LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 10:16 am

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]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 2:25 pm

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.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 4:47 pm

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.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 5:21 pm

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]
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Sat May 21, 2011 2:16 pm

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
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Sun May 22, 2011 1:41 am

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis

Sun May 22, 2011 4:13 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests