It's one advantage of having 3 independent FALs for the program.


User currently offlinedc1030cf From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 all means, let's hear them and we can all discuss them. Unlike the Agency that shall not be named from the country that shall not be named, we are civilized and we are here to help for the love of aviation.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

Endless love of Boeing from some posters  

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6571 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 30):
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.

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 the -10. The more popular the -10, the less investment in the 777X. The -10 will go ahead either way.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6644 times:

"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 truly "point to point" routes. We can expect a lot of airlines will switch from the -8 & 9 to the -10.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6508 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
The 787-9 and 787-10 should have identical MTOWs of 553,000 lb / 251,000 kg.

What? Range for payload. Knock me over with a feather.

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.

Add 753, A333 vs A332 for most of the time they were concurrently offered.

I wonder if this is a fishing expedition to see if there is any market for this idea. And if there isn't, they can focus on the 777X.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6473 times:

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 777-200ER to create the basic stretch 777-300 A model, before several years later producing the best selling 777-300ER.

Will Boeing produce a 787-10ER variant at some point (maybe with larger wings etc) if the 777X doesn't take off?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 43):
What? Range for payload. Knock me over with a feather.

about 35t for a 5850nmESAD/ 12hr sector assuming a 136t DOW.


User currently onlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6523 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 42):
"A330 killer"... 25 years later hopefully this is achievable...

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 airlines are replacing those A330s with much improved... A330s.  



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aither (Reply 42):
The 787-8 & 9 were too small.

The original 7E7 proposals were indeed sized around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER, however discussions with customers grew them to their current size, which is around the A330-200/A340-200 and A330-300/A340-300/777-200ER.

And considering how well the A330 and 777 sold, I wouldn't exactly call them "too small".  


User currently offlineYLWbased From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 803 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6363 times:

Quoting dc1030cf (Reply 36):

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 all means, let's hear them and we can all discuss them. Unlike the Agency that shall not be named from the country that shall not be named, we are civilized and we are here to help for the love of aviation.

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 787-10 is finally getting some lights and I do hope that one day it'll make it to the sky. Just out of curiosity, how many airlines had publicly show their interest in the 787-10?

YLWbased



Hong Kong is not China. Not better or worse, just different.
User currently onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2540 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6065 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 41):
The more popular the -10, the less investment in the 777X

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.

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 49):
it is great news that 787-10 is finally getting some lights and I do hope that one day it'll make it to the sky.

  

I'm sure it will. The 787-10 is likely to be a fantastic medium hauler, occupying the space that the A333 currently does.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6017 times:

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 frame, their B-763s and B-764s will be ready for retirement/replacement.

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 37):
Will Boeing produce a 787-10ER variant at some point (maybe with larger wings etc) if the 777X doesn't take off?

You understand the history correctly IMO. And to apply these principles to the future is only common sense. So your prediction will become reality with a high probability. Regardless whether the 777X will take off or not.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4091 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 35):
The 787-8 & 9 were too small.

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.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 34):
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 the -10. The more popular the -10, the less investment in the 777X. The -10 will go ahead either way.

Exactly, but I think the -10 will do well, as you said, diminishing the case for the 777X.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
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 frame, their B-763s and B-764s will be ready for retirement/replacement.

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 this aircraft would be perfect in their network.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5718 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 46):
Exactly, but I think the -10 will do well, as you said, diminishing the case for the 777X.

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.



What the...?
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5705 times:

Quoting klkla (Reply 47):
also think AA is a very likely candidate for 787-10. ORD/JFK-LHR and MIA/JFK-Brazil and Argentina are examples where this aircraft would be perfect in their network

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 20% less fuel burn. Would work well in asparagus season.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 drawings or renderings of the 787-10? I'd love to see a side by side comparison.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5639 posts, RR: 11
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5608 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 49):
Would work well in asparagus season.

...and I'm sure that's EXACTLY how Boeing will pitch the aircraft to the carriers.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VC10er (Reply 50):
Does, or has United ever mentioned the 787 to Brazil?

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 we'll see the 787 go to South America eventually.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Any idea who will be the launch customer ?


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 53):
Any idea who will be the launch customer ?

Both SQ ( for a subsidiary ) and LH have been mentioned.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 53):
Any idea who will be the launch customer?
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 54):
Both SQ ( for a subsidiary ) and LH have been mentioned.

BA has also been mentioned and EK has long been a pundit favorite.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

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 seems more likely in my opinion


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 50):
Also, are there any drawings or renderings of the 787-10? I'd love to see a side by side comparison.

Here's a Boeing rendering showing the entire 787 family including the -10X.  


[Edited 2012-11-11 14:00:17]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And here is another Boeing image of the 787-10X:

http://www.socialwelfareagency.org/Public/Graphics/Aviation/Boeing-787-10X.jpg

As well as a side-view from a few years back by Flight International:



User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 58):
And here is another Boeing image of the 787-10X:

Thanks for posting. The B787-10X is imho the best looking one.  


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 58):
As well as a side-view from a few years back by Flight International:

Adding 74m 787-11 and 80m 787-12 will complete the family nicely.  


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 60):
Adding 74m 787-11 and 80m 787-12 will complete the family nicely.

Statements like this usually raise the question of how these increased lengths can be achieved and takeoff angles without tail drag can be maintained.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5508 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 61):
Statements like this usually raise the question of how these increased lengths can be achieved and takeoff angles without tail drag can be maintained.

New wing, center box, mlg.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 62):
New wing, center box, mlg.

That won't happen for a while. More than enough to do with the existing hardware.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5463 times:

I thought Boeing has stated that the -10 is as long as the 787 will go.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5481 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 62):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 61):
Statements like this usually raise the question of how these increased lengths can be achieved and takeoff angles without tail drag can be maintained.

New wing, center box, mlg.

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


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 65):
Quoting cosmofly (Reply 62):Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 61):
Statements like this usually raise the question of how these increased lengths can be achieved and takeoff angles without tail drag can be maintained.

New wing, center box, mlg.
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

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 wing) although probably more likely.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5455 times:

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.

User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 56):
I believe that LH will order the 787-10 at one point

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 mentioned


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5468 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 68):
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 mentioned.

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 know the A320neo and CSeries will be the group's narrowbody types.

Clearly, the LH Group can't function with those four types, so there will be two medium-size widebody types to replace the A330-300 / A340-300 / 777-200ER. And that means it's going to be either two models of 787 (787-9 and 787-10), two models of A350 (A350-900 and A350-1000) or one model of each (787-10 and A350-900, IMO).

All of this assumes the LH Group actually does choose to settle on six types and that "type" is actually a model. Type could be a market niche:

Type 1 - VLA (A388 and 748)
Type 2 - Widebody Twin (787 and/or A350)
Type 3 - Narrowbody Twin (A320neo and CSeries)
Type 4 - Regional Jet

[Edited 2012-11-12 07:25:35]

User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5414 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):

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 types could be A320NEO, A350 or 787, 748 and A380. In terms of type ratings they are separate as well which means only four type ratings to maintain in the pilot pool and one single for the regionals. All interchangeable with other LH companies. I'm guessing this would make life easier on many fronts.



I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5429 times:

Quoting affirmative (Reply 70):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):


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 types could be A320NEO, A350 or 787, 748 and A380. In terms of type ratings they are separate as well which means only four type ratings to maintain in the pilot pool and one single for the regionals. All interchangeable with other LH companies. I'm guessing this would make life easier on many fronts.

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 artificial restriction considering the large capacity range of those planes, I can't see any othe major airline only having one wide bodied twin family?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 58):
And here is another Boeing image of the 787-10X:

Wow, incredible. I wonder what the range is going to be on this one.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5459 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 71):
as 3 of the types, means only one of the 787/A350/777NG which seems a rather artificial restriction considering the large capacity range of those planes, I can't see any othe major airline only having one wide bodied twin family?

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 332 to the 346 which only leaves the VLAs and the single aisle. So with my logic that would mean that LH would choose either the 787 or the A350 as their baseline WB for pilot commonality as well as other benefits that comes with operating just one WB type. Given that LH has chosen the A320NEO as their single aisle baseline model I would suggest that the A350 series have an advantage due to the commonality throughout the fleet. But with the 748i in the fleet one can never be sure since there is likely commonality between the 787 and the 748i as well. I know LH still has some 735s in the fleet but I'm guessing these are on their way out quite soon.



I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting affirmative (Reply 73):

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 332 to the 346 which only leaves the VLAs and the single aisle. So with my logic that would mean that LH would choose either the 787 or the A350 as their baseline WB for pilot commonality as well as other benefits that comes with operating just one WB type. Given that LH has chosen the A320NEO as their single aisle baseline model I would suggest that the A350 series have an advantage due to the commonality throughout the fleet. But with the 748i in the fleet one can never be sure since there is likely commonality between the 787 and the 748i as well. I know LH still has some 735s in the fleet but I'm guessing these are on their way out quite soon.

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 looking at the A350's and 787 models the 787-10 seems to me to be the best airplane for a lot of the old major players in international travel. I don't see any of the other models beating it for flying from the US to Europe, Europe to most of Asia or around Asia.


User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5509 times:

G'day

Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):
And that means it's going to be either two models of 787 (787-9 and 787-10), two models of A350 (A350-900 and A350-1000) or one model of each (787-10 and A350-900, IMO).

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. There is no urgency with the replacement of the A333, with some still to be delivered to the LH group.

So I do not see LH setting priority to the B787-10 or "A333 killer". The B787-10 may be of similar size to the A343 but does not have enough range whereas the B787-9 is simply too small. Some of the LH A346 may be replaced with the B747-8 but there is still a requirement for a direct replacement i.e the A350-1000. The 747-8 also is too large for LX in my opinion, whereas the A350-1000 seems a perfect fit for their highest capacity needs. Besides a small number of B747-8 in the LX fleet maybe the proverbial oddball whereas a similar number of A350-1000 is not, assuming the majority of the future longhaul fleet are A 350-900.

I do see the B787-10 and also the B787-9 joining the LH group somewhere down the road, the former as an A 333 replacement starting some 10 years from now and the latter joining the folks needing smaller lift like Austrian, Belgian and Condor maybe. That also prevents the group from putting all eggs into one basket.


Interesting times for A-netters coming up  

Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 75):
So I do not see LH setting priority to the B787-10 or "A333 killer". The B787-10 may be of similar size to the A343 but does not have enough range whereas the B787-9 is simply too small.

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 that by offering 3-3-3 as opposed to 2-4-2 in Economy (both would be 1+2+1 in First and 2+2+2 in Business Class). It also offers four more LD3 positions.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 72):
Wow, incredible. I wonder what the range is going to be on this one.

about 6700nm at max passenger load. About 35t payload for a 12hr sector,


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5637 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 77):
about 6700nm at max passenger load. About 35t payload for a 12hr sector,

Not bad at all. Has anyone been announced as a "launch customer" yet? I haven't really paid attention to this thread much



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8773 posts, RR: 29
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 58):
And here is another Boeing image of the 787-10X:

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 wallpaper:
http://www.tu.no/incoming/2012/11/08...pg/ALTERNATES/w1920/1200010884.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 78):
Has anyone been announced as a "launch customer" yet?

Speculation from Aspire Aviation is British Airways and Singapore Airlines / Scoot are interested. Emirates Airline has also long been considered a potential customer.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5630 times:

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 75):
The B787-10 may be of similar size to the A343 but does not have enough range

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. passenger load on these sectors but a 789 would do about 39t payload . Perhaps a consideration for a mixed fleet of 789 and 787-10. Certainly the 789 would offer as many or more seats than the A343 does in LH's configuration. The 787-10 with a LH A343 passenger load of about 225 bums would haul something over 9t of cargo as part of the payload for a 13hr 30min sector.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):
It's assumed that the A380-800 and 747-8 will be two of those types, but we also know the A320neo and CSeries will be the group's narrowbody types.

The link said 4 narrowbodies and 4 widebodies



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

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-boeing-787-10-jet.html


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 68):
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 mentioned

Yes, here it is...
LH Plans To Reduce Aircraft Versions To 4 NB/ 4 WB (by Gonzalo Oct 17 2012 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5439 times:

Does anyone know how well the rumored specs of 787-10 stack up against the A350-900 on sectors 10 hours or shorter ?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 85):
Does anyone know how well the rumored specs of 787-10 stack up against the A350-900 on sectors 10 hours or shorter?

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 (42 vs. 36).

OEW is guesstimates right now. Aspire Aviation says in a Boeing OEM 323-seat configuration it would be ~120t. Airbus has given MEW (weight with no seats or other cabin fittings) between 116.2t and 118.5t for the first developmental frames. The CoG chart of the A350 ACAP gives a possible Airbus OEM OEW figure of 135t.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 85):
Does anyone know how well the rumored specs of 787-10 stack up against the A350-900 on sectors 10 hours or shorter ?

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 model is probably very close. It generates the generally quoted range of a little over 6700 nm with max passenger load . Based on 131.5t OEW it will haul a volume limited payload of just over 51t over a 10hr sector. Fuel burn would be ~ 59.3t. Based on a cargo density of 160kg/m3 the payload maxes out at 51.6t. This is based on pallet loading as much as possible, not LD3 loading which probably would make the payload higher. Based on the TK methodology the payload would be reduced by ~4.5t for the OEW to DOW calculation. So that is the best payload , sector times less than 10hrs. will not improve this. Payload at 11hrs is ~46t and at 12hrs ~ 41t. based on OEW.


User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5383 times:

Will be interesting to see how CX replaces their 772A/ 773A/ A330 regional fleets. Derated A350-1000, or 787-10?

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 78):
Has anyone been announced as a "launch customer" yet? I haven't really paid attention to this thread much

So far Lufthansa, British Airways, Scoot and Qatar Airways were mentioned as most likely candidates in various press releases.

I would also add ANA and Qantas to that mix, as well as United.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
. It should also offer around six more LD3 positions (42 vs. 36).

Isn't a LD3 about 1.5m? How does adding 2m allow 6 more LD3s?


User currently offlineDan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5383 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):

I believe the difference in the size of the respective wing boxes accounts for the rest of the space for the additional LD3's.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5367 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
OEW is guesstimates right now. Aspire Aviation says in a Boeing OEM 323-seat configuration it would be ~120t. Airbus has given MEW (weight with no seats or other cabin fittings) between 116.2t and 118.5t for the first developmental frames. The CoG chart of the A350 ACAP gives a possible Airbus OEM OEW figure of 135t

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 is around 125t OEW and the 7810 is 10 frames longer, ie it weights more empty.

The Airbus MWE and the Boeing MEW is different in definition, for Airbus it is a frame sans cabin, for Boeing it is complete basic aircraft (with cabin) only missing operational items. One can therefore not compare the two. All indications are that the A350 has a spec OEW around 135t and the 787-10X around 130t. Of these the 787-10 is the most likely to hit the target out of the box.

Re LD3s, the 787 is more economical with space in nose and tail, therefore 36 LD3 for a frame which is shorter then 359. The 7810 is prolonged enough for 2 rows of LD3 in front of wingbox and one row aft, ie it should be possible to add 6 LD3s, there might be some loading or fixing restrictions however, we will have to see what B announces.

[Edited 2012-11-14 04:52:16]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
Isn't a LD3 about 1.5m? How does adding 2m allow 6 more LD3s?

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.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 94, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting Dan23 (Reply 91):
I believe the difference in the size of the respective wing boxes accounts for the rest of the space for the additional LD3's

The 787-10 wing and wingbox is essentially unchanged from that of the 789. Remember both have the same MTOW


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 95, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5366 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 94):

The 787-10 wing and wingbox is essentially unchanged from that of the 789. Remember both have the same MTOW

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.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 94):
The 787-10 wing and wingbox is essentially unchanged from that of the 789. Remember both have the same MTOW

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 overall length.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5346 times:

And just maybe a more effective front end and back end helps for cargo?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 98, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):
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 is around 125t OEW and the 7810 is 10 frames longer, ie it weights more empty.

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 as Boeing says the 787-9 will be at spec weight and possibly even below it when it enters service. So projected OEW for the 787-9, IMO, should be closer to 120t than 125t. The 787-10's extra weight should be solely in the fuselage, so it should therefore be less than the 787-9's (which includes strengthening of the wing and other structures). So I could see the 787-10 OEW being around 125t.



Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):
The Airbus MWE and the Boeing MEW is different in definition, for Airbus it is a frame sans cabin, for Boeing it is complete basic aircraft (with cabin) only missing operational items.

Airbus no longer lists the Operational Empty Weight of their aircraft in the ACAPS, but when they did, they used the same criteria Boeing did:

Airbus ACAP definition of OPERATING EMPTY WEIGHT:

"Weight of structure, power plant, furnishing, systems, unusable fuel and other unusable propulsion agents, and other items of equipment that are considered an integral part of a particular airplane, configuration. Also included are certain standard items, personnel, equipment and supplies necessary for full operations, excluding usable fuel and payload, described as OPERATIONAL EMPTY WEIGHT in some manuals."


Boeing ACAP definition of Operational Empty Weight (OEW):

"Weight of structure, powerplant, furnishing systems, unusable fuel and other unusable propulsion agents, and other items of equipment that are considered an integral part of a particular airplane configuration. Also included are certain standard items, personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary for full operations, excluding usable fuel and payload.".



OEW (Operational Empty Weight) and MEW (Manufacturer Empty Weight) are, as noted, different things. MEW is just the weight of the airframe structure directly off the assembly line (and before cabin furnishings are installed) and power plants.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 99, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5320 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
So I could see the 787-10 OEW being around 125t.


This would give a range of over 7400nm at max passenger load.. This is considerably more than has been bandied around thus far.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 100, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5329 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 99):
This would give a range of over 7400nm at max passenger load.. This is considerably more than has been bandied around thus far.

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 expected and that explains the new interest from customers and Boeing's more formal discussions with them.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 with the essential components the same. A more realistic range should be just above the 767-400 which should put it around 6,000 nm.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 102, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5393 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 101):
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 with the essential components the same

Its a simple stretch and you expect it to lose some 2,000NM of range for passenger only configuration? yah, don't think so.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 101):
A more realistic range should be just above the 767-400 which should put it around 6,000 nm.

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.


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2077 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
Its a simple stretch and you expect it to lose some 2,000NM of range for passenger only configuration? yah, don't think so.

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 gains 5t in empty weight. I would expect it to be in the range of on or near 6700nm mentioned previously, plus it all depends on the payload it would be carrying.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 105, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5392 times:

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/interesting to extrapolate some possible configs, based on its current 787 config.

Currently, UAL is configuring its 787s with 36 J Class (60" pitch), 70 Y (35") and 113 Y (32"), a total of 219.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Uni...United_Airlines_Boeing_787-800.php

Now, the 789 is almost exactly 20' (240") longer than the 788, so if we consider some possibilites there:

1 extra row of J (60")
4 extra rows of Y+ (144")
1 extra row of Y (32")

Both the Y+ (!) and Y on UAL are 9 abreast, so for the -9, using that very rough and ready calculation, it's about 51 extra seats with the -9, for a total of 270.

I'll work out some calculations for the -10 later, but dinner calls and I have my priorities!


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5391 times:

How many airlines will seat 323 bums in a 787-10 anyway? I think 310 is more realistic or just about 300+cargo.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8773 posts, RR: 29
Reply 107, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
How many airlines will seat 323 bums in a 787-10 anyway? I think 310 is more realistic or just about 300+cargo.

A number between 290 - 310 I guess.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 108, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
Quoting sweair (Reply 106):How many airlines will seat 323 bums in a 787-10 anyway? I think 310 is more realistic or just about 300+cargo.
A number between 290 - 310 I guess.

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"), or 54 in UA's config - giving a total of 324, so not far off.

It is striking that the 787-10 is a good 38' longer than the -8. The only other airline for which I have config details is ET, which has 24 in J and 248 in Y; I'm going to assume the same pitch as for UAL; ET is 9 abreast in Y as well. Applying the extra lengths for the -9 and -10 respectively, you could model as follows:

787-10
1 extra row J (60")
12 extra rows Y (32"x 9)

Total - 30 J 356 Y = 386

787-9
7 extra rows Y (63)

Total - 24 J 311 Y = 335

[Edited 2012-11-14 11:27:44]

User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 seen plenty of threads recently about claimed ranges by aircraft makers. Those ranges don't always account for realistic weights and may underestimate normal winds aloft.

This aircraft should be perfect for any USA to Europe route where demand dictates the a/c. It will also be great for North to South America.

Whether the -10 can do the longer routes is questionable. I don't think it will have the range to do HKG or SYD without decent penalties. Unless I misread previous threads, this a/c is a simple stretch with little or no performance gain from the engines and the fuel limitations previously stated.

Can it handle most of the missions currently served by the 777-200ER? Yes I think so but do you think a range of 7,000 nm is realistic? I doubt it but am happy to be proven wrong.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 110, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5450 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
MEW is just the weight of the airframe structure directly off the assembly line (and before cabin furnishings are installed) and power plants.

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 for the 787, for the 350 probably 15t). Boeings MEW is an aircraft with a cabin and furnishing to a basic config, it just lacks operational items (crew, manuals, oils, water...) .

Your OEW definitions are fine, they are the same for A and B but as Sunrisevally says those weights you list don't add up, neither in PianoX nor in my model nor in Boeings ACAP or Aspires reasoning. Do the checks, I have made them and also described where they do not add up. Realistic spec OEWs are around 115t (240 pax), 125 (290) and 130 (320), then things fit on all counts. Remember a 125t OEW for the 7810 ads another 5t of fuel which is the same as 500nm, you go 7200nm instead of 6800 with a RR T1000-TEN, B has talked of 6750nm with the GEnx since the recent 7810 was launched.

If you still say the 7810 has an OEW of 125t the fuel consumption of the engine as suddenly worsened with 7% as the aerodynamics are the same save for the 9 frames longer body (not 10 as I said before). Now we know that RR is improving it 3% over the present B engines.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5447 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 110):

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.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 112, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5478 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 111):
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.

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 6000nm as spec range is to low.

With a 6750nm spec range (remember a real cabin is heavier, you have LD3 tares, catering, Company extra reserves to cater for frame variation and deterioration,...) it is a really useful frame, the range is the same as for the A330-200 when it came out and that is labeled a long range machine. The 7810 could do all the routes of the 332 with the pax load of the 333 but with comfier cabin (due to more space), if you need to go longer just leave of a bit of cargo, you have plenty capacity anyway. I can see all customers who bought 788 and 789 to have a serious look at also adding a 7810, it has an almost 100% commonality and a real nice revenue upside if you have the routes with high peak loads.

[Edited 2012-11-14 12:17:15]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 113, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
How many airlines will seat 323 bums in a 787-10 anyway? I think 310 is more realistic or just about 300+cargo.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 108):
787-10
1 extra row J (60")
12 extra rows Y (32"x 9)

Total - 30 J 356 Y = 386

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 routes. Mighty impressive CASM when configured that way.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 great CASM.

For airlines such as UA, that should enable it to do almost all of their 777 routes carrying 30+ extra passengers plus cargo.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 115, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
Its a simple stretch and you expect it to lose some 2,000NM of range for passenger only configuration? yah, don't think so.

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 personally, XT6Wagon).....

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 99):
This would give a range of over 7400nm at max passenger load.. This is considerably more than has been bandied around thus far

It's more than Boeing say it is, which is the pertinent point.

And there's enough of us on here with enough reasonably tested models (and I include Pianos X in that) to spot what Boeing's figures should mean for OEW...  

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 115):

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 its PIP2 in service, this one should be spot on SFC target.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 117, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5377 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 116):
Now RR has some work to do if they want to achieve that target, they are 2% over SFC when GE gets its PIP2 in service, this one should be spot on SFC target.

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 difference is?   


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 117):

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 will cut 1.0%, the PIP1 removed more than 1.7% of the miss. GE is slightly ahead  

RR missed the target by close to 4% on the first version.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 119, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 118):
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.

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 your numbers)
GE managed to reduce the SFC 1.7% under PIP 1 (according to your numbers)
Are you questioning RR's ability to deliver the TEN's 2% spec reduction over the "C"?
On what basis?

Quoting sweair (Reply 118):
GEs PIP2 will cut 1.0%, the PIP1 removed more than 1.7% of the miss. GE is slightly ahead

This clearly matters to you in some obscure way.

But I'm failing to understand why all "PIP" exercises aren't "some work to do".
Only RR's are, apparently.
Is GE's PIP2 not "some work to do"?

If it helps sweeten the pill any, I don't think PIP2 is the last we'll ever hear on the GENx  


User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1315 posts, RR: 15
Reply 120, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5333 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 115):
Haven't Boeing themselves quoted 6 650Nm for the GE version and 6 700Nm for the RR?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ales-pitch-ahead-of-launch-379022/

In this flight global article from yesterday, Randy Tinseth is quoted as 6800-7000nm. So you are right in the wheelhouse on it. Udvar-Hazy wants it to be right at the 7000nm mark.



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2540 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5336 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 60):
Adding 74m 787-11 and 80m 787-12 will complete the family nicely.

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 on range, and for what gain? Furthermore, stretching the aircraft to 80m is going to cause airport manoeuvrability issues, as well as result in a more compromised structure due to its need to be "beefed up". An 80m 787 will simply be too heavy for its own good, just like the A346 is today.

There comes a point of diminishing returns for every stretch. I doubt we'll see a 787 larger than the -10.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 66):
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 wing) although probably more likely.

On the contrary, the A350XWB was designed specifically with the 77W replacement market in mind. From the very outset it was envisaged that there would be an A350-1000 model with similar size and capability as the 777-300ER. The result of this focus on optimising the A350XWB family around the -1000 is that the -800, being the 'shrink', becomes a less ideal replacement for the A330-200 than the smaller, lighter and more efficient 787-8.

In contrast, the 787 was targeted at the 767/A330 replacement market and is optimised around mid sized, medium to long haul missions. If it is to be stretched to 777-300ER size and capabilities, it may result in either a compromised airframe or one that is so heavily revised that it lacks commonality with the rest of the 787 family due to the necessity of using more powerful engines, larger landing gears (possibly needs triple bogies due to pavement loading issues), new wings and address ground clearance issues. Not having commonality with the rest of the family could result in higher production costs.

The 777X is a cheaper and less complex option.

Quoting sweair (Reply 67):
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.

  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1690 posts, RR: 1
Reply 122, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

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 787-10 will be the short legged 350/787 cousin, at about 12 hours. Why are the economics such that airlines are not wanting a 9-10 hour plane?


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 123, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5321 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 122):
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 787-10 will be the short legged 350/787 cousin, at about 12 hours. Why are the economics such that airlines are not wanting a 9-10 hour plane?

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 the 787-9, which is effectively the same size as the A330-300 in terms of passenger capacity, is a more efficient platform for the same mission, even though it is designed for considerably longer missions. And larger planes like the 787-10 and A350-900 can leverage those extra seats to lower their CASM (in addition to the technological advantages they enjoy). So you can use a larger and/or more capable plane and still enjoy better overall economics.

Yes, a new generation plane designed around a 9-10 hour mission would be better, but airlines do appear to favor having additional capability if it doesn't adversely effect the economics, even if those economics are not as good as they could be.

At the moment, the decision point appears to favor the more capable airframe.

[Edited 2012-11-15 10:18:22]

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5285 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
An 80m 787 will simply be too heavy for its own good, just like the A346 is today.

CFRP barrel strength lends itself to efficient stretch, unlike its metal counter part. IMO the 787 barrel will have distinct advantages over even the A350 panel approach as it stretches longer.
BTW was there any A346 airport manoeuvrability issues?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
A stretch to the proportions you suggest would have a further negative effect on range

How? You certainly would expect a new wing and center box, as in the 777X case, and a redesigned mlg. Therefore you are looking a upgauged class of 787 with higher fuel capacity and will match or exceed the range of the 777X.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
787-10
1 extra row J (60")
12 extra rows Y (32"x 9)

Total - 30 J 356 Y = 386

Imagine another 12m stretch (the wishful 787-12), it can allow EK like high density configuration another 100+ seats, bringing the total to near 500 seats. There is also the enormous cargo capability. Can it replace 777X?   


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 124):
How? You certainly would expect a new wing and center box, as in the 777X case, and a redesigned mlg. Therefore you are looking a upgauged class of 787 with higher fuel capacity and will match or exceed the range of the 777X.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
787-10
1 extra row J (60")
12 extra rows Y (32"x 9)

Total - 30 J 356 Y = 386

Imagine another 12m stretch (the wishful 787-12), it can allow EK like high density configuration another 100+ seats, bringing the total to near 500 seats. There is also the enormous cargo capability. Can it replace 777X?   

New Wing
New Center Wing Box
Redesigned Main Landing Gear

These three items alone would be tremendously expensive to design. It takes this further stretch out of commonality with the 787-8, 9 and 10. There isn't a economic case for doing this radical a change on the 787 frame.

The 77X would take over beyond the 787-10 for Boeing. It will be cheaper to do updates around that frame then to have to redesign large parts of a new aircraft.


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2077 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 124):
Imagine another 12m stretch (the wishful 787-12)

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:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 125):
New Wing
New Center Wing Box
Redesigned Main Landing Gear

These three items alone would be tremendously expensive to design. It takes this further stretch out of commonality with the 787-8, 9 and 10. There isn't a economic case for doing this radical a change on the 787 frame.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 125):
New Wing
New Center Wing Box
Redesigned Main Landing Gear

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 significatly redure the cost of making the 787-11 and -12.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5338 times:

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!

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 129, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
If it is to be stretched to 777-300ER size and capabilities, it may result in either a compromised airframe or one that is so heavily revised that it lacks commonality with the rest of the 787 family due to the necessity of using more powerful engines, larger landing gears (possibly needs triple bogies due to pavement loading issues), new wings and address ground clearance issues.

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 communality goes bye bye too...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
The 777X is a cheaper and less complex option.

Dream on. Not with a cfrp instead of an alu wing. The 787 already has the cfrp wing.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 125):
New Wing
New Center Wing Box
Redesigned Main Landing Gear

These three items alone would be tremendously expensive to design.

The first two to be precise. Exactly those that would change for the 77X too. And to make it much worse in case of the 77X the change is planned to incorporate a material revolution. A step not needed in case of the 781HGW.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 125):
The 77X would take over beyond the 787-10 for Boeing.

Also beyond the 77W. I think nobody at Airbus is worried if Boeing tries another time to conquer the uninteresting 400 seat market.

Somehow Boeing is throwing one upgraded alu design after another into the gap between the two most recent, brandnew Airbus widebodies. The air would be too thin in that market region for my taste...


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 130, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
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 communality goes bye bye too...

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 current 777 gear. It would have to use a unique center box.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
Dream on. Not with a cfrp instead of an alu wing. The 787 already has the cfrp wing.

But it's inadequate for anything heavier than the -10. A heavier plane would require significant enlarging and strengthening to make it suitable for a MTOW increase, which would be required for a larger than -10 787.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
The first two to be precise. Exactly those that would change for the 77X too. And to make it much worse in case of the 77X the change is planned to incorporate a material revolution. A step not needed in case of the 781HGW.

A 787-10HGW would require a new center wing box because it would need a stronger, larger wing and at least triple bogey main gear. The current -10 is as big as they can go with the current wing, center box and gear.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):

Also beyond the 77W. I think nobody at Airbus is worried if Boeing tries another time to conquer the uninteresting 400 seat market.

Somehow Boeing is throwing one upgraded alu design after another into the gap between the two most recent, brandnew Airbus widebodies. The air would be too thin in that market region for my taste...

Well, Airbus found it interesting enough to create the 350-1000 and Boeing is finding it plenty interesting with the sales of its current 77W. EK is doing very well with 400+seat 77W's...and they do want an even larger 777.

[Edited 2012-11-15 12:24:18]


What the...?
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5333 times:

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 found to be capable and the larger wing was shelved. That leads me to the B781 and what wing is intended for this aircraft?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 132, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5335 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 131):
Anyone know what happened to the original wing that was intended for the B789.

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 counter-balanced by the reduction in weight.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5337 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
Somehow Boeing is throwing one upgraded alu design after another into the gap between the two most recent, brandnew Airbus widebodies

- 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 350-1000, which is different from the smaller versions. As for 400 seat market being uninteresting - who knows, with eventual economy growth, and something "interesting" being offered... That is, it can still go either way.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 134, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
Somehow Boeing is throwing one upgraded alu design after another into the gap between the two most recent, brandnew Airbus widebodies. The air would be too thin in that market region for my taste...

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 find success, as well. *shrug*


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 127):
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 significatly redure the cost of making the 787-11 and -12.

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 whole aircraft in mind. Using the 777 gear will throw off everything from balance to weight ratios and other metrics already settled when they put the 788/789 designs in place. A new 787 wing won't make sense economically, same with a new wing box.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

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.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 137, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5308 times:

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 the wing and a few other things and having a 787-9X, 787-10X and 787-11X exist at that point. Particularly if they have looked at a new narrow body aircraft and its largest member is poaching on the 787-8's territory at that point.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1333 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 131):
Anyone know what happened to the original wing that was intended for the B789.


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 increasing the MTOW.

So while the added weight of the wing saved fuel on longer missions, it didn't add range or capability. And it burned fuel on short missions. Not worth the time or money.

Sounds like somebody could come up with a winglet program for the 787-9 in the future though.


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
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 counter-balanced by the reduction in weight.

Good explanation. Does that mean the current wing on the 8 and 9 is also planned for the 10?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 140, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5365 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 139):
Good explanation. Does that mean the current wing on the 8 and 9 is also planned for the 10?

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 (between 3-5000 pounds higher thrust) for the -9 and -10 to improve field performance with the current wing.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 141, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 120):
In this flight global article from yesterday, Randy Tinseth is quoted as 6800-7000nm. So you are right in the wheelhouse on it. Udvar-Hazy wants it to be right at the 7000nm mark.

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 323 max.passenger will stretch out to about 6950nm. A 300 seat version at ~129t would allow ~7200nm.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 142, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 66):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 wing) although probably more likely.
On the contrary, the A350XWB was designed specifically with the 77W replacement market in mind. From the very outset it was envisaged that there would be an A350-1000 model with similar size and capability as the 777-300ER. The result of this focus on optimising the A350XWB family around the -1000 is that the -800, being the 'shrink', becomes a less ideal replacement for the A330-200 than the smaller, lighter and more efficient 787-8.

In contrast, the 787 was targeted at the 767/A330 replacement market and is optimised around mid sized, medium to long haul missions. If it is to be stretched to 777-300ER size and capabilities, it may result in either a compromised airframe or one that is so heavily revised that it lacks commonality with the rest of the 787 family due to the necessity of using more powerful engines, larger landing gears (possibly needs triple bogies due to pavement loading issues), new wings and address ground clearance issues. Not having commonality with the rest of the family could result in higher production costs.

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 seats whereas the important 350 seat category will be defended by the 777-8X - an inefficient shrink of the 9X that cannot hope to compete with the CASM of the 35J. There has not been a single kind word said about the 8X with most analysts describing its case as weak and airlines reported to be also unhappy with the concept.
Boeing seem to have pitched the 8X as a token gesture to tick the box for the all important 350 seat category.

Boeing have made a massive investment of up to $30B in the 787 program which should be ideal to leverage to provide a suitable aircraft that would provide formidiable competition to the 35J as opposed to the weak kneed 777-8X. The 787 is not really that much smaller than the 350 with the 788/9/10 models in the 250/290/320 seat category as opposed to the 358/9/J at 270/314/350 seats. The base 788 is quite a short & stubby aircraft which is sized to replace the 332 rather than the 763. I think it is reasonable to expect the 787 can be stretched to around 330 or 340 seats.

While this increase in gross weight would require a modified wing, new MLG and centre wing box I feel that this investment would be easily justified by the much larger volume of sales that a highly competitive aircraft would generate in comparison to the lethargic 77L type sales volumes of the 777-8X. I dont see the R&D costs being higher than those for the 777X. The 787 platform provides state of the art materials and systems which dont need to be changed - this is where the savings are. Such a program could run parallel to a minor 77W upgrade - internal widening and engine improvments.

I'm not convinced that Boeing's current strategy is making the best use of their existing resources to compete against the 35J. Their strategy is also predicated on airlines happily migrating from the 350 seat to 400 seat category for an aircraft that will still have inferior CASM to the 35J - thats a significant risk.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 143, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 142):
There has not been a single kind word said about the 8X with most analysts describing its case as weak and airlines reported to be also unhappy with the concept. Boeing seem to have pitched the 8X as a token gesture to tick the box for the all important 350 seat category.

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 up three rows of Economy seating (27 seats) or one row each of Business and Economy (15 seats). The A350-900 also looks like it will have a slightly superior payload-range chart. The 787-9 will be lighter and will burn less fuel, but depending on the mission, the extra payload of the A350-900 could help address the extra fuel burn. The 787-10 will offer better capacity than the A350-900, but it will offer significantly less range at maximum payload.

The 777-8X is clearly meant to be Boeing's direct answer to the A350-900. It's a meter longer and it can seat 10-abreast in Economy, so it will offer a fair bit more capacity than the A350-900 - over 40 Economy seats. It will also have superior range (especially in 777-8L guise). The drawbacks are it will likely be heavier and have higher fuel burn so, like the 777-9, it needs to fill those extra seats to make it's economic case - just as the A350-800 (and A350-900) have to in order to make their case against the 787-8 (and 787-9).

However, the "shrinks" (777-8 and A350-800) also have to make their economic case against their bigger sisters. If the trip and operating costs of the 777-9 are close to the 777-8, then you only buy the 8 if you must have the extra range (especially for the -8L). It is the same for the A350-800(HGW) against the A350-900.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 144, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 122):
The 787-10 will be the short legged 350/787 cousin, at about 12 hours. Why are the economics such that airlines are not wanting a 9-10 hour plane?

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 cargo along with the passengers. Weight that both adds fuel burn and reduces the fuel that can be carried


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 145, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 144):
You forget that the quoted range is passenger only

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


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 146, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Boeing's issue is they not only have to compete with the A350-1000, but also the A350-900.

Yes but as you point out, the 789 and 787-10 are both very healthy competitors for the 359.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
The 777-8X is clearly meant to be Boeing's direct answer to the A350-900. It's a meter longer and it can seat 10-abreast in Economy, so it will offer a fair bit more capacity than the A350-900 - over 40 Economy seats.

This is where it gets confusing, I tend to see the 8X as part of Boeings response to the 35J as its seating capacity is much closer to the 35J than the 359. Again I see the 359 being countered far more effectively by the 789/10 than by the 777-8X. I expect airlines to actively consider the 789, 787-10 and 777-9X for their needs and be somewhat reluctant to consider the 777-8X. It would be quite a small niche market where the 777-8X does a better job than the 789, 359, 787-10 or 35J.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 147, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 130):
A heavier plane would require significant enlarging and strengthening to make it suitable for a MTOW increase, which would be required for a larger than -10 787.

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...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 130):
EK is doing very well with 400+seat 77W's...and they do want an even larger 777.

If I look at the A380 I feel that EK alone is not a good indicator how broadly a design will hit the market...

Quoting RIX (Reply 133):
787-10IGW may make sense also as a base for yet another stretch, similarly to 350-1000, which is different from the smaller versions.

That is exactly the 787 version I meant.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
Somehow Boeing is throwing one upgraded alu design after another into the gap between the two most recent, brandnew Airbus widebodies. The air would be too thin in that market region for my taste...

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 find success, as well. *shrug*

The difference though is that Airbus had to end up with a new brandnew design to do that. While Boeing repeadetly is producing upgrades of older design...


User currently offlinepellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2217 posts, RR: 8
Reply 148, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 145):
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..

?????

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 875,000lbs TOW were always 7,200-7,400nm range with max fuel and a regular passenger load.

We don't disagree. But the "787-10" doesn't even have circa-2012 A330-200 range. It's going to slot in right around 6,300-6,500nm at passenger load.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 149, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5285 times:

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 148):
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

I think the latest iteration of the 332 (238t) is out to around 7200nm.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 150, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 148):
We don't disagree. But the "787-10" doesn't even have circa-2012 A330-200 range. It's going to slot in right around 6,300-6,500nm at passenger load

I trhink we do disagree    . At least based on OEW. If you are working with DOW you are probably about right.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 151, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5302 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 148):
But the "787-10" doesn't even have circa-2012 A330-200 range. It's going to slot in right around 6,300-6,500nm at passenger load.

????

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 750Nm with pax only load.
Latest 238t ones are approaching 7 200Nm
The Boeing 747-400 according to Boeing's ACAP is c. 7 200Nm with pax only load.

For my education, which bit of

Quoting astuteman (Reply 145):
is by no means shabby. It's not too far off the range of the 744..

does this contradict?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 150):
I think we do disagree

even whilst agreeing.
Ah well.
I guess if it's an issue for some to emphasize that the A330-200 has never quite had the range of a 744 I can live with that.
All I was trying to point out is that the 787-10 will be "a little bit more capable" than an RJ
No matter

Rgds


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 152, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5468 times:

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/art...ls-787-10-to-replace-a330s-379045/

There's a separate thread running on that, but it seems that there is a mounting number (still small, but with a significant number of "big hitters") expressing an interest:

So far, as far as I can see, we have:

CX
QR
QF
BA
LH
SQ

Any others I've missed?


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5468 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 151):
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 750Nm with pax only load.
Latest 238t ones are approaching 7 200Nm

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 -200 less so, perhaps airlines didn't find it to be lacking range anyway...


Quoting kaitak (Reply 152):
So far, as far as I can see, we have:

CX
QR
QF
BA
LH
SQ

Any others I've missed?

BR and SK have also expressed their interest earlier. Pretty sure NH, JL and TG will be interested as well, as 773 replacement.



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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 154, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days ago) and read 5454 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 153):
BR and SK have also expressed their interest earlier. Pretty sure NH, JL and TG will be interested as well, as 773 replacement.

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 next year"!

I know others will certainly be interested, but for now, I just wanted to make a list of those which had publicly expressed an interest.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 155, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days ago) and read 5450 times:

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 with range they often don't need.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 156, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days ago) and read 5487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 152):
CX has expressed an interest in the 787-10, as a 333 replacement, but obviously also interested in its longer range.

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 Economy Class hard product experience" across CX's future widebody fleet.

If CX is now willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 787, perhaps they are willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 777 (the 777-9X)?

A new thread on the CX consideration has been opened at Cathay Mulls 787-10 To Replace A330s (by CCA Nov 16 2012 in Civil Aviation)



Quoting pellegrine (Reply 148):
A332 never had the range of the B744.

The 240t A330-200 looks to have a range at MZFW of around 4900nm while the 397t 747-400 is at 5250nm, so they are closing.

[Edited 2012-11-16 06:50:50]

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5455 times:

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 from the Boeing board until early next year"

"The stealthy aspect of the ATO remains equally intriguing, though it is believed to be more closely linked to a desire to firm up a batch of initial launch customers than any last-minute uncertainty over the final configuration. "


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 158, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So the Board did grant Authority to Offer.

At least we can put that to bed, now.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 159, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days ago) and read 5415 times:

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 than 7,000 lb. heavier than the 787-9 now in initial assembly.

and in the Nov 7th article he says....

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.


Is he saying the same thing or is he saying , in effect , that the 787-10 will have ~ a 254t MTOW. I believe it was Stitch who pointed out that in the Nov 7th article he was probably referring to an earlier MTOW for the 789 which was subsequently increased to the present ~250t.


User currently onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2540 posts, RR: 5
Reply 160, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days ago) and read 5416 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 124):
BTW was there any A346 airport manoeuvrability issues?

I'm not entirely sure if it did or not. But it's not as long as the 80m 787 that you're suggesting.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 124):
How? You certainly would expect a new wing and center box, as in the 777X case, and a redesigned mlg. Therefore you are looking a upgauged class of 787 with higher fuel capacity and will match or exceed the range of the 777X.

The main landing gear would have to be completely redesigned to handle an increased MTOW as well as addressing ground clearance issues so that the plane can accept a larger, higher thrust engine. It'll also need triple bogie gears to handle the extra pavement loading. The 777X won't need those changes (at most, perhaps a minimal change to the landing gear to address the rotation issues caused by the 2.7m stretch) because the 777-300ER already has a higher MTOW than the 777-9X. The gear can handle the weight just fine.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 124):
CFRP barrel strength lends itself to efficient stretch, unlike its metal counter part.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it, it's not the barrel or the panel that defines how much the plane can be stretched, but the structure itself. That is, to an extent, dependent on fuselage diameter: a narrower aircraft of the same length will generally be less stiff than a wider aircraft. Stretching a narrower aircraft would require strengthening of the structure to maintain stiffness. That would add weight.

SEPilot explained this point better:

777X Vs 787-11/12 (by morrisond Sep 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)#26

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
The stiffness works as the fourth power of the diameter; this means that a relatively small increase in diameter has a huge increase in stiffness. Also, the stiffness to strength ratio for CFRP is lower than for aluminum, which means with the same strength you will get more deflection with CFRP as opposed to aluminum (hence the much greater wing flex with CFRP wings). Fuselage flex with an airliner is much more important than wing flex, and hence with the CFRP fuselage (especially with the smaller diameter) and a very long fuselage you may have to add structure to get the necessary stiffness beyond what is required for structural strength. Hence you may lose the weight savings of CFRP. Overall, you are probably better off with the larger diameter Al fuselage rather than trying to extend a smaller diameter CFRP fuselage to get the same capacity. There comes a point (as the A346 proved) where a extending a given fuselage diameter is a case of diminishing returns, and that will be true no matter what the material; however with different materials that point will be different. Unfortunately, I believe the point for Al is farther out than for CFRP.
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 125):
There isn't a economic case for doing this radical a change on the 787 frame.

  

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
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 communality goes bye bye too...

Lack of commonality between the 777-9X and the 777-300ER, unless it poses problems with using a grandfathered certification for the type, shouldn't be too much of an issue as one is designed to replace the other. But the "787-11ER" that you suggest, unless it is meant to replace the currently available 787s, will be produced in the same line. I don't think having to produce a distinct set of parts for one member of the family is a very efficient means of production.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
Dream on. Not with a cfrp instead of an alu wing. The 787 already has the cfrp wing.

Not one that's big enough to handle the "787-11ER" you propose. Therefore, a new wing would need to be produced for such an aircraft.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 129):
And to make it much worse in case of the 77X the change is planned to incorporate a material revolution.

Boeing has had quite a bit of experience with the use of composites. Many aircraft produced these days, even if they have a metallic fuselage, has a number of elements made from composite. It's not as if it is an entirely new thing for Boeing to do. As they have already designed a CFRP wing for the 787, the CFRP wing for the 777X shouldn't be any more of a challenge ... (I say that in relative terms as nothing in aircraft design can ever be "simple").

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 130):
A 787-10HGW would require a new center wing box because it would need a stronger, larger wing and at least triple bogey main gear. The current -10 is as big as they can go with the current wing, center box and gear.

  

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 142):
Boeing seem to have pitched the 8X as a token gesture to tick the box for the all important 350 seat category.

I agree. I don't think the base 777-8X will have much of a future. Unlike its ultra long range sibling, the 777-8LX, the 777-8X isn't going to have the range advantage to fall back on.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's curtains for the 777X program because the 777-8LX and the 777-9X, along with a possible future 777F, can still spawn from it. On the one hand, I agree that the 787-10 and the A350-900 is most likely going be more successful than the 777-8X in the 320-350 seat category, but on the other, I don't think that the 777X, particularly the 777-9X, can ever be truly supplanted by a 787 derivative. That's why the 777X program as a whole makes sense, whereas doing a larger, longer range 787 poses an entirely new set of challenges for Boeing to counter.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 142):
I think it is reasonable to expect the 787 can be stretched to around 330 or 340 seats.

I'm not so sure about that, for reasons I have already mentioned.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 142):
While this increase in gross weight would require a modified wing, new MLG and centre wing box I feel that this investment would be easily justified by the much larger volume of sales that a highly competitive aircraft would generate in comparison to the lethargic 77L type sales volumes of the 777-8X.

If the 777-8X was the only derivative planned under the 777X program, I would agree with that. But it's not.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 142):
I dont see the R&D costs being higher than those for the 777X. The 787 platform provides state of the art materials and systems which dont need to be changed - this is where the savings are. Such a program could run parallel to a minor 77W upgrade - internal widening and engine improvments.

I don't dispute that the 787 in its size range is a state-of-the-art platform, but I also believe that stretching it beyond 787-10 size would pose challenges that would not be insignificant, for reasons already mentioned.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 147):
The difference though is that Airbus had to end up with a new brandnew design to do that. While Boeing repeadetly is producing upgrades of older design...

So?

If an upgrade would yield a competitive aircraft, what's the point in doing an all new one?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 156):
If CX is now willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 787, perhaps they are willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 777 (the 777-9X)?

I think that if CX were to order the 787-10, it would be configured in an 8-abreast layout in order to keep on board product commonality with the rest of the fleet. I would guess that they hadn't considered doing the same with the 787-8 or 787-9 is that the cost per seat equation in an 8-abreast layout isn't quite to CX's liking, whereas the larger size of the 787-10 would lower that number somewhat, despite the 8-abreast economy layout.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 161, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5376 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 160):
I would guess that they hadn't considered doing the same with the 787-8 or 787-9 is that the cost per seat equation in an 8-abreast layout isn't quite to CX's liking, whereas the larger size of the 787-10 would lower that number somewhat, despite the 8-abreast economy layout.

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 distance the fuel burn /seat is 279.4kg. For the same distance the 789 with 280-seats with 9-abreast in economy has a fuel burn of 275.28kg/seat or about a 1.5% spread. There are probably savings to be had based on the extra 17-seats . Thus I would think an 8-abreast layout 787-10 could be very attractive for some of the premium carriers


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 162, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5336 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 161):

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 160):
I would guess that they hadn't considered doing the same with the 787-8 or 787-9 is that the cost per seat equation in an 8-abreast layout isn't quite to CX's liking, whereas the larger size of the 787-10 would lower that number somewhat, despite the 8-abreast economy layout.

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 distance the fuel burn /seat is 279.4kg. For the same distance the 789 with 280-seats with 9-abreast in economy has a fuel burn of 275.28kg/seat or about a 1.5% spread. There are probably savings to be had based on the extra 17-seats . Thus I would think an 8-abreast layout 787-10 could be very attractive for some of the premium carriers

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 even??

[Edited 2012-11-17 17:44:16]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 163, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5253 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 156):
If CX is now willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 787, perhaps they are willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 777 (the 777-9X)?

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 -10 for Dragonair...



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 164, posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 5061 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 163):
nstead, I could imagine CX going for 2+4+2 in 787-10 economy class cabin, and 3+3+3 in the 777-9X.

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's 16 inches, Boeing would need to find 7 inches of additional cabin width to keep 18-inch seats at 3+4+3. At 17.5 inches, however, they would need only to find about 3 inches (by shrinking the aisles from 17 inches to 16 inches).


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2077 posts, RR: 1
Reply 165, posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 164):
I do not know what the minimum aisle width is per certification authorities, but assuming it's 16 inches, Boeing would need to find 7 inches of additional cabin width to keep 18-inch seats at 3+4+3. At 17.5 inches, however, they would need only to find about 3 inches (by shrinking the aisles from 17 inches to 16 inches).

I remember reading somewhere (think it was flightglobal) that they would be adjusting the interior walls to allow an additional 4 inches in cabin width, If I find it ill link it here.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2077 posts, RR: 1
Reply 166, posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

Just did a quick google search and found it:

Quote:
In the cabin, Boeing looks to remove 4in from the 777X by carving the sidewall and frame shape, accommodating a more comfortable 10-abreast economy arrangement and nine-abreast premium economy offering.

From here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 167, posted (1 year 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

If LH would buy SAS maybe they would use the 787-10 for SK?

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 168, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 4167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 167):

If LH would buy SAS maybe they would use the 787-10 for SK?

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