Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER  
User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 430 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24152 times:

Next year United begins to receive its first 789's and we keep describing the 787's as a replacement for the 763's and for expansion. However, I was comparing the specs, and given how the 788's are arranged, it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's, nearly the same cargo capacity, greater range, and with a lower max takeoff weight, must mean much more fuel efficient. So the question is, why will the 789's not replace the 777's? What advantages do the 777's have?

Are they just holding off on ordering more, to see whether the 787's or the A350's will make a better 777 replacement? What happens when Boeing increases the MTOW and makes a 789ER? Or do we believe that UA will cave and put 10 abreast in the 772's?

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1248 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24108 times:

Just because an aircraft has similar capacity and capability, doesn't mean you dump the old aircraft to replace with new aircraft.

Its true that some international carriers keep aircraft for a shorter duration than US carriers, but there is still life left in those older frames. Different business models, as well as different depreciation cycles.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24027 times:

I think your question is, "Why are the 787s replacing 767s and not 777?"

To which I'd say that the 767-300 birds are older, less efficient aircraft than the 777, which is still pretty much up-to-date.

Continental was taking 772's up until, what, 2008? 2009? Whereas UA's 763s are a bit older, and for some of them, 'tis time to go.

Ultimately, I firmly believe that the 777-200 will be replaced by a mix of the 787-9 and the 787-10. The A350 will turn out to be too much airplane for many 777 routes, and will instead be a much better fit on 747 routes.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23564 times:

Quoting cosyr (Thread starter):
it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's

That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23515 times:

United said the A350 will replace the 747 while the 787 will replace the 767 and at a later stage the 777 too.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 23202 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 3):
That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.

The 789 cabin is 2 feet shorter (0.6m) then the 772, that should not present any big diffs in comfort with a modern cabin layout. What is more important the between first and last door distance is 42.4m vs 42.8m ie a negligible 0.4m diff. I would say as long as both are 9 abreast the 772 has a bit wider seats but that is all, no more legroom really.

If you are normal weight they are the same, they are not the same in fuel burn however (90 vs 118t  Wow! when both fly their max 8000nm legs) and the 789 carries more cargo (4 LD3 more).



Non French in France
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22886 times:

Reply 3
That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.
Reply 5
both are 9 abreast the 772 has a bit wider seats

A Bit!!!! I guess you have not flown on a X9 777. The 787 was (initially) marketed at an X8 aircraft.

recently flew back from Nairobi on Emirates.X10 777 and A380. Even my children commented on the massive difference in seats/comfort and they are not full grown!

If seat width did not matter then the XWB concept will fail (perhaps it will - who knows).

I do accept that it is "the way things are going", that passengers are and will have to put up with uncomfortable flights in the name of profit - because they will.But it is a meaningful loss to consumers- no doubt about that (IMHO anyway).


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21348 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
I guess you have not flown on a X9 777. The 787 was (initially) marketed at an X8 aircraft.

Yes I have but I have now flown a 9 abreast 788, have you? I don't think you can compare that difference to a A380 (the widest Y there is in longhaul ) vs. a 777 10 abreast ( the narrowest Y there is in longhaul).



Non French in France
User currently offlinecodc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 20555 times:

The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements. On the other hand, as 787-9s begin to arrive, the oldest 763ERs will start to be phased out.

UAL isn't trying to do a one-for-one replacement with the existing fleet, but is moving toward a rationalized WB fleet with varying capacities at similar CASM to allow a higher degree of seasonal swaps. All part of the strategy to shift capacity to demand.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While UA won't be targeting one 777 for retirement when a 789 arrives, I think it reasonable to expect we will see the 789 take over for the 777 on some routes quickly once a handful arrive.

These a/c will have a similar seating arrangement to the three class 777 and will rotate onto some of the longer routes such as LAX/SFO to Australia (SYD and/or BNE and/or MEL), EWR to HKG etc. The a/c type may vary depending on seasonal demand as well.


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9826 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19256 times:

The 787-9 will have similar (a bit lower) seat count to the 777 and has lower operating costs. However the 777 is still lower than the 767 which is the plane that needs to go.

UA has not replaced planes one for one in regards to capacity. The 767-200s were replaced with 767-300s (capacity gain). The 757-200s are being replaced by 737-900ERs (capacity loss). 757-300s replaced 767-300s to Hawaii (capacity loss). In general, UA has such a big fleet that a new plane entering the fleet does not have to match the capacity of the plane exiting. They have so many different fleet types to shift around that there shouldn’t be much of a problem. For the most part 787-8s are being used to replace 777-200 type routes.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1040 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18545 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 8):
The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements. On the other hand, as 787-9s begin to arrive, the oldest 763ERs will start to be phased out.

UAL isn't trying to do a one-for-one replacement with the existing fleet, but is moving toward a rationalized WB fleet with varying capacities at similar CASM to allow a higher degree of seasonal swaps. All part of the strategy to shift capacity to demand.

  

The 787-9 is not slated as the replacement for UA's 777-200's, UA has 20 787-10's on order and when those aircraft start arriving according to what UA said earlier this year that is when the oldest sUA 777-200 retirements will begin. Will some 787-9's take over some flying currently being done by 777 yes that is likely but UA is not retiring any 777's until 787-10's start arriving.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 10):
For the most part 787-8s are being used to replace 777-200 type routes.

The only reason UA is using the 788 on routes typically flown by 772ER is because the yield of some of these routes are horrible. If you take for example LAX-NRT/PVG UA had no problem filling the 777 the demand is their for daily 777 service the problem was the yields were low. With high demand but low yield UA decided that the 788 is the better aircraft for the route as a way to increase the yield. IAH-LOS route was originally slated to launched with the 787 but CO could no longer delay the flight and decided to launch it with the 772ER instead now the route is being flown with the 787. This route is about capacity not yield, the 787 has the right capacity for this route So you can't just say 788's are being used to replace 772ER because it's not that simple in certain markets.


User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17921 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 8):
The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements.

The timing may align, but I don't thing the 7810 with have the same range as the sCO 772's. EWR-HKG and LAX-SYD would be out of the 787-10's range if I understand correctly.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
These a/c will have a similar seating arrangement to the three class 777 and will rotate onto some of the longer routes such as LAX/SFO to Australia (SYD and/or BNE and/or MEL), EWR to HKG etc. The a/c type may vary depending on seasonal demand as well.

I hope that is also the introduction of a new F/J product. I like the sCO J seats a lot, and I don't think they 'need' to be replaced, though they are starting to lag behind AA/US/DL physical products. But they might be a little redundant with sUA's F seats, which is why UA adopted their J seats that had middle seats, to keep a desparity, and justification for further upgrading. Given the restrictions on the 772's, I don't think you could fit 8 abreast sUA J seats on the 787. Since they seem to be in pairs automatically, I don't think 7 abreast would be possible either, so it seams either sUA F/sCO J, or something entirely new for both. Personally, I don't think we'll see as many 3 class 787's as they previously said.


User currently offlinecodc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17730 times:

Quoting cosyr (Reply 12):

The timing may align, but I don't thing the 7810 with have the same range as the sCO 772's. EWR-HKG and LAX-SYD would be out of the 787-10's range if I understand correctly.

Both routes will be at the high end of the 787-10's range, but within the airplane's capability. Boeing is projecting a typical mission profile of approximately 6800 to 7000nm, and EWR-HKG is 7009nm. By comparison, the 787-9 will be much longer-legged, at about 8000-8500nm.

Quoting cosyr (Reply 12):
I hope that is also the introduction of a new F/J product. I like the sCO J seats a lot, and I don't think they 'need' to be replaced, though they are starting to lag behind AA/US/DL physical products.

This is in the works.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17651 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):
Both routes will be at the high end of the 787-10's range, but within the airplane's capability. Boeing is projecting a typical mission profile of approximately 6800 to 7000nm, and EWR-HKG is 7009nm.

Not entirely correct because the range given by aircraft manufacturers is very optimistic (without headwinds, without cargo, without water and food etc). For widebody jets, you usually have to cut off 500 to 1000nm of the given range. So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17509 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):
and EWR-HKG is 7009nm
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).

I'd say EWR-HKG is a prime 35J market.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the recent push to have frequent fliers come and review some new First and Business products at UA had to do with upgrading their product in time for the introduction of the 789 followed by the 781 and 35J.

The 789 would be ideal for the EWR to HKG route as well as India in terms of range. Once the 35Js arrive, UA can evaluate whether the routes warrant upgauging.

These new a/c have amazing capabilities which will give UA the flexibility they need to go from ~260-320 seats on their routes depending on demand.


User currently offlinecodc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17394 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):


Not entirely correct because the range given by aircraft manufacturers is very optimistic (without headwinds, without cargo, without water and food etc). For widebody jets, you usually have to cut off 500 to 1000nm of the given range. So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).

The exact range figures for the 787-10 are not available since the configuration has not been firmed. Still, 7000nm is not advertised as max range, but instead offered as a typical stage length, with New York-Hong Kong being a specific example. Therefore, I would expect the max range to be 7500-8000nm, with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17100 times:

Quoting cosyr (Thread starter):
it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's, nearly the same cargo capacity, greater range, and with a lower max takeoff weight, must mean much more fuel efficient. So the question is, why will the 789's not replace the 777's? What advantages do the 777's have?

At 13hrs the 77E has a payload edge over the 789 of about 4 to 5t but as Ferpe points out, at a significant fuel burn disadvantage With UA's lower MTOW 's for the 77E there may be nothing in it payload wise.

[Edited 2013-08-19 12:39:31]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17062 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 17):
The exact range figures for the 787-10 are not available since the configuration has not been firmed. Still, 7000nm is not advertised as max range, but instead offered as a typical stage length, with New York-Hong Kong being a specific example. Therefore, I would expect the max range to be 7500-8000nm, with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.

All specified ranges (788, 789, A350, etc) by the manufacturer are for a typical mission with a 3-class configuration. However, all are without a realistic cabin configuration thus will have a shorter range in the real world.

The 787-10 has been launched with a typical range of 6800-7000nm in a 3-class cabin configuration with 323 pax (check the Boeing website). The plane will have the same MTOW, same fuel capacity and will be heavier than the 789 so it is impossible to fly it 8000nm with 300+ pax. It will not even fly 7000nm with a comfortable margin.

If you want to fly it 8000nm, you will have to strip something like 50 or more seats, which would make it like a heavy 789.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing and Airbus both love to pad and fluff to give their product an edge and something that can be all things to all airlines. I just don't see the 787-10 doing a EWR to HKG sector. This could go to the 789 from the 77E until the 35J arrives but not the 787-10.

For the 787-10, routes such as LAX or SFO to LHR or FRA would work (roughly 5,100 nm). Perhaps EWR to NRT would work as well though that route is over 5,800nm which would be pushing things.

The configuration of the a/c will of course affect range as will the weather. Flying an a/c such as the 35J and 789 should take the range worry out for most of UA's routes.


User currently offlinecodc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16303 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 19):
All specified ranges (788, 789, A350, etc) by the manufacturer are for a typical mission with a 3-class configuration. However, all are without a realistic cabin configuration thus will have a shorter range in the real world.

The 787-10 has been launched with a typical range of 6800-7000nm in a 3-class cabin configuration with 323 pax (check the Boeing website). The plane will have the same MTOW, same fuel capacity and will be heavier than the 789 so it is impossible to fly it 8000nm with 300+ pax. It will not even fly 7000nm with a comfortable margin.

If you want to fly it 8000nm, you will have to strip something like 50 or more seats, which would make it like a heavy 789.

Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10? The truth is, we do not know what the aircraft's max range will be because the aircraft's configuration (not seating layout) is not yet firm. Moreover, the projected Boeing configuration is an extremely dense 323 seats. In practice, the 787-10 will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of 275-285 seats in a typical mixed configuration.

EWR-HKG is 7009nm, great circle. Nobody is suggesting the Dash 10 will be flying stage lengths of 8000nm+. Such ULH flying will be the province of the 787-9, if at all.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 17):
with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.

I am afraid you are to optimistic. Boeing has given an official information about the 787-10, not even there do they give the figure 7000nm without a caveat, a nominal 300 pax cabin (please note the word nominal = lighter then any realistic cabin), with a 323 pax cabin and load they say 6800nm, please note once again it is a show room aircraft with a show room cabin. In reality you will loose at least 1 hour of fuel in a realistic cabin, then you loose another hour in water, catering, cargo tares, saftey equipment and optional avionicas, a real crew (which is more then a regulatory crew) and the company rules about route margin for airframe and engine deterioration.

At the end of the day you have something like 6000nm range with no headwind, not 7000nm. This is not picking on the 787-10, when SAS showed it's new A350-900 it had a real usefull range of 7000nm, not the shoowroom 8100nm.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13215 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15960 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10?

Because it's marketing. The 787-10 can fly from New York to Hong Kong in the typical 3-class Boeing configuration. So marketing says "route is 7000nm, we have 7000nm so 1+1 = 2". However as said, there is no room for headwinds, no room for extra cargo (what if you want an extra bag), no water and drinks etc. Cabin configurations in the real world are heavier thus the 787-10 with 323 pax won't make a 7000nm trip.

My point was, to make a 7000nm trip, you will have to remove some seats. And you have given the answer by yourself already:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
In practice, the 787-10 will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of 275-285 seats in a typical mixed configuration.

We might see the 78J flying New York to Hong Kong but it won't have 323 seats. Around 35-40 less seats might give a 7000nm route more comfort but even that I'm not 100% sure about. Some users here on the forum (ferpe, sunrisevalley) can give you some good payload charts if you would ask them.

[Edited 2013-08-19 14:14:03]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15869 times:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10?

That is called marketing and aircraft selling, A and B do it exactly alike and everyone in the industry knows you have to shave of about 10-15% of their claims. The nice things about the showroom range facts they give is that they are calculated with a rather strict set of rules (strict artificial rules which are not real life conform), this means one can backtrack on these calculations and then calculate forward again to a realistic performance. The only thing which is not very much the same between A and B is how they calculate the cabins, B adheres to an old standard called ICA, A does not, they claim they do more modern realistic cabins. I don't know what is best, with B you know their cabin follows a old rule book and you can back calculate, with A they have the rule book.



Non French in France
25 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Just FYI, here is the map: This is the difference between a realistic cabin (308 pax, 7000nm) versus a marketing cabin (314 pax, 8100nm). You need a
26 alaskan9974 : Will we see any long term domestic use for the 787? UA runs their 76 and 77's to Hawaii in domestic config, with some in the 3 class configuration. Wi
27 codc10 : I don't think you understand my point. The 7000nm figure is not derived from the aircraft's technical specifications (not yet available), but rather
28 KarelXWB : I'm sure I understand your point. What do you mean with the technical specifications are not yet available, they are listed on the Boeing website. Ye
29 roseflyer : What is a 78J?
30 SonomaFlyer : UA won't have an F cabin more than 12 I'd guess. Add in about 60 C class then roughly 114 Y+ 114 Y gives you an even 300 and even that may be denser t
31 flylku : It is not profit, it is consumers' unwillingness to pay for comfort. Every cubic centimeter and kilogram has a cost. The airlines would sell you more
32 tommy767 : Wrong. Most of CO's 777s were delivered between 1998-2000. They are around the same age as UA's oldest. They took maybe one or two deliveries in 2006
33 roseflyer : The last CO 777 delivery was 2010. There were only 4 delivered in the 2007-2010 timeframe. The other 18 were in the 1998-2002 range. Most of the 777-
34 Stitch : Airlines are buying the A380 and A350 not because they are more comfortable than the 747 and the 777, but because they're more efficient. If it was j
35 KarelXWB : It means 787-10. The J is the 10th letter in the alphabet so 78J is a shortcut.
36 sunrisevalley : All the to and fro on the 787-10 and JFK-HKG needs as much some informed input as can be gathered together. As background the airlines timetable it as
37 Max Q : Arent UA routes like EWR-HKG, ORD-HKG, LAX-SYD what the A351 is being bought for ?
38 parapente : Reply 34 Stitch. I do not argue with this trend towards packing more Y class people in. If you can fill 'em then you make more money (if you don't you
39 Post contains images Stitch : Perhaps Boeing's design philosophy is to offer customers the option of more comfort (with fewer, wider seats) or better economics (with more, narrowe
40 Post contains images VC10er : Just to confirm: United is in the process of new Global First Seat and new Business First seats? And they should arrive on the 787-9? and/or on 787-1
41 Post contains links codc10 : Show me. I don't see them here. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/specs.page?
42 Post contains links KarelXWB : That website is out-dated. You should use http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-10_announcement/ (and click on characteristics).
43 codc10 : That's exactly what I was looking at.... i.e., a marketing site, which also directly references HKG-NYC as a typical city pair. To date, Boeing has n
44 RDH3E : There are a few details on the "characteristics" page. In addition, with the more detailed information available on the 788/789 it is possible for Ka
45 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : The 787-10 was launched during the Paris airshow, the primary specs can be found here: http://www.boeing.com/paris2013/pdf/...win-Aisle_development_b
46 Post contains images codc10 : I could not possibly care less about eating crow! I don't really have a dog in the fight anyway. Fair enough. It just seemed incongruous, to me, that
47 ferpe : Fair enough codc10, I think one needs the kind of eye opener that the SAS slide on the A359 showed and one needs to see it a couple of times to reall
48 Stitch : In support of ferpe's comments above, the 777-300ER is one of the most capable planes out there, yet at it's design range of 7800nm it's payload is 35
49 codc10 : I want to make it very clear that I thoroughly understand the spread between max range and effective range and the various factors which impact/limit
50 tortugamon : .... It been very effectively argued that NYC-HKG is not within the 787-10s range. Boeing should not have mentioned it as a city pair- I actually ema
51 codc10 : Deleted... Post in error[Edited 2013-08-21 18:46:26]
52 tortugamon : My comment was NRT not HKG.
53 codc10 : Good call... Reading the forum on an ipad has its challenges! Anyway, for NYC-NRT to barely be within the airplane's range, the that calls into quest
54 cerecl : Why? A useful range of even 5500nm is plenty for a lot of important routes. 787-10 is not designed to cover transpac routes, its meant to be a super A
55 zeke : 15-20% is normally more realistic if normal cargo loads are considered (design range is pax only, non airline fuel planning rules, and only a 200 nm
56 sunrisevalley : It is a 300-seater that can do JFK-HKG on a 7100nm ESAD day of which there are some but not many. According to Flightaware, there were 15 in the last
57 tortugamon : Its not an inability; its about putting an aircraft on a route that can make the airline the most amount of money. An aircraft with full passengers t
58 Post contains links SonomaFlyer : The 78J is not doing NYC to HKG. Its not realistic and not happening. It would have to fly too few people and no cargo to make the flight on most days
59 zeke : I would not even call a GC range of 6000 nm realistic for the 787-10.
60 United1 : I agree with you....UA ordered the 787-10 to replace their "A" market 777-200s and while I am sure that the 78J is capable of more then just EWR-HNL
61 AVENSAB727 : IAH-NRT is a good candidate for the 787-10.
62 United1 : Possible but more likely to go 35J.
63 Post contains images KarelXWB : He was referring to the 3-class Boeing configuration. Those ANA 335 seaters are 2-class. It isn't, but he was just talking about the 3-class configur
64 tortugamon : The quote was 323 seats worth of weight and there is not that big of a weight difference between 323 seats in two class vs three. tortugamon
65 KarelXWB : I see. In that case, I agree.
66 sunrisevalley : I concur. I believe the max volume limited payload to be about 48t. This would allow a range ~4900nm or about a 10hr 30min sector This allows for a D
67 Stitch : Both seem low to me. Boeing's projected MSP for the 787-9 was 58t in 2005. The 787-8 ended up with an MSP 2 tons below it's projection, so we might b
68 sunrisevalley : Probably on a weight basis. I work on a volume limited basis. My methodology is to calculate LD3's needed for bags at standard seating configuration.
69 Stitch : Got it. Thanks.
70 codc10 : Need to compare apples to apples... while Boeing built 787-8s for ANA in a high density configuration, those aircraft are substantially operating reg
71 tortugamon : If you throw out ANA and JQ's 335 seat 787-8s the average seating configuration on 787s right now is 252 seats. The 787-9 is a 6m stretch and the -10
72 codc10 : This is true, but at the other end of the spectrum, you also have carriers who are predominantly operating the 787 on long hauls, like UA (219), CZ (
73 av8ornta : If you throw out ANA and JQ's 335 seat 787-8s the average seating configuration on 787s right now is 252 seats UAL 787-8s are 36/183 for a 219 total.
74 tortugamon : I think UA and BA will use A351s for their 11+ hour missions. For the 6-11 hour missions, I am not sure airlines will have the same seating configura
75 United1 : Considering the amount of money that UA has spend equipping every aircraft that flies overseas (not to mention P.S.) with fully flat seats in F/J I w
76 cerecl : It depends on what BA etc want to do with the plane. The role of 787-10 is to transport ~300 pax+some cargo to a maximum range of 5500-6000nm most ec
77 sunrisevalley : In the FWIW department JFK-NRT is somewhat different. In the majority of days over the past 4-months this could have been done in 13hr/6100nm ESAD wi
78 tjh8402 : For me, yes. I was fortunate enough to snag a 787 for IAH-LAX and loved the lie flat seat on that route. When I was in domestic F going MCO-DEN, I wa
79 tortugamon : Despite having a range well over 7,000nm, of the 83 787s delivered to date, only one current regular route appears to be over 6,000 great circle nauti
80 KarelXWB : No surprise here, 95% of all long-haul routes are like 5500nm.
81 VC10er : I can't imagine a UA anything not having lie-flat seat for international - over water flight. In NYC, their primary pitch against AA or DL is far mor
82 sweair : Will there be a 787-10ER model one day? With some added belly tanks? Any margins left for MTOW growth at all? If they could make those longer routes,
83 hkcanadaexpat : Wrong. The 5 following routes are all over 6,000 nautical miles great circle: > YYZ-ADD (Ethiopian Airlines): 7,154 miles > NRT-BOS (Japan Airl
84 IndianicWorld : Just to confirm those 2 routes: SYD-DEL 6476 miles MEL-DEL 6322 miles
85 spink : The 78J isn't fuel volume limited. It is MTOW limited. If they can reduce OEW or increase MTOW then it will naturally be able to gain more range via
86 sunrisevalley : FWIW.....I have modeled in Piano-X a 78J at 137t OEW with 78K pounds engines. It runs out of fuel capability at ~270t MTOW. The max passenger load di
87 spink : Hmm, where did you get the 137T OEW? From what we know that would be a 13T increase over the 789 which is only 6T over the 787. Also seems kinda odd
88 Post contains images sunrisevalley : I have been working on ACAP 117.7 for the -8; 126t for the -9 and 133t for the -10. It looks as if the -9 and -10 values could be reduced by ~ 2 to 3
89 Post contains links tortugamon : Actually all of those routes are in statute miles not nautical miles. Here they are in nautical miles: > YYZ-ADD (Ethiopian Airlines): 6,217 >
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...
787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 01:06:08 by ETStar
787-10X And 777-8X-Why Two 777-200ER Replacements? posted Sun Mar 17 2013 19:03:46 by 1337Delta764
Is The 787-9 The New 777-200ER? posted Thu Sep 30 2010 23:16:57 by OyKIE
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
New Airbus Vs 787 Or 777? posted Thu May 11 2006 04:51:44 by A380900
A350 Vs 787 Or 777? posted Fri May 20 2005 10:05:00 by PM
United 787-10 & A350 posted Tue Jun 18 2013 08:15:40 by nuggetsyl
The Last 777-200ER? posted Fri Jun 14 2013 19:55:14 by WestWing
SQ 777-200ER Retrofit posted Tue Jun 11 2013 05:49:34 by megatop
A 777-200ER For Sale, Interesting Picture posted Thu May 30 2013 20:28:53 by fpetrutiu