Quoting astuteman (Reply 91): But I can't see any reason why the 787 can't be stretched to at least the same length (and hence same capacity) as the A350-1000 |
I didn't mean that it would be physically impossible to do so, but rather that it'd be impractical and entail many structural changes to the current 787 to "beef up" the fuselage and increase its strength.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Already the 789 would match the 772ER's position and the 781X will leave behind both A359 and 772ER. |
The 787-9 is pretty much a replacement for the 777-200ER. As is the A350-900.
However, the A350-900 is the better, more capable 777-200ER replacement for airlines that want to use their aircraft on longer haul missions. The 787-9 falls short of the A350-900's payload beyond 5000nm, as
Ferpe's chart shows. The 787-10, without the upgrade, would've been even worse in that regard, as a simple stretch with the same MTOW as a 787-9. What the inclusion of six wheel main gears does for the 787-10 is increase its MTOW so that it can match the A350-900's payload range figures - and even beat it. But it still falls a long way short of the A350-1000.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Nobody should be suprised if the 787 continues creeping into 777 territory and eventually cover any spot that has been held by 9-abreast 777's. Its just a matter of time. |
I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10. So there is still a gap at the top end of the 777 family that can only be replaced either by the A350-1000 or by the 777X.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105): It is strange to see how people almost stubbornly "invent" aircraft against which this 781X should compete. First the A359, now the 772ER. |
The 787-10 doesn't compete against the 777-200ER. It replaces it.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113): Of course it will never replace the 777 for some. That doesn't mean it can't replace the 777 for many. For the ones whom it doesn't, is there enough of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X |
I think there is, particularly if the 777X turns out as good as it has been reported could be. The 777-9X and the A350-1000 sales battle isn't a "one or the other" proposition. I think it is quite likely that airlines would order both to operate alongside each other, as the 777-9X is the larger and more capable aircraft. If the airlines can make more money from the 777-9X's added payload range capabilities than they lose from the fuel burn deficit, then I fail to see why the 777-9X wouldn't be on their shopping list.
Thank you for your hard work in putting that graph together,
Ferpe. It just goes to prove my point that the 787-10 isn't really a match for the A350-1000 even with the upgraded main gear, and that is quite evident from looking at your payload range chart. At 6000nm the A350-1000 would carry about 7t more than the upgraded 787-10. The 787-10"ER" is much closer, payload range wise, to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 119): The cabin areas per m2 are as follows: 789 266, 7810 -10ER 296, 359 291, 351 330, -8X 322, -9X 370 |
Thank you for that. There's been too much emphasis placed on seat count. I think the cabin area figures show clearly where the 787-10 is at in terms of size.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121): The 789 is a great 772ER competitor as well as the A359. So do you think that the 787 would lose 3000nm range, just by stretching it 2-3 meters to come close to the A359? |
That wasn't
Stitch's point. According to
Ferpe's chart, the original 787-10 could match, or even beat the A350-900 in terms of payload until around 4250nm. Beyond that, the A350-900 builds up a sizeable advantage in payload-range. The 787-10"ER" fixes that, and its payload range figures now pretty much match the A350-900 until about 8000nm. It is therefore a much better A350-900 competitor than the previous version.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121): it has a cross section which would be pure waste if the 767 and the A330-market would have been the sole purpose. |
It was designed originally to be a comfortable 8 abreast layout but with the option of going to a higher density 9 abreast layout for carriers that want to have that option. Boeing's early cabin mockups show the seats arranged in a 3-2-3 configuration. That puts it smack bang in the A330/A340 territory. As more and more carriers went for the 9 abreast layout - possibly due to ever spiralling fuel prices, its demonstrator aircraft were fitted with a 3-3-3 configured economy. But that doesn't change the fact that the cabin cross section is narrower than it would be had it been designed as a 777 replacement in the first place.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121): But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible. |
Yes, it is.
Lower trip fuel burn = less fuel required to be carried for the same mission = lower MTOW without affecting payload. It also increases range.
Larger wings provide greater lift, therefore less thrust is required.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121): It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small. |
It does, because without the 6 wheel landing gear, the 787-10 wouldn't be able to compete with the A350-900, although it would still be a very good A330-300 replacement. Clearly, Boeing doesn't think that's enough.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121): Looking at payload alone does hide a lot of relevant parameter because it tells nothing about the pax/freight split. As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo. A characteristic which could suit a lot of customers at least as well as the other way round. |
Payload isn't just about cargo, it's also about range. If an aircraft has an excellent payload range performance, then it can theoretically fly a long way - such as westbound on a transpacific route against a stiff headwind - without (or with less) weight penalties, so it doesn't have to leave pax, bags or cargo behind. The more it carries, the more money it makes.
Rather than focusing on seat count, CASM or trip fuel burn, I think that payload-range is one of the most, if not the most important factor when deciding on aircraft purchases, because that affects how much money an airline is able to make from the aircraft. Based on payload range, the 787-10 without a 6 wheel landing gear would have been a fantastic A330-300 replacement, but it would struggle against the A350-900. This upgrade brings it more in line with the A350-900 but it is still somewhat short of what the A350-1000 can do. That's why the 777X, particularly the 777-9X, is still required. Irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787-10, it will never be able to supplant the 777-9X.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123): I disagree, a heavier 787 will likely use an extended wing of around 65m which would be based on the existing 787 wing - Boeing originally proposed a larger wing for the 9 and 10. The costs involved would be far less than the full cost of developing a completely new wing for the 777X. |
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join, and various structural "beefing up" to handle the increase in MTOW. It is not an insignificant task. Neither is the 777X an insignificant task, granted, but if it has one advantage at all, then it's the fact that they aren't increasing the MTOW for the 777-9X but rather
reducing it, and as such, Boeing do not need to engineer a new main landing gear for the 777X.
Even if I were to concede this point, would a heavier 787 result in a more competitive - and by implication, more capable in terms of payload-range - airframe than the 777X program could achieve? I'll call on
Ferpe's talents and expertise here - if he reads this - to see if he can create a payload-range comparison for a hypothetical higher MTOW 787-10 (pick a number, whatever you think might be possible - never mind the fact that there's a lot more work that needs to go into it to make it possible) against the 777-8X/777-9X and A350-1000?
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123): The 777X represents the most ambitious derivative program in terms of scope and cost ever proposed by Boeing. |
I don't think anyone would suggest that the 777X is anything but a significant update of the 777 family.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123): The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors. |
Neither will the 'Y3' or a heavier 787 have the market to itself. So as far as that point is concerned, there is no difference. I don't dispute that it will need significant sales in order to turn an acceptable RoI for Boeing, but I disagree that the 777X would struggle to reach that magical number, whatever it happens to be. As expensive as the 777X is, I doubt it will be more expensive than the 'Y3' or, indeed, doing a heavier 787. And the 777-9X's size and payload range advantage over the A350-1000 could mean that airlines will operate both aircraft side by side rather than one or the other.
As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem. Ideally, from my point of view, the 777X will hold the fort against the A350-1000 with both having more or less an equal share of the market, while the Y1 comes in the mid to late 2020s and the Y3 comes in the mid 2030s. As someone who is partial to the 777 family of aircraft, I concede that I might be viewing this with rose coloured spectacles clouding my objectivity, but I fail to see why the 777X, with a significant enough update - can't take the 777 a further 20 years into the future before bringing its all new replacement to the market. The 737 and 747 families have both been around significantly longer than the 777, yet they're both still being sold, albeit with varying degrees of success.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123): The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor. |
On this point, I don't disagree.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123): The concept might not necesarily be one of a heavier 787 replacing the 77W but rather supplimenting it by by exploiting as yet untapped potential of the 787 platform. |
Then I think we might have been talking at cross purposes here. I agree that a heavier 787 is beneficial to the 787 program as there is, as you say, untapped potential, and that it would supplement the 777. However, I also believe that the 777, and the 777X, will continue to exist irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787. Their futures are not interdependent.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133): And still almost nobody seems to believe, that this will be Boeings primary answer to the A351. But I still do.
This means also that this will be their primary effort to stay present in the 350 seat market. Because it is better to compete there with a 340-seater, than with a 400-seater, you know. Range&payload will be fine and sufficient for the bulk of all airlines as well. |
You can believe what you want. I remain unconvinced. You're placing too much emphasis on seat count and not enough on payload range and completely ignored
Ferpe's cabin area figures which shows that the 787-10 is indeed closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000. I also don't know where you got 340 seats from as the "typical" seat count for the 787-10 is 323 seats.
The 787-10, even with the 6 wheel landing gear, still falls short of the A350-1000's payload range and seat count.