Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

In this thread I will explore 787-10, a simple 20 foot stretch of 789, as a competitor to A359 on medium haul routes.

General Specifications:
....................................B787-10.......................A359
Fuselage Length..............226..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Cabin Length...................177..........................169
Cabin Width......................18............................18.4
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................340..........................314(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000...................423,300
OEW..........................272,000...................292,000 (OEW for B787-10 and A359 are my estimates)
MSP...........................128,800...................131,300
Design Range..................6,900.....................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price..........................$248......................$268 million(787-10 number is my estimate)

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW),

The difference in fuel burn is minor, and I will leave that as a rounding error.
The A359 can carry 8,000 lbs. additional cargo which translates to nearly $3,000 per trip.
B787-10 has 26 Y seat advantage over A359. B787-10 should be able to earn about $9,000 more on its 26 extra Y seats at 70% load factor, which translates to nearly $3 million per year.

The net advantage to B787-10 is nearly $2 to $3 million per year. I would expect 787-10 to be cheaper by $20 million at list prices.

[Edited 2011-05-20 03:17:01]

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would be surprised if the 787-10 had a lower MSP than the A350-900. It's a larger plane aimed for medium-range missions so I would expect Boeing would push for a high MZFW.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I would be surprised if the 787-10 had a lower MSP than the A350-900. It's a larger plane aimed for medium-range missions so I would expect Boeing would push for a high MZFW.

On a full flight with my specifications, 787-10 will have 28 LD3(153 cu. ft) positions left for cargo. If constrained to industry average 12.2 lbs. per cu. ft for cargo, then it can carry nearly 52,000 lbs. of cargo which, along with passenger weight, is less than the available MSP by nearly 5,000 lbs.

On flights that are less than full, for every 30 passengers one can open up nearly 6,300 lbs. for cargo(210 lbs. X 30). However, one gets only about 1,900 lbs. of cargo per LD3(153 cu. ft X 12.2 lbs) that opens up with 30 less passengers.


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5106 times:

I doubt a bit Boeing can actually pull a -10 out of the B787. The B787-9 seems already to edge out the airframe, and Boeing remained very silent on the -10 lately (that doesn't have to mean anything, Boeing's public statements never come without a hidden agenda).

Apart from that, a stretch to the limit is by definition usually best in CASM. But most examples faired pretty badly, like the B767-400 and B757-300, or the A340-600.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3597 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4986 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 3):
Apart from that, a stretch to the limit is by definition usually best in CASM. But most examples faired pretty badly, like the B767-400 and B757-300, or the A340-600.

777-300ER hasn't done too badly.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7132 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 3):
Apart from that, a stretch to the limit is by definition usually best in CASM. But most examples faired pretty badly, like the B767-400 and B757-300, or the A340-600.

These are not really good examples. The 764 offered no real advantage over the A330, and had less range. The 753 came too late, and while it offered outstanding CASM it was a very long single aisle, and hence had atrocious turn around times. It also came too late. The A346 probably would have done very well if had not been completely outclassed by the 77W.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
The A346 probably would have done very well if had not been completely outclassed by the 77W.

What hurts the A340-600 is her very high empty weight. While smaller than the 747-400, she weighs almost as much empty.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B789 Versus A359 Analysis posted Fri May 20 2011 02:42:09 by LAXDESI
B789 Versus A333 Analysis posted Fri May 20 2011 00:10:25 by LAXDESI
DC-10-30 Vs. DC-10 Super 30? posted Sun Apr 24 2011 09:11:33 by tymnbalewne
DC-10-40 Oxygen Mask Test posted Sun Apr 3 2011 15:06:19 by Chamonix
DC-10 Rudder posted Wed Mar 16 2011 18:39:06 by MCIGuy
Avionics:Trident Vs VC-10 posted Thu Mar 10 2011 15:57:34 by Chamonix
777-200 Versus 777-200ER posted Thu Mar 10 2011 09:37:36 by AT
Takeoff Thrust Time Limit 5/10 Minutes posted Tue Feb 15 2011 16:23:41 by aerotech777
Efficiency Of A330 Vs. DC-10 posted Mon Dec 13 2010 10:51:37 by tsugambler
Hot-rod DC-10 With CF6-80s posted Fri Nov 19 2010 07:44:42 by tsugambler

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format