Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787-10 Launch Imminent  
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33139 times:

The 787-10 will be launched during the Paris airshow. The WSJ has also revealed the launch customers:

> Air Lease
> British Airways
> Singapore Airlines
> United Airlines

More news soon..

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/345277009481592832

[Edited 2013-06-13 13:38:10]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
174 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33015 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
> United Airlines

Interesting ... I smell a cancelation on the other side.

Bummer that Lufthansa is not on the list - yet(?)


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33001 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32941 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 2):
The 787-10 and the A350-900 are the two that compete directly head-to-head.

They are not 1-to-1 competitors, they only overlap each other a bit.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32886 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Bummer that Lufthansa is not on the list - yet(?)

I believe LH will announce its wide-body order later this year, but not during the Paris airshow.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32754 times:

Tit-for-tat. Neither side want the other to have all of the media attention. Timing absolutely has something to do with A359 first flight.
Exciting times.

tortugamon


User currently offlineap305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32751 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Interesting ... I smell a cancelation on the other side.

It could smell more like a conversion to a larger bird on the other side too?


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2699 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32733 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):

That's exactly what I thought as well. The 787-10 in UA-cls. This will be a beautiful plane.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32728 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32726 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Timing absolutely has something to do with A359 first flight.

The only thing I care about is the technical pdf   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32564 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.

Sorry for hijacking .... back to topic.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32518 times:

Quoting ap305 (Reply 6):
It could smell more like a conversion to a larger bird on the other side too?

   I expect some conversions too (but not from SQ and BA, these are new orders).

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 8):
Great replacement for that aircraft

   I agree, unless one needs the full range of 772ER. The 78J will be an ~ 7100nm bird while the 772ER has a range of 7700nm.

[Edited 2013-06-13 14:09:28]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32440 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
I agree, unless one needs the full range of 772ER. The 78J will be an ~ 7100nm bird while the 772ER has a range of 7700nm.

Perfect, then, for operators of early 772ERs with slightly limited range compared to the later birds...   


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32384 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.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32335 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
I smell a cancelation on the other side.

I they cancel they will lose their deposits. It makes more sense to upgrade to the larger A350-1000 and use it as an 747 replacement (just like BA did).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32025 times:

WSJ saying launch in Paris with customers from US (UA, ALC), Europe (IAG), and Asia (Singapore Air).

[Edited 2013-06-13 14:40:56]


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32008 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.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
777-8X as replacement for 777 pacific ops

I cannot see them ever ordering the 777-8X. They do not own a 77F or a 77L, why would they need the 777-8 that the 351 could not do better?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
It makes more sense to upgrade to the larger A350-1000

Agreed.

Jon @WSJ:
Air Lease Corp... potentially ordering up to 30 of the new jets to lease to airlines, one of the people said.
User currently onlinepsa1011 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Could this mean a route like SFO-SIN?

User currently offlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 1022 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder if AA and EK will order the 787-10..


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31454 times:

How many aircraft do we think the launch order will be for?

30 SIA - Previously Announced
30 AL - Referenced in WSJ article
18 BA/IAG - Converted options assumed to be for the -10
~20? UA - W.A.G.

I am not sure that it is that unrealistic to assume that at launch it will have more orders than the 358 currently has.

If it launched at PAS, it could have more orders than the 351 by the end of the year.   

I really want to hear how they plan on executing the ramp up because IMO 12-14/month run rate is a must come 2017 if they want to have any decent slots open before 2020.

Quoting psa1011 (Reply 17):
Could this mean a route like SFO-SIN?

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).

tortugamon


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12431 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31459 times:

Quoting Miami (Reply 18):
I wonder if AA and EK will order the 787-10..

American, certainly, but I'd be doubtful about EK.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3057 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29131 times:

Quoting Miami (Reply 18):
EK will order the 787-10

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."
User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29134 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
but the 787-9 can't take the 2+4+2 Global Business Class product used on the 77E

Thank god!!! 2-4-2 in business should go away.

But I agree with your point in general that the 787 is no reason to cancel the the A350 order. The new 777 might be a different story, though.

Delta could be an early customer.

It wasn't that long ago that Richard Anderson said he would take it now if available:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000154946

Also recent reports suggest that they are considering a new wide body order.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 28860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting klkla (Reply 23):
Delta could be an early customer.

It wasn't that long ago that Richard Anderson said he would take it now if available:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000154946

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.


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 29759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):

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 should be easily doable by the 787-10.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 29169 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
I see no reason for UA to cancel the A350-900 order

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 that aircraft will shine. I think we will eventually see ~25-30 788s to replace the 762/763 and maybe some of the 757 routes, then maybe 20/20 789/78J for eventual 764 and sub-6000 nm 772 requirements.

The A350s will still be very useful for UA's network, especially across the Pacific. The only change I'd see is additional orders for some A350-1000s to replace the highest capacity 744 routes (HKG and SYD particularly).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 29990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 25):
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 should be easily doable by the 787-10.

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 with a significant cargo load (closer to MZFW).

At respective full payloads, the 787-10 should fly about an hour farther than an A330-300. Definitely see it being used from ORD/DFW/EWR to Europe, but not sure she'll have the legs for West Coast ops (especially westbound from the EU).

[Edited 2013-06-13 21:00:07]

User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2965 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 29483 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
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 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 anywhere. I expect their fleet to end up far larger than the existing order.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28999 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
At respective full payloads, the 787-10 should fly about an hour farther than an A330-300. Definitely see it being used from ORD/DFW/EWR to Europe, but not sure she'll have the legs for West Coast ops (especially westbound from the EU).

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 cargo as the passenger load decreases. More to the point, they likely won't be looking at these more marginal routes till farther into the 781 delivery cycle, so figure a bit more payload and a bit lower fuel burn than spec.

That said, I don't see a 787-10 as any kind of proof that the A359 is dead at UA. They certainly have the routes to make the A359 pay its way. Now that said a 787-10 does remove some of UA's demand for A359 thus reducing the chance options will be taken. Course it reduces the chances that more of the smaller 787 will be taken up too.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 28382 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Interesting ... I smell a cancelation on the other side.

Bummer that Lufthansa is not on the list - yet(?)

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 being discussed in the LH 747 replacement thread LH is not pleased with 787-10X getting more range and hence gaining more weight. Still I believe the 787 as a good chance with LH as the A350 is not lighter or has less weight then the 787-10.

Link in German in which is said that LH won´t be the launch customer:

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/lufthan...tellung-50-flugzeuge-airbus-boeing



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1875 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27903 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
25 787-9, xx 787-10 and 25 A350-1000 - makes no sense to me.

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 America make perfect sense.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinetristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27568 times:

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 777-200ER's.


Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):

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 cargo load year round. Using the A330-300 as your example we can see that DL sends one comfortably year round on SEA-AMS route. UA serves 3 cities from SFO to Europe CDG, LHR and FRA and one from LAX to LHR all being under 5100nm. If the rumored numbers for MZFW will be around 4700nm for the 787-10 then those routes will be a piece of cake. But I do agree with you that the bread and butter routes for this plane will be eastern half of US to Europe, at least over the Atlantic.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26677 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):I smell a cancelation on the other side.
I they cancel they will lose their deposits. It makes more sense to upgrade to the larger A350-1000 and use it as an 747 replacement (just like BA did).

  

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
25 787-9, xx 787-10 and 25 A350-1000 - makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense to me. 787-10 to replace 772s and 77Es that don't need the range.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
777-8X as replacement for 777 pacific ops

They can better use the A350-900 for that. They have a great deal on those, why throw it away?

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
777-9X as 747 replacement. I already abandoned hope for a 747-8 order.

Maybe, eventually UA will need the 777-9X. But for now the A350-1000 is a smarter choice.

Quoting Miami (Reply 18):
I wonder if AA and EK will order the 787-10..

AA is a certainty to me. Perfect 77E TA replacement. But no need to hurry yet. EK can IMO certainly not be ruled out.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
EK definitely not (too small).

EK wants >300 pax planes. Which the 787-10 certainly is.

Quoting klkla (Reply 23):
Delta could be an early customer.

Doubt it. It's too expensive for them.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26344 times:

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 33):
the 787-10 should be able to perform LAX/SFO to all of west Europe with full pax and a decent cargo load year round. U

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 mind when he said that 'some customers' would appreciate the difference. I think every major US and European airline have a route between CDG, FRA, AMS, &/or AMS and California.

Then again, it could be the Japanese East Coast routes: As was mentioned in another thread, the 787-10 could even work from NRT to EWR/JFK/YYZ/IAD as long as it was low density Japanese seating and light cargo so there is no hard and fast rules on these decisions.

tortugamon


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 994 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26206 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
Quoting klkla (Reply 23):
Delta could be an early customer.

Doubt it. It's too expensive for them.

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 that I've heard RA say they could see in their fleet.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26231 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
I really want to hear how they plan on executing the ramp up because IMO 12-14/month run rate is a must come 2017 if they want to have any decent slots open before 2020.

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 than 800 Dreamliner orders and make room for a stretched version of the jet by 2020. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg project the pace will reach 14 a month as soon as 2015, up from Boeing’s target of 10 by year end."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...on-a-year-on-787-output-boost.html

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
EK wants >300 pax planes. Which the 787-10 certainly is.

“We’re finding that the smallest aircraft that’s useful to us needs to be 340 seats,” Clark said
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-a350-as-boeing-stalls-on-777.html

tortugamon


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3502 posts, RR: 66
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 23412 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
At respective full payloads, the 787-10 should fly about an hour farther than an A330-300. Definitely see it being used from ORD/DFW/EWR to Europe, but not sure she'll have the legs for West Coast ops (especially westbound from the EU).
Quoting columba (Reply 30):
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 being discussed in the LH 747 replacement thread LH is not pleased with 787-10X getting more range and hence gaining more weight. Still I believe the 787 as a good chance with LH as the A350 is not lighter or has less weight then the 787-10.

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.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 23125 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
EK wants >300 pax planes. Which the 787-10 certainly is.

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.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22753 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):EK wants >300 pax planes. Which the 787-10 certainly is.
“We’re finding that the smallest aircraft that’s useful to us needs to be 340 seats,” Clark said
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1....html

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 seats by their standards   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 22647 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 40):
I wonder why they haven't converted at least some of the A359s to -1000s, the -900 lacks 50 seats by their standards

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.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 21518 times:

AC has announced internally that all options after the original 37 deliveries of -8s and -9s, will be -10s.


Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21288 times:

The 787-10 and the -9 will most likely the best selling variants of the 787 family.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2234 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 21080 times:

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 for them. If they don't order it then it just serves my point that they will never order aircraft from Boeing in a contested RFP situation.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20841 times:

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 easily fly US East Coast to eastern Asia and US West Coast to just about all of Europe. Now, buying more 787-8's and some 787-9's to replace the rapidly aging 767 fleet, that's a different story.

User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20760 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 45):
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 easily fly US East Coast to eastern Asia and US West Coast to just about all of Europe.

Because the 787-10 is likely to be more efficient on shorter-length flights than the A350-900.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20298 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 43):
The 787-10 and the -9 will most likely the best selling variants of the 787 family.

So much for JL assertion that the 787-10 will be another 767-400.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19474 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 47):

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.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19120 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 40):
I wonder why they haven't converted at least some of the A359s to -1000s, the -900 lacks 50 seats by their standards

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 buy not changing the order they can keep pressure on A at no cost to them. I think the A359 is an excellent aircraft for them because they will get that great efficiency two years before the 351 and three more years before the 77X. I think they are waiting to convert to the -1000 once things become more clear for them regarding the 351 capabilities, the 77X timeline/capabilities, and their own capacity projections. They do not want to modify the order multiple times. The A359 may not be an ideal size but they need the seats and these seats come with excellent fuel burn. I just do not see them buying a 787-10 when they are clearly not going to be even take all of the A359s that they have on order.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 42):
AC has announced internally that all options after the original 37 deliveries of -8s and -9s, will be -10s.

Is that 23? I have read that 787-8/9 options cannot necessarily be exercised for the 787-10 without additional consideration. The delays may be that consideration, not sure.

Quoting columba (Reply 43):
The 787-10 and the -9 will most likely the best selling variants of the 787 family.

It does appear that way. However I think the 8 will still be a solid seller. More than 75% of the 787-8 customers do not yet have any orders for the 787-9. If you look at that by # of orders the number is smaller but it still reflects a point that for many customers the 787-9 is too big and they will only be ordering the -8.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):


I see no reason for UA to cancel the A350-900 order

Looks like they are not only not going to cancel the A350 order but maybe expand on it:
"Evrard said that Airbus would soon add a customer in the United States, where industry sources say that United Airlines (UAL.N) is negotiating to upgrade and expand an existing order to 35 jets."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...rance-airbus-idUSBRE95D06520130614

Who knows if its reliable especially because UA has 25 orders (and 50 options) by my records, not 35.

tortugamon


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1582 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18512 times:

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 on that route.

User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18295 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
“We’re finding that the smallest aircraft that’s useful to us needs to be 340 seats,” Clark said

If true than the 787 is out. EK would go 359, 351, 779, 380 for their eventual fleet.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4722 posts, RR: 39
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
The 787-10 will be launched during the Paris airshow. The WSJ has also revealed the launch customers:

> Air Lease
> British Airways
> Singapore Airlines
> United Airlines

More news soon..

Great news.  .

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
I smell a cancelation on the other side.

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 deposits and delivery slots for the best bird available to them for the routes they initially ordered it for? it makes no sense even though some here would like to see the Airbus order cancelled. Personally I think the order for A350's will also be increased.

But here is to the B787-10. Another great new plane coming to the customers which will take it to the skies.     


User currently offlineaircal62 From United States of America, joined May 2011, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 it would allow United to utilize the best aircraft suited for each route and time of day (load factors). Increasing the number of fuel efficient aircraft in your fleet would seem to be a good thing going forward.

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17567 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 50):
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 on that route.

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 time length. That is max passenger plus 7.2t of freight or at a 85% passenger load factor plus 11.8t of freight. FCO-LAX is 13hr 5min and a max payload for this sector is about 34t , about 3t better than max passenger load. These sectors are about at the eastern extremities of west bound non-stop flights from Europe.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17261 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 42):
AC has announced internally that all options after the original 37 deliveries of -8s and -9s, will be -10s.

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 westbound to YYZ .


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49):
I just do not see them buying a 787-10 when they are clearly not going to be even take all of the A359s that they have on order

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it's clear they won't take all their A359's?

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Interesting ... I smell a cancelation on the other side.

It's always worth being careful just where you put your nose  

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16784 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 54):
These sectors are about at the eastern extremities of west bound non-stop flights from Europe.

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.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 55):
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 westbound to YYZ .

And if these orders come through, it could make AC the 2nd largest operators or 787s.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 56):
Are you saying it's clear they won't take all their A359's?

Yes. I should should have said it was clear to me. Others may not be convinced but I think EK will convert some of its 359 orders to 351 orders and not take the full 50 + 50 options.

Businessweek is confirming United's transition of the A359s to A351s:
"The carrier will modify a 2009 order to take 25 wide-body A350-1000s instead of the smaller -900 variant as once planned, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. United also will convert options for a couple dozen A350s and Dreamliners into firm orders, with the Boeing jets being the new 787-10X model, the people said."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...st-787-a350-in-boeing-airbus-order

tortugamon


User currently onlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16646 times:

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 years. Ironic considering that it flew commercially for all of 2012 but has spent most of 2013 grounded!

User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9328 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16507 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):

Huh? What do you mean too expensive? Anderson was on TV not to long basically beggin Boeing to offer

Quoting Prost (Reply 36):

This.



yep.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12489 posts, RR: 46
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 59):
Huh? What do you mean too expensive?

You know, costs too much, not cheap enough. It's pretty clear.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...delta-planes-idUSL2N0E31GI20130522

Quote:
"We operate 33 A330s and were a launch customer in the U.S.," Delta's Anderson said. He added that should Boeing hope that its stretched 787 will take sales from the A330, "its prices have to come way down."



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16145 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 42):
AC has announced internally that all options after the original 37 deliveries of -8s and -9s, will be -10s.

Wise choice. I've often wondered if AC even needs the 788 and if they wouldn't be better off with -9s and -10s.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15819 times:

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 they have for it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-order-amid-boeing-paris-push.html



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7416 posts, RR: 17
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15754 times:

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's 777 replacement. We will see



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15075 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 62):
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 they have for it.

Qatar will also buy more 777-300ER aircraft.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 14822 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 10):
25 787-9, xx 787-10 and 25 A350-1000 - makes no sense to me.

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 this way.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
Businessweek is confirming United's transition of the A359s to A351s:

Funny, just like I said in reply #14.

[Edited 2013-06-15 04:02:22]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 14417 times:

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 with the 787 series.

More Airlines voting against 778/779?

Cleansheet....Cleansheet...Cleansheet.......


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14255 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 66):

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 max/neo..

Depending on how far B goes with the 777-X there will be less efficiency to gain going clean sheet, Al-Li skin, CFRP wings...

Say at best a new Y3 could be about 5-7% better than the 779, is it worth it?

The 787 did better since neither the A330 or the 767 was NEOd..


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14020 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49):
Is that 23? I have read that 787-8/9 options cannot necessarily be exercised for the 787-10 without additional consideration. The delays may be that consideration, not sure.

The first 37 are cast in stone with -8s and -9s, the remaining options can be anything.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 61):
Wise choice. I've often wondered if AC even needs the 788 and if they wouldn't be better off with -9s and -10s.

They will need the -8s if they are ever going to retire the B767, as that was the original purpose of the aircraft. Also, the range of the -8 will allow some of the proposed routes not capable by the B767, YVR-MEL for example.

On another tangent, you don't want to get "too large" for the market. Take the B767-200 for example, if they didn't require heavy maintenance, then they likely would still be flying, as it remains a perfect trans-con sized aircraft.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13871 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 66):
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 with the 787 series.

More Airlines voting against 778/779?

Cleansheet....Cleansheet...Cleansheet.......

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 passenger 744s operated by major US carriers (split between 2). The 779 is aimed primarily at Middle Eastern and Asian airlines, who fly the bulk of 77Ws and 747s flying. Also it is not like UA has announced that they are not interested in 777X, this is all speculation.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13808 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 66):
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 with the 787 series.More Airlines voting against 778/779?Cleansheet....Cleansheet...Cleansheet.......

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, QR and EY to order first and we'll see how the interest of other airlines in Asia, Americas and Europe will be.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 62):
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 they have for it.

QR said recently they would not be launch customer for the 787-10. But then again, this is QR... I do expect QR's options converted into -9s at Paris though. Maybe another order for -10s at Dubai Air Show.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 70):
QR said recently they would not be launch customer for the 787-10. But then again, this is QR...

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., but take delivery a year or more after those others.


User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13186 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
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., but take delivery a year or more after those others.

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 else has placed enough orders for theirs.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13135 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 62):
I wouldn't be surprised is they're going to buy the -10 and use the 30 options they have for it.

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 fleet choice. I think we will see a bunch of -9s personally similar to EY.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 65):
Funny, just like I said in reply #14.

Yes, yes you sure did.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 66):
More Airlines voting against 778/779?

I do not think so. Domestic airlines are not going to be big purchasers of 350+ seat aircraft in general and the 777-8X really does not fit many of their networks. I do not see them as the target market for Boeing despite AA and UA being two of the largest purchasers of the original 777. So, its not that they are voting against, its that Boeing is not expecting them to be in town to vote.  
Quoting longhauler (Reply 68):
the remaining options can be anything.

You could be right but I am skeptical. I cannot picture Boeing not specifying 787-8, 787-9, or 787-3 when they originally purchased the aircraft rather than a future non specified variant. Now I believe AA recently used a 77E option to purchase 77W's so its not completely unheard of, I just would expect some added negotiations.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 68):
They will need the -8s if they are ever going to retire the B767

@Whiteguy has recently said that only 12 of the current order will be -8s, the rest -9s. Not enough to replace their 30 763s unless they are going to upgauge a bunch of them.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 68):
Also, the range of the -8 will allow some of the proposed routes not capable by the B767, YVR-MEL for example

I think that will be a 787-9 route:
"“Our challenge is aircraft. We need the Boeing 777-200LR or the 787-9 to fly non-stop to Australia” he explained."
http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-canada-m...787-business-class-premium-economy

tortugamon


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12978 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
You could be right but I am skeptical. I cannot picture Boeing not specifying 787-8, 787-9, or 787-3 when they originally purchased the aircraft rather than a future non specified variant.

These are not orders, just options ... basically reserving a line spot. Those options are still unspecified, and considering the size of the AC order, and that the airframes are now over 5 years late, I can't imagine Boeing telling AC anything other than, "please don't buy the A350". And yes, the A350 rumour has been batted around internally as well.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
@Whiteguy has recently said that only 12 of the current order will be -8s, the rest -9s. Not enough to replace their 30 763s unless they are going to upgauge a bunch of them.

You don't think the B787 is intended to replace the B767???

Technically, all B787s are -8s, as showing on the Boeing order website. Yes, Boeing have been very flexible with regard to variants. Internally, I have been hearing anything from 8 -8s and the rest -9s, to 8 -9s, (to replace the A330), and the rest -8s (to replace the B767), of the initial order of 37.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...el=787&ViewReportF=View+Report



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12876 times:

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 bad!


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12777 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 74):
These are not orders, just options ... basically reserving a line spot.

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 well and the variant was TBD up until 2 years before anticipated delivery. Sure. But how could they specify the date for the 787-10 when they did not know the launch date for it back in 2005? And surely the pricing off of list price is different for the -10 then the 2005 version of the 787-8 or -9. I suspect there would be much less discounting because the program is now much lower risk. So, yes, I can see AC having the 'right to buy -10s', and they should have priority over a new customer, but I still think there will be additional negotiations for the -10 then it would be for the 9.

I am speculating here because obviously I am not privy to the actual contracts. If someone has better info, I welcome it.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 74):
You don't think the B787 is intended to replace the B767???

Of course it is. It is just that the 787-9 is 25% bigger than the 763 so if AC transition to the -9 it would be a substantial capacity upgrade from your 30 763s.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 75):
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 bad!

It would be a major milestone for sure. At launch it could have the same or more orders than the A358 or A351 which have been on the market for 7+ years.

As far as I know this would be the first wide body family ever to sell over 100 frames in three different sizes. Now they just need to execute.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12716 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 76):
As far as I know this would be the first wide body family ever to sell over 100 frames in three different sizes.

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 probably argue the A330/A340 are one family and they had four: A330-200, A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600. But then we'd also have to call the 777 and 777X a family, as well.  Smile

So for the sake of convenience, I agree we should go by "model number" families, which gives us just the 787 now (and probably the A350 soon).

[Edited 2013-06-15 18:55:49]

User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12615 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
If you consider the DC-10 and MD-11 to be one family, then they were first:

I'm not sure I would argue that the DC-10-10 and DC-10-30 are different sizes  


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12567 times:

Come on Stitch, you are such a wet blanket with all of your facts!  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
If you consider the DC-10 and MD-11 to be one family

Different fuse dimensions and different wing though.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
A330/A340

Very different wing and 2 engines vs 4 - very different aircraft.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
I agree we should go by "model number" families

Or we can say first 2 engine widebody family. The 777 will do it with 3 different wingspans. Its possible that the 787 will do it with the same wing, engines, and fuse for all three variants. But model number sounds good to me. And I agree the A350 will rightfully be not too far behind.

tortugamon


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12507 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 79):
Different fuse dimensions and different wing though.

The DC-10 and MD-11 have the same fuselage.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12432 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 80):
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


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12411 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):

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 just a little less than 19' longer (shorter than the difference in length between the 787-8 and -9).'

Whether the MD11/DC10 is considered one family or not is moot anyways. Like I alluded to earlier, unlike what Stitch implies the DC-10-10 and DC-10-30 are the exact same size, so the DC10/MD11 is not a family that has sold 100+ planes in 3 different sizes.

If you consider the DC-10-10 and DC-10-30 different for some reason than you have to consider the 767-200, -200ER. -300, -300ER, -300F all separate (all sold more than 100 planes) and the 777-200ER, -200F separate (both have sold more than 100 planes). The A300 would also then fit the bill.

[Edited 2013-06-15 20:34:26]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Polot (Reply 78):
I'm not sure I would argue that the DC-10-10 and DC-10-30 are different sizes.  

*smacks head*

That is what I get for being in a hurry and not knowing jack about the DC-10 family.   


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12180 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 79):
Very different wing and 2 engines vs 4 - very different aircraft.

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" family when launched.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12114 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 79):
And I agree the A350 will rightfully be not too far behind.

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 confident about the 7810. Demand for the A350, on the other hand, is heavily biased towards the A359 - 414 for that, compared with only 89 for the A358, and 110 for the A351.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A350_XWB_orders

There could be all sorts of reasons for that; the A359 will be the first cab off the rank, anyway, maybe the 'lead-time' to production of the other two proposed Airbus models is just too long for most customers to bother placing orders for them at this stage. But the alternative possibility is that the B788 has 'soaked up' demand for the smaller size, and the B7810 (or the B777) look like doing the same for the larger one?

My guess is that the Airbus sales guys will be hoping to rake in lots of orders for the 'other two A350s' in Paris, to put things right and ensure that the whole programme can go forward at full speed?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5503 posts, RR: 29
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11949 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 85):
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 confident about the 7810. Demand for the A350, on the other hand, is heavily biased towards the A359 - 414 for that, compared with only 89 for the A358, and 110 for the A351.

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 it has 89 frames on order. Unless they pull the plug, I cannot imagine them not selling at least 100 as well. And - even if they don't - there's still a chance for the 3511.  

The 787 was on track for a 2008 delivery, versus a 2014 delivery for the A350. That the 787 program went to hell for years on end is sad but true. Nonetheless, the 787 had a 6 year delivery-availability lead (expected) over the A350, so perhaps if we can somehow look out all the way to 2019 (6 years), we will have a better idea of how well the A350 is selling relative the today's 787 total.

I'm guessing you will see many, many more orders.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11727 times:

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 787-10 model of the A350-1000, a stretch that gives up range. It would be a very popular medium haul plane above 350 seats. It would have the same benefits against the 779 that the 787-10 has over the A359..

Not all airlines need 8000nm+ range they do need the seating capacity though.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 86):
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?

NAV would look at the charge of Marshall Ney at Waterloo, just before they engaged, and turn the set off, declaring Napoleon the winner....  
Quoting planesntrains (Reply 86):
The 358 is arguably the weak link but even it has 89 frames on order. Unless they pull the plug, I cannot imagine them not selling at least 100 as well.

I think we're going to find the A350-800 restored to its original optimised form, but with learning built in from the programme already executed. It would be a very good plane

Quoting sweair (Reply 87):
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.

Ferpe's model shows the following fuel burn
787-8 - 5 083 kg/hr
A358 - 5367 kg/hr - +5.5%
787-9 - 5507 kg/hr - +2.5%
A359 - 5643 kg/hr - +2.5%

Even in its current form, it has a trip cost that sits neatly in-between the 787-8 and the 787-9, and a capacity that sits neatly in-between them also.
A 3% or so fuel burn gain delivered by an optimised airframe would certainly make life more interesting for these models
Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12489 posts, RR: 46
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 85):
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 confident about the 7810. Demand for the A350, on the other hand, is heavily biased towards the A359 - 414 for that, compared with only 89 for the A358, and 110 for the A351.

STILL flogging that horse?

Your analysis also conveniently forgets the hundreds of A330s that Airbus has sold (and is still selling) since the 787 was launched.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11119 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 89):
Your analysis also conveniently forgets the hundreds of A330s that Airbus has sold (and is still selling) since the 787 was launched.

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 have left Airbus in a situation in which the A359 may turn out to be the only A350 version Airbus can sell in numbers for some time?

Sorry - only 199 orders altogether for the A358 and A3510 appears to be nowhere near enough to cover the cost of setting up final design/production for either type - leave alone both?

[Edited 2013-06-16 06:14:55]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11094 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90):
Sorry - only 199 orders altogether for the A358 and A3510 appears to be nowhere near enough to cover the cost of setting up design/production for either type - leave alone both?

From an interview with Airbus' CEO on June 17, Fabrice Bregier explained:

Quote:
We did not really market the -1000 aggressively because we wanted it to be ready first, to freeze detailed configuration and to confirm that we can deliver what we have promised. We have passed these milestones now and we can offer it.

As result of this "aggressively marketing", orders for the -1000 have already doubled within a year and many more are to come.

Don't forget, the average lifetime of an airframe like the 767 / A330 / 787 / A350 is around 30 years so many new orders are yet to come.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7416 posts, RR: 17
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11083 times:

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 anywhere on the list, are they?



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90):
Sorry - only 199 orders altogether for the A358 and A3510 appears to be nowhere near enough to cover the cost of setting up final design/production for either type - leave alone both?

it almost undoubtedly is.

However, the infantry are still forming into squares.
We've got nowhere near seeing Uxbridge's counterattack, and the Prussians aren't even on the battlefield yet.   

The A350-1000 is into treble figures already, we know there are a lot of orders to be announced this year, and there are still 4 years left before EIS.
I wouldn't bet against the A350-1000 having as many orders at EIS as the 787-9 has now.

The A358? As it stands today as a straight shrink of the A350-900 it's a trivial investment

Rgds


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11056 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 91):
As result of this "aggressively marketing", orders for the -1000 have already doubled within a year and many more are to come.

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 fullness of time. I'm just saying that (as with every other aeroplane nowadays) a basic number of firm orders are required for any model before either major company can risk investing the billions required to design and build any new aeroplane nowadays........

[Edited 2013-06-16 06:32:14]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

@NAV- youre missing the UA conversions & BA, SQ orders/ firm commitments in your count for the A35J

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11054 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 94):
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 fullness of time. I'm just saying that (as with every other aeroplane nowadays) a basic number of firm orders are required for any model before either major company can invest the billions required to design and build any new aeroplane nowadays........

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 and many orders to come, the -1000 is a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-06-16 06:37:11]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 589 posts, RR: 3
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11104 times:

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/...87-10s-order-idUSL5N0ES0DM20130616


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11025 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 97):
Looks like BA is ordering 10!

That's a surprise, I expected they would order 18 units.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 10984 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):
Billions? The -1000 is a stretch, it doesn't cost billions to develop. I assume you meant millions.

Fair enough, mate - nearly typed 'millions,' I'm pretty 'old-fashioned.'  

But hkcanadaexpat just kindly provided a link that confirms that any order for more than about 10 aeroplanes involves 'billions.'

(Reuters) - British Airways is set to confirm an order for about 10 of the "stretched" version of Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner planes in a deal worth about $2.5 billion at this week's Paris Air Show, The Sunday Times newspaper reported without citing sources.

Tempted to get the old Monopoly game out of the cupboard and try shopping with the money from that. There's a distinct possibility that it might be worth more than the 'official' stuff..........  



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 10965 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 98):
That's a surprise, I expected they would order 18 units.

Both sources say "about 10", your expectation still might be correct...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 10875 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99):
But hkcanadaexpat just kindly provided a link that confirms that any order for more than about 10 aeroplanes involves 'billions.'

We were talking about development costs, not sale values.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 100):
Both sources say "about 10", your expectation still might be correct...

It would not make sense to order only 10 units. The new order for 18 787 aircraft will replace a part of the 744 fleet and I find it hard to believe to also use a few 789s for this purpose.

[Edited 2013-06-16 07:13:27]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1546 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10618 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):
Billions? The -1000 is a stretch, it doesn't cost billions to develop. I assume you meant millions.

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.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10577 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 102):
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.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTankereng From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10486 times:

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/article/2013/...w-dreamliner-idUSBRE95F0AV20130616


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10332 times:

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 than the Package C which will be on the -9 and -8 starting next year. They are taking some of their lessons learned from the Trent XWB engines to make the improvements.

"Rolls-Royce is aiming to put the latest variant of its Trent 1000, designated the 1000-TEN, into service in 2016. The upgraded engine is under development primarily to power the Boeing 787-10X from 2018, but will also be offered for the smaller -8 and -9 models from 2016.

The Trent 1000-TEN is designed to offer up to a 3% improvement in specific fuel consumption compared with the Trent 1000 "package B" baseline engine."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...es-to-build-trent-1000-ten-386959/

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10189 times:

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 service in 2018 partially due to the timing on the Max and not wanting two programs going on at once. However, if the engine is ready in 2016 it is difficult for me to believe that the 'simple stretch' cannot be done in less than five years. Maybe by 2018 the Trent Ten could be in line for a PiP  .

This must have to do more with engineering resources and vendor ramp up concerns as they need to get that backlog down to a more manageable level. Does anyone doubt that Boeing would have launched the -10x by now if they had 400 orders for the -8 and -9 versus 900?

Quoting columba (Reply 84):
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" family when launched.

I thought that the A330-300 and A340-300 were essentially the same length.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10199 times:

Quoting Tankereng (Reply 104):
Reuters is saying that the -10 will launch with up to 100 orders worth just under $30 billion. Doesn't say who though.

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
> Announcement seen on Tuesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...w-dreamliner-idUSL5N0ES0LG20130616

[Edited 2013-06-16 10:54:00]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10055 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
Also, is anyone surprised to hear that the entry into service of the Trent Ten engine is 2016?

This has always been the plan and was already reported in 2012 I believe.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
We have been hearing that the 787-10x will enter service in 2018 partially due to the timing on the Max and not wanting two programs going on at once.

Stretching is not just producing larger parts but there will be a design phase first.

> 2012: ATO
> 2013: formal launch
> 2014-15: design freeze
> 2015-16: development
> 2017: FAL start and first flight
> 2018: certification



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9962 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):

Also, is anyone surprised to hear that the entry into service of the Trent Ten engine is 2016?

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.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9864 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Rolls-Royce is aiming to put the latest variant of its Trent 1000, designated the 1000-TEN, into service in 2016. The upgraded engine is under development primarily to power the Boeing 787-10X from 2018

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 passenger load.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9651 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
This has always been the plan

I did not ask if anyone was not surprised   Figured you were up to speed on the progress even though it surprised me.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 109):
you need the engine a year or two before the plane its on enters service

Well the 787-9 engine is not yet certified and yet both it and the currently unassembled plane will enter service in less than a year.       Maybe 1-2 years is good for new models.

Still, I could see if the quote was 'certified in 2016' but the quote is 'in-service in 2016' which means in production now, in production and testing in 2014, certification in 2015 and in service in 2016. Yet the 787-10 will enter service in 2018/2019? So they will have access to the engines for 3 years before EIS? Do you find that odd?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
Stretching is not just producing larger parts but there will be a design phase first.

Absolutely agree. Lots to do. However, Boeing did the original 777 (clean sheet) from launch to entry into service in five years and similar length of time for 77W and I thought a lot of the design work was already done considering the -9. But that is not my point. Its that the engine will be ready really far in advance that surprises me. I am not familiar of a program where the engine is certified at roughly the same time that the model reaches design freeze. The equivalent would be if the A351 engine was currently being certified even though I do not think the prototype is even assembled yet.

Another illustration: This means that the currently unlaunched 787-10x's engine will enter service before the A351 does (launched 7 years ago) and possibly before that engine is even certified.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 110):
With 78000lbs of thrust from this engine the 787-10 will get out of JNB


I think JNB will be home to A350s and will not be seeing too many 787-10s. Not a high and hot player to be sure.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9623 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
Well the 787-9 engine is not yet certified and yet both it and the currently unassembled plane will enter service in less than a year

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 1000-TEN because it needs the higher thrust.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
Yet the 787-10 will enter service in 2018/2019?

Yes but this is unrelated to the engine. RR can offer the engine from 2016 on the smaller models.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
Do you find that odd?

It's not odd because:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
So they will have access to the engines for 3 years before EIS?

The Trent 1000-TEN will also be offered for the -8 and -9.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
So they will have access to the engines for 3 years before EIS? Do you find that odd?

Not if the Trent-TEN finds its way on the 787-9 starting in 2016.  


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9294 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 112):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):

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 more efficient Trent 1000 with a small thrust bump. Makes sense. Very different situation for the 351:

"It will meet the requirements of the -10X, but actually it's really about Rolls-Royce responding to the market and making sure that we have a very competitive engine out there," says Robertshaw.

"We were going to launch the -TEN regardless of whether Boeing went ahead with the -10X aircraft."

Maybe RR can put together package D by 2018  


tortugamon


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4722 posts, RR: 39
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 114):
Maybe RR can put together package D by 2018  

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 and Boeing, but also between Rolls-Royce and GE. And the newest airplanes like the B787-10 will profit from it greatly.  


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5503 posts, RR: 29
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9260 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90):
Sorry - only 199 orders altogether for the A358 and A3510 appears to be nowhere near enough to cover the cost of setting up final design/production for either type - leave alone both?

The 359 just flew this week - and you are using (distant) orders as a basis for their success?

Interesting...

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9145 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 114):
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 more efficient Trent 1000 with a small thrust bump. Makes sense. Very different situation for the 351:

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 result of said improvements? Maybe our Engine guru's can provide some insight? Additionally, GE seems to have some similar performance upgrades coming on-line...

edit: spelling

[Edited 2013-06-16 17:26:29] and beer  Wink

[Edited 2013-06-16 17:28:21]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9043 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 115):
interesting race, not only between Airbus and Boeing
Quoting mffoda (Reply 117):
GE seems to have some similar performance

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 to be very competitive with the 351. Although there are just a few key players, competition is alive and well.

It even looks like that is baked into their contracts:

"[GE] promise a 10 percent reduction in fuel burn compared with the GE90-115B engines on the existing 777-300ER. Also promised is a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption over rival widebody engines by 2020."
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ushes-envelope-ge9x-new-boeing-777

Anyone want to bet that the rival engine is the Trent XWB 97klbf?

tortugamon


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 117):
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 result of said improvements

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 6700nm to 7100nm by increasing the MTOW by about 3t. thus allowing the use of more of the available fuel capacity.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8500 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
"[GE] promise a 10 percent reduction in fuel burn compared with the GE90-115B engines on the existing 777-300ER. Also promised is a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption over rival widebody engines by 2020."
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ushes-envelope-ge9x-new-boeing-777

Anyone want to bet that the rival engine is the Trent XWB 97klbf?

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 altitude and at cruise power:

..........................TSFC
T1000-TEN......0.525
TXWB...............0.520
GE-9X..............0.495

The new Trent 1000-TEN makes the fuel burn of the 787-10 and the 359 be about the same on long flights (my figures given by Astuteman was before the T1000-TEN was launched, thus with T1000-C). As the 787-10 is lighter (between 5-10t dependent on where the 359 finally pan out) it will consume slightly less trip fuel on shorter legs, it's smaller wing evens this out on long legs. In the end the 787-10s fuel per pax flown benefit from the extra 2 rows of economy it can take. This is the reason behind BA taking the 787-10 instead of the 359 for the 300pax segment, for the 35J size there is no fuel efficient alternative from B until 2020.

All this is before the flight test on the 359 has revealed where it will be fuel burn wise, any positive surprise in the aero deparment (or sandbagging by Filton  Wow! ) and we have parity again as the margins are so small. I think we can predict that the TXWB will come in on target (but not better, initially at least), now it is about the airframes aero and weight.

Edit: just realized Astutman did the quote of my modeling in the other 787-10 vs 359 post, here it is for those who wonder what I had smoked Big grinA350-900 Vs. B787-10 (by eaa3 Jun 15 2013 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-06-16 22:25:08]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8257 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 119):
increasing the MTOW by about 3t

Do we have any idea how much additional MEW it is to get that 3t MTOW bump?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 120):
it will consume slightly less trip fuel on shorter legs

Its great to see the updated analysis Ferpe.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 120):
it's smaller wing evens this out on long legs

I guess the key question is when this trade off vs the A359 happens. I think most people are speculating that it will be around 5,000nm.

It was relatively common a-net knowledge that the -10 would have a hard time fitting into the dreamlifter but the Seattle times has some sources that indicate that Everett cannot fit four -10s at once in 40-24 or 40-26. That does not sound like a deal breaker to me but its further evidence that the -10 may be built exclusively in SC.

"Both observed that the new 787 final-assembly plant in South Carolina is big enough to fit four of the large 787-10s nose-to-tail, which they don’t think is true in the two 787 assembly bays in Everett."
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...showmondayxml.html?syndication=rss

tortugamon


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8263 times:

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 116):
The 359 just flew this week - and you are using (distant) orders as a basis for their success?

Interesting...

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 and preparing for service. In normal circumstances I'd assume that the design people would be turning more and more of their attention to developing designs for the other two models. But they have relatively few orders for those, only about 100 for each - possibly not enough, at this stage, to justify putting either of them into production? By contrast, Boeing have 350-plus orders for both their smaller 787 models and (on recent evidence of strong demand from leading airlines) every reason to press on with design/development of the third, larger one.

We don't know, of course, why there are relatively few orders for the other two A350 models. It may well just be that the marketing guys have just been concentrating on the base model, and they see good prospects for the other two as well. If so, well and good. But one has to bear in mind that, because they were concentrating on the A380 for so long, Airbus was late starting on the A350, and had no option but basically to aim it at the 'gap' between the 787 and the 777.

That MAY have got them into a situation where the base model looks like selling well, but the market for the smaller one is already 'flooded' by all those 788 and 789 orders - and, further, that the market for the larger one is now threatened by Boeing's launch of the 7810 (already, apparently, attracting lots of orders from top airlines); plus, of course, Boeing's plans for a 'new generation' (over-400-seat) 777?

We'll see - hope for your sake, and that of our other Airbus friends, that that is not the reason; and that, for starters, Airbus lands plenty of orders for the other two A350 models at Paris?

Tony



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8233 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
Do we have any idea how much additional MEW it is to get that 3t MTOW bump?

The weight escalation for an increase in MTOW is called the spiral factor (more weight means more stress on structure which means more structure weight which means ....  ). It depends where the extra weight will land, if it is more fuel the factor is lower as the extra weight lands close to the center of lift (and thus does not generate new bending loads through the wing roots), if it is more payload it goes higher. The factor is normally around 3 give or take a bit per above. Clever load alleviation via the FBW can also lower this factor (ref the 330 hike to 242t).



Non French in France
User currently offlinecerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8200 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 122):
possibly not enough, at this stage, to justify putting either of them into production?

  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, A350-800 even later. Why not wait till 2015 before passing any judgment on order numbers, or whether it is worth it to produce them?

[Edited 2013-06-16 22:51:29]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
Do we have any idea how much additional MEW it is to get that 3t MTOW bump?

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 than the 787-9 MTOW).



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 122):
But they have relatively few orders for those, only about 100 for each - possibly not enough, at this stage, to justify putting either of them into production?

The 787-9 had less than 150 orders when the ZA001 mockup was rolled out (which was three years after program launch) and it secured over 200 more orders by the time the first frame entering the FAL. I see no reason why the A350-1000 won't secure additional orders over the coming years before EIS.

And while I am no fan of the model, as a straight shrink I see no economic reason against building the A350-800 even if the order book stood at a handful of airframes.

[Edited 2013-06-16 22:47:02]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8110 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
The 787-9 had less than 150 orders when the ZA001 mockup was rolled out (which was three years after program launch) and it secured over 200 more orders by the time the first frame entering the FAL

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 opposite - perforce aimed at the gap between two existing, and fully established, types? We'll see..........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 126):
Agreed, Stitch, but the 787 was literally 'experimental,' a new venture facing next to no competition from above or below.

  

It faced competition from the A330 and the original A350 families.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 126):
The A350 is the direct opposite - perforce aimed at the gap between two existing, and fully established, types...

And both of those types - the A330-300 and 777-300ER - look to be very much at risk from the A350 (-900 and -1000, respectively).


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

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 Airbus should give priority to the 1000 rather than the 800?


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2090 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8158 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
I believe LH will announce its wide-body order later this year, but not during the Paris airshow.

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 777X or the A350 (or both).



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5503 posts, RR: 29
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8120 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 122):
We don't know, of course, why there are relatively few orders for the other two A350 models.

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 to do to counter it. Why jump when there is plenty of time and potential options. With the 359's first flight, one big hurdle to future orders is past. With Boeing deciding to do yet another remake of an existing frame (777X), I personally believe another hurdle has been past. Now we basically are looking at getting closer to the actual rollout of the -1000 (to say nothing of the -800) and are seeing orders start to roll in.

For the 358, I just think it's not an optimized frame and that the 787 family or the 359 offer great alternatives, but that's just me.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 122):
hope for your sake

I'm not sure what I have invested in the outcome? I want to see Boeing succeed but 1) The 787 fiasco pretty much jaded me; 2) The A350 appears to be a fantastic airframe; and 3) I grow tired of the predictable A vs B junk on here and just wish it would stop so that we could have more reasonable and productive discussions, rather than having to get into this repetitive circle that ends up turning intelligent people into "fanboys" as a defense mechanism.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 129):
And (LH) have stated that they are not longer interested in the 787-10.

Which is surprising considering they have been complaining about aircraft being "overbuilt" for long range. Of the three, the 787-10 is the least "overbuilt".


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
There might be none
Quoting ferpe (Reply 123):
normally around 3

So somewhere in between 0 and 1t MEW increase. Sounds like it was probably worth it. Thanks guys.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7956 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
It was relatively common a-net knowledge that the -10 would have a hard time fitting into the dreamlifter but the Seattle times has some sources that indicate that Everett cannot fit four -10s at once in 40-24 or 40-26. That does not sound like a deal breaker to me but its further evidence that the -10 may be built exclusively in SC.

"Both observed that the new 787 final-assembly plant in South Carolina is big enough to fit four of the large 787-10s nose-to-tail, which they don’t think is true in the two 787 assembly bays in Everett."

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 the length of the 787-10. Now Boeing is heavily investing in CHS and the plant is already big enough to hold four 787-10s.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/file.php/87832/K65835.jpg

Click for bigger. As you can see, there are 2 extra positions, 6 total.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12489 posts, RR: 46
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 122):
But they have relatively few orders for those, only about 100 for each - possibly not enough, at this stage, to justify putting either of them into production?

Isn't that horse dead yet? They will both be built.

Quoting cerecl (Reply 124):
Always looking for the dark cloud are we?

Indeed. It will lead to the inevitable disappointment.

Quoting cerecl (Reply 124):
Neither model is going into production at this stage. A350-1000's first flight is scheduled in 2016, A350-800 even later. Why not wait till 2015 before passing any judgment on order numbers, or whether it is worth it to produce them?

For the -1000, he may only have to wait until the end of this week.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7748 times:

GECAS has ordered 10 787-10X to be powered by GEnx, deliveries 2019 to 2021.




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7391 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
As you can see, there are 2 extra positions, 6 total.

I beleive the plant at CHS has a total of 8 positions.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7341 times:

That makes it even more better!  


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7112 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137):

That makes it even more better!

Yup they can run two lines in parallel.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7161 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
The 787-9 had less than 150 orders when the ZA001 mockup was rolled out (which was three years after program launch) and it secured over 200 more orders by the time the first frame entering the FAL. I see no reason why the A350-1000 won't secure additional orders over the coming years before EIS.

  

If the -1000 keeps selling like it has done in the past 12 months, it should easily reach about 300 orders before EIS in 2017. That's more than half of all 77W aircraft currently in service, not a bad number to start with. And Leahy needs some large numbers if he wants to get his new assembly line.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6944 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
That is very interesting.

It does appear that way. I imagine they will eventually do two models in each location. 8s and 9s in Everett and probably 8s and 10s in SC. That way they can both work on the large -8 backlog in the short term and in the medium term, when we expect orders for 8s to give way to 9s and 10s, they each will have a high volume variant (-9 or -10) and some economies of scale. Just speculating but that is what I would do if orders go the way I suspect. But everything is pointing to the -10 being exclusive to Charleston.

tortugamon


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Surprised that Etihad is not among the early customers for the -10. It seems to me that the -10 is perfect for EY:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40auh

All of Europe and Africa and all of Asia that matters. The only place the aircraft won't have the legs to make a good profit on would be the Pacific.

I would have expected them to convert at least half, or upto all of their 787-9 order to the 787-10.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 134):
Isn't that horse dead yet? They will both be built.

Obviously the -1000 will be built and will be a core product of great importance to Airbus. It will also get many more sales. But I'm not convinced that the -800 will have any more sales or, indeed, be built.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6616 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 141):
I would have expected them to convert at least half, or upto all of their 787-9 order to the 787-10.

The -9 is there to stay in EY's fleet. They have been convincing their invested companies to buy the -9 as well:

This change in Air Berlin’s firm order is unsurprising, and Huettmeyer in March indicated that the airline was interested in the larger 787 variant as a replacement for the airline’s fleet of Airbus A330s. Etihad, meanwhile, has championed the combination of the two orders as a way to share infrastructure, pool maintenance and streamline purchases for engines, rotables, avionics and inflight entertainment systems.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_04_03_2013_p01-01-565021.xml

Nevertheless, I do expect them to buy the -10 to compliment the -9 but the -9 should be the mainstay.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6214 times:

Al Baker said he’s not interested in the Boeing 787-10X:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-as-airbus-trumps-smaller-jet.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6121 times:

The A358 has very little to offer over the A359, the main reason I think it will be a very poor seller with time. Look at how many airlines swap 788s for 789s.

Its just in the wrong place IMO, capacity wise. The problem with going against 787 and 777 with one frame, its hard to cover the whole spectrum and be the best at every corner.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
Al Baker said he’s not interested in the Boeing 787-10X:

Considering this is "U-Turn Al", I'd be inclined to "never say never" even when he says "never".  


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5953 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
Al Baker said he%u2019s not interested in the Boeing 787-10X:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 146):
"never say never"

Talk about a uturn; IMO I think AAB really makes sense here  Wow! He has a bunch of A350s on order and does not need the -10x with nearly identical seat capacity. The 789 makes more sense for Australia and North American routes. With all of the A351s, the fact that he goes 9 abreast in Y on his 77Ws, and considering their route structure the 777-8x does not really make sense either.

Within the last 6 months he has stated that he wanted to be the launch customer of both of those frames. Cooler heads seemed to have prevailed. Hard to see him pass on a launch though  .

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 145):
The A358 has very little to offer over the A359, the main reason I think it will be a very poor seller with time

It's in exactly the same place as the 777-8LX is compared to the 777-9X

Rgds


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
It's in exactly the same place as the 777-8LX is compared to the 777-9X

...another aircraft which is a source of puzzlement to many, including me.

But at least the 777-8LX is quite likely to turn into a world-beating freighter. Even the freighter A350, by contrast, is likely to be based on the -900.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 149):
...(the 777-8 is) another aircraft which is a source of puzzlement to many, including me.

It strikes me as being designed for customers who currently fly the 777-300ER in a high-density configuration (two classes and/or 10-abreast Y) who need additional payload lift at greater ranges.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
It strikes me as being designed for customers who currently fly the 777-300ER in a high-density configuration (two classes and/or 10-abreast Y) who need additional payload lift at greater ranges.

As far as I can tell, that description covers one customer who might need 20 frames tops.  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5281 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 151):
As far as I can tell, that description covers one customer who might need 20 frames tops.   

And yet I recall a comment by that one customer says he's interested in upwards of 15 times that many 777-8 and 777-9 in total, so it might be worth the effort.  


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 115):
interesting race, not only between Airbus and Boeing
Quoting mffoda (Reply 117):
GE seems to have some similar performance

Very true and that is true of not just this aircraft.

Here is an angle that I had not really considered. While GE is going through the GE9X there is opportunity that some of these new, cutting edge technologies could be incorporated into the GENx later down the line. This could really give the 787-10x a bump relative to the A359 and could give GE a big leg up on the Trent Ten.

Not sure if this means that composite front fan-case and ceramic matrix composites come into play but it is interesting.

"GE has no plans to put GE9X technology back into the GE90, but because it will first test the changes in GENx demonstrators, the experience will allow us to define ways to take technologies back into the GENx, says Fitzgerald."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_06_17_2013_p0-588827.xml&p=1

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4766 times:

Here is another hint about customers for the 787-10:




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4745 times:

Will IAG put the 787-10 at work for Iberia? Or will it replace their 744s at BA?

User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4616 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 155):
Will IAG put the 787-10 at work for Iberia? Or will it replace their 744s at BA?

The advert says under the BA tail: International Airlines Group / British Airways

Glad Boeing finally launched it!   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4485 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 156):
Glad Boeing finally launched it!   

I am tired of putting an 'x' after it every time   Now we just need the actual Boeing announcement!

tortugamon


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4450 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 157):
Now we just need the actual Boeing announcement!

I thought this ad was the official Boeing announcement, but I read on the Boeing order page it's actually from the facebook page of GECAS. Maybe they are tired of waiting too  



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4381 times:

We have formal launch.

http://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/status/346909008738783236

Quote:
We’re excited to formally launch the 787-10. Thanks to ALC, @British_Airways, @GECASNews, @SingaporeAir & @united. #PAS13 #Boeing



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 158):

It is official! ALC with 30 and UA with 20, GECAS 10, SIA 30, and IAG (between 10-18)!

ALC with 3 additional 7877-9s.

via twitter

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNBsIpZCEAA3eSG.jpg:large


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 162, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Final assembly & flight test of the 787-10 are set to begin in 2017, with first delivery targeted for 2018. First delivery customer not set.

http://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/346911606963310592



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 994 posts, RR: 1
Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Am I mistaken to think that the range was 7100 NM, amd now the presentation board is saying 7000 NM?

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 164, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 161):

250,830 MTOW (same as -9) so no extra bump like previously speculated. 90%+ of twin aisle routes is a solid figure.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 165, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

In terms of orders and commitments, we have:

> ALC (30)
> Singapore Airlines (30)
> United Airlines (20)
> IAG (12)
> GECAS (10)




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3367 posts, RR: 3
Reply 166, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

Looking at the photo av Boeing site, wil it only have double boogie? Thought it needed a tripple?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11347 posts, RR: 33
Reply 167, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Quoting Prost (Reply 163):
Am I mistaken to think that the range was 7100 NM, amd now the presentation board is saying 7000 NM?

7100nm was never confirmed by Boeing.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.