NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5634 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 32089 times:
If it's done today it's no mistake, they're trying to steal some of the A350 thunder since Airbus has schedule its first flight tomorrow. The 787-10 and the A350-900 are the two that compete directly head-to-head.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5634 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 31816 times:
There'll be alot of orders from those that use the 777-200ER. Great replacement for that aircraft even though it's less than 20 years old by the time the -10 comes on line it could start replaceing 22-25 year old 772ERs.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 31652 times:
Quoting ap305 (Reply 6): It could smell more like a conversion to a larger bird on the other side too?
25 787-9 and 25 A359 - would make sense (although A359 is not a 747 replacement to me, I'm sorry)
25 787-9, xx 787-10 and 25 A350-1000 - makes no sense to me.
I'd rather see a change into a large number of A321 NEO for replacement of the PMCO (TATL) 757s.
777-8X as replacement for 777 pacific ops and 777-9X as 747 replacement. I already abandoned hope for a 747-8 order.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 31472 times:
Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1): Interesting ... I smell a cancelation on the other side.
UA has a financial incentive not to cancel the A350 order as it was tied into the A320s that were cancelled in Ch. 11. UA would be on the hook for the cancellation fees, which would probably be higher than for a normal order.
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3009 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 31096 times:
Quoting ap305 (Reply 6): There'll be alot of orders from those that use the 777-200ER.
Agreed. I could definitely see a significant amount of the A330 replacement market going this way as well. Those frames used on regional routes would be ideal.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): The only thing I care about is the technical pdf
Can't wait. If trip cost is lower than the A359 up to around 5000nm it will be a winner.
Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10): 25 787-9, xx 787-10 and 25 A350-1000 - makes no sense to me.
Why not? That lineup makes a lot of sense to me. If you need range and have demand for around 300 seats you go with the 789, if you don't need all of the range you go with the 781 and if you need more seats and more range you go with the 351. I think that would be an excellent UA lineup.
No. That is 200nm above the 7100 max range. I do not imagine you will see too many 787-10s crossing the pacific (Maybe Japanese birds in low density). North America to Europe or South America, Middle East to Asia or Europe, Inter Asia/Australasia will be its primary uses.
Quoting Miami (Reply 18):
I wonder if AA and EK will order the 787-10..
IMO, AA definitely (77E replacement) and EK definitely not (too small).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29467 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 28811 times:
I see no reason for UA to cancel the A350-900 order - the 787-10 is not going to be able to perform missions like LAX/SFO-EU that are currently operated by the 777-200ER. Yes, the 787-9 has the legs to do it, but the 787-9 can't take the 2+4+2 Global Business Class product used on the 77E which means they will be either using the 767-300ER GB product or the 2+2+2 BusinessFirst product and the extra row the A350-900 can take of either will be welcomed.
I recall EK left the door open for the 787-10. Even though EK has a LARGE A350 order, I think they also spoke with Boeing about the 787-10 and wouldn't be surprised if they reduce their A350 order (in favor of more A380s which hasn't been ruled out) to get the 787s.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
Also recent reports suggest that they are considering a new wide body order.
I believe they have delayed their 787-8 deliveries out past the 787-10 EIS, so they could convert the orders without impacting their delivery positions while still giving them plenty of time to get ready for them.
: With 7100nm range the 787-10 will have no problem performing any LAX/SFO-EU routes. LAX to IST is the longest route from LAX to Europe, and at 5970nm
: Agreed...I can see a handful of 787-10s coming in to replace the 772A models and possibly some of the 772ERs used on East Coast US - Europe, where th
: That range is just passengers and baggage. The 787-10 will have a massive cargo capability so the more important number is what the range will be wit
: I thought UA was sticking with the old CO layout anyway, which should be 2-2-2 in either the A350 or 787. But I agree that the A350 order isn't going
: Passenger only routes might be perfectly viable in the 787-10. During high season it flys full of passengers, and on weaker seasons it shifts to carg
: The CEO of LH Franz said a few weeks ago that LH will not be the launch customer of the 787-10X but it is still under consideration. As it is also be
: 787-10 will not have legs to do Central US/East Coast to Asia flights when fully loaded. A350-1000 and 787-9 for Asia and 787-10 for Europe and Latin
: So UA has seen interest in the 787-10X I see, are they still studying the A350-1000 to replace 747-400's?? The 787's will probably replace the 777-200
: You are correct on that but even with all that said the 787-10 should be able to perform LAX/SFO to all of west Europe with full pax and a decent car
: It makes perfect sense to me. 787-10 to replace 772s and 77Es that don't need the range. They can better use the A350-900 for that. They have a great
: It was SUH who asked for 100-200nm of extra range on the 787-10. After doing a number of scenarios I wonder if it was these routes that he had in min
: By the time the 787-10 comes out, DL should have more manageable debt levels of $5-$7 Billion dollars. The 787-10 is the only aircraft not ordered th
: From a Bloomberg Article: 14/month by 2015! "While the planemaker isn’t discussing goals beyond 2013, Boeing will need a faster rate to fill more t
: If LH doesn't buy the 787-10, we'll know all their carping about A & B designing airplanes with too much range capability wasn't serious.
: A "big plane" in EK terms also means range. Tim Clark keeps on pushing more range for new jets and I think the 78J doesn't have the desired range.
: Wow. Then indeed the 787-10 will be too small for EK. I wonder why they haven't converted at least some of the A359s to -1000s, the -900 lacks 50 sea
: I'm pretty sure they will convert some. In a recent interview, Clark said he wants to see real data from the aircraft before making the decision.
: AC has announced internally that all options after the original 37 deliveries of -8s and -9s, will be -10s.
: The 787-10 and the -9 will most likely the best selling variants of the 787 family.
: OldAero makes a point I wanted to yesterday about LH...they complain about weight and range and yet here's a plane in the 10X that is tailored made fo
: I don't know why would UA buy the 787-10 when the A350XWB-900 can eventually replace ALL of the older 777's in the UA fleet--and has the range to easi
: Because the 787-10 is likely to be more efficient on shorter-length flights than the A350-900.
: So much for JL assertion that the 787-10 will be another 767-400.
: Who takes him seriously on most Boeing matters anyway? It's the guy's job to downplay - even diss - the competition.
: I think they will. As they ordered before the redesign I believe they have the ability to walk away from the order without losing the deposits and bu
: Why would Boeing design the 787-10 with a range that restricts US West Coast to Europe? Its seems a plane the size of the 787-10 would be very popular
: If true than the 787 is out. EK would go 359, 351, 779, 380 for their eventual fleet.
: Great news. . Why? I can easily see many more A350's coming to UA as well (that is what you are hinting at, right?). But why would they throw away de
: I cannot see any reason for United to cancel their A350's at all. The 350 promises to be a very good aircraft and like Delta has made a habit of doing
: I don't believe your information is correct. MUN-LAX is 12hr 20min timetable time , a 787-10 with a 254.8t MTOW will haul 38t for a sector of this ti
: If they chose they could operate a -10 in a high density of about 400-passengers at max volume limited payload from just about anywhere in Europe wes
: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it's clear they won't take all their A359's? It's always worth being careful just where you put your nose R
: Great analysis. This is why United will need the 351 in its fleet. The 359 will be less important but I think the 351 becomes nearly essential. And i
: Looks like the 787 is going to have its best sales year since 2007, and even do better in the first half of 2013 than in any of past 5 full calendar y
: Huh? What do you mean too expensive? Anderson was on TV not to long basically beggin Boeing to offer This.
: You know, costs too much, not cheap enough. It's pretty clear. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...delta-planes-idUSL2N0E31GI20130522
: Wise choice. I've often wondered if AC even needs the 788 and if they wouldn't be better off with -9s and -10s.
: Bloomberg is reporting that Qatar is going to buy more787 at Paris. I wouldn't be surprised is they're going to buy the -10 and use the 30 options the
: This is probably something DL will jump on eventually. Also, this is probably what Boeing will launch into battle to compete with Airbus A350 over NH'
: Qatar will also buy more 777-300ER aircraft.
: 290 seats - 320 seats - 350 seats -> makes perfect sense? Plus, the -1000 can be used for the longe-range routes. And even United is now going thi
: If a 789 781 a351 combo makes sense for US Mainlines and apparently others that's not saying a lot about 779 - which should have cockpit commonalitiy
: You should ask yourself, how much more efficient would a new build be over the updated 777? The NSA would only be like 5-7% more effcient over the ma
: The first 37 are cast in stone with -8s and -9s, the remaining options can be anything. They will need the -8s if they are ever going to retire the B
: It frankly says nothing about the 778/779. There are only about ~6/7 77Ws currently operating with US carriers, all with one carrier, and only 40 pas
: Patience... the 777X only has ATO since a few weeks. The 787-10 already has ATO for more than half a year, and the first order is just in. Expect EK,
: I guess it depends on how QR defines "launch customer" - it it first to fly, or first to buy? QR could order the 787-10 at PAS with SQ, UA, et. al.,
: That's what I'm thinking as well. I mentioned in another thread that Tortugamon replied on, they might just want to order some some after everybody e
: That would make 110 orders for aircraft with nominal seating between 314 and 350 seats versus 69 total on-hand wide body aircraft. Very interesting f
: These are not orders, just options ... basically reserving a line spot. Those options are still unspecified, and considering the size of the AC order
: If Boeing is able to announce 110 firm orders for the 787-10 at Le Bourget, they would then have reached 1000 orders for all versions of the 787...not
: Right. I can see Boeing saying that you have the right to buy 787s for delivery between this date and that date and maybe even specified pricing as w
: If you consider the DC-10 and MD-11 to be one family, then they were first: DC-10-10: 131 DC-10-30: 206 MD-11: 200 Though at that point, you could pr
: I'm not sure I would argue that the DC-10-10 and DC-10-30 are different sizes
: Come on Stitch, you are such a wet blanket with all of your facts! Different fuse dimensions and different wing though. Very different wing and 2 engi
: The DC-10 and MD-11 have the same fuselage.
: Not according to: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=112 http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=279 tortugamon
: I do not know where you are getting that they have different fuselages from those links. They have the same fuselage cross section, the MD-11's is ju
: *smacks head* That is what I get for being in a hurry and not knowing jack about the DC-10 family.
: A330-200, A330-300, A340-300 same wing, same fuselage, same cockpit minus two trust levers for the A330, same type rating,designed and sold as "one"
: Not sure yet in that area. Boeing have plenty of orders for both their current models - 535 for the B788, 355 for the B789 - and sound pretty confide
: If there is any doubt that the 359 and 3510 will sell like hotcakes, then I'm at a loss as to what to say? The 358 is arguably the weak link but even
: I am sorry for doubting some of Airbus thinking but I see no real market for the A358, I just cant see the use of this model. I however can see a 787-
: NAV would look at the charge of Marshall Ney at Waterloo, just before they engaged, and turn the set off, declaring Napoleon the winner.... I think w
: STILL flogging that horse? Your analysis also conveniently forgets the hundreds of A330s that Airbus has sold (and is still selling) since the 787 wa
: On the contrary, scrimbl, I think that the fact that the A330 has proved to be an excellent and enduring product, and has just gone on selling, may h
: From an interview with Airbus' CEO on June 17, Fabrice Bregier explained: As result of this "aggressively marketing", orders for the -1000 have alrea
: Just came across this past thread: QR As The Launch 787-10 Customer? (by rotating14 Nov 13 2012 in Civil Aviation) Looks like so far QR is not anywher
: it almost undoubtedly is. However, the infantry are still forming into squares. We've got nowhere near seeing Uxbridge's counterattack, and the Pruss
: Maybe a bit of a misunderstanding, KarelXWB. I'm not saying that either aeroplane won't succeed - indeed, I expect that they both will, in the fullne
: @NAV- youre missing the UA conversions & BA, SQ orders/ firm commitments in your count for the A35J
: Billions? The -1000 is a stretch, it doesn't cost billions to develop. I assume you meant millions. Anyway, given the large interest by many carries
: Looks like BA is ordering 10! http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...feed=OBR&date=20130616&id=16600771 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/..
: That's a surprise, I expected they would order 18 units.
: Fair enough, mate - nearly typed 'millions,' I'm pretty 'old-fashioned.' But hkcanadaexpat just kindly provided a link that confirms that any order f
: Both sources say "about 10", your expectation still might be correct...
: We were talking about development costs, not sale values. It would not make sense to order only 10 units. The new order for 18 787 aircraft will repl
: At least a billion is the right answer -- you're looking at almost a year long flight test program with probably 3 airplanes, that's not cheap.
: Six months flight testing, not a year. Additionally, those test frames will be sold.
: Reuters is saying that the -10 will launch with up to 100 orders worth just under $30 billion. Doesn't say who though. Link: http://www.reuters.com/ar
: Flightglobal has this RR article about the Trent Ten. They are targeting a 3% improvement compared to today's Trent 1000 engine which is 2% better tha
: Also, is anyone surprised to hear that the entry into service of the Trent Ten engine is 2016? We have been hearing that the 787-10x will enter servic
: The article has been updated with more information: > Official price tag of around $280-290 million per plane > Due to enter service in 2018-19
: This has always been the plan and was already reported in 2012 I believe. Stretching is not just producing larger parts but there will be a design ph
: you need the engine a year or two before the plane its on enters service. Its... very difficult to certify something that doesn't exist.
: With 78000lbs of thrust from this engine the 787-10 will get out of JNB on a 25c day at ~251t MTOW. This will put it at about 6400nm with max passeng
: I did not ask if anyone was not surprised Figured you were up to speed on the progress even though it surprised me. Well the 787-9 engine is not yet
: The 787-9 can fly with the current Trent 1000 Package B, package C is only a fuel burn improvement. The 787-10 on the other hand depends on the Trent
: Not if the Trent-TEN finds its way on the 787-9 starting in 2016.
: Gotcha. You guys are seeing the Trent Ten more as an SFC upgrade for the whole family rather than a distinct new engine for the -10. Essentially a mo
: I am sure they can. Just as GE will counter with further upgrades on their engines as well. It is a very interesting race, not only between Airbus an
: The 359 just flew this week - and you are using (distant) orders as a basis for their success? Interesting... -Dave
: I'd ask a different question? Is this possibly the reason for the 6800 nmi to 7100 nmi upgrade on the 787-10 that was originally marteked and is as a
: Very true and that is true of not just this aircraft. Even with GE as sole provider on the 777X I am sure they are very motivated to do what they can
: A 2% improvement in SFC improves the range of the 787-10 at max passenger load by less than 200nm. I believe they are getting the improvement from 67
: It should be the 97klbf Trent XWB and 5% makes sense. Here is how I think all these new engines stack up: Fuel burn per delivered lbf at best altitud
: Do we have any idea how much additional MEW it is to get that 3t MTOW bump? Its great to see the updated analysis Ferpe. I guess the key question is
: Dave, Airbus has done very well to get the A359 into the air so quickly - and they have plenty of orders for that. But the emphasis now is on testing
: The weight escalation for an increase in MTOW is called the spiral factor (more weight means more stress on structure which means more structure weig
: Always looking for the dark cloud are we? Neither model is going into production at this stage. A350-1000's first flight is scheduled in 2016, A350-8
: There might be none (beyond the extra OEW imposed in the 5.5m stretch itself) as the landing gear is said to be good for 254t (which would be 3t more
: Agreed, Stitch, but the 787 was literally 'experimental,' a new venture facing next to no competition from above or below. The A350 is the direct opp
: It faced competition from the A330 and the original A350 families. And both of those types - the A330-300 and 777-300ER - look to be very much at ris
: Meant the 788 rather than the A330, Stitch. Agree with you about the threat from the 1000, though; which is why, as far as I recall, we both think Air
: And they have stated that they are not longer interested in the 787-1000. It's very likely that the decision for new wide body will be either for the
: Sure we do. It's been discussed ad nauseum. The A350-1000 is years away from rollout and there was a general uncertainty about what Boeing was going
: Which is surprising considering they have been complaining about aircraft being "overbuilt" for long range. Of the three, the 787-10 is the least "ov
: So somewhere in between 0 and 1t MEW increase. Sounds like it was probably worth it. Thanks guys. tortugamon
: That is very interesting. The surge line in 40-24 will be gone and building all 3 types on the same line 40-26 is something I don't see happen duo to
: Isn't that horse dead yet? They will both be built. Indeed. It will lead to the inevitable disappointment. For the -1000, he may only have to wait un
: GECAS has ordered 10 787-10X to be powered by GEnx, deliveries 2019 to 2021.
: I beleive the plant at CHS has a total of 8 positions.