Absolutely beautiful bird. I think the 78J is my new favorite plane.

sandyb123 wrote:

MatheusLPV wrote:

I am looking forward to see the new regional business class but there is no pictures of the cabin yet ..... anyone ?

https://www.ausbt.com.au/here-is-singap ... class-seat

Sandyb123

I mean real photos because that article suggest that they were customizing that seat but there is nothing official from SQ so I assume we may see something slight different from that in terms of colors and features .....

undertheradar wrote:

SO TRUE. The whinging has gotten very old and without fail they ALWAYS pop up when an airline introduces that aircraft/seating config to their fleet. Hundreds of thousands of people have already flown for years on various airlines, on these aircraft, with relatively low percentages of 'complaints' about the 3-3-3 787/3-4-3 777. Note it's those who have NEVER flown in those seats are the ones whinging the MOST!

I have been on 787 3-3-3 and 777 3-4-3 with a family of four several times and let me assure you...It Sucks !!

I now look for A330/A340 and 767 routes when I can. Yes, many people never complain or care...but frequent flyers like myself now pay to avoid elbow crunching aircraft. The 787 at 8-across would be great -- sadly the airlines ruined it and turned it into a cattle cart.

seabosdca wrote:

So now we know (before we have a Boeing-blessed payload-range chart): 9000+ nm still air distance is too big a bite for even a mostly empty 78X.

Why are you surprised the aircraft didn't fly a 9000+nm leg when Boeing's stated range for the aircraft is 6430 nm ?

Always a great scheme, but on the -10 the tiny gear looks even more funny.

admanager wrote:

Got to see the monster in person Saturday. It is long compared to the 9's near it. I thought the SQ livery looked great.

Monster

I'm sitting right outside the Boeing ramp now looking at this amazing machine. I've been taking photos of this girl for about a month now and I'm really going to miss seeing this bird. Departure is in about an hour 2200 local time and I'll try to document it as best I can. Night photography here at CHS is very tough tho.

https://twitter.com/cassidysvacay/statu ... 73920?s=21

It's amazing how SQ livery looks gorgeous on every aircraft they've had (the exception being the 380).. Truly timeless.

Can't wait to see the interiors which I expect should flood the net in a few hours when the embargo is lifted.

I have never complained about a 2-5-2 seating on the DC-10 or L-1011. The cabin width is wider than a 787. Honestly, when I'm in a 787, I feel very tight squeezed. Adding narrow aisles does not help either. Due to the curvature of the fuselage, the window seats have less shoulder room.

Ziyulu wrote:

I have never complained about a 2-5-2 seating on the DC-10 or L-1011. The cabin width is wider than a 787. Honestly, when I'm in a 787, I feel very tight squeezed. Adding narrow aisles does not help either. Due to the curvature of the fuselage, the window seats have less shoulder room.

That’s a fair statement. In Boeing’s defense, I don’t think they thought most carriers would go nine across. If they had, I think they would have made the fuselage a little wider.

QuarkFly wrote:

undertheradar wrote:

SO TRUE. The whinging has gotten very old and without fail they ALWAYS pop up when an airline introduces that aircraft/seating config to their fleet. Hundreds of thousands of people have already flown for years on various airlines, on these aircraft, with relatively low percentages of 'complaints' about the 3-3-3 787/3-4-3 777. Note it's those who have NEVER flown in those seats are the ones whinging the MOST!

I have been on 787 3-3-3 and 777 3-4-3 with a family of four several times and let me assure you...It Sucks !!

I now look for A330/A340 and 767 routes when I can. Yes, many people never complain or care...but frequent flyers like myself now pay to avoid elbow crunching aircraft. The 787 at 8-across would be great -- sadly the airlines ruined it and turned it into a cattle cart.

Maybe you're doing something wrong. Most frequent flyers have some kind of status and are typically awarded premium economy at no charge, which mitigates any crunching. Economy plus on UA 789 is quite acceptable...my new favorite plane. There is something to that lower altitude pressurization, you do feel less brain fog at the end of a long flight!

Don't get me wrong. I love Boeing products. The 747 was their best product in my opinion. At 3-4-3 seating, it is still wider than a 777. And the plane is built strong. On the new 787, I do not like how everything appears so flimsy, especially the lavatories. And it is hard to figure out certain features without adequate signage. On 787s, you see more symbols than words.

Looks nice and easily the best looking 787 but....meh...another big twin.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Looks nice and easily the best looking 787 but....meh...another big twin.

My favorite planes have always been the three engine planes (DC-10, L-1011, and 727), but the VC-10 and IL-62 are pretty spectacular too.

DDR wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Looks nice and easily the best looking 787 but....meh...another big twin.

My favorite planes have always been the three engine planes (DC-10, L-1011, and 727), but the VC-10 and IL-62 are pretty spectacular too.

Yeah it's getting harder to see anything unique these days....oh well so it goes.

DDR wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Are we not allowed to state our opinions any more here? I stated I do not like 3-3-3 in a 787, and so many are trying to prove me wrong.

Because many normal sized people on this site have flown the aircraft and said there was no problem. These types of threads always end up in an A vs B pissing match.

I agree with you, DDR. There's more to an economy seat than seat width. For some people, seat legroom is more important than the overall width of a specific seat.
And I've constated that those threads about economy seats end up generally opening a can of worms ending up in unncessary A Vs B flame wars.

Anyways, despite the 3-3-3 economy seat configuration on SQ Boeing 787-10 (which is a bit cramped in comparison to the A350XWB, in my opinion), I think the airplane will do well even with that (small) problem.

DDR wrote:

In Boeing’s defense, I don’t think they thought most carriers would go nine across. If they had, I think they would have made the fuselage a little wider.

I do not believe Boeing really thought most carriers would go eight across. Boeing had data showing 777 operators were moving from nine to ten abreast. The 787 was designed to offer both eight and nine across configurations. I believe eight across (3x2x3) was pure marketing messaging to align with the marketing strategy playing up other passenger comfort features of the 787 aircraft — i.e., nine abreast seating would have been inconsistent with all the other passenger experience features, e.g., The Dreamliner gives ‘em bigger windows and better cabin pressurization, but stuffs ‘em in like crazy.

9V-SCA is now on her way home via KIX (15 hour flight), https://www.flightradar24.com/SIA8878/10d77c0b

RE the 3-3-3 Economy config, keep in mind that SQ will be using this aircraft on short-haul/regional routes, the bulk of which are under 6 hours.

The regional market in Southeast Asia is highly price sensitive and SQ's fares have gone down a lot in recent years. Something's gotta give.

When it comes to long haul, SQ is one of the few that are 9 abreast for all their 777s, where most other airlines have opted to go 10 abreast.

DDR wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Looks nice and easily the best looking 787 but....meh...another big twin.

My favorite planes have always been the three engine planes (DC-10, L-1011, and 727), but the VC-10 and IL-62 are pretty spectacular too.

Likewise! One of my earliest memories was of a photograph my dad took of the SQ DC-10 when he worked in Changi Airport in the early 80s. Sadly I never got to see their DC-10s in real life though

QuarkFly wrote:

I have been on 787 3-3-3 and 777 3-4-3 with a family of four several times and let me assure you...It Sucks !!

My partner and I traveled economy JFK - BCN in AA 767 in 2016 and JFK-ATH in DL 767 in 11/2017. We scored seats on the side - window/aisle - and we were stuffed into the seats, both width and pitch on both flight. Add in the blanket and pillow each carrier provided and we literally could not move. 3-3-3, 3-4-3, whatever. If you're traveling coach, you have no space. Lack of space aside, the attendants took care of us on both flights.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program ... that Singapore Airlines 787-10 is gorgeous! I bet it will be a great ride.

I wonder ... wouldn't the 787-10 be a great aircraft for UAL's SFO-HNL/LAX-HNL routes when the time comes to replace the 777-200s???

bob75013 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

So now we know (before we have a Boeing-blessed payload-range chart): 9000+ nm still air distance is too big a bite for even a mostly empty 78X.

Why are you surprised the aircraft didn't fly a 9000+nm leg when Boeing's stated range for the aircraft is 6430 nm ?

Because it's a ferry flight and the aircraft is pretty much empty. But it is heading west so range will take a big hit.

I totally disagree about he look of the nose of the 787. I think it's fine and never have I ever thought it looked like a mini-van! And the 350 looks quite similar to me: a clone as it were.

333 and 343 will be less money than 323.

For those that need savings, 323 would be more onerous than the added space. That’s why choices are offered.

For me I’d gladly take 323 business class seat that had none of the food but did have lie flat seats. As long as I am flat I can sleep and that is all I really need out of business class.

Mind you I’m Not holding my breath that a carrier will offer the service but if they do I’ll be there.

Glad to see the 78J on its way (Flightaware B78X ?). Now the 787 is family is rounded out, we are awaiting no new models. Actually for all of us following the 787 since the Sonic-Cruiser proposal back in 2003...it has been quite a ride! ... Where are you CaptainX ?? All is well now!

But the 787 is actually entering middle age. In about a decade B will have to refresh the product -- I imagine the 787-10 will get increased range and payload...maybe when next generation engines are available. I doubt we will see any more 787 stretch models...maybe a wingspan increase. I don't think it will ever be a freighter. The 787 is a closed book for now, just a production run to make B as much $$ as possible !!

caljn wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

...I have been on 787 3-3-3 and 777 3-4-3 with a family of four several times and let me assure you...It Sucks !! ...

Maybe you're doing something wrong. Most frequent flyers have some kind of status and are typically awarded premium economy at no charge, which mitigates any crunching. Economy plus on UA 789 is quite acceptable...my new favorite plane. There is something to that lower altitude pressurization, you do feel less brain fog at the end of a long flight!

Don't want to change thread topic any further...but I have to fly from N. America to Asia and within Asia on multiple carriers. I don't think we should depend on mileage programs for reasonable passenger comfort via upgrades. I fly sometimes on customer money, sometimes employer money and also my personal funds -- making it hard build up miles on any one carrier. Flying with a family makes it even harder, Y-class...

...But we did not have this problem a decade ago...777 was always 9-across in Y, A330/340 is 8-across, 747 is tolerable at 10-across and 767 was a treat at 7-across and decent pitch (thank-you ANA !!). 787 was supposed to be only charters with 9-across, then 777 went to 10-across. We Y-class sheep are not complaining enough I guess.

bob75013 wrote:

Why are you surprised the aircraft didn't fly a 9000+nm leg when Boeing's stated range for the aircraft is 6430 nm ?

Ferry range is often startling. Think of the 9000 nm flight by the early build 747-400, the 5500 nm flights performed several times by 757-200s, or the 5200 nm flights by 737-700s.

That said just based on extrapolation I'd expect the 78X ferry range to be around 8200 nm, so it's not surprising that an 8700 nm flight into the wind was too much.

smi0006 wrote:

Stunning! Can’t wait to see more 787-10 in the skies!!

SQ certainly have a varied fleet! They do turn them over fast!

Yes, the B787-10 looks awesome in SQ colour.

Next up for retirement should be 5 non-ER B773, 22 A333 and 18 B772ER, leaving them with A359, A380, B773ER, and B787-10.

On order: 46 A359, 48 B787-10 and 20 B777-9.

questions wrote:

Boeing had data showing 777 operators were moving from nine to ten abreast.

That wasn’t the case 15+ years ago when Boeing was finalising the design of the 787. If the original 2008 EIS had been met then I think we would have seen far more aircraft with 8 abreast in Y (though these would inevitably have ended up being reconfigured by now).

qf002 wrote:

If the original 2008 EIS had been met then I think we would have seen far more aircraft with 8 abreast in Y (though these would inevitably have ended up being reconfigured by now).

I disagree. I think it was always clear to both Boeing and operators that the 787 was a 9Y aircraft, and the 8Y fiction was maintained to avoid stepping on the 777 team's toes and to make appealing claims to the public about comfort.

Took this right before engine start.

juliuswong wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Stunning! Can’t wait to see more 787-10 in the skies!!

SQ certainly have a varied fleet! They do turn them over fast!

Next up for retirement should be 5 non-ER B773, 2

Oh god yes... I fly SIN-BKK regularly and more often than not I get one of those old 773.
While it doesn't bother me that much since it's only a 2 hour flight, it really is a sub-par product compared to the rest of SQ's fleet.
The tiny IFEs have such poor resolution, it's hard to watch anything!

Kno wrote:

Brandon757 wrote:

I still dislike the noses on all the 787 models. Just something about them.

Couldn't agree more, the landing gear is short and stubby for a plane of its size and the nose has the shape of a minivan, and even worse the shortness of the 9 and especially the 8 make it look like a minivan with wings.

The a350 is far more beautiful IMO, with that said the 787-10 is the better looking of the 787 and SQs livery helps it look a little less ugly.

I like the nose and look of the 788 or 9/10. I think the 787's look sleek and modern. The longest versions of planes models are usually my favorite so I understand you stubby comments. however comparing 787-8 vs A350 version It's like comparing a E185 vs A320 . I really like the A350-1000

xxcr wrote:

Stunning aircraft!! whos next to receive the 78J???

Next five frames will also go to SQ, as will 2 of the 3 test-frames (SQ will receive a total of 8 between now and 8/2018). The 9th will be delivered to Etihad (10/2018). Planning is that by end 2018 a total of 17 frames will be delivered:
- 8 for Singapore Airlines
- 4 for Etihad
- 4 for United

Planeflyer wrote:

333 and 343 will be less money than 323.

For those that need savings, 323 would be more onerous than the added space. That’s why choices are offered.

For me I’d gladly take 323 business class seat that had none of the food but did have lie flat seats. As long as I am flat I can sleep and that is all I really need out of business class.

Mind you I’m Not holding my breath that a carrier will offer the service but if they do I’ll be there.

AirAsia offer this

DfwRevolution wrote:

Julie77W wrote:

Wasn't it supposed to have three wheel bogies?

Nope. The -10 is the same TOW as the -9 and was never specified with a three-wheel bogie.

Ok, thanks. Don't know where I got that from...

bob75013 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

So now we know (before we have a Boeing-blessed payload-range chart): 9000+ nm still air distance is too big a bite for even a mostly empty 78X.

Why are you surprised the aircraft didn't fly a 9000+nm leg when Boeing's stated range for the aircraft is 6430 nm ?

Ferry range of 787-10 is 8750nm; 789 9750nm; 788 10,000nm
With no payload and before filling tanks the 10 is 6.7 T heavier than the 9 and 15.5T heavier than the 8.

Ruscoe

fishmeal wrote:

I totally disagree about he look of the nose of the 787. I think it's fine and never have I ever thought it looked like a mini-van! And the 350 looks quite similar to me: a clone as it were.

The Boeing 787 nose reminds me of the DH 106 Comet nose.

did Boeing announce the official OEW yet? I looked, but I couldn't find anything ..

sandyb123 wrote:

MatheusLPV wrote:

I am looking forward to see the new regional business class but there is no pictures of the cabin yet ..... anyone ?

https://www.ausbt.com.au/here-is-singap ... class-seat

Sandyb123

Awesome. I love seats with privacy partitions that extend over windows for no reason.

Eyad89 wrote:

did Boeing announce the official OEW yet? I looked, but I couldn't find anything ..

The new ACAP is out. The OEW on the -10 is 135500kg.

SQ passengers will soon be able to judge the 9-abreast comfort levels of the 787-10 and A359 Regional against each other - it will be a very informative comparison.

I flew LGW to St Lucia in 2000 when BA were experimenting with 777s in 10-abreast and said "never again"!

CassidysVacay wrote:

Took this right before engine start.

Not a terrible looking aircraft but the 787 (all models) does look better in the air than on the ground. Love the wings, not too crazy about the nose (at all) and the 4-wheel bogies do look a bit on the tiny side on the 78J...

I’ll be on the inaugural revenue flight on 03 April to Bangkok in the new regional business class seat. Can’t wait for that new aircraft smell. Lol.

QuarkFly wrote:

... Where are you CaptainX ?? All is well now!

CaptainX?! There's a blast from the past - but you must admit, he did have a full 15 minutes of fame!

QuarkFly wrote:

But the 787 is actually entering middle age. In about a decade B will have to refresh the product -- I imagine the 787-10 will get increased range and payload...maybe when next generation engines are available. I doubt we will see any more 787 stretch models...maybe a wingspan increase. I don't think it will ever be a freighter. The 787 is a closed book for now, just a production run to make B as much $$ as possible !!

I predict a refresh of the 788 - removing weight and lowering production costs to further blunt the 330neo family.

grbauc wrote:

Kno wrote:

Brandon757 wrote:

I still dislike the noses on all the 787 models. Just something about them.

Couldn't agree more, the landing gear is short and stubby for a plane of its size and the nose has the shape of a minivan, and even worse the shortness of the 9 and especially the 8 make it look like a minivan with wings.

The a350 is far more beautiful IMO, with that said the 787-10 is the better looking of the 787 and SQs livery helps it look a little less ugly.

I like the nose and look of the 788 or 9/10. I think the 787's look sleek and modern. The longest versions of planes models are usually my favorite so I understand you stubby comments. however comparing 787-8 vs A350 version It's like comparing a E185 vs A320 . I really like the A350-1000

Agreed on the a350-1000. The a350 to me in general has 757ish proportions on a larger scale. To each their own regarding the 787, I'm aware that my dislike for its asthetics are a minority opinion.

DexSwart wrote:

sandyb123 wrote:

MatheusLPV wrote:

I am looking forward to see the new regional business class but there is no pictures of the cabin yet ..... anyone ?

https://www.ausbt.com.au/here-is-singap ... class-seat

Sandyb123

Awesome. I love seats with privacy partitions that extend over windows for no reason.

Yeah, that does look weird and completely unnecessary. Unless it's there for you to rest your head, it seems like it defeats the purpose of having a window.

Ziyulu wrote:

wingman wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Yuck! 3-3-3 seating in economy.

They also have a business class so you can sit in there. This econ layout is pretty much the global standard for the next 30 years so you'll either have to fly business or take the bus.

No, I can fly on a 767 with 2-3-2 seating. I can fly on a 330 or 340 with 2-4-2 seating. I can also fly on a 350 with 3-3-3 seating, but the cabin width is wider. I can fly on a 777 with 3-3-3 seating on numerous carriers.

Anyone planning for 3-4-2 seating?

I 'think' someone tried it with 777 (or could be just my imagination)

Here's a shot of it in daylight:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight ... -airlines/

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

did Boeing announce the official OEW yet? I looked, but I couldn't find anything ..

The new ACAP is out. The OEW on the -10 is 135500kg.

Thanks Was that the target OEW as well?

I am surprised its OEW is the same as A350, figured it would be slightly lighter ..

Will SQ have crew rest modules on the B787-10?

Beautiful plane, Boeing will probably sell hundreds of it.

Eyad89 wrote:

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

did Boeing announce the official OEW yet? I looked, but I couldn't find anything ..

The new ACAP is out. The OEW on the -10 is 135500kg.

Thanks Was that the target OEW as well?

I am surprised its OEW is the same as A350, figured it would be slightly lighter ..

Is there an official OEW from Airbus for the A350-900? The numbers going around are from airlines with different seat/galley configurations. If I'm not mistaken they vary between 135-137t for the latest msn.
Also while being only 1.5m longer overall the 787-10's fuselage is 2.24m longer. Empennage is smaller and placed differently. On the other hand the smaller wing should be some tons lighter.
For the same 4000nm mission they should burn close to equal fuel, only difference is more pax and the potential revenue from it. If 6-8 of them are business class seats...
it is the front cabin of the 787-10 which is about 3m longer. The back (door2-door4) is actually the same. My guess for the regional A350 at Singapore Airlines is 28/30 C and 289-301 Y