Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Launches The 787-10 Dreamliner  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 514 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50594 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As announced at Le Bourget.

Boeing today announced they have officially launched the 787-10 Dreamliner, the third variant of the 787 after the -8 and -9.

They have received a total of 102 commitments from five customers as follows;

30 from Air Lease Corporation
10 from GECAS
12 from IAG / BA subject to shareholder approval
30 from Singapore Airlines
20 from United

Final assembly and flight testing are set to begin in 2017 with the first delivery targeted for 2018.

Be interesting to see which other carriers order it and whether we will see any conversions from existing models.

Source, The Boeing Company

As the model has officially been launched this thread is for the discussion of the launch without the speculation of the pre launch thread which can be found here Boeing 787-10 Launch Imminent (by KarelXWB Jun 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
151 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50750 times:

And there is the slide again:

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 offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50638 times:

So no surprise really here ....
6700-7000 Nm depending on the PAX Load

Good to see the good old 3 classes layout (61 in for first, 39 in for biz, 31-32 in for econ)
Is the IFE included as standard (it is worth 1-3 t extra weight...)

Semi-levered gear needed if i recall yesterday twitt


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50567 times:

The spec sheet given by Karel (pls repost) is strange,, I think someone at the B marketing department is in trouble (210 to 250 pax????, 57m, 228t and so on, this is the 788 spec !!!!!)

[Edited 2013-06-18 02:15:04]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50472 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
The spec sheet given by Karel (pls repost) is strange

Seems like their developers were in a hurry to launch the website. Let's wait a bit longer until they have fixed the spec sheet.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50317 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
The spec sheet given by Karel (pls repost) is strange,, I think someone at the B marketing department is in trouble (210 to 250 pax????)

Yes, and that is not all. Words are cut off. And two of the sample city pairs is NYC-HKG at 7,014nm (range is 7k?) and 'Tokya'-Casablanca. I am willing to wager it will not be used on either route. Someone really should get fired for this junk.

I like the following characterization:
787-8 for new routes
787-9 for long routes
787-10 for high density routes.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-06-18 02:21:54]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50235 times:

Any hope for an LH order later on? This aircraft has what they wanted, capacity over range. I wonder if SK is looking at it as well.

User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17149 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50148 times:

Quoting moderators (Thread starter):
30 from Air Lease Corporation
10 from GECAS

Any ideas where those birds might end up?



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49991 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 7):
Quoting moderators (Thread starter):
10 from GECAS

Any ideas where those birds might end up?

BR anyone?



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 50009 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
pls repost

Some of the pictures on the new site are good and I like the ad campaign 'perfect 10'. Too bad they tripped a little. For those that haven't found it its all here: Lets hope they fix it quickly.

http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-10_announcement/

tortugamon


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49920 times:

Well, some were thinking British Airways would order 18, versus the 12 that they actually ordered. Perhaps 6 for British then?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49791 times:

Quoting Prost (Reply 10):
Well, some were thinking British Airways would order 18, versus the 12 that they actually ordered. Perhaps 6 for British then?

The thing is, those 18 units are intended as 744 replacements. I would be surprised if they order 12 787-10 + 6 787-9 aircraft for this purpose, maybe the remaining 6 will be 787-10 options.

[Edited 2013-06-18 02:35:09]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemilestones787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49629 times:

Wow, what % more efficient is the 787-10 going to be than the 744? That is a huge leap!

User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49573 times:

Sorry, I meant to say that perhaps 6 of the 787-10 that leasing companies ordered are destined for British Airways, thus bringing their fleet total to 18.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49512 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 12):

35% was posted somewhere, quite a bit, don't know if you can compare a 744 to a 787-10 though, maybe at 320 seats?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49463 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 14):
don't know if you can compare a 744 to a 787-10 though

Some BA 744 aircraft only have about 290 seats.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49390 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 12):
Wow, what % more efficient is the 787-10 going to be than the 744?

35% has been speculated. BA has a bunch of 299 seat 744s.

tortugamon


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49353 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 12):
Wow, what % more efficient is the 787-10 going to be than the 744? That is a huge leap!

The will consume 40 kg/knm/m2 vs. 64 for the 744, I get this to be 37% more fuel efficient, I would say it is as close to a no brainer as you get   .

[Edited 2013-06-18 02:50:44]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 49125 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):

I guess the 787-10 will be a very popular TATL shuttle aircraft, it´s really perfect for this role.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48932 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
I guess the 787-10 will be a very popular TATL shuttle aircraft, it´s really perfect for this role.

I am surprised to only see 12 orders.

UA's purchase of 20 is a reasonable size order but I am surprised they decided to convert 10 of their other 787 orders. IMO they need more aircraft in this 300 seat area than the 60 they have to replace the 150 frames that they have on hand.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48837 times:

A couple heavy quotes:

“The 787-10 will be the most efficient jetliner in history,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Ray Conner said at the launch event in Paris. “The 787-10 is 25% more efficient than airplanes of its size today and more than 10% better than anything being offered by the competition for the future.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_06_18_2013_p0-589320.xml&p=1

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48822 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
A couple heavy quotes:

The usual marketing talk  



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48582 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):

I hear you. Doesn't his quote imply that the A359 would only be 15% more efficient than the A330. That does not sound right.

Once BA's additional six 787s are added to SuH's three -9s doesn't that take orders to 991. Just nine more to go! Lock up the 787-9 order for QR!

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48361 times:

About the landing gear:

Quote:
In contrast with the internal design changes and wing clean-up required for the 787-9, the latest variant demands minor only tweaks involving two fuselage plugs and a 777-300ER-style, semi-levered landing gear to avoid tailstrikes on rotation.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...787-10-with-five-customers-387321/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 48275 times:

Finally, the range is quite important, so Boeing will not have the same problem as the 764.


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 49943 times:

Engines?

We know that the SQ (30) and BA (12) planes will have RR Trent 1000s.

We know that the GECAS planes (10) will have GEnxs.

The (30) for ALC will almost certainly be a mix of both engines.

That leaves the (20) for UA. CO ordered their 787s with GE. UA hadn't / haven't made an engine choice for the order they placed. Had their fleet stayed all -8s and -9s, I'd have said it was a dead cert that they'd all have GE but something tells me that RR might have the edge on the -10. Fingers crossed.


User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 49822 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15):
Some BA 744 aircraft only have about 290 seats.

Yes, but a 787-10 in a typical BA config wouldn't have 290 seats despite Boeing market it as a >300 seat aircraft


User currently offlineVH-BZF From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 49899 times:

I think that Qantas given their previous comments (Alan Joyce) about wanting the B787-10 will definitely be a customer for this variant. It will be perfectly timed in terms of delivery for them to replace the A330-300's and fill the gap between the A380 and the B787-9's.

BZF



Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 49623 times:

Does it have the range for Qantas?

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12598 posts, RR: 34
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 49158 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
I am surprised to only see 12 orders.

UA's purchase of 20 is a reasonable size order but I am surprised they decided to convert 10 of their other 787 orders. IMO they need more aircraft in this 300 seat area than the 60 they have to replace the 150 frames that they have on hand.

It's very early days yet; I don't know when exactly the 7810 is due to enter service (say 2018?), which is a good long way down the road and we will probably see more acquisitions of 787s between now and then; who knows, perhaps some of the 787s order by the lessors will also end up with BA?

Don't forget that the 777X launch is still to come and what BA has ordered already, between A350s and 787s, still won't even replace the 744s one for one, so there is still scope for additional developments and - if this happens - it will leave BA with a complicated balancing act between the three major types (and several sub-types), so we may yet see further adjustments as data - from in-service information - becomes clearer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, now that the 787-10 has been launched and we're pretty clear on the dimensions of the 777X sub-types, is there anywhere one can get a representation of all of the next generation widebody twins, from the 788 up to the 777-9? I saw something on a post a while back, with several different types in BA colours, but can't recall if this included everything.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 49304 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 25):
UA hadn't / haven't made an engine choice for the order they placed. Had their fleet stayed all -8s and -9s, I'd have said it was a dead cert that they'd all have GE but something tells me that RR might have the edge on the -10. Fingers crossed.

Unfortunately not...

"With this order and the six Dreamliners currently operated by the airline, United has ordered 65 GEnx-1B-powered 787s, making United the largest GEnx-1B operator."
http://www.geaviation.com/press/genx/genx_20130618.html


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 48809 times:

Would anyone point me in a direction where I could download one of those amazing 787-10 images from newairplane.com site in high resolution, please? I would love to have one of those grace my desktop...

Thanks a million in advance!



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 48780 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-10_announcement/

If the market is routes like "tokya to Casablanca" I think Airbus should not be worried  
SIN-LHR ? HKG-JFK ? this is not serious



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 48516 times:

The quote from Hazy on MTOW is dubious. The value ascribed to him is that of the 789. PIANO-X suggests to me that it will need close to 254t to make the ~7100nm range at max passenger load. I have to believe there is more to come on this number.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 47891 times:

It can do LHR-LAX at MTOW easy, how long routes does BA have? As I understand TALT is still their bread and butter?

User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 47627 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 28):
Does it have the range for Qantas?

Yes. All of Asia, (at least as far west as Pakistan) is within range, all the Pacific Islands, even South Africa & Chile & Argentina (ignoring ETOPS rules) are within 7000nm. West Coast North America is marginal, but that's what B788 & B789s are for. I suppect it will become the airframe of choice for Australia to Asia Pacific.

See:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7000nm%40syd&MS=wls&DU=nm

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 47324 times:

Re Reply 33.
Yup thats' the million dollar question "about" 7,000 Nm is too vague (although I appreciate that perhaps they have to be). A new semi-levered landing gear . Most people have said that considering the weight it will also have to be beefed up at the same time (no surprise there). Range is such a hard thing to pin down as configs vary so much as do T/O and flying conditions (hot/high/wind with/against etc).

What will the drop off of the curve look like depending on load. Steep? All depends on total weight of course. But there might be some severe trade offs I feel.

Having said that.... For those who will/do not need absolute range - people have correctly identified TATL. WOW!! replacing an old 744 with this and getting a 35% plus drop in fuel burn. Now for once that really is a "game changer"!

It completely removes the 333 (and various others) from any equasion going forward.There is nearly a thousand plane market right there! But it will all depend on the range / payload curve IMHO....Will be interesting to watch.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 47065 times:

Seeing how the A333 kept growing the MTOW maybe the 787-10 will too with time, ending its life above 7500nm?

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8044 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 46429 times:

My guess is that the 787-10 is aimed for one market: replacing the A330-300 on most transatlantic and transpacific routes, but with way lower CASM. This could be the plane multiple European charter airlines are looking for--and Delta may use it to expand transatlantic and flights to South America from JFK and ATL. In short, by 2020 airlines of the TUI group may be using it to fly from Europe to east coast USA and Caribbean resort destinations.

User currently offlinelutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 45473 times:

Perfect for CX to replace A330 regionally in 10 years time

User currently offlineVhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 44824 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 37):
Seeing how the A333 kept growing the MTOW maybe the 787-10 will too with time, ending its life above 7500nm?

I'm not too sure

The difference is when launched the A330 was intended to be a high density regional airliner primarily aimed at Asian carriers while the A340 was supposed to be the longhaul airliner. In that role the A330 didn't need a large MTOW. I'm not familiar with the structural improvements needed to subsequently raise the A330's MTOW to allow more fuel to be carried to the point where the current A330-300 basically has the same capabilities as the original A340-300 but the design was always based on the A330/A340 platform.

The 787-10X on the other hand is a further stretch of the 787 platform. While it probably will see MTOW rises I'm not sure they'll be as drastic as the A330. Even if it was possible it could impact of the sales of the 777-8X.



Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 27):

I think that Qantas given their previous comments (Alan Joyce) about wanting the B787-10 will definitely be a customer for this variant. It will be perfectly timed in terms of delivery for them to replace the A330-300's and fill the gap between the A380 and the B787-9's.

I can definitely see the 787-10X in QF's fleet as an eventual A330-300 replacement. If there's any aircraft in development that was made for their operations to SIN, HKG, TYO it's the 787-10X. But I think the order will be a couple of years away with EIS Early-Mid 2020's



Vhq.



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4985 posts, RR: 41
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 44558 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
I guess the 787-10 will be a very popular TATL shuttle aircraft, it´s really perfect for this role.

Among other things. This will be a very versatile aircraft. And she looks good in the process too.  .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
“The 787-10 will be the most efficient jetliner in history,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Ray Conner said at the launch event in Paris. “The 787-10 is 25% more efficient than airplanes of its size today and more than 10% better than anything being offered by the competition for the future.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l&p=1

Just marketing talk of course. She will lose big against the A359 on payload. Nothing new here.  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
The usual marketing talk  

  .

Quoting PM (Reply 25):
Engines?

We know that the SQ (30) and BA (12) planes will have RR Trent 1000s.

We know that the GECAS planes (10) will have GEnxs.

The (30) for ALC will almost certainly be a mix of both engines.

Probably close to an even split sofar?

Quoting PM (Reply 25):
That leaves the (20) for UA. CO ordered their 787s with GE. UA hadn't / haven't made an engine choice for the order they placed. Had their fleet stayed all -8s and -9s, I'd have said it was a dead cert that they'd all have GE but something tells me that RR might have the edge on the -10. Fingers crossed.

Indeed, fingers crossed. But also GE will have an excellent engine offering, no doubt about that.  


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 44202 times:

Seems like more of an A330 competitor, or even -- the second coming of the 787-3. It has a good range, but like 767, it may be used for short-range a lot.

User currently onlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 43872 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
the second coming of the 787-3

Sure. Other than 30% more cabin area and twice the range.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 43400 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
Just marketing talk of course. She will lose big against the A359 on payload. Nothing new here

I can't agree with that . MZFW for both are within a tonne or two of each other; M^2 in floor area and M^3 in cargo space are pretty similar. It will be the payload ( and fuel) that the A359's higher MTOW will allow it to lift that will give it an edge and that will be well out on the load/range curve.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 43410 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 43):
Sure. Other than 30% more cabin area and twice the range.

Indeed. The 787-3 failed to get orders for its mission. It needed big changes. The range is impressive - but well below the 772. IMO we are looking at a new mid-hauler. Nothing wrong with that.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1801 posts, RR: 7
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 42945 times:

I could see DL with a mix of -9's and -10X's. The 9 has awesome range and a good passenger load. Let's see if DL takes the bait and jumps. Richard Anderson, in a recent CNBC interview said he would buy the 10 version today if it were available. Move now to get some good delivery slots.

If it turns out to be that popular I wonder if they will build at both Everett and South Carolina.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently onlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 2255 posts, RR: 53
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 41862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 41933 times:

Quoting Miami (Reply 47):
I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.

Here you go:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...iner-stretch-may-be-too-small.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1040 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 41672 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
UA's purchase of 20 is a reasonable size order but I am surprised they decided to convert 10 of their other 787 orders. IMO they need more aircraft in this 300 seat area than the 60 they have to replace the 150 frames that they have on hand.

What the big rush United still has time and according to some articles UA is looking at the A351 and may people on A.netters including myself would like to see UA order a few 779X's.

So although this is a respectable order something tells me more widebody order will follow, maybe not at the Paris air show but UA will order or convert existing orders to larger variants. UA will need to replace a lot of aircraft; the 3 class 767 are already covered by an existing sUA order for 25 B788, the 744 fleet has an existing order for A359 but most people expect UA to convert that order to A351, and lastly sUA non-er 772 will need replacing by the end of this decade as well. I believe that most of sUA 772ER will probably be in the fleet till probably 2024-25 and then UA will start to retire the sUA 772ER and sCO 772ER and 764 are the youngest widebodies in the combined UA fleet so those planes will probably be in the fleet till at least 2027-28 before they start the retirement of the sCO fleet. (theses are just my estimates and I could be wrong). So as you can see with the current orders United has time, the only fleet that now needs an appropriate replacement order is the 744 fleet hopefully we will see an order during Paris and if not I'm hopeful that some type of order will be placed before years end.

However I think the 20 B787-10's are probably slated as replacements for UA non-er 772 which will be anywhere between 23-25 years old if I'm not mistaken by the time UA starts to take delivery of the 787-10.


User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 41411 times:

Quoting Miami (Reply 47):
I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.

Guess not, but you now have some backup to the probability that EK will place a 50-100 plane order for the 777-8x and 777-9x.


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 41404 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 49):
What the big rush

Well, and 65 787's and the rumored 35 A350's are a HUGE 100 airframe commitment as it is.

I remember some years back reading the book "Airframe" (I think that's what it was called) and the premise was that an Asian carrier was going to order 100 widebodies in exchange for getting the wing manufacturing of a new airframe. All I could think was "100 widebodies? Ya, right!  " - boy how times have changed.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 2255 posts, RR: 53
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 48):

Thank you for the link!



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5855 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40802 times:

Don't forget that the range is much closer to A330-200 range than A330-300 range (and far, far greater than 767-400ER range). This aircraft will do just fine on any transatlantic flight to Europe and on any transpacific flight to Japan, Korea, or PEK. It will also be a regional hauler par excellence for Asian airlines.

User currently onlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 2255 posts, RR: 53
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A more appropriate question would be: Would AA order the 787-10x. And maybe even the 777-8x, 777-9x..?

That's a question a lot of people would like to know.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
Just marketing talk of course. She will lose big against the A359 on payload. Nothing new here.   

The key will be, however, how much of the A350-900's mission she can do and how much more efficiently can she do them?

Even at 250t MTOW, the A330-300 "loses big" to the 777-200ER on payload because the 777-200ER can lift 59 tons and fly it 5800nm at MZFW while the A330-300 can lift 48 tons and fly it around 4500nm at MZFW. However, Airbus says the A330-300 can still perform some 90% of the missions the 777-200ER can and do so a fair bit more economically and this is likely correct since most missions don't go out at MZFW so the extra payload and range the 77E offers is not critical.

If a 787-10 can do 90% of the missions an A350-900 can and do them more economically, we may see a repeat of the 777-200ER / A330-300 campaign where the A350-900 starts with strong orders and then trails off as the 787-10 becomes the desired choice for top-ups and replacements down the road.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1828 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40605 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15):
Some BA 744 aircraft only have about 290 seats.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 16):
35% has been speculated. BA has a bunch of 299 seat 744s.

That is an obscenely low number of seats! UA's config of F/J/E+/Y still manages 374!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
IMO they need more aircraft in this 300 seat area than the 60 they have to replace the 150 frames that they have on hand.

The only 300+seat aircraft United currently operates are the 744's and the high density 777s. The remaining of UA's 772s are only around 260-270.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15):
Some BA 744 aircraft only have about 290 seats.
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 56):
That is an obscenely low number of seats!

BA flies a very premium-heavy configuration with large First and Business Class cabins.

You want "obscenely low" seat counts - Korean Air puts only 407 on an A380-800!  


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2329 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 40040 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 36):
It completely removes the 333 (and various others) from any equasion going forward.There is nearly a thousand plane market right there! But it will all depend on the range / payload curve IMHO....Will be interesting to watch.

It doesnt remove the market because its years away, and you have to take into account that the A330 is cheaper nad making money right now. In time we will see that companies will change their fleets for newer metal based on amortization, capital spending and operating costs. It will change but we are YEARS from throwing away current big twins to the scrappers.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 38):
My guess is that the 787-10 is aimed for one market: replacing the A330-300 on most transatlantic and transpacific routes, but with way lower CASM. This could be the plane multiple European charter airlines are looking for--and Delta may use it to expand transatlantic and flights to South America from JFK and ATL. In short, by 2020 airlines of the TUI group may be using it to fly from Europe to east coast USA and Caribbean resort destinations.

Delta has stated that the /87 is way too expensive and they dont like capital spending (hence a ton on MDs they have)

Quoting Miami (Reply 47):
I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.

Same here but I guess the 787 is too small for them, they will order a nice 777X tailor made for them. ( a huge order)

Quoting Miami (Reply 54):
A more appropriate question would be: Would AA order the 787-10x. And maybe even the 777-8x, 777-9x..?

That's a question a lot of people would like to know.

Yep AA has to decide its fleet for the next 20 years... BIG QUESTION... what will they do?

Congrats Boeing !

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 39908 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 48):
Quoting Miami (Reply 47):I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.
Here you go:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0....html

Well, TC says EK will have look at it, so it's not completely out of the running. But another order or conversion to the A350-1000 is more likely.

Quoting Miami (Reply 54):
A more appropriate question would be: Would AA order the 787-10x

Very likely indeed, they have a large fleet of 772s which aren't always used for their range.
However, AA has also 'inherited' an A350-800 order from US, which IMO could better be converted to -900s. That will take care of replacing the oldest 772s. AA/US having both 789 and A358 in their fleet doesn't seem the best mix I can think of.



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 offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2361 posts, RR: 25
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 39559 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 56):
That is an obscenely low number of seats! UA's config of F/J/E+/Y still manages 374!

Only an American (and maybe a Canadian) used to cramped long-haul would suggest that.

Premium carriers tend to have substantially lower density layouts.

[Edited 2013-06-18 08:21:32]

User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 38773 times:

Interesting enough Boeing's 300-330 seat 787-10 has a sample configuration of 350:

First (Today's Business) @ 61: 18
Business (Today's PE): 58
Economy: 274
Total: 350


User currently offlineb777erj145 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 37504 times:

Did any of the mentioned airlines converted their 787-8/9 order to -10?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 37576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting b777erj145 (Reply 62):
Did any of the mentioned airlines converted their 787-8/9 order to -10?

United converted ten.

The remainder look to be all new orders.

[Edited 2013-06-18 09:58:45]

User currently offlinesunnyflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 37317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All this Hype from Boeing is lovely but I'm waiting for a flyable - 9, hope it Shows up faster than the - 8

User currently offlineb777erj145 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 37135 times:

One more question Singapore is to launch 787-10 right or it has changed? My memory is giving hard time in this exciting news.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):

Thanks. Congrats to Boeing and all the current airlines and would love to see more orders for this aircraft.


User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 36120 times:

Wonder if AC will be placing options on the 787-10?


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 36216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
However, Airbus says the A330-300 can still perform some 90% of the missions the 777-200ER can and do so a fair bit more economically and this is likely correct since most missions don't go out at MZFW so the extra payload and range the 77E offers is not critical.

If a 787-10 can do 90% of the missions an A350-900 can and do them more economically, we may see a repeat of the 777-200ER / A330-300 campaign where the A350-900 starts with strong orders and then trails off as the 787-10 becomes the desired choice for top-ups and replacements down the road.

The only observation I'd offer is that the cost and weight delta between a 777-200ER and an A330-300 is huge - 300 tonnes vs 233 tonnes - the 777 is nearly 30% heavier than the A330, and must cost WAY more to operate.

I think a cigarette paper will just about fit between the A350-900 and the 787-10 in terms of cost and capacity.
268 tonnes (for the A359) v 251 tonnes (for the 787-10) is 6.7% heavier, and it will have (very) slightly better SFC engines and that big wingspan.
The fuel burn delta is going to be extremely small, and if anything, more likely to be in favour of the A350-900.
The operating cost delta is going to be extremely small.
One flies a little bit more capacity less distance, and one flies a little less capacity more distance.

For me, these two planes will sit comfortably side-by side in the marketplace, completely unlike the A330 and 77E  

Rgds


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 36183 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
The will consume 40 kg/knm/m2 vs. 64 for the 744, I get this to be 37% more fuel efficient,

If the 787-1000 is 37% more fuel efficient than the 744, how many % more fuel efficient than the A388 is it? I do not recall reading anywhere that the A388 is 37% more fuel efficient than the 744.


User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 34756 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 56):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 16):35% has been speculated. BA has a bunch of 299 seat 744s.

Which is almost exactly the same number as a BA 773ER - so if a 787-10 can replace a 744 it could also replace a 773. So I wonder what that says about the long term future for the 773 with BA?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 33506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 69):
So I wonder what that says about the long term future for the 773 with BA?

BA's comments have been very positive ("we wish we'd ordered them earlier").


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 33154 times:

Just realized that 787 - 10 = 777. Completely unintentional, probably, but just funny to point out!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 67):
For me, these two planes will sit comfortably side-by side in the marketplace, completely unlike the A330 and 77E

  

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 58):
Delta has stated that the /87 is way too expensive and they dont like capital spending (hence a ton on MDs they have)

If they're looking for fleet replacements and/or growth in the next 10ish years, what other options do they have? Order new 767s and A330s? While it's true that Delta seems to prefer purchasing used aircraft, I'm inclined to believe that they will order new aircraft if they have to. After all, look at their 77L, 772, future 739 fleet, and pre-NW fleet.

In any case, I'm sure Boeing will cut a deal for Delta. The very fact that Richard Anderson stated he'd buy the 787 but it's "too expensive" seems to be a statement directed at Boeing. They'd be hard-pressed not to respond favorably.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 32895 times:

DL doesn't prefer to purchase used; they prefer to purchase proven. They've bought all their 777s new. The used thing is entirely situational.

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 32805 times:

Quoting Miami (Reply 47):
I wonder if EK will purchase the 787-10x, now knowing it can carry 300-330 pax.

Quoting Clark.....We’ll certainly study the 787-10, but it could be a tad small for us,” Clark said in Paris, where he’s attending the world’s biggest aviation expo. The model would need to have a range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 kilometers) and be able to carry a 50-ton load to come into the reckoning for Emirates, he said.

This is what PIANO-X says about meeting Clark's 4000nm/50t parameter. It suggests that the 787-10 will breeze in at considerably less than MTOW.

{TOW 243368.kg./ OEW 136000.kg./ Fuel 57378.kg./ Payload 49990.kg.}

Range mode: fixed mach, step-up cruise

Climb schedule: 250./ 312.kcas/ mach 0.832 above 30772.feet

Cruise at Mach = 0.850 {FL 360 380}

ICA 36000.feet, 488.ktas, 284.kcas, CL=0.57, 60832.newtons/eng=MCR-18%
FCA 38000.feet, 488.ktas, 272.kcas, CL=0.51, 48426.newtons/eng=MCR-28%

Distance Time Fuelburn
(n.miles) (min.) (kg.)
_________ ______ _______
Climb 124. 18. 4212. {S.L to ICA}
Cruise 3748. 461. 44325. {ICA to ICA}
Descent 127. 21. 375. {ICA to S.L}
_________ ______ _______
Trip total 4000. 500. 48912.
Block total ====== 515. 49608.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 32666 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 72):
DL doesn't prefer to purchase used; they prefer to purchase proven. They've bought all their 777s new. The used thing is entirely situational.

Minimise CapEx is what I was trying to say. If they need to spend more, it has to be justified.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 32512 times:

Concerning Delta...one would think the dreamliner range of 8-9-10 would almost perfectly cover replacement of the 763, 764, A332, A333 and even 77E. If DL doesn't eventually order large numbers of 787s, i'll be shocked!  

User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 31694 times:

Quoting b777erj145 (Reply 65):

Singapore, United, British, Gecas and ALC are all the launch customers. The three airlines will all probably be the first operators, each for their respective regions.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 30498 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 71):
In any case, I'm sure Boeing will cut a deal for Delta. The very fact that Richard Anderson stated he'd buy the 787 but it's "too expensive" seems to be a statement directed at Boeing. They'd be hard-pressed not to respond favorably.

This comment somewhat puzzles me in that NW ordered the plane in May 2005 when the list price was $61 million cheaper. I can only assume that by deferring deliveries so long, that original pricing is no longer available and DL would receive the standard discount off the list price at the time they firm their order. Factoring in list price inflation, I could see even with a 50% discount in 2020 DL could be paying close to what the full list price of the 787-8 was in 2005.



Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
The model would need to have a range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 kilometers) and be able to carry a 50-ton load to come into the reckoning for Emirates, he said.

The 250-ton MTOW A330-300 can do that and the 787-10 will be more capable, so if Clark decides against the 787-10, payload-range won't be the reason.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 29098 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):
we will probably see more acquisitions of 787s between now and then;
Quoting jayunited (Reply 49):
What the big rush United still has time

I agree. They do not need to do it all at once and the options will have the time slots that they will need come 2018-2020 when their fleet age is getting ripe. I made my comment before I found out that UA converted an additional 5 787-9 options in the fall giving them 19 on firm order and before it was really speculated that UA would purchase additional A359s after they convert their existing A359 orders to A351s. Looking for that announcement this week. That should give them plenty of coverage pre-2020.

Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 40):
While it probably will see MTOW rises I'm not sure they'll be as drastic as the A330.

The range improvements could come in the form of improved engine performance and not just MTOW bumps. I think the GENx and the Trent Ten could be worth more than the 3% SFC improvement come 2018 if GE9x and other technologies are backflowed into these programs.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 45):
well below the 772. IMO we are looking at a new mid-hauler.

The 781 will fly 1,800nm further than the 772. If you meant the 77E then it can do over 90% of the 77E's range. A 7,000nm 13-hour, 'mid-hauler', we have come a long way.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 56):
The only 300 seat aircraft United currently operates are the 744's

My quote was around '300 seat aircraft'; meaning the 'typical three class seating' 300; which is anything but typical. So 275-325 seat 787-9s, A359s, and 781s. All of which will have less than 300 in UA configuration (781 should be really close!).

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 69):
so if a 787-10 can replace a 744 it could also replace a 773.

It could but that is a long way off and BA will have the A351 or A388 to do that job (maybe even a couple 777-9s). Although the 781 has a nominal seating between 300-330 seats the equivalent low density high premium seating on their 747s applied to the 781 would be approximately 235 seats with 65 premium seats vs 84 on the 747. No one is suggesting that it is a 1:1 swap just that on certain routes it could provide better economics.

tortugamon


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 28801 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 33):
The value ascribed to him is that of the 789. PIANO-X suggests to me that it will need close to 254t to make the ~7100nm range at max passenger load. I have to believe there is more to come on this number.

You have the info in Karels picture, B says you get 7000nm with 300 pax + bags, now add the seats for another 23 and their pax + bags weight (about 155kg each) and you will get your nominal range (around 7600nm). The MTOW will stay at 250.8t according to B .



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 28309 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 79):
now add the seats for another 23
Quoting ferpe (Reply 79):
you will get your nominal range (around 7600nm)

Wait, wut, you add more weight and the range goes up?  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 27470 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 74):
Minimise CapEx is what I was trying to say. If they need to spend more, it has to be justified.

That I agree with, and I also agree that RA's comment was a fine example of negotiating through the press.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
This comment somewhat puzzles me in that NW ordered the plane in May 2005 when the list price was $61 million cheaper. I can only assume that by deferring deliveries so long, that original pricing is no longer available and DL would receive the standard discount off the list price at the time they firm their order. Factoring in list price inflation, I could see even with a 50% discount in 2020 DL could be paying close to what the full list price of the 787-8 was in 2005.

That, or they want a lot more of them than the original order would cover, which, when you consider DL's size, I think is a given. The 787 series is a perfect fit for their network.


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 27166 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 79):
now add the seats for another 23
Quoting ferpe (Reply 79):
you will get your nominal range (around 7600nm)

Wait, wut, you add more weight and the range goes up?  


I think he meant 6700nm lol.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 26193 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 78):
The 781 will fly 1,800nm further than the 772. If you meant the 77E then it can do over 90% of the 77E's range. A 7,000nm 13-hour, 'mid-hauler', we have come a long way.

Indeed. It is an amazingly capabable mid-hauler  

Airlines will need something more capable than it somewhere in their fleets. At least, most prospective customers will. But this airplane will do a particular job, and do it well. What that job is... how it shakes out... will be fun to watch.


User currently offlineORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 25940 times:

Am I the only one that's surpised that the MTOW for the 787-10 is the same as for the 787-9? How can this be a good thing, given the operating empty weight it surely going to be higher than the -9??

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 25775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 84):
Am I the only one that's surpised that the MTOW for the 787-10 is the same as for the 787-9?

It appears that the 787-9's MTOW is already near the limit of what the landing gear is designed to handle so that limits the 787-10's MTOW.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 25663 times:

Or they have continued to find more weight savings and with another 3-4 years of development they are confident they can find more to make a 7,000NM Aircraft without increasing MTOW

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 25631 times:

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 84):
Am I the only one that's surpised that the MTOW for the 787-10 is the same as for the 787-9? How can this be a good thing, given the operating empty weight it surely going to be higher than the -9??

It's been assumed that the MTOW of the -10 was going to be the same as the -9 as Stich pointed out. The same MTOW is the reason why the -10 has considerably less range than the -9



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 25428 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
It appears that the 787-9's MTOW is already near the limit of what the landing gear is designed to handle so that limits the 787-10's MTOW.
Quoting waly777 (Reply 87):

It's been assumed that the MTOW of the -10 was going to be the same as the -9 as Stich pointed out. The same MTOW is the reason why the -10 has considerably less range than the -9

I thought I remembered a few years ago, when the -10 was on the drawing board, that there were early indications/discussion that the -10 would have a 6 wheel bogie to support - what I assumed - was a greater MTOW...?

Oh well... was hoping to see something approaching the A359's MTOW, but I guess the good folks at Boeing know better than I do  


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24839 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 83):
Airlines will need something more capable than it somewhere in their fleets.

I suspect many of them will, you're right. Maybe it is semantics: I see mid-haul as between 3-6 hour flights. I do not see that as being 781 territory and I don't think that is what you meant either. After all, its hard to get across the Atlantic in six hours. The narrow bodies have that locked up. I call long haul 6-14 hours and I think the 787 will be in the 6-11 hour (2,600nm to 5,500nm) trip lengths where the vast majority of wide body flights make their money.

I can still see some airlines not opting to go with anything bigger than the 787-10. Let the 787-9 do the really long flights and let the -10 do the high traffic routes. JAL and ANA may even go this route because in their low density routes NRT-JFK may be feasible and it would save them adding too large of a plane (777X) or a new type (A350).

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 88):
hoping to see something approaching the A359's MTOW

Why? If they can go to 7,000nm why add more weight to the structure to support a higher MTOW and burn more fuel for something most airlines may not need? This could definitely be something they work on come 2020 a HGW version of the 787-10 to rival the A359s legs and then the MTOW increase would be key. That could get exciting.

tortugamon


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1744 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24738 times:

In a way the 78-10 could be the new 757, updated bigger and a fair amount more range.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24478 times:

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 88):
I thought I remembered a few years ago, when the -10 was on the drawing board, that there were early indications/discussion that the -10 would have a 6 wheel bogie to support - what I assumed - was a greater MTOW...?

Oh yea I remember that as well. If I remember correctly, aspire aviation was the source of that rumour. I guess the airlines preferred the original concept, just a simple stretch. They did say the main gear will be cantilevered, though still a 4 wheel bogie.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8044 posts, RR: 5
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24551 times:

I think the 787-10 is to the 787 line what the 767-400ER is to the 767 line: more pax/cargo capacity, but with some sacrifice in range. the 787-10 may be intended for airline with semi-long range needs such as DL from JFK and ATL to South America and western Europe or European charter airlines flying to most of the USA or Caribbean destinations.

It should be noted that the likes of JL and NH may not be as interested in the 787-10 as much as you think. Both airlines already have substantial 777 fleets, and both JL and NH can starting in 2015 devote more of their 777 fleet to the HND-CTS and HND-FUK routes now that cities like Toyama and Kanazawa can be reached by Shinkansen with the new Hokuriku Shinkansen line.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24121 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 92):

I think the 787-10 is to the 787 line what the 767-400ER is to the 767 line: more pax/cargo capacity, but with some sacrifice in range.

Thankfully it already has more customers and more orders!



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23782 times:

Does anyone know how Boeing comes up with the 323 seat number? Am I missing something? The sample configuration is way more seats than this....

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23441 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 90):
In a way the 78-10 could be the new 757

Could be. Especially if an airline does not have an A321 and their MAX/NEO does not have enough legs.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 91):
If I remember correctly, aspire aviation was the source of that rumour.

Boeing did their share to feed the rumor as well as recently as late last year. Here is a thread about a flight global article that Ferpe caught wind of:
787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG (by ferpe Dec 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 92):
It should be noted that the likes of JL and NH may not be as interested in the 787-10 as much as you think.

I would think that they will need replacements to the 77As and 773s before the decade is out because of all of the cycles. 787-9s won't be able to do all of it IMO. They may not buy a tremendous amount but it is hard to not see them as buyers.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 94):
Does anyone know how Boeing comes up with the 323 seat number?

(18/58/247) in (F/J/Y) at (61/39/32) pitch. The 350 figure you see/saw I think is because the 247 in Y has two different seat pitch assumptions and the wording is cut off.

tortugamon


User currently offlineiMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6344 posts, RR: 33
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23073 times:

Interesting that they stuck with the-10, it seems to me a bit awkward to say 787-1022 or 787-1033, etc.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineJOYA380B747 From India, joined Mar 2005, 570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22994 times:

787 -8 -9 -10

777 -8x -9x

A350 -900 -1000

Are customers going to be spoilt for choice?


  



If it wasn't for AI and those money mongers sitting in the parliament, 9W would have been as big as SQ...:(
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22839 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 91):
Oh yea I remember that as well. If I remember correctly, aspire aviation was the source of that rumour. I guess the airlines preferred the original concept, just a simple stretch. They did say the main gear will be cantilevered, though still a 4 wheel bogie.

Still leaves room for a 787-10 IGW/ER later on with a 6 wheel bogie.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iMissPiedmont (Reply 96):
Interesting that they stuck with the-10, it seems to me a bit awkward to say 787-1022 or 787-1033, etc.

I believe that Boeing no longer officially uses customer codes with the 787 family.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22270 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
This is what PIANO-X says about meeting Clark's 4000nm/50t parameter. It suggests that the 787-10 will breeze in at considerably less than MTOW.

yes indeed, for "Clark's mission", the 787-10 will beat it by ~ 800nm. 10hr missions are about what it will do w/ a 50t load. Not too shabby.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4500nm%40DXB&MS=wls2&DU=mi


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 21621 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 30):
Unfortunately not...

Ah. Oh well. That was a short-lived dream!  

Thanks for the link.


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 21724 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 86):
Or they have continued to find more weight savings and with another 3-4 years of development they are confident they can find more to make a 7,000NM Aircraft without increasing MTOW
Quoting ORDFan (Reply 88):
I thought I remembered a few years ago, when the -10 was on the drawing board, that there were early indications/discussion that the -10 would have a 6 wheel bogie to support - what I assumed - was a greater MTOW...?

I think the press and we have jointly tried to make a hen out of a feather, B have appearantly been consistent and focused all the time. B leaked that the 787-10 was a 6700nm straight prolongation of the -9, the shorter range coming from the increased OEW (6-8t) eating into the available fuel you can carry with a full 323 pax cabin and the additional drag you get from a longer fuselage.

Godfather (Steven Udvar-Hazey) then asked for another 300nm range and Guy Norris of AW rumored that B was looking into 6 wheel bogies. I contributed to putting 2+2 together and getting 5  so then we started discussing a hen of 7000nm with 6 wheels  Wow!. To our defense it was logical, you don't get an extra 300nm without increasing the MTOW some 4-5t and per Sticth the MLG was good for 253t max. Also B (read Randy) were starting to put 7000nm on their briefing slides   .

We should have known better then believing Randy was telling us a straight story  Wow! , he is in marketing and that is where you solve such problems like 7000nm on a 251t 787-10, you suddenly say 300-330 pax and 7000nm.    As soon as we see an OEM say "from-to" we shall now be smart enough to know that the higher range goes with the lower pax count, like for the -9: from 250-290 pax and 8500nm means 8500nm with 250 pax. With 290 pax it is still 8000nm    .



Non French in France
User currently offlinearyonoco From Australia, joined May 2012, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20820 times:

I think this aircraft will be very popular, way more popular than the launch order book shows.

This will be one of the main carriers TATL and intra-Asia. Those are two big markets in the aviation world.

The comparison with A359 will be fascinating. The two are different enough to not compete directly with each other, and yet similar enough that anyone who looks at one will look at the other as well.

It's an interesting time to watch the fluctuating WB market. So different from the stale NB one.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20763 times:

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 103):
I think this aircraft will be very popular, way more popular than the launch order book shows.

Me, too, most likely it will become the most popular model of the 787 at some point.

Still hoping for LHto order the -10X, like it much better than the A350.  

[Edited 2013-06-18 22:11:45]


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20356 times:

LH and SK would two possible -10 customers, both have shown interest in this model above the other 787 models. Maybe SK wont need anymore range than it offers? I for one think the 789 would be great for SKs A343 replacements. The -10 is a bit larger and SK is not really growing.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19745 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
Guy Norris of AW rumored

I did not help by attributing it to Boeing from flight global article instead of GN from AW editorializing  .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
300-330 pax and 7000nm

It does appear that is what is going on. Sadly. But how many airlines are really going to put 330 seat in 781s and want to fly it 7,000nm? High density = LCC = Not Economical for 13 hr missions anyway. 7knm is probably more indicative of realistic seating. We all drank the kool-aid.

SuH is still happy (wasn't it always 553,000lbs?):
"Boeing managed to overcome Hazy initial concerns about range by increasing it to 7,000 naut. mi. Hazy said that was addressed by introducing a slightly higher maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 553,000 pounds. Some reinforcements in the wing to body attachment area and on the landing gear were needed to accommodate the increased weight. Engine thrust will also be slightly higher than originally planned." http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_18_2013_p0-589320.xml

But here is an interesting quote:
"The range covers 97% of the wide-body city pairs of the world, Hazy pointed out."

With all of the 77W, A340, 77E, 747, 77L, and A380s out there with longer range its interesting that the figure still comes out at 97%. Would love to see that calculus.

tortugamon


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7975 posts, RR: 19
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 18994 times:

Where will these lease orders end up?


Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19090 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
But how many airlines are really going to put 330 seat in 781s and want to fly it 7,000nm?

Jackpot. As A330-300 replacement, the seat count in the real world will be around today's A330s.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18248 times:

So UA will have to maintain their 744s for another 5 years or so. This is not a problem per se, but means extra fuel costs until they can burn less with new aircraft models.
Can we assume the 748i will cease to attract any more passenger frame orders?


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7396 posts, RR: 16
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18138 times:

This is gonna be in the fleet for NZ I reckon. 763/77E/77W/744 replaced by one 789/78X fleet = huge savings and hopefully a standardised product finally. I just wish they had the 788 as well

User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18118 times:

Quoting trent1000 (Reply 109):
Can we assume the 748i will cease to attract any more passenger frame orders?

You do realise that KE ordered 5 x 748i yesterday ?

This aircraft I believe will be a sensation for it's operators, the economics look to be sensational (save the purchase price) and for an airline like QF, it's going to reach every Asian destination that they currently, or are likely to serve easily, while carrying a substantial payload. As for JQ, with a mixed fleet of 789's and 7810's will give a degree of seasonal flexibility while carrying more, cheaper, than their current 332's. Personally, I can see 6-8 7810's with JQ and upwards of 20 in the QF fleet by 2025.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7742 posts, RR: 17
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 17695 times:

Talk of BA replacing their 77Ws with the 787-10 seems a little premature when BA's oldest 77W is not yet four years old and when BA will take delivery of two more 77Ws later this year and another two next year.

It is also worth noting that The BA Source is reporting that the BA commitment to 12 787-10 is part of the 18 options taken out on 27 September 2007 (with the airline's order for six 787-8s and 18 787-9s) that was firmed into the order for 18 787s announced on 3 April this year.

We all tend to look at orders being direct replacements for existing aircraft. In the case of BA we are looking at their fleet of 744s, the routes that they operate them on and their cabin configurations. But it is worth remembering that BA placed their opening order for the 744 a few months before the airline was privatised. That order for 16 aircraft (with 12 options) was placed in August 1986. At that time it was stated that range was the prime reason for its selection, not its size.

Since then much has changed. For example initially BA configured its 744s for 377 passengers (F18 / J74 / M285).

In 1995 with the launch of J Class cradle seats the configuration was changed to between 400 and 407 passengers (typically F18 / J55 / M332).

Later with the launch of lie-flat J Class seats in 2000 the direction was reversed, The 744 fleet was reconfigured to carry either 364 passengers ('Lo J', configuration: F14/ J38 / W36 /M276) or 291 passengers ('Hi J' configuration: F14 / J70 / W30 / Y177).

At the time of the launch of their second generation lie-flat J Class seat in around 1997 the 'Lo J' configured aircraft were reconfigured to the 'Mid J' configuration of 337 passengers ( F14 / J52 / W36 / Y235).

So externally the BA 744s have only changed their livery but have otherwise remained constant for 24 years, internally the number of passengers that the type carries has constantly evolved to meet changes to both the airline's strategies and circumstances and changes in the market place and customer needs.

These changes include, for example, the purchase of BD and its LHR slots. This purchase, at least in theory, allows BA to adapt its strategies because the pressures on the airline as it operates out of a slot bound hub are now slightly different. So the purchase of BD might impact the airline's long haul aircraft selection.

One-for-one replacement of the existing fleet is possible but by no means certain.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17509 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):

And the 787-8 with is 7620 to 8200 Nm is indeed in the same ballpark as A330-200 242 t with the samel payload
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...330family/a330-200/specifications/
7500 Nm in a 3 class layout and 240 t MTOW should be near 7620 Nm with 242 t

Indeed both airplanes are 7200 Nm bird with "typical nowadays" 2 class layout


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17270 times:

List price for the 787-10 is $290 million.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3606 posts, RR: 66
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16853 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 92):
I think the 787-10 is to the 787 line what the 767-400ER is to the 767 line: more pax/cargo capacity, but with some sacrifice in range. the 787-10 may be intended for airline with semi-long range needs such as DL from JFK and ATL to South America and western Europe or European charter airlines flying to most of the USA or Caribbean destinations.

I think the 787-10 is exactly the type of airplane LH has been asking for, ie sufficient range to fly the bulk of their routes, avoiding the OEW and thrust increases needed to push out to an 8000nm design range.

Now let's see if they will buy it.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16552 times:

So all three airline/airline group launch customers have on their order/commitment books all three models of the Dreamliner.
*United: 788-36, 789-9, 791-20. Total=65.
SIA/Scoot: 788-10, 789-10, 781-30. total=50.
BA/IAG: 788-8, 789-16, 781-12. Total=36.

*pls correct if the numbers are off.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16243 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 116):

Continental ordered 11 787-8's and 14 787-9's with delivery starting early in the production run. United then in 2009 ordered 25 787-8's with a delivery time frame starting no earlier than 2016 and ending around 2019 with the ability to defer any aircraft later.

I believe the 10 conversions will come from the United ordered aircraft as the -10 would fit in that time frame with really no adjustment to the schedule. United said 2018 for first -10's.

We won't know for sure until the order shows up on Boeing's site.

Ps, when did United order five additional aircraft? Can't say I remember hearing that.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1828 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16200 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 116):
*United: 788-36, 789-9, 791-20. Total=65.
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 117):
Ps, when did United order five additional aircraft? Can't say I remember hearing that.

It's probably going to be 788-26, 789-14, 781-20. Although I bet we see more of UA's orders moved to 789s from 788's in the far out deliveries. Afterall the 788 is the new 762.


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15976 times:

I still think the 788 is the best aircraft to replace the 763. Its a much larger capacity jump from a 763 to a 789 than from a 763 to a 788.

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15825 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 116):
*United: 788-36, 789-9, 791-20. Total=65.
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 118):
It's probably going to be 788-26, 789-14, 781-20

Is there an official source anywhere for these numbers? Seems like all we know is the original order (sCO 11 788s, sUA 25 788s, sCO 14 789s), supposedly 5 options converted last year (no model specified?), and a net of 10 addtional 78J.

Would seem then that the only thing we can be sure of is:

788: Between 26-41
789: Between 4-19
78J: 20

-5 net 788/789 (10 conversions to -10, plus 5 options converted last year).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15703 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
As A330-300 replacement, the seat count in the real world will be around today's A330s

At 4.6m longer than the A333 it will seat one more seat per row in coach (if they go 9Y), 1 more row of J, and 3-4 rows of Y give or take.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
List price for the 787-10 is $290 million.

The -9 is 18% more expensive than the -8 and it looks like the -10 will be 19% more than the -9.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 116):
BA/IAG: 788-8, 789-16, 781-12. Total=36.

There should be another 6 floating out there somewhere. BA exercised 18 options and exercised only 12 for the 787-10.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 117):
Ps, when did United order five additional aircraft?

I have read that they executed 5 options in the fall. Still no word on which variant but its hard to imagine that they won't all be for the -9.

Quoting Prost (Reply 119):
I still think the 788 is the best aircraft to replace the 763. Its a much larger capacity jump from a 763 to a 789 than from a 763 to a 788.

It depends on where trip costs shake out. If the 787-8 has similar trip costs to the -9 then those extra seats, even if you do not fill them, come for free. The -9 carries carries 40 more seats, flies 500nm further than the -8, and does that carrying less fuel than the -8 so it certainly appears that the -9 is going to be the efficient machine of the two. Once some of the -9's special sauce is back filled into the -8 and it gets lighter there may be a further separation on trip costs; in which case I absolutely agree. In the mean time, a slightly overweight girlfriend is better than no girlfriend  .

tortugamon


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 1
Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15673 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
It depends on where trip costs shake out. If the 787-8 has similar trip costs to the -9 then those extra seats, even if you do not fill them, come for free. The -9 carries carries 40 more seats, flies 500nm further than the -8, and does that carrying less fuel than the -8 so it certainly appears that the -9 is going to be the efficient machine of the two. Once some of the -9's special sauce is back filled into the -8 and it gets lighter there may be a further separation on trip costs; in which case I absolutely agree. In the mean time, a slightly overweight girlfriend is better than no girlfriend .

We'll have to ask Kanye West how that equation worked out.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2594 posts, RR: 16
Reply 123, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15607 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
It does appear that is what is going on. Sadly. But how many airlines are really going to put 330 seat in 781s and want to fly it 7,000nm? High density = LCC = Not Economical for 13 hr missions anyway. 7knm is probably more indicative of realistic seating
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
"The range covers 97% of the wide-body city pairs of the world, Hazy pointed out."

While I fully agree with your observations, I do believe one (small) factor is now being overlooked: cargo.

While most airlines indeed won’t use the full passenger and range capacity to its full extent, the remaining potential is usually used up by cargo. This is where the 787-10 will be facing challenge; at range there will not be much potential for cargo (WEIGHT wise). Ironically, since it is a double stretch without going to triple bogey, cargo VOLUME is going to be very very impressive.

Useful range with full pax and nominal cargo will be considerably lower than the advertised range, I wonder what full pax, full cargo range will be?

However I do agree that it will be a wonderful solution for routes (Trans Atlantic) where 4000-5000 nm would be sufficient. I do not think that any airplane comes even close to the CASM at these kind of missions. And there are plenty of those to make the -10 pretty successful!

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15612 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
If the 787-8 has similar trip costs to the -9 then those extra seats, even if you do not fill them, come for free.

At 6600nm distance , 34t payload , the 789 burns ~10% more fuel than the 788.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 123):
However I do agree that it will be a wonderful solution for routes (Trans Atlantic) where 4000-5000 nm would be sufficient. I do not think that any airplane comes even close to the CASM at these kind of missions. And there are plenty of those to make the -10 pretty successful!

The -10 should be ideal for Europe- U.S. trips for example which top out at roughly 5,700 miles. At that range with the possible exception of west-bound in the Winter (headwinds), it should be able to go out at max passengers and cargo. If you look at that range band, that should take care of most of the popular routes between Europe and N. America, all of Africa as well as India. It should also take care of the U.S. to Japan and Korea. HKG, AKL and SYD are too far of course but passenger count-wise, this a/c should be able to handle all of the popular routes for the legacies and clean up on regional service for the likes of Singapore etc.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 126, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15281 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 125):

I really don't think Boeing or the customers are going to be able to resist MTOW creep on the -10. I really hope they do manage to resist, at least on the first iteration. Just get the base model out of the door then work on an HGW version later...which will eventually become the standard model...much like what happened with the 777.



What the...?
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 127, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15598 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 123):
Useful range with full pax and nominal cargo will be considerably lower than the advertised range, I wonder what full pax, full cargo range will be?

This was what Clark was alluding to in his 50t /4000nm statement. Cargo capacity will be volume limited at about 19t based on a typical density of 160 kg/m3. passenger load will be about 30.7 t


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 128, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15570 times:

Quoting Prost (Reply 122):
ask Kanye West

Its not working out that well  
Quoting PW100 (Reply 123):
factor is now being overlooked: cargo.

Very true. Its cargo that will probably relegate it to 5,500nm or less. I do not think we will see too many 6,000nm missions.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 123):
cargo VOLUME is going to be very very impressive.

Maybe they can ship lots of flowers...

Quoting PW100 (Reply 123):
I wonder what full pax, full cargo range will be?

I am sure Sunrisevalley can put that together. This gives us an idea:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
This is what PIANO-X says about meeting Clark's 4000nm/50t parameter. It suggests that the 787-10 will breeze in at considerably less than MTOW.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 124):
789 burns ~10% more fuel than the 788

I am surprised by that number. Thought it would be in the single digits. Hopefully with improvements, the -8 can make that figure even bigger so it can drive further sales down the road (and hope the -9 can keep improving to try to prevent it! Inter-family rivalry!).

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 125):
The -10 should be ideal for Europe

Yes, Europe in general, not just Europe to the US. It is difficult to find a relevant city pair outside of 5,500nm of CDG/LHR/FRA.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5500nm%40cdg&MS=wls&DU=mi

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 126):
I really hope they do manage to resist, at least on the first iteration

Me too. If they do just a low MTOW version that was just lean and mean and then down the road come up with a way to compete better with the A350-900 on range/payload beyond 5,500nm, they could have an advantage because of the lower starting OEW. Its a tough battle but you are right, I think it starts with a super efficient frame and then go from there. Obviously Airbus is not going to sit still and that frame will continue to improve undoubtedly.

tortugamon


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4985 posts, RR: 41
Reply 129, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 59):
Well, TC says EK will have look at it, so it's not completely out of the running. But another order or conversion to the A350-1000 is more likely.

The minimum size of an airplane which suits EK is getting up and up. If even the B787-10 is not big enough, they do not have much choices left. Their fleet will start with the A350-1000 for sure if they really think that the B787-10 might be a bit small. That conversion order for the A350 is then a sure thing.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 67):
For me, these two planes will sit comfortably side-by side in the marketplace, completely unlike the A330 and 77E  

I think so too. But the B787-10 is a good offering. it will be appealing to many airlines, especially if they do not need the payload and the long range. The first 100 commitments are a strong and positive sign of that.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15097 times:

quote=tortugamon,reply=128]Very true. Its cargo that will probably relegate it to 5,500nm or less. I do not think we will see too many 6,000nm missions.[/quote]

Below is the payload/ range points for a 250.8t MTOW 131.5t OEW version. I believe max volume limited payload to be ~50t which will permit ~4900nm or taking winds out of the calculation , a 10hr 30 min timetable sector.


payload - Range points
----------------------
kg. n.miles

59500. 4048.
54829. 4462.
50158. 4892.
45487. 5331.
40816. 5780.
36145. 6237.
31474. 6701.
26803. 7182.
22131. 7674.
17460. 8176.
15520. 8263.
13580. 8350.
11640. 8432.
9700. 8523.
7760. 8614.
5820. 8706.
3880. 8797.
1940. 8890.
0. 8984.
--------------------
[


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 131, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 14842 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 127):
Cargo capacity will be volume limited at about 19t based on a typical density of 160 kg/m3
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 130):
I believe max volume limited payload to be ~50t which will permit ~4900nm or taking winds out of the calculation , a 10hr 30 min

Great information, thank you for running it. So 4,800+nm on full volume-limited payload. Theoretically the A359 would be able to carry more cargo than the 781 beyond that distance but as the 787-10 has four more LD3 positions (1 would be used for customer bags presumably?) if the cargo is average density or lower than it would be further out on the curve before the A359 would have a payload advantage. If they are both hauling flowers the A359 may not have an advantage until 7000nm   On some missions 19t of cargo might be tough to pull off in both directions too.

Let me know if I have that right. What is your theory on this Sunrise? (1) Is Udvar Hazy content that he should get his 7,000nm because his customers probably won't seat more than 300, (2) he did not get what he wanted but wanted to save face and did not want to disparage Boeing on the up beat day, or (3) they are sandbagging the figures and he really will get the 7,000nm 330-seat figure once Boeing tweaks the levers that they can (lower MEW, higher MTOW/reinforce MLG, or SFC)?

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 132, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 14869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 131):
Theoretically the A359 would be able to carry more cargo than the 781 beyond that distance but as the 787-10 has four more LD3 positions (1 would be used for customer bags presumably?) if the cargo is average density or lower than it would be further out on the curve before the A359 would have a payload advantage.

The 787-10 should not need to dedicate more than two LD3 positions to passenger bags (and might get away with one for missions not to/from North America as many of those assign passenger baggage allowance by weight and volume and not by piece).


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 394 posts, RR: 14
Reply 133, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14011 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 28):
Does it have the range for Qantas?

As a replacement for the A333s, absolutely. A more simpler method would be to say flights up to 10~11 hours would be the limit for the 78J. From Sydney pretty much an arc from Japan to Singapore. I am not too sure it will make it to the Indian subcontinent, may be some of the more technical a.netters can translate the sales figures of 7,000nm, range to realistic flying conditions.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3072 posts, RR: 23
Reply 134, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Talk of BA placing B787-10s in Gatwick, along other quite drastic moves to be announced, in a concerted effort to make Gatwick ops profitable...

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 135, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13555 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 134):
Talk of BA placing B787-10s in Gatwick, along other quite drastic moves to be announced, in a concerted effort to make Gatwick ops profitable...

Well, I hope they're patient. It's going to be the end of the decade before they have a quantity of them to help. Hope they have an interim plan.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13483 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 131):
Theoretically the A359 would be able to carry more cargo than the 781 beyond that distance but as the 787-10 has four more LD3 positions (1 would be used for customer bags presumably?) if the cargo is average density or lower than it would be further out on the curve before the A359 would have a payload advantage. If they are both hauling flowers the A359 may not have an advantage until 7000nm On some missions 19t of cargo might be tough to pull off in both directions too.

Your numbers look about right , effectively the -10 has a 2-LD-3 advantage over the A359 or about 1.4t after allowing for baggage. But cargo is not carried in LD- 3's but rather on PMC pallets which are slightly less efficient. I have been told that the baggage calculation to get the LD-3 number might be a bit high . I am told of a carrier that for about a slightly less than 365 seat 77W they have cargo space for 10 PMC's and 2LD3's for about 24t which they haul pretty much every day over an 8hr 30min sector.
The 1:6 rule in air cargo pricing assures a revenue equivalent to ~164kg/m3. Some days they will have the volume but the weight might be to the carriers advantage.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 137, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12907 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
The 787-10 should not need to dedicate more than two LD3 positions

Even better.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 136):
The 1:6 rule in air cargo pricing assures a revenue equivalent to ~164kg/m3.

Good to know. Thanks.

I started another thread about the 787-10 stretch. By looking at some of the detailed pictures Boeing has released I think I can tell that Boeing is planning on changing the way that they stretch the frame versus how they did it with 787-9. This change ultimately makes it a lot closer to fitting into the dreamlifter meaning that it could be assembled in Everett. Still not all the way there based on my calculations but its close.

Check it out and let me know if you have any comments. 787-10 Stretches Different Sections? / FAL In WA? (by tortugamon Jun 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)

tortugamon


User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12631 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 136):
But cargo is not carried in LD- 3's but rather on PMC pallets which are slightly less efficient.

Of course cargo is carried in LD-3's, thousands of them everyday, I know, I use to load and unload them. PMC pallets are better for bulky items, but enclosed containers are preferred. Mail, courier material especially will be in containers, but shippers love them as they are easy to load, far more secure and easy to transport to/from the airports.

But 19 ton of freight is a lot of freight, most routes will not pick up that much freight on each flight, especially if there are multiple frequencies each day, such as TATL, if airlines can get that much on each flight, the yield managers will be smiling.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 139, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12339 times:

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 138):
Of course cargo is carried in LD-3's, thousands of them everyday, I know, I use to load and unload them. PMC pallets are better for bulky items, but enclosed containers are preferred. Mail, courier material especially will be in containers, but shippers love them as they are easy to load, far more secure and easy to transport to/from the airports.

Thanks for this . Nothing better than getting the facts from the hands on guy. Another hands on guy tells me he loads a 77W almost every day with 10 PMC and 2LD-3's. So I guess it can be both ways.   


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11669 times:

Quite a predictable plane to launch, as Boeing do seem to favour the simple stretch first, followed by the more comprehensive revisions to create a more capable version later, e.g.
743 (simple SUD model) followed by 744
763 (simple stretch) followed by 763ER
773 (simple stretch) followed by 773ER

I guess the difference now, if that the base 787-10 model is so capable anyway, that there is less need for the 787-10ER model, and they're still hoping for 777-8 sales to cater for that market anyway.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 141, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11702 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 3):
The spec sheet given by Karel (pls repost) is strange,, I think someone at the B marketing department is in trouble (210 to 250 pax????, 57m, 228t and so on, this is the 788 spec !!!!!)
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
Seems like their developers were in a hurry to launch the website. Let's wait a bit longer until they have fixed the spec sheet.

ferpe, the updates slides are finally online. Range 6800 to 7000 nm, 323 seats in a 3-class configuration.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2uhmwjk.jpg





http://oi44.tinypic.com/34y8d3m.jpg

[Edited 2013-06-23 04:48:41]


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, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 142, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11638 times:

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 61):
Interesting enough Boeing's 300-330 seat 787-10 has a sample configuration of 350:

First (Today's Business) @ 61: 18
Business (Today's PE): 58
Economy: 274
Total: 350

I agree it's a bit confusing but it means that 27 of the 247 economy seats have a 31" pitch instead of 32".



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11654 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 134):
Talk of BA placing B787-10s in Gatwick, along other quite drastic moves to be announced, in a concerted effort to make Gatwick ops profitable...Rgds

Perfect to replace the GE 772s on holiday routes to the Caribbean.


User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 144, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11491 times:

That sample configuration is a bit useless isn't it ? 61" and 39" seat pitches in 'First' and 'Business' respectively.... really (?)


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 145, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11528 times:

Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Reply 144):
That sample configuration is a bit useless isn't it ? 61" and 39" seat pitches in 'First' and 'Business' respectively.... really (?)

Here is an interesting article about Boeing's default cabin configurations:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...-the-advertising-battle-commenced/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 146, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11136 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 145):
Here is an interesting article about Boeing's default cabin configurations:

Thanks; an interesting read which prompts a debate (but elsewhere - I don't wish to hijack this thread).



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently onlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4852 posts, RR: 44
Reply 147, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9900 times:

Looks like Oman Air is also very keen at converting 3 of its 6 B787-800s on order with Boeing to the largest -100X version as officially announced by their CEO

http://www.ameinfo.com/oman-air-upgrade-787s-347653


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7396 posts, RR: 16
Reply 148, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7881 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 147):
Looks like Oman Air is also very keen at converting 3 of its 6 B787-800s on order with Boeing to the largest -100X

I expect that this will happen for many airlines with existing 788/789 orders due for delivery in the longer term.


User currently offline777sigfan From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7055 times:

Should make a good 772 replacement as well right?

At that length that should be a very sharp looking aircraft!


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 150, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Interesting quote by Lufthansa´s CEO Christoph Franz regarding the recent 787 problems:

Quote:

Franz said that the Dreamliner's worldwide grounding would not colour his judgement when it came to a Boeing-or- Airbus decision.

"These are problems which happen if you have a very innovative new generation of aircraft. You should expect something like this to happen. I am absolutely convinced (by) the time the first aircraft will be delivered to Lufthansa it will all be forgotten."
http://www.ausbt.com.au/lufthansa-eyes-airbus-a350-boeing-787-and-777x

Interesting that he says "will be delivered to Lufthansa", don´t want to read too much into it but it sounds promising  

PS the article is already a few weeks old published June 19th



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6679 times:

That could also be interpreted to read that by the time LH took delivery, all of the teething problems will be in the past. An interesting choice of words, nonetheless. I always keep in mind when a non native English speaker uses English, no matter how good their English skills are, I give them some leeway for some slight mistakes, which this can very well be.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Boeing Compensate The 787 Customers? posted Fri Feb 1 2013 19:26:58 by Gonzalo
SIA Launch Customer Of The 787-10? posted Mon Oct 22 2012 09:21:07 by mffoda
Lufthansa And The 787-10 posted Tue Jul 10 2012 13:47:27 by columba
SK Eyeing The 787-10 posted Tue May 8 2012 13:05:15 by NDiesel
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
Will The 787-10 Be Built posted Thu Apr 10 2008 13:54:18 by N1KE
How Boeing Delivers The 787 To Its Customers? posted Mon Apr 23 2007 21:17:36 by EA772LR
What Engines Will The 787-10 Use? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 17:39:06 by EA772LR
When Will The 787-10 Be Launched posted Tue Jan 9 2007 22:47:32 by T773ER
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch