NDiesel
Topic Author
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:58 pm

SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Please delete if duplicate.

SAS management joined the B787 on its flight from OSL to Torino last week, claiming they're interested in the 787-10 to replace their A340/330s. Information manager K.M. Johansen already plans to put 315 passengers in a three-class layout (Y, Y+ and C) claiming the 787-8 is too small for SAS' operations. A decision on whether to get the 787-10 or the A350XWB will fall sometime this year.

Link to article in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/reise/artikkel.php?artid=10065583

Perhaps DY's soon-to-arrive acquisition of 787-8s will be favored by pax flying to NYC or BKK in terms of passenger comfort, giving SK a run for their money? The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age. Also, IIRC SAS has had problems with the capacity on their long haul fleet often being too big for their operations, yet both the Airbuses hold 265 pax in a three-class layout. Increasing that capacity to 315 seems somewhat ambitious perhaps?

As for fleet harmonization, wouldn't last year's decision to replace the MD80s with A320s be an indicator as to what long haul aircraft SK would end up with?

NDiesel
Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with Aviation
 
EBGARN
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:33 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
As for fleet harmonization, wouldn't last year's decision to replace the MD80s with A320s be an indicator as to what long haul aircraft SK would end up with?



Only the MD80s at CPH are replaced by A320, making CPH an all Airbus hub. The 737 classics at OSL and the MD80s at ARN are replaced by 737NG's.

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
SAS management joined the B787 on its flight from OSL to Torino last week, claiming they're interested in the 787-10 to replace their A340/330s. Information manager K.M. Johansen already plans to put 315 passengers in a three-class layout (Y, Y+ and C) claiming the 787-8 is too small for SAS' operations. A decision on whether to get the 787-10 or the A350XWB will fall sometime this year.



They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.
A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 9:14 pm

Quoting EBGARN (Reply 1):
They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.

Translated quote from the article:

"On the long, tiring flight, it is important to comfort on board. The prolonged 787-10 will be able to take 315 passengers in a SAS-edition, says Johansen. It has a shorter range than the 787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes."

If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6175
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 10:33 pm

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
Perhaps DY's soon-to-arrive acquisition of 787-8s will be favored by pax flying to NYC or BKK in terms of passenger comfort, giving SK a run for their money? The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age.

Nah. I don't think the vast majority of people will care. Cost of the fares is the main driver for people.

The 788s are certainly awesome, but the A330s and A340s are fine airplanes that are quiet and offer the practical 2-4-2 seating arrangement.

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
Also, IIRC SAS has had problems with the capacity on their long haul fleet often being too big for their operations, yet both the Airbuses hold 265 pax in a three-class layout. Increasing that capacity to 315 seems somewhat ambitious perhaps?

I do find it ambitious too. As others have argued, the 789 with its seating capacity of 250-290 (3 vs. 2 classes) would be a much better replacement for the SK widebodies than the 787-10.

Quoting EBGARN (Reply 1):
They didn't get the 787-9 brochure? I agree the -10 is a tad large, and will it have the legs for BKK-CPH and NRT-CPH? If they want to upgauge, I'd say the A350-900 is the best match. Otherwise the 787-9 should fit pretty well.

Absolutely agree.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 2):
If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.

Well, just because the 789 is ULH-capable does not mean that a non-ULH airline should not order it. CPH-BKK and CPH-NRT are both less than 5,000 nm and the range of the 789 is 8,000 nm, but so what? The 789s will be way more efficient than the A343s no matter how long the routes are.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 10:48 pm

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 3):
but so what?

So, heavier (or same weight (MTOW)) planes with more range (and less seats) then the 787-10 will be more efficient? Do I have you correctly?
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6175
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 11:11 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
Do I have you correctly?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I mean is this: the 787-900 might have too much range for SK's needs, yes, but SK would still benefit from ordering the 789 as a replacement for its current widebodies. The 789 will be more efficient than the A333s and especially more efficient than the A343s, which are quads.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4952
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Tue May 08, 2012 11:46 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 2):
Translated quote from the article:

"On the long, tiring flight, it is important to comfort on board. The prolonged 787-10 will be able to take 315 passengers in a SAS-edition, says Johansen. It has a shorter range than the 787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes."

If the 788/789 range is to long (787-8, which can fly for 19 hours - which is not applicable to any of the SAS routes.)... then it appears the A350's range is a show stopper as well.

Where did he get 19-hrs from ? I think he has confused it with the A345 or 77L. 16-hrs maybe 17-hrs as it matures is a more realistic value.

SAS's NRT-CPH sector , about 11-hrs. Sort of a walk in the park. PIANO X suggests they should get close to max.volume limited payload ~ 45t for this sector. BKK-CPH is a little further so would loose a little.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2875
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 2:31 am

I think the A350 family would be the best fit fo SAS.

A mix of A358's and A359's, with the possibility for a larger plane in the future.

However, 789 and 7810 could fit this role as well (although Boeing would need to confirm the 787-10 variant first).

I think SK will go Airbus, unless Boeing gives them a great deal.

BTW, doe anybody know when SK could potentially get the birds delivered?

-CXfirst
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 2:39 am

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I mean is this: the 787-900 might have too much range for SK's needs, yes, but SK would still benefit from ordering the 789 as a replacement for its current widebodies. The 789 will be more efficient than the A333s and especially more efficient than the A343s, which are quads.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
So, heavier (or same weight (MTOW)) planes with more range (and less seats) then the 787-10 will be more efficient? Do I have you correctly?

just because they can do 8000 miles does not mean you need to fill the tanks to capacity. A higher MTOW does not mean that it has to me met either. You can get great efficiency if below MTOW, especially when fuel transport costs are taken into equation (basically, the more fuel on board the heavier the plane, the less efficient it is until it burns it and becomes lighter).

So, if loads are there, it can fly with 100% passenger/luggage/cargo by volume load and be at 30% below MTOW. That is a very sweet financial spot if it can be achieved consistently.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8935
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 3:41 am

With LH also having a stated interest in the 787-10, is there the possibility of a joint STAR Alliance order for the 787. We also know that LX is looking for a larger type and while the A350 must be most likely, LX is also owned by LH.

I agree that the 787-10 seems, at first glance, a bit big for SK, BUT with new products such as J Class flatbeds and Y+ taking up more space, the actual seating capacity of a 781 could be considering less than the c.315 stated.

Again, the real question is: when it Boeing going to take the leap!?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 4:20 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
Again, the real question is: when it Boeing going to take the leap!?

I could think we might see it around the time Boeing starts assembly of the first 787-9. The Trent 1000 Package C engines that will hang off it have started their testing at Derby, England.

Also, Rolls noted back in June that they intend to perform the same core scaling on the Trent 1000 for the 787-10X that they are on the Trent XWB for the A350-1000 so I wonder if Boeing has found some MTOW growth for the model?
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 5:41 am

Quoting NDiesel (Thread starter):
The A340s and 330s are only on average between 8-10 years of age


There is no doubt, however, that these planes will be significantly older before they can be replaced either with 787s or 350s
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 7:55 am

The 787 will be a better fit for SAS as they have no need for larger airframes. The 789 is a perfect fit in size and capacity, but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus and too large for its needs. Why change the red ink in the financials  
 
mnfrean
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:18 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 8:12 am

Hi!
I think the 787-10 will be a good fit for SAS in the future, they are probably taking passenger growth into consideration so 315 seats should fit perfectly if/when it arrives.
Best regards mnfrean - Fredrik
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 8:33 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus and too large for its needs



I think that is nonsense. I can't see any government interference as to which frame SK should go for - in particular not now when the overall trend in most Scandinavian countries is for privatisation of state owned enterprises (in SK's case that will mean a sale to LH or another major player in the industry when and if they want/can afford it). Government interference will simply make SK less saleable. From an employment standpoint I think that there is very little difference between SK choosing Airbus or Boeing as aircrafts today are truly global products sourced from all corners of the globe. This is in particular the case when it comes to the 787 and the 350.
 
NDiesel
Topic Author
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:58 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 10:35 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
but the protectionist political environment we feel inside EU now it will probably be Airbus

Hope not. To buy Airbus simply to boost the EU economy (marginally) rather than get Boeing if the latter can make the airline capable of more efficient business seems like a bad idea.
Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with Aviation
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 5:54 pm

How does SAS plan on paying for these aircraft ? - That's what I wanna know ...
 
B747forever
Posts: 12855
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 6:04 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 16):
How does SAS plan on paying for these aircraft ? - That's what I wanna know ...

Our tax money...
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13245
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 10:04 pm

Quoting NDiesel (Reply 15):
rather than get Boeing if the latter can make the airline capable of more efficient business seems like a bad idea.

Unless, of course, an Airbus can do the same thing. And there's zero reason to believe it can't.

Quoting mnfrean (Reply 13):
I think the 787-10 will be a good fit for SAS in the future, they are probably taking passenger growth into consideration so 315 seats should fit perfectly if/when it arrives.

So, would a 314-seat, 3-class A350-900 be any less perfect?   


Seriously, both the A350-900 and the 787-10 look to be a good fit for SK.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Wed May 09, 2012 10:52 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
So, would a 314-seat, 3-class A350-900 be any less perfect?     

When using "perfection" as the criteria, on the shorter missions SK is considering using the planes for, the 787-10 might end up being more efficient as it is larger than the A350-900, but should be lighter. I'm not sure what SK's cargo loads look like, but the 787-10 should have 44 LD3 positions to the A350-900's 36.

That being said...


Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
Seriously, both the A350-900 and the 787-10 look to be a good fit for SK.

Agreed..
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Thu May 10, 2012 10:00 pm

If all of their missions are under 5000nm, why not just ditch the A340s in favor of some of the new higher gross weight A333s? The 789 is a long time away with where they'll be in line, not to even mention the 7810. The A333IGW can probably be obtained in a much shorter timeframe.

What would be the fuel burn delta between an A333 and a 759 on a 4500-5000nm mission? Less than the cost of the capital to replace all A333/A340, I would think. Then maybe they'll be in a better financial position somewhere 4-5 years down the road, at which point they can look at their options with the 787 and A350.

$0.02.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: SK Eyeing The 787-10

Fri May 11, 2012 12:33 am

Quoting brons2 (Reply 20):
why not just ditch the A340s in favor of some of the new higher gross weight A333s?

It's a bit more complicated than driving the old banger down the dealers, and swapping it for a new set of wheels. Like what to do with the A340s, penalties for getting out of lease or a not-very attractive selling price? Or taking delivery of new A330s; that'll need to be financed and SK are hardly aflush in cash. Besides which, it's going to take a while before Airbus can offer slots on the production line - in the order of years rather than months.

But can an A330 really haul 265 pax + cargo out of Bangkok and back up to Copenhagen, against the winter winds of the Northern hemisphere and the heat of the Tropics? The A340 can, 'cause quads can sometimes do things twins can't - especially in hot conditions and when overflying very tall mountains - like the Himalayas.

http://i48.tinypic.com/303iwir.gif

Back on track: I too will join those who think the -10 is one size too large, but I also think the -9 is tailor made for SAS. The Himalayas? Navigate around them  Wink

[Edited 2012-05-10 17:35:28]
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove

Who is online