User avatar
flee
Posts: 979
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:58 am

lightsaber wrote:
Polot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Some 77Es were bought for its excellent payload-range, some were bought because they were more efficient 77As.

And some were bought because it was the only thing Boeing offered larger than a 767 but smaller than a 747.

People here don’t always seem to grasp that aircraft in fleets don’t need to be replaced with new aircraft that have equal or better capability.

Polot,

I would expand in that people do not graap market and strategy shifts will drive airlines to change aircraft size.

Most MD-80s were replaced by larger aircraft. Most 77Es I suspect by smaller. 747s we're almost universally by smaller.

To hub, CASK must be super low. I think the 779 has potential. I see a large market for the 787-10, but I see most 77E replaced by 789. I see the 787-10 for many new markets as half of aircraft sold are for growth.

Nothing is stagnant. The NEO/MAX change everything as does the 787-10, A350, and 779.

Personally, I'm curious us an Asian hub or IST will be the largest airport by passenger count in 20 years.

Lightsaber

I think a lot of people also failed to see that the huge amount of narrowbodies ordered will replace the B767/77E as frequency is now deemed to be highly desirable.

There is also the inverse of the above - airport infrastructure (slots/runways) is not growing enough to cope with pax growth. For these airports, e.g. LHR, HKG, airlines are using larger capacity aircraft to better utilise their slots.

The market is dynamic - so OEMs should try to provide a range of aircraft that will meet with the requirements of the customers.
 
sabby
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:08 am

moyangmm wrote:
keesje wrote:
The 787-10 has kind of the same "small wing" syndrome as the A321. It wants further, but lacks the wing
with 40t payload, (280 passengers, headwind, reserves and well filled cargo containers); <5000Nm

Image

5000Nm is to / from Asia. Where the growth is.


What does the 789 look like in this chart?

If I remember correctly, it had a similar curve as A359 upto 5000nm and then a drop off beyond that range in terms of payload by 10-12T (5T for the 268T A359).
 
Thorkel
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:38 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:45 am

sabby wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
keesje wrote:
The 787-10 has kind of the same "small wing" syndrome as the A321. It wants further, but lacks the wing
with 40t payload, (280 passengers, headwind, reserves and well filled cargo containers); <5000Nm

Image

5000Nm is to / from Asia. Where the growth is.


What does the 789 look like in this chart?

If I remember correctly, it had a similar curve as A359 upto 5000nm and then a drop off beyond that range in terms of payload by 10-12T (5T for the 268T A359).


Well, there's this one from another thread last year.

Image

The main thing with this is the 78X takes less payload than the 789 after about 4500nm on this chart.
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:22 pm

lightsaber wrote:
keesje wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Mostly because it doesn't really fit into their high density routes. The same could be said with A330-300.
Interestingly enough, it's too small for them. They would usually fly jumbo from Haneda to Osaka, Nagoya or other main cities in Japan.

While the fuel consumption is nice. I don't think they could beat the 10-abreast B777-300 which have lower range and higher capacity. They already downgrade from B747-400D to B777-300. Downgrading it again to B787-10 capacity would be problematic since Haneda is already full.

Maybe in the future, but they would probably use B777-9X between the long-haul operations and the domestic one. I went to Nagoya few time every year, usually transit through Narita though, and they always operate B777-300ER between Narita and Nagoya when I flew with them before. So maybe they would just do it with B777-9X and or maybe A350-1000 in the future.


The high cycles must be wearing the 500 seat 777 out..
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan_Airlines/Japan_Airlines_Boeing_777-300.php

No, cycles to a 777 are the same as to an A320. Both have limits of validity to 60,000.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 2012_q4/2/

The 787 has a fractionally better life. This isn't a 747 with only 35,000 cycles. IIRC, Airbus widebodies have a 36,000 cycle LOV. Anyone have a link? What is the A350 cycle life?

Boeing knew the Japanese airlines would use the 787 and 777 as if they were narrowbody aircraft, so they are built to take the duty for 20+ years.

Late edit:. I need to emphasize the 787 and 787 have the same cycle lives as the E-jets, A320, and the CRJ at EIS. (CRJs now 80,000 cycle LOV with the latest PIPs, just as the A320 grew from 48,000 to 60,000, excludes the A320-100 due to later structure changes).

Lightsaber

You seem to be saying that Boeing put structure into aircraft only needed by a fraction of the aircraft sold. This doesn`t sound like "driving 787 costs down to unprecedented levels" Boeing. Would it not be better to say that Boeing test their widebody aircraft to this number of cycles and Airbus have not done this yet. There is nothing preventing Airbus from doing this and it is possible JAL only bought the A350 with contractual guarantees to provide aircraft tested and certified to this level. They did it with the A320, can they not do the same with the A350?
Also I have heard it said by a respected poster on here that the majority of modern widebodies will be retired on economic reasons long before they reach there cycle life. I wonder who that was?
 
sabby
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:34 pm

Thorkel wrote:
sabby wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

What does the 789 look like in this chart?

If I remember correctly, it had a similar curve as A359 upto 5000nm and then a drop off beyond that range in terms of payload by 10-12T (5T for the 268T A359).


Well, there's this one from another thread last year.

Image

The main thing with this is the 78X takes less payload than the 789 after about 4500nm on this chart.

Thanks, that must be the graph I was thinking of, although the A359 was still at 268T MTOW as opposed to 280T today.
Anyway, yes the 789 would take more payload than the 78J after 4500nm but the 78J would still carry more pax due to the available cabin space and configuration until the payload drops less than 35T which happens at ~6000nm after which the 78J becomes irrelevant.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17953
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:12 pm

RandWkop wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
keesje wrote:

No, cycles to a 777 are the same as to an A320. Both have limits of validity to 60,000.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 2012_q4/2/

The 787 has a fractionally better life. This isn't a 747 with only 35,000 cycles. IIRC, Airbus widebodies have a 36,000 cycle LOV. Anyone have a link? What is the A350 cycle life?

Boeing knew the Japanese airlines would use the 787 and 777 as if they were narrowbody aircraft, so they are built to take the duty for 20+ years.

Late edit:. I need to emphasize the 787 and 787 have the same cycle lives as the E-jets, A320, and the CRJ at EIS. (CRJs now 80,000 cycle LOV with the latest PIPs, just as the A320 grew from 48,000 to 60,000, excludes the A320-100 due to later structure changes).

Lightsaber

You seem to be saying that Boeing put structure into aircraft only needed by a fraction of the aircraft sold. This doesn`t sound like "driving 787 costs down to unprecedented levels" Boeing. Would it not be better to say that Boeing test their widebody aircraft to this number of cycles and Airbus have not done this yet. There is nothing preventing Airbus from doing this and it is possible JAL only bought the A350 with contractual guarantees to provide aircraft tested and certified to this level. They did it with the A320, can they not do the same with the A350?
Also I have heard it said by a respected poster on here that the majority of modern widebodies will be retired on economic reasons long before they reach there cycle life. I wonder who that was?

I was referring to the Japanese widebodies specifically; so I'm not contradicting that the majority of widebodies will be retired early. Few will reach 30,000 cycles last I looked.

I'm shocked the 777 and 787 are certified for so many cycles. I know in the 777 there is structure in there that shouldn't be. The joints had far too much weight to be able to meet that certification. It isn't just performing the test, an aircraft is designed for the cycles.

In the case of barrel CFRP construction, cycles are cheap. It is my favorite design for aircraft because added cycles are free. I see the posts by Leeham that panel and barrel construction are the same weight and efficiency. They are, up to about 36,000 cycles. Above that, barrel construction (and this is just my opinion) gives more cycles for free.

As to extending cycle life on the A350, I do not know. What I know about the A320:
1. Structural changes after the -100, including required reinforcement (weight added that was part of the sharklet kit) to go from 48,000 to 60,000 FC.
2. Airbus attempted to go to 90,000 FC/180,000 FH but failed. I am not in the know as to why the testing showed this goal wasn't achievable.
Yet we see 737NG going through bulkhead repairs due at 85,000 FC.

I cannot find the A350 certified life. The current online document just notes the current life is temporary as testing isn't complete (normal at this early in service) and no problems have been found:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -09-26.pdf

I didn't see the new HGW update FWIW. If I missed due to poor searching, please let me know.

There will be a trade between cycle life and MTOW/MLW/MZFW; increasing any one reduces cycle life. For example, the 777F has a lower cycle life than the 777L due to greater allowed. Will Airbus split their certification as Boeing did for the 777-200 (w/GE90-110s)? That is possible.

I can only go off what is known and that is the 787 has the highest certified cycle life of any widebody. Only the other Boeing products come close. If an airline puts the A350 into domestic duty, the maintenance plans are currently for long haul and thus would be expensive on a per cycle basis. To modify the plans takes years of testing, diagnosing the faults found and needed inspections and repairs.

For example, on the A320 going to 60,000 cycles, they found a bit of minor cracking (this is normal), so new build planes have redesigned structure (minor redesign, little fillet changes that actually saved weight) while current aircraft being maintained for 60,000 cycles/120,000 flight hours must add a trivial number of doublers and add certain bracket inspections. :yawn: Airbus has yet to invest in that. It costs $20 million to $30 million to do so.

It also takes designing the aircraft to about 3% lower stress limits. So the question is, where did Airbus go to the limits? I would speculate only on the A350-900LR. But as I'm neither a structural engineer nor employed on the A350 project... But it also takes having the nacelles/pylon designed for that many cycles. Boeing levied such a requirement on the 777 and 787 to vendors. Did Airbus? Since at 30,000 cycles the engines/nacelles are over half the aircraft value, no one is going to replace them at that juncture as two new sets are worth more than the whole widebody.

But, we are debating a tiny number of widebodies. Few airlines fly widebodies on sub 4-hour missions anymore and usually only if they need to do so for pilot training due to so many missions for the fleet are 8+ hours (SQ A350 operations come specifically to mind) or for domestic premium demand (e.g., LAX-DFW on AA or other similar routes) and aircraft fleet repositioning.

So I believe we are in agreement. But because the Japanese airlines keep buying Boeing widebodies for domestic duty, Boeing keeps designing for far more cycles than I would design a widebody for. There is a weight penalty for the 787 that is well over a ton. That is a 100nm+ range penalty for the 787-10 to meet two customers' demands.

I believe the A350 will sell incredibly well. I also believe the A321NEO/-10 MAX have killed 90%+ of the widebody short haul market as they are better economic choices for *most* airlines (JAL and ANA really are the only exceptions that come to mind).

As already noted, the 787-10 isn't a great plane for over 6,000nm (still air) missions. Meh... I personally believe the A350 should be selling better than it has but that Airbus' C-suite did an epic sales flop by not increasing production further to free up short term slots. Boeing took a gamble with ramping to 14/month that is paying off. Airlines have never wanted to wait as long as manufacturers would make them wait for aircraft.

The 787-10 also weighs 8.5 tons less empty than an A359. Why would an airline buy that plane for short haul? Look into why EK chose the 787-10 for mid-haul.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/15/emira ... gs-787-10/

What that article dismisses is that electrical subsystems have much lower maintenance costs per cycle than the more conventional subsystems of the A350. Until you fly past 4,000nm, there is a significant cost savings flying the 787-10 over the A359. I calculate about $1,000 per day. That cost advantage disapears rapidly and is (by my estimate) by 5,250 nm. While the 787-10 can be flown further, the higher wing loading and less optimized for cruise engines are hurting the economics if an airline pushes out to the 6,000nm range (all ranges still air). After 6,000 nm, only the 777X can compete with the A350 family. (Sorry A380 and 77W, your era is now over.)

An airplane just simply cannot be everything. The 787 certainly isn't. This is why I quantify which markets it is great at. When I work on widebody design concepts, we choose what mission we will be the best at and what mission is the corner case. One then selects sub-systems and technology to put into the aircraft to meet that business case. Now, most of what I worked were 'paper airplanes' that never were launched. :cry: But some were and I can see my concepts in the A320NEO. :hyper: But more by my friends Steve and Steve. :P (Last names withheld to protect the guilty.)

1. For example, I worked a widebody optimized for minimum cost at 4,000nm (TATL), but with 7,400nm range. This could do TPAC and EU to ASIA, but was for EU airlines going TATL and the ME3.
2. I also worked a widebody with minimum cost at 5,500nm and 7,500nm range. (Super optimized for EU to Coastal Asia and great on TPAC). The ME3 estimate on sales was cut 75%...

The later design had a cycle life of 20,000 FC less, but 20,000 FH more and weighed 3 metric tons more empty (larger wing area and higher bypass ratio engines). For 4,000nm to 5,500nm, the two really didn't have that much of a cost difference, but for the *same* body/cockpit/cargo, the wings, gear, and engines were different. Airbus obviously went through door #2 for the A350. Boeing went through door #1 for the 787. Meh... that decision must be made before program launch as it drives everything.

The easiest way to understand is that comparing the same MTOW, if the A359 MTOW is caped to the 787-10 MTOW, the A359 has less range. This isn't it being less efficient, it is the weight of the better wing and engines preventing fuel load (see the Leeham link above); this is a quick check between two such compatible airframes on which design door they went through. And yes, there aren't two doors, there is a spectrum. e.g., I worked a door#2 Airbus program that would found switching the engines to a door #1 optimization saved $1 million per aircraft in build costs as one technology could only be scaled to a certain engine size (at that time, technology has moved on). So Airbus shifted gears to a door #1.5 (ish) design (up 10,000 FC, same FH, same wing area and fuel, but door #1 engines with more structure for more short flights). It was because that one technology saved not only $1million per airframe in engine build costs, but it also saved $300/day in fuel which exactly matched the $300/day in costs the added FC and smaller engine diameter imposed on costs, so a free #1.5 trade which isn't common).

So do realize anything I write has a 'born on date.' I (and my employeer) were caught flat footed in how fast 3-D printing cuts costs. For the same work we have a quarter of the titanium 3-D printers Boeing does. :cry: We will be 1 to 2 years behind in cost/weight savings behind Boeing because of that. sniffle.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

But the high titanium/Barrel construction of the 787 gives more cycles for free. Meh, for most airlines they will not care. The 787 is certified for LOV of 66,000 cycles and 200,000 FH. I'll be shocked if any are flown beyond 50,000 FC or 150,000 FH. (As an enthusiast, I hope to be proven wrong), with most not breaking 30,000 FC IMHO (within A350 certification).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21234
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:34 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Polot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Some 77Es were bought for its excellent payload-range, some were bought because they were more efficient 77As.

And some were bought because it was the only thing Boeing offered larger than a 767 but smaller than a 747.

People here don’t always seem to grasp that aircraft in fleets don’t need to be replaced with new aircraft that have equal or better capability.

Polot,

I would expand in that people do not graap market and strategy shifts will drive airlines to change aircraft size.

Most MD-80s were replaced by larger aircraft. Most 77Es I suspect by smaller. 747s we're almost universally by smaller.

To hub, CASK must be super low. I think the 779 has potential. I see a large market for the 787-10, but I see most 77E replaced by 789. I see the 787-10 for many new markets as half of aircraft sold are for growth.

Nothing is stagnant. The NEO/MAX change everything as does the 787-10, A350, and 779.

Personally, I'm curious us an Asian hub or IST will be the largest airport by passenger count in 20 years.

Lightsaber

Interestingly enough (or not), AvWeek has an opinion piece by Richard Aboulafia pointing out the same thing.

The route fragmentation that 787 amplified suggests 77x and even A359 are going to have less sales than projected.

We live in a time where MAX 8 is considered to be an entry level TATL airliner.

lightsaber wrote:
I was referring to the Japanese widebodies specifically; so I'm not contradicting that the majority of widebodies will be retired early. Few will reach 30,000 cycles last I looked.

I'm shocked the 777 and 787 are certified for so many cycles. I know in the 777 there is structure in there that shouldn't be. The joints had far too much weight to be able to meet that certification. It isn't just performing the test, an aircraft is designed for the cycles.

In the case of barrel CFRP construction, cycles are cheap. It is my favorite design for aircraft because added cycles are free. I see the posts by Leeham that panel and barrel construction are the same weight and efficiency. They are, up to about 36,000 cycles. Above that, barrel construction (and this is just my opinion) gives more cycles for free.

As to extending cycle life on the A350, I do not know. What I know about the A320:
1. Structural changes after the -100, including required reinforcement (weight added that was part of the sharklet kit) to go from 48,000 to 60,000 FC.
2. Airbus attempted to go to 90,000 FC/180,000 FH but failed. I am not in the know as to why the testing showed this goal wasn't achievable.
Yet we see 737NG going through bulkhead repairs due at 85,000 FC.

I cannot find the A350 certified life. The current online document just notes the current life is temporary as testing isn't complete (normal at this early in service) and no problems have been found:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -09-26.pdf

I didn't see the new HGW update FWIW. If I missed due to poor searching, please let me know.

There will be a trade between cycle life and MTOW/MLW/MZFW; increasing any one reduces cycle life. For example, the 777F has a lower cycle life than the 777L due to greater allowed. Will Airbus split their certification as Boeing did for the 777-200 (w/GE90-110s)? That is possible.

I can only go off what is known and that is the 787 has the highest certified cycle life of any widebody. Only the other Boeing products come close. If an airline puts the A350 into domestic duty, the maintenance plans are currently for long haul and thus would be expensive on a per cycle basis. To modify the plans takes years of testing, diagnosing the faults found and needed inspections and repairs.

For example, on the A320 going to 60,000 cycles, they found a bit of minor cracking (this is normal), so new build planes have redesigned structure (minor redesign, little fillet changes that actually saved weight) while current aircraft being maintained for 60,000 cycles/120,000 flight hours must add a trivial number of doublers and add certain bracket inspections. :yawn: Airbus has yet to invest in that. It costs $20 million to $30 million to do so.

It also takes designing the aircraft to about 3% lower stress limits. So the question is, where did Airbus go to the limits? I would speculate only on the A350-900LR. But as I'm neither a structural engineer nor employed on the A350 project... But it also takes having the nacelles/pylon designed for that many cycles. Boeing levied such a requirement on the 777 and 787 to vendors. Did Airbus? Since at 30,000 cycles the engines/nacelles are over half the aircraft value, no one is going to replace them at that juncture as two new sets are worth more than the whole widebody.

But, we are debating a tiny number of widebodies. Few airlines fly widebodies on sub 4-hour missions anymore and usually only if they need to do so for pilot training due to so many missions for the fleet are 8+ hours (SQ A350 operations come specifically to mind) or for domestic premium demand (e.g., LAX-DFW on AA or other similar routes) and aircraft fleet repositioning.

So I believe we are in agreement. But because the Japanese airlines keep buying Boeing widebodies for domestic duty, Boeing keeps designing for far more cycles than I would design a widebody for. There is a weight penalty for the 787 that is well over a ton. That is a 100nm+ range penalty for the 787-10 to meet two customers' demands.

I believe the A350 will sell incredibly well. I also believe the A321NEO/-10 MAX have killed 90%+ of the widebody short haul market as they are better economic choices for *most* airlines (JAL and ANA really are the only exceptions that come to mind).

As already noted, the 787-10 isn't a great plane for over 6,000nm (still air) missions. Meh... I personally believe the A350 should be selling better than it has but that Airbus' C-suite did an epic sales flop by not increasing production further to free up short term slots. Boeing took a gamble with ramping to 14/month that is paying off. Airlines have never wanted to wait as long as manufacturers would make them wait for aircraft.

The 787-10 also weighs 8.5 tons less empty than an A359. Why would an airline buy that plane for short haul? Look into why EK chose the 787-10 for mid-haul.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/15/emira ... gs-787-10/

What that article dismisses is that electrical subsystems have much lower maintenance costs per cycle than the more conventional subsystems of the A350. Until you fly past 4,000nm, there is a significant cost savings flying the 787-10 over the A359. I calculate about $1,000 per day. That cost advantage disapears rapidly and is (by my estimate) by 5,250 nm. While the 787-10 can be flown further, the higher wing loading and less optimized for cruise engines are hurting the economics if an airline pushes out to the 6,000nm range (all ranges still air). After 6,000 nm, only the 777X can compete with the A350 family. (Sorry A380 and 77W, your era is now over.)

An airplane just simply cannot be everything. The 787 certainly isn't. This is why I quantify which markets it is great at. When I work on widebody design concepts, we choose what mission we will be the best at and what mission is the corner case. One then selects sub-systems and technology to put into the aircraft to meet that business case. Now, most of what I worked were 'paper airplanes' that never were launched. :cry: But some were and I can see my concepts in the A320NEO. :hyper: But more by my friends Steve and Steve. :P (Last names withheld to protect the guilty.)

1. For example, I worked a widebody optimized for minimum cost at 4,000nm (TATL), but with 7,400nm range. This could do TPAC and EU to ASIA, but was for EU airlines going TATL and the ME3.
2. I also worked a widebody with minimum cost at 5,500nm and 7,500nm range. (Super optimized for EU to Coastal Asia and great on TPAC). The ME3 estimate on sales was cut 75%...

The later design had a cycle life of 20,000 FC less, but 20,000 FH more and weighed 3 metric tons more empty (larger wing area and higher bypass ratio engines). For 4,000nm to 5,500nm, the two really didn't have that much of a cost difference, but for the *same* body/cockpit/cargo, the wings, gear, and engines were different. Airbus obviously went through door #2 for the A350. Boeing went through door #1 for the 787. Meh... that decision must be made before program launch as it drives everything.

The easiest way to understand is that comparing the same MTOW, if the A359 MTOW is caped to the 787-10 MTOW, the A359 has less range. This isn't it being less efficient, it is the weight of the better wing and engines preventing fuel load (see the Leeham link above); this is a quick check between two such compatible airframes on which design door they went through. And yes, there aren't two doors, there is a spectrum. e.g., I worked a door#2 Airbus program that would found switching the engines to a door #1 optimization saved $1 million per aircraft in build costs as one technology could only be scaled to a certain engine size (at that time, technology has moved on). So Airbus shifted gears to a door #1.5 (ish) design (up 10,000 FC, same FH, same wing area and fuel, but door #1 engines with more structure for more short flights). It was because that one technology saved not only $1million per airframe in engine build costs, but it also saved $300/day in fuel which exactly matched the $300/day in costs the added FC and smaller engine diameter imposed on costs, so a free #1.5 trade which isn't common).

So do realize anything I write has a 'born on date.' I (and my employeer) were caught flat footed in how fast 3-D printing cuts costs. For the same work we have a quarter of the titanium 3-D printers Boeing does. :cry: We will be 1 to 2 years behind in cost/weight savings behind Boeing because of that. sniffle.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

But the high titanium/Barrel construction of the 787 gives more cycles for free. Meh, for most airlines they will not care. The 787 is certified for LOV of 66,000 cycles and 200,000 FH. I'll be shocked if any are flown beyond 50,000 FC or 150,000 FH. (As an enthusiast, I hope to be proven wrong), with most not breaking 30,000 FC IMHO (within A350 certification).

Lightsaber

Thank you for the insightful post.

It's going to be very interesting to see the design choices on the NMA.

What choices of 787 will carry forward, and what ones will be dropped?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:07 pm

lightsaber wrote:
RandWkop wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
No, cycles to a 777 are the same as to an A320. Both have limits of validity to 60,000.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 2012_q4/2/

The 787 has a fractionally better life. This isn't a 747 with only 35,000 cycles. IIRC, Airbus widebodies have a 36,000 cycle LOV. Anyone have a link? What is the A350 cycle life?

Boeing knew the Japanese airlines would use the 787 and 777 as if they were narrowbody aircraft, so they are built to take the duty for 20+ years.

Late edit:. I need to emphasize the 787 and 787 have the same cycle lives as the E-jets, A320, and the CRJ at EIS. (CRJs now 80,000 cycle LOV with the latest PIPs, just as the A320 grew from 48,000 to 60,000, excludes the A320-100 due to later structure changes).

Lightsaber

You seem to be saying that Boeing put structure into aircraft only needed by a fraction of the aircraft sold. This doesn`t sound like "driving 787 costs down to unprecedented levels" Boeing. Would it not be better to say that Boeing test their widebody aircraft to this number of cycles and Airbus have not done this yet. There is nothing preventing Airbus from doing this and it is possible JAL only bought the A350 with contractual guarantees to provide aircraft tested and certified to this level. They did it with the A320, can they not do the same with the A350?
Also I have heard it said by a respected poster on here that the majority of modern widebodies will be retired on economic reasons long before they reach there cycle life. I wonder who that was?

I was referring to the Japanese widebodies specifically; so I'm not contradicting that the majority of widebodies will be retired early. Few will reach 30,000 cycles last I looked.

I'm shocked the 777 and 787 are certified for so many cycles. I know in the 777 there is structure in there that shouldn't be. The joints had far too much weight to be able to meet that certification. It isn't just performing the test, an aircraft is designed for the cycles.

In the case of barrel CFRP construction, cycles are cheap. It is my favorite design for aircraft because added cycles are free. I see the posts by Leeham that panel and barrel construction are the same weight and efficiency. They are, up to about 36,000 cycles. Above that, barrel construction (and this is just my opinion) gives more cycles for free.

As to extending cycle life on the A350, I do not know. What I know about the A320:
1. Structural changes after the -100, including required reinforcement (weight added that was part of the sharklet kit) to go from 48,000 to 60,000 FC.
2. Airbus attempted to go to 90,000 FC/180,000 FH but failed. I am not in the know as to why the testing showed this goal wasn't achievable.
Yet we see 737NG going through bulkhead repairs due at 85,000 FC.

I cannot find the A350 certified life. The current online document just notes the current life is temporary as testing isn't complete (normal at this early in service) and no problems have been found:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -09-26.pdf

I didn't see the new HGW update FWIW. If I missed due to poor searching, please let me know.

There will be a trade between cycle life and MTOW/MLW/MZFW; increasing any one reduces cycle life. For example, the 777F has a lower cycle life than the 777L due to greater allowed. Will Airbus split their certification as Boeing did for the 777-200 (w/GE90-110s)? That is possible.

I can only go off what is known and that is the 787 has the highest certified cycle life of any widebody. Only the other Boeing products come close. If an airline puts the A350 into domestic duty, the maintenance plans are currently for long haul and thus would be expensive on a per cycle basis. To modify the plans takes years of testing, diagnosing the faults found and needed inspections and repairs.

For example, on the A320 going to 60,000 cycles, they found a bit of minor cracking (this is normal), so new build planes have redesigned structure (minor redesign, little fillet changes that actually saved weight) while current aircraft being maintained for 60,000 cycles/120,000 flight hours must add a trivial number of doublers and add certain bracket inspections. :yawn: Airbus has yet to invest in that. It costs $20 million to $30 million to do so.

It also takes designing the aircraft to about 3% lower stress limits. So the question is, where did Airbus go to the limits? I would speculate only on the A350-900LR. But as I'm neither a structural engineer nor employed on the A350 project... But it also takes having the nacelles/pylon designed for that many cycles. Boeing levied such a requirement on the 777 and 787 to vendors. Did Airbus? Since at 30,000 cycles the engines/nacelles are over half the aircraft value, no one is going to replace them at that juncture as two new sets are worth more than the whole widebody.

But, we are debating a tiny number of widebodies. Few airlines fly widebodies on sub 4-hour missions anymore and usually only if they need to do so for pilot training due to so many missions for the fleet are 8+ hours (SQ A350 operations come specifically to mind) or for domestic premium demand (e.g., LAX-DFW on AA or other similar routes) and aircraft fleet repositioning.

So I believe we are in agreement. But because the Japanese airlines keep buying Boeing widebodies for domestic duty, Boeing keeps designing for far more cycles than I would design a widebody for. There is a weight penalty for the 787 that is well over a ton. That is a 100nm+ range penalty for the 787-10 to meet two customers' demands.

I believe the A350 will sell incredibly well. I also believe the A321NEO/-10 MAX have killed 90%+ of the widebody short haul market as they are better economic choices for *most* airlines (JAL and ANA really are the only exceptions that come to mind).

As already noted, the 787-10 isn't a great plane for over 6,000nm (still air) missions. Meh... I personally believe the A350 should be selling better than it has but that Airbus' C-suite did an epic sales flop by not increasing production further to free up short term slots. Boeing took a gamble with ramping to 14/month that is paying off. Airlines have never wanted to wait as long as manufacturers would make them wait for aircraft.

The 787-10 also weighs 8.5 tons less empty than an A359. Why would an airline buy that plane for short haul? Look into why EK chose the 787-10 for mid-haul.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/15/emira ... gs-787-10/

What that article dismisses is that electrical subsystems have much lower maintenance costs per cycle than the more conventional subsystems of the A350. Until you fly past 4,000nm, there is a significant cost savings flying the 787-10 over the A359. I calculate about $1,000 per day. That cost advantage disapears rapidly and is (by my estimate) by 5,250 nm. While the 787-10 can be flown further, the higher wing loading and less optimized for cruise engines are hurting the economics if an airline pushes out to the 6,000nm range (all ranges still air). After 6,000 nm, only the 777X can compete with the A350 family. (Sorry A380 and 77W, your era is now over.)

An airplane just simply cannot be everything. The 787 certainly isn't. This is why I quantify which markets it is great at. When I work on widebody design concepts, we choose what mission we will be the best at and what mission is the corner case. One then selects sub-systems and technology to put into the aircraft to meet that business case. Now, most of what I worked were 'paper airplanes' that never were launched. :cry: But some were and I can see my concepts in the A320NEO. :hyper: But more by my friends Steve and Steve. :P (Last names withheld to protect the guilty.)

1. For example, I worked a widebody optimized for minimum cost at 4,000nm (TATL), but with 7,400nm range. This could do TPAC and EU to ASIA, but was for EU airlines going TATL and the ME3.
2. I also worked a widebody with minimum cost at 5,500nm and 7,500nm range. (Super optimized for EU to Coastal Asia and great on TPAC). The ME3 estimate on sales was cut 75%...

The later design had a cycle life of 20,000 FC less, but 20,000 FH more and weighed 3 metric tons more empty (larger wing area and higher bypass ratio engines). For 4,000nm to 5,500nm, the two really didn't have that much of a cost difference, but for the *same* body/cockpit/cargo, the wings, gear, and engines were different. Airbus obviously went through door #2 for the A350. Boeing went through door #1 for the 787. Meh... that decision must be made before program launch as it drives everything.

The easiest way to understand is that comparing the same MTOW, if the A359 MTOW is caped to the 787-10 MTOW, the A359 has less range. This isn't it being less efficient, it is the weight of the better wing and engines preventing fuel load (see the Leeham link above); this is a quick check between two such compatible airframes on which design door they went through. And yes, there aren't two doors, there is a spectrum. e.g., I worked a door#2 Airbus program that would found switching the engines to a door #1 optimization saved $1 million per aircraft in build costs as one technology could only be scaled to a certain engine size (at that time, technology has moved on). So Airbus shifted gears to a door #1.5 (ish) design (up 10,000 FC, same FH, same wing area and fuel, but door #1 engines with more structure for more short flights). It was because that one technology saved not only $1million per airframe in engine build costs, but it also saved $300/day in fuel which exactly matched the $300/day in costs the added FC and smaller engine diameter imposed on costs, so a free #1.5 trade which isn't common).

So do realize anything I write has a 'born on date.' I (and my employeer) were caught flat footed in how fast 3-D printing cuts costs. For the same work we have a quarter of the titanium 3-D printers Boeing does. :cry: We will be 1 to 2 years behind in cost/weight savings behind Boeing because of that. sniffle.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

But the high titanium/Barrel construction of the 787 gives more cycles for free. Meh, for most airlines they will not care. The 787 is certified for LOV of 66,000 cycles and 200,000 FH. I'll be shocked if any are flown beyond 50,000 FC or 150,000 FH. (As an enthusiast, I hope to be proven wrong), with most not breaking 30,000 FC IMHO (within A350 certification).

Lightsaber


Wow, anet at its best!

Thanks for the information.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:09 pm

Does It have enough range for KE’s needs?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
AA747123
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:15 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:30 pm

I dont think you will see AA ordering the 787-10 anytime soon. They seem happy with their current fleet mix. Had they wanted them I think you would have seen an order by now. AA needs to get it debt in check and soon.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:33 pm

AA747123 wrote:
I dont think you will see AA ordering the 787-10 anytime soon. They seem happy with their current fleet mix. Had they wanted them I think you would have seen an order by now. AA needs to get it debt in check and soon.


I’m sure they ll need to start looking at B772ER replacements soon
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
jfk777
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:45 pm

flee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Polot wrote:
And some were bought because it was the only thing Boeing offered larger than a 767 but smaller than a 747.

People here don’t always seem to grasp that aircraft in fleets don’t need to be replaced with new aircraft that have equal or better capability.

Polot,

I would expand in that people do not graap market and strategy shifts will drive airlines to change aircraft size.

Most MD-80s were replaced by larger aircraft. Most 77Es I suspect by smaller. 747s we're almost universally by smaller.

To hub, CASK must be super low. I think the 779 has potential. I see a large market for the 787-10, but I see most 77E replaced by 789. I see the 787-10 for many new markets as half of aircraft sold are for growth.

Nothing is stagnant. The NEO/MAX change everything as does the 787-10, A350, and 779.

Personally, I'm curious us an Asian hub or IST will be the largest airport by passenger count in 20 years.

Lightsaber

I think a lot of people also failed to see that the huge amount of narrowbodies ordered will replace the B767/77E as frequency is now deemed to be highly desirable.

There is also the inverse of the above - airport infrastructure (slots/runways) is not growing enough to cope with pax growth. For these airports, e.g. LHR, HKG, airlines are using larger capacity aircraft to better utilise their slots.

The market is dynamic - so OEMs should try to provide a range of aircraft that will meet with the requirements of the customers.



"Narrowbodies ordered to replace the 767/77E as frequency is now deemed to be highly desirable", great quote but where are 737 MAX or A320 replacing 767 or 77E ? The US3 and EU3 have their 777 flying routes much longer then the capabilities of any A321LR or 737 MAX, try CDG to EZE with a narrow body. LHR to Haneda has three different airlines with 77W try that one with an A321neo LR, you will be stopping in Amalty. The A321 replacements of 777 is greatly exaggerated.

The routes Norwegian is flying with 737 MAX are not ones a 777 would work on.
 
ewt340
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:58 pm

jfk777 wrote:
flee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Polot,

I would expand in that people do not graap market and strategy shifts will drive airlines to change aircraft size.

Most MD-80s were replaced by larger aircraft. Most 77Es I suspect by smaller. 747s we're almost universally by smaller.

To hub, CASK must be super low. I think the 779 has potential. I see a large market for the 787-10, but I see most 77E replaced by 789. I see the 787-10 for many new markets as half of aircraft sold are for growth.

Nothing is stagnant. The NEO/MAX change everything as does the 787-10, A350, and 779.

Personally, I'm curious us an Asian hub or IST will be the largest airport by passenger count in 20 years.

Lightsaber

I think a lot of people also failed to see that the huge amount of narrowbodies ordered will replace the B767/77E as frequency is now deemed to be highly desirable.

There is also the inverse of the above - airport infrastructure (slots/runways) is not growing enough to cope with pax growth. For these airports, e.g. LHR, HKG, airlines are using larger capacity aircraft to better utilise their slots.

The market is dynamic - so OEMs should try to provide a range of aircraft that will meet with the requirements of the customers.



"Narrowbodies ordered to replace the 767/77E as frequency is now deemed to be highly desirable", great quote but where are 737 MAX or A320 replacing 767 or 77E ? The US3 and EU3 have their 777 flying routes much longer then the capabilities of any A321LR or 737 MAX, try CDG to EZE with a narrow body. LHR to Haneda has three different airlines with 77W try that one with an A321neo LR, you will be stopping in Amalty. The A321 replacements of 777 is greatly exaggerated.

The routes Norwegian is flying with 737 MAX are not ones a 777 would work on.


Maybe not in North America, but definitely around Eurasia. They don't actually Replace B777 or A330 directly. It's just that airlines now opening up more long and thin routes, and they also actually reducing risk by using smaller aircraft and smaller capacity because of LCC taking on their market shares. Especially in Asia with SQ or CX and any other major airlines around this area. Since Southeast Asia, South Asia and East Asia are close to each other, LCC able to tap into these low yield market and snatch the market right underneath Full service airlines. Now full service airlines need to lower their ticket prices and get less profits with A330 or B777 or downgrade to A321 and B737 to maintain high ticket price.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:

So do realize anything I write has a 'born on date.' I (and my employeer) were caught flat footed in how fast 3-D printing cuts costs. For the same work we have a quarter of the titanium 3-D printers Boeing does. :cry: We will be 1 to 2 years behind in cost/weight savings behind Boeing because of that. sniffle.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

But the high titanium/Barrel construction of the 787 gives more cycles for free. Meh, for most airlines they will not care. The 787 is certified for LOV of 66,000 cycles and 200,000 FH. I'll be shocked if any are flown beyond 50,000 FC or 150,000 FH. (As an enthusiast, I hope to be proven wrong), with most not breaking 30,000 FC IMHO (within A350 certification).

Lightsaber


As Spock so often said...Fascinating.

I'm interested in that part. What part is it? On the top pic in the article, is that a before/after shot of a finished printed part or comparing a printed part to a CNC part?

Ok...one more, does the printed part need more work after it comes out of the printer or is it plug and play.
What the...?
 
AA747123
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:15 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:42 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
I dont think you will see AA ordering the 787-10 anytime soon. They seem happy with their current fleet mix. Had they wanted them I think you would have seen an order by now. AA needs to get it debt in check and soon.


I’m sure they ll need to start looking at B772ER replacements soon


Im pretty sure when AA announced the order for the 787-8 and 787-9 earlier this year some of the earliest 777s would be retired including the 767s
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:52 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

So do realize anything I write has a 'born on date.' I (and my employeer) were caught flat footed in how fast 3-D printing cuts costs. For the same work we have a quarter of the titanium 3-D printers Boeing does. :cry: We will be 1 to 2 years behind in cost/weight savings behind Boeing because of that. sniffle.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

But the high titanium/Barrel construction of the 787 gives more cycles for free. Meh, for most airlines they will not care. The 787 is certified for LOV of 66,000 cycles and 200,000 FH. I'll be shocked if any are flown beyond 50,000 FC or 150,000 FH. (As an enthusiast, I hope to be proven wrong), with most not breaking 30,000 FC IMHO (within A350 certification).

Lightsaber


As Spock so often said...Fascinating.

I'm interested in that part. What part is it? On the top pic in the article, is that a before/after shot of a finished printed part or comparing a printed part to a CNC part?

Ok...one more, does the printed part need more work after it comes out of the printer or is it plug and play.


My understanding is that often 3D printed. Parts require post polishing.
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:22 am

789 payload is 400000 (MZFW) - 284000 (OEW) = 116000 lb. 78J payload is 425000 (MZFW) - 299000 (OEW) = 126000 lb.

Payload is by design, within the limits of MTOW. The 78J would have to have a higher max payload than the 789 or else those extra 43 seats would be useless. Of course that higher payload with the same MTOW, along with the higher OEW, comes out of max fuel at MTOW & MSP which impacts range, but under the lesser max range the 78J carries more.
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:46 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
Does It have enough range for KE’s needs?


Depends on what KE thinks of in terms of replacing 773A, 77E, and older 333s. KE might want dedicated short-haul widebodies for flights within Asia (slot-restricted) or might simply use one of 77Ws or 748s for those flights.

The longest 773As currently fly is ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles), 77E ICN-VIE/ZRH/MXP/DFW(depends on season, longest 6900 statute miles) older 333s also ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles).

Also note that newer 77Es(mid-2000s builds) have older interior configurations as they kept the original seats(angled-flat business class seats) and they mostly fly within Asia. Older 77Es(late-90s builds) are reconfigured with new flat seats and fly long-haul.
Most 333s, 773s are all late-90s builds (with some mid-2000s 333s).

78X at 9 abreast will seat slightly more than 77E(8/24/220ish) or 333A(6/24/230ish) and probably slightly less than 773A(6/35/290ish).

KE will probably want at least two or three 773 sized planes based at GMP for HND/PEK/KIX/CJU routes (which are busy routes, slot restricted) - and not very practical to base a 747-8i or A380(which won't fit into HND anyway). So there is definitely room for a couple of 78Xs but might opt to base a couple of older 77Ws instead.

For ICN-based routes KE might also want 773 sized planes for busy, slot restricted flights - HKG, SIN, NRT, PEK, MNL, BKK comes to mind - will need at least a dozen. These are definitely within 78X range (not more than 4000 miles) but KE might simply want to use what they have - 77W 748, etc. for those routes as well.

So in a nutshell - KE definitelt has room for 78X-ranged big widebodies but whether KE will want them is something we don't know yet.
 
brindabella
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:08 pm

SeoulIncheon wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Does It have enough range for KE’s needs?


Depends on what KE thinks of in terms of replacing 773A, 77E, and older 333s. KE might want dedicated short-haul widebodies for flights within Asia (slot-restricted) or might simply use one of 77Ws or 748s for those flights.

The longest 773As currently fly is ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles), 77E ICN-VIE/ZRH/MXP/DFW(depends on season, longest 6900 statute miles) older 333s also ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles).

Also note that newer 77Es(mid-2000s builds) have older interior configurations as they kept the original seats(angled-flat business class seats) and they mostly fly within Asia. Older 77Es(late-90s builds) are reconfigured with new flat seats and fly long-haul.
Most 333s, 773s are all late-90s builds (with some mid-2000s 333s).

78X at 9 abreast will seat slightly more than 77E(8/24/220ish) or 333A(6/24/230ish) and probably slightly less than 773A(6/35/290ish).

KE will probably want at least two or three 773 sized planes based at GMP for HND/PEK/KIX/CJU routes (which are busy routes, slot restricted) - and not very practical to base a 747-8i or A380(which won't fit into HND anyway). So there is definitely room for a couple of 78Xs but might opt to base a couple of older 77Ws instead.

For ICN-based routes KE might also want 773 sized planes for busy, slot restricted flights - HKG, SIN, NRT, PEK, MNL, BKK comes to mind - will need at least a dozen. These are definitely within 78X range (not more than 4000 miles) but KE might simply want to use what they have - 77W 748, etc. for those routes as well.

So in a nutshell - KE definitelt has room for 78X-ranged big widebodies but whether KE will want them is something we don't know yet.


GMP??

You don't mean ICN?

cheers
Billy
 
osupoke07
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:18 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
I dont think you will see AA ordering the 787-10 anytime soon. They seem happy with their current fleet mix. Had they wanted them I think you would have seen an order by now. AA needs to get it debt in check and soon.


I’m sure they ll need to start looking at B772ER replacements soon


Their 787-9 4 class configuration (B/PE/MCE/E) seats 285 and the 772 seats either 260 or 273. I would think they will just replace the 772 fleet with more 789.
MD82, MD83, MD88, B717, B732, B733, B735, B737, B738, B739, B752, B763, B77W, CR2, CR7, CR9, A320, A321
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:08 pm

Will AF operate this type or is the order just for KLM?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:19 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Will AF operate this type or is the order just for KLM?

All 787-10 on order by AF-KLM will go to KLM.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:55 pm

The 787-10 is currently treated as an orphan. The Boeing Board has an embargo on 10 developments that encroach on the 777X family (other than the minimum specifically required to secure the EK order).

With the benefit of hindsight, the 777 and 787 should be 'owned' by the same senior management team, as is the case at Airbus with the A330/A350 family. Had that happened, the 10 might now be offered with two wing options, with the new wing also available on an 11, and the 777 family would be no more (although the 787-10 and 11 with the new wing might be called the 777X).

Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:21 pm

smartplane wrote:
The 787-10 is currently treated as an orphan. The Boeing Board has an embargo on 10 developments that encroach on the 777X family (other than the minimum specifically required to secure the EK order).

With the benefit of hindsight, the 777 and 787 should be 'owned' by the same senior management team, as is the case at Airbus with the A330/A350 family. Had that happened, the 10 might now be offered with two wing options, with the new wing also available on an 11, and the 777 family would be no more (although the 787-10 and 11 with the new wing might be called the 777X).

Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?


To be clear, you're suggesting that Boeing cancel the 777X and move forward with -10ER/-11 787 derivatives? Somehow I doubt that's a short-term decision they are considering.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6495
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm

smartplane wrote:
Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?


This is more than a bit premature.

The 777X (like the A350-1000) is affected by replacement cycle timing. The bulk of 777-300ER and A380 replacement will be happening in the mid-2020s to 2030s, and those orders plus incremental growth are what the 777X will be competing for. If the 777X order book is looking parched in 2025, then we know there's a problem.

A "787LR" development would have required much of the same expense that went into the 777X: a new longer wing based on a new wing box, a new engine, new gear, and structural changes to the fuselage. And it would have been competing head-on against the A350-1000 in terms of payload range, not approaching it from above as the 777X is doing.

The capabilities of the 787 were well known by the time 777X development began in earnest, and I'm sure Boeing considered a 787LR option.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:33 am

bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I agree with smi that Qantas could well order a small subfleet of 6-8 787-10s for Asian and peak transtasman routes. The chances for the -10 would be higher, in my opinion, if Boeing wins Project Sunrise. Adding on the 777-8 and then a possible A350-900 for the gap between the 777-8 and the 787-9 would involve two new jet types at once whereas adding the 787-10 means only one new type. If Airbus wins Project Sunrise, then the reverse could happen to benefit the A350-900 and it would be a real contest to see which OEM would win any possible order for the gap between the 787-9 and the A350-1000.
Of course, Qantas may not order anything to 'fill the gap' and may be perfectly happy with a fleet of narrow bodies, 787-9s, Project Sunrisers and A380s....
Cheers
Bunumuring


Why would one fly a 787 from Australia to NZ? A narrow body could provide the same seats at lower cost (and more frequency too).

If it's within 3,000nm, use a narrow body and save money!

P.S. Perth is different. In fact, that might be the slogan for Perth.
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:11 am

Boeing offered higher MTOW on the 78J during initial conversations. Most airlines said they would prefer the lower CASM and would get a 77x (or perhaps an A35J?) if they wanted the range.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:18 am

jagraham wrote:
Boeing offered higher MTOW on the 78J during initial conversations. Most airlines said they would prefer the lower CASM and would get a 77x (or perhaps an A35J?) if they wanted the range.


What MTOW are we talking here? That 789 undercarriage is limiting it.
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:20 am

They didn't say, but I would presume a six wheel main landing gear was under consideration.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6495
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:29 am

jagraham wrote:
They didn't say, but I would presume a six wheel main landing gear was under consideration.


You wouldn't necessarily need to go to a six-wheel bogey, but you'd need a heavier four-wheel bogey with larger tires and wider wheel spacing, which wouldn't fit in the current center wing box, and might result in the loss of 2 x LD3 positions. The A350-900 gets 280 t MTOW out of such a bogey.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:30 am

jagraham wrote:
They didn't say, but I would presume a six wheel main landing gear was under consideration.


It would then lose its weight advantage against the A350-900
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6943
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:18 am

kitplane01 wrote:
bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I agree with smi that Qantas could well order a small subfleet of 6-8 787-10s for Asian and peak transtasman routes. The chances for the -10 would be higher, in my opinion, if Boeing wins Project Sunrise. Adding on the 777-8 and then a possible A350-900 for the gap between the 777-8 and the 787-9 would involve two new jet types at once whereas adding the 787-10 means only one new type. If Airbus wins Project Sunrise, then the reverse could happen to benefit the A350-900 and it would be a real contest to see which OEM would win any possible order for the gap between the 787-9 and the A350-1000.
Of course, Qantas may not order anything to 'fill the gap' and may be perfectly happy with a fleet of narrow bodies, 787-9s, Project Sunrisers and A380s....
Cheers
Bunumuring


Why would one fly a 787 from Australia to NZ? A narrow body could provide the same seats at lower cost (and more frequency too).

If it's within 3,000nm, use a narrow body and save money!

P.S. Perth is different. In fact, that might be the slogan for Perth.



You should tell NZ and QF that, NZ run up to 10-12 777/787 a day from AKL to SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL/NAN/APWTBU/RAR and QF run 5 daily A330’s SYD/MEL/BNE-AKL the SYD/MEL/BNE routes are high frequency 3-6 daily by each carrier, some off peak flights are A320 NZ or 738 QF but these flights certainly don’t run empty and they move lots of freight!

That excludes PER where NZ run 7-10 weekly 787/777. Plus a 2 weekly summer seasonal ex CHC.

Granted neither carrier will order a widebody specific for short haul these days, it’s the way these carriers hub which means these aircraft are available in between long hauls to do short haul.

Some say NZ will consider the efficiency for short haul for the long haul aircraft they will order next year, I’m not so sure, fuel burn is a lot lower on short haul, so long as the aircraft achieves what it’s built for on long haul anything short haul is a bonus.

Interesting talk here on the 787-10, I am very interested as to weather NZ will get some, it probably still comes up short on AKL-LAX/SFO and certainly they need something with more legs for GRU/NYC in future and the longer existing flights to YVR/EZE/IAH. Maybe for Asia though AKL-HKG/TYO etc.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 8779
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:01 am

kitplane01 wrote:
bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I agree with smi that Qantas could well order a small subfleet of 6-8 787-10s for Asian and peak transtasman routes. The chances for the -10 would be higher, in my opinion, if Boeing wins Project Sunrise. Adding on the 777-8 and then a possible A350-900 for the gap between the 777-8 and the 787-9 would involve two new jet types at once whereas adding the 787-10 means only one new type. If Airbus wins Project Sunrise, then the reverse could happen to benefit the A350-900 and it would be a real contest to see which OEM would win any possible order for the gap between the 787-9 and the A350-1000.
Of course, Qantas may not order anything to 'fill the gap' and may be perfectly happy with a fleet of narrow bodies, 787-9s, Project Sunrisers and A380s....
Cheers
Bunumuring


Why would one fly a 787 from Australia to NZ? A narrow body could provide the same seats at lower cost (and more frequency too).

If it's within 3,000nm, use a narrow body and save money!

P.S. Perth is different. In fact, that might be the slogan for Perth.


As mentioned cargo carried is quite substantial for widebody operations between Australia and NZ. In August alone one way from BNE/SYD/MEL to AKL roughly 5500 tonnes of freight was carried. Additionally both MEL and SYD in particular are quite congested and it is not easy to gain slots at peak times for more narrowbody operations. The same argument can be made on why both QF and VA operate 332's on domestic, reasons being they can fill them, carry freight and where routes such MEL-SYD are concerned the only way to increase passenger numbers is to fly bigger aircraft. This is one of the arguments from QF on being interested in the 797.
Forum Moderator
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:44 am

qf789 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I agree with smi that Qantas could well order a small subfleet of 6-8 787-10s for Asian and peak transtasman routes. The chances for the -10 would be higher, in my opinion, if Boeing wins Project Sunrise. Adding on the 777-8 and then a possible A350-900 for the gap between the 777-8 and the 787-9 would involve two new jet types at once whereas adding the 787-10 means only one new type. If Airbus wins Project Sunrise, then the reverse could happen to benefit the A350-900 and it would be a real contest to see which OEM would win any possible order for the gap between the 787-9 and the A350-1000.
Of course, Qantas may not order anything to 'fill the gap' and may be perfectly happy with a fleet of narrow bodies, 787-9s, Project Sunrisers and A380s....
Cheers
Bunumuring


Why would one fly a 787 from Australia to NZ? A narrow body could provide the same seats at lower cost (and more frequency too).

If it's within 3,000nm, use a narrow body and save money!

P.S. Perth is different. In fact, that might be the slogan for Perth.


As mentioned cargo carried is quite substantial for widebody operations between Australia and NZ. In August alone one way from BNE/SYD/MEL to AKL roughly 5500 tonnes of freight was carried. Additionally both MEL and SYD in particular are quite congested and it is not easy to gain slots at peak times for more narrowbody operations. The same argument can be made on why both QF and VA operate 332's on domestic, reasons being they can fill them, carry freight and where routes such MEL-SYD are concerned the only way to increase passenger numbers is to fly bigger aircraft. This is one of the arguments from QF on being interested in the 797.


Has QF shown interest in the -10?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 8779
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:01 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Why would one fly a 787 from Australia to NZ? A narrow body could provide the same seats at lower cost (and more frequency too).

If it's within 3,000nm, use a narrow body and save money!

P.S. Perth is different. In fact, that might be the slogan for Perth.


As mentioned cargo carried is quite substantial for widebody operations between Australia and NZ. In August alone one way from BNE/SYD/MEL to AKL roughly 5500 tonnes of freight was carried. Additionally both MEL and SYD in particular are quite congested and it is not easy to gain slots at peak times for more narrowbody operations. The same argument can be made on why both QF and VA operate 332's on domestic, reasons being they can fill them, carry freight and where routes such MEL-SYD are concerned the only way to increase passenger numbers is to fly bigger aircraft. This is one of the arguments from QF on being interested in the 797.


Has QF shown interest in the -10?


Yes Qantas CEO said on taking delivery of the first 789 a year ago that the 787-10 would be an ideal and likely replacement for the A333 fleet, so I would expect them to order at least 10 of them. The 787-10 would be ideal for SYD/BNE/MEL to places such as SIN, HKG and Japanese routes
Forum Moderator
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:49 am

brindabella wrote:
SeoulIncheon wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Does It have enough range for KE’s needs?


Depends on what KE thinks of in terms of replacing 773A, 77E, and older 333s. KE might want dedicated short-haul widebodies for flights within Asia (slot-restricted) or might simply use one of 77Ws or 748s for those flights.

The longest 773As currently fly is ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles), 77E ICN-VIE/ZRH/MXP/DFW(depends on season, longest 6900 statute miles) older 333s also ICN-SIN(2900 statute miles).

Also note that newer 77Es(mid-2000s builds) have older interior configurations as they kept the original seats(angled-flat business class seats) and they mostly fly within Asia. Older 77Es(late-90s builds) are reconfigured with new flat seats and fly long-haul.
Most 333s, 773s are all late-90s builds (with some mid-2000s 333s).

78X at 9 abreast will seat slightly more than 77E(8/24/220ish) or 333A(6/24/230ish) and probably slightly less than 773A(6/35/290ish).

KE will probably want at least two or three 773 sized planes based at GMP for HND/PEK/KIX/CJU routes (which are busy routes, slot restricted) - and not very practical to base a 747-8i or A380(which won't fit into HND anyway). So there is definitely room for a couple of 78Xs but might opt to base a couple of older 77Ws instead.

For ICN-based routes KE might also want 773 sized planes for busy, slot restricted flights - HKG, SIN, NRT, PEK, MNL, BKK comes to mind - will need at least a dozen. These are definitely within 78X range (not more than 4000 miles) but KE might simply want to use what they have - 77W 748, etc. for those routes as well.

So in a nutshell - KE definitelt has room for 78X-ranged big widebodies but whether KE will want them is something we don't know yet.


GMP??

You don't mean ICN?

cheers


No. I really mean GMP. KE currently bases a 744, one or two 773A, a couple of 77Es at GMP.
KE does not fly ICN-CJU and ICN-KIX/NRT/PEK are no longer that high-demand. (GMP is way more convenient for O&D out of Seoul)
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:53 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
smartplane wrote:
The 787-10 is currently treated as an orphan. The Boeing Board has an embargo on 10 developments that encroach on the 777X family (other than the minimum specifically required to secure the EK order).

With the benefit of hindsight, the 777 and 787 should be 'owned' by the same senior management team, as is the case at Airbus with the A330/A350 family. Had that happened, the 10 might now be offered with two wing options, with the new wing also available on an 11, and the 777 family would be no more (although the 787-10 and 11 with the new wing might be called the 777X).

Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?


To be clear, you're suggesting that Boeing cancel the 777X and move forward with -10ER/-11 787 derivatives? Somehow I doubt that's a short-term decision they are considering.

I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

Following on from the EK A380 RR performance issues, EK are insisting on hard performance guarantees and penalties from Boeing and the yet to be selected engine supplier on their 787 commitment (still not even a conditional order).

So if Boeing were making the 777X decision in 2018, would it be the same?

If Boeing enhances 787-10 capability for EK, will EK and other customers defer / cancel 777X orders (they are all still conditional)?

Does Boeing risk losing the EK 787 business to protect the 777X?

Or does Boeing offer 777X wing technology, etc on a growth variant of the 10, and even an 11?
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:19 pm

smartplane wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
smartplane wrote:
The 787-10 is currently treated as an orphan. The Boeing Board has an embargo on 10 developments that encroach on the 777X family (other than the minimum specifically required to secure the EK order).

With the benefit of hindsight, the 777 and 787 should be 'owned' by the same senior management team, as is the case at Airbus with the A330/A350 family. Had that happened, the 10 might now be offered with two wing options, with the new wing also available on an 11, and the 777 family would be no more (although the 787-10 and 11 with the new wing might be called the 777X).

Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?


To be clear, you're suggesting that Boeing cancel the 777X and move forward with -10ER/-11 787 derivatives? Somehow I doubt that's a short-term decision they are considering.

I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

Following on from the EK A380 RR performance issues, EK are insisting on hard performance guarantees and penalties from Boeing and the yet to be selected engine supplier on their 787 commitment (still not even a conditional order).

So if Boeing were making the 777X decision in 2018, would it be the same?

If Boeing enhances 787-10 capability for EK, will EK and other customers defer / cancel 777X orders (they are all still conditional)?

Does Boeing risk losing the EK 787 business to protect the 777X?

Or does Boeing offer 777X wing technology, etc on a growth variant of the 10, and even an 11?


So you are suggesting that Boeing should scrap already built test planes and re purpose the 777X wing factory? Also tell GE they don`t actually need the new fangled engine. But if they wouldn`t mind knocking together something for a re-winged and stretched 787 that might compete successfully with the A350-900 / -1000? It should be ready around 2025. Maybe DL could be the launch customer of this and the 797?
Meanwhile EK and plenty of others see that the only viable current option for them is the A350. Airbus realize they need to up the a350 output to even come close to meeting demand. But thats ok `cos they don`t have to give huge discounts for the only game in town and they can throw shed loads of money and engineers at the in house and supply chain problems. They can probably even throw a few quid at RR to help them up the XWB output and maybe further develop the engine.

Did the A350 MK1 even get off the drawing board? Maybe a billion spent on it? How much has Boeing spent on the 777X so far? Maybe they can bury it in the 787 programme accounting block.
What you are really saying is the 777X must succeed or Boeing will have to do 1.5 new programs by 2025 (a larger re winged and re engined 787 and a two version 797) while also preparing for the NSA. Maybe they shouldn`t be buying back all that stock.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21234
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:22 pm

qf789 wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
As mentioned cargo carried is quite substantial for widebody operations between Australia and NZ. In August alone one way from BNE/SYD/MEL to AKL roughly 5500 tonnes of freight was carried. Additionally both MEL and SYD in particular are quite congested and it is not easy to gain slots at peak times for more narrowbody operations. The same argument can be made on why both QF and VA operate 332's on domestic, reasons being they can fill them, carry freight and where routes such MEL-SYD are concerned the only way to increase passenger numbers is to fly bigger aircraft. This is one of the arguments from QF on being interested in the 797.


Has QF shown interest in the -10?

Yes Qantas CEO said on taking delivery of the first 789 a year ago that the 787-10 would be an ideal and likely replacement for the A333 fleet, so I would expect them to order at least 10 of them. The 787-10 would be ideal for SYD/BNE/MEL to places such as SIN, HKG and Japanese routes

He's also made positive comments about using 797/NMA on BNE/SYD/MEL triangle routes and nearby regional routes mentioned above such as ADL/NAN/APWTBU/RAR. That might undermine a future 78J buy.

smartplane wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
smartplane wrote:
The 787-10 is currently treated as an orphan. The Boeing Board has an embargo on 10 developments that encroach on the 777X family (other than the minimum specifically required to secure the EK order).

With the benefit of hindsight, the 777 and 787 should be 'owned' by the same senior management team, as is the case at Airbus with the A330/A350 family. Had that happened, the 10 might now be offered with two wing options, with the new wing also available on an 11, and the 777 family would be no more (although the 787-10 and 11 with the new wing might be called the 777X).

Boeing have a massive decision to make. Make -10 the aircraft it could / should be, launch the -11, and cancel the 777X family. The 787 prints money. The 777X will never be more than a niche model, with niche profits, completely eclipsed numerically and financially by the 787. Could the 777X be Boeing's A350 moment?


To be clear, you're suggesting that Boeing cancel the 777X and move forward with -10ER/-11 787 derivatives? Somehow I doubt that's a short-term decision they are considering.

I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

Following on from the EK A380 RR performance issues, EK are insisting on hard performance guarantees and penalties from Boeing and the yet to be selected engine supplier on their 787 commitment (still not even a conditional order).

So if Boeing were making the 777X decision in 2018, would it be the same?

If Boeing enhances 787-10 capability for EK, will EK and other customers defer / cancel 777X orders (they are all still conditional)?

Does Boeing risk losing the EK 787 business to protect the 777X?

Or does Boeing offer 777X wing technology, etc on a growth variant of the 10, and even an 11?

Given the way Boeing is throwing off cash these days I don't think they are very worried about 777X.

If we could go back to 2014 or earlier, I wonder if Boeing would not have chosen to make a clean sheet instead of adding new wings and engines to 777X.

I think they decided a 787-11 is a stretch too far, and a clean sheet could have started at 787-11 size and been a more perfect and more efficient 772/773 replacement than we have with 778/779.

Back then they were feeling the pain over 787 early production blues and were not very aggressive on their future plans.

At this moment in time they are sailing along and probably wish they were more aggressive back in 2014 or so, and built the actual Y3 that was part of the plan from the start.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17953
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:52 pm

smartplane wrote:
I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

The 777X should have the lowest cost per passenger for *long* (over 4500nm, still air) flights. I think it will sell well. About half what the 777-300ER sold plus about 200 freighters (over 20 to 25 years for the freighter sales, passenger sales will be PIP dependent, in particular follow up CMC PIPs on the engines for the 2nd stage turbine and then 1st stage turbine).

What Boeing really needs to do is extend 787-10 range. (Same CMC PIPs need to be brought to the GEnX and one hopes T1000, starting with the fixed blades the GE9x on the 777x launches).

The 777X is in that awkward stage of its performance isn't proven, but the first few years of production are set. So first slots are way out in 2022 (or maybe even later).

But this is a 787-10 thread. The 789 continues to do well, the 788 has a small bump due to cost cutting and the 787-10 is just starting production. Boeing needs to finalize that EK order and win a few more. There are only 7 firm orders for the 787-10 from airlines, by quantity: SQ, EY (at risk), EVA, UA (I'm betting on further top up options being used), BA, KLM, and ANA.
Obvious missing airlines are EK, QR, TK, AA, and some airline from India (albeit, their long haul airlines are bleeding cash). As part of IAG, IB might take some, or they might stick with A359s for the hot/high.

I exclude LH due to their statements on range, JAL due to their A350 buys, and DL due to the A330N/A350 purchases.

Of the buyers, AF/KLM are almost certain to buy more and I would expect more than half the others to top off (in particular, UA with their buy a handful at a time strategy). I do expect a cancellation (at least in part) by EY.

My list of airlines will expand as the range improves. But that will take a weight reduction (it won't be huge, 1 ton is my prediction) and engine PIPs. Otherwise, the airframe is too mature for dramatic improvements (then again, with 66,000 FC and 200,000 FH LOV, what are airlines asking for?).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21234
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:28 pm

lightsaber wrote:
smartplane wrote:
I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

We also see IAG's long campaign to get Airbus to lower A380 prices had no result, so we have evidence that Airbus is not being super aggressive on A380 pricing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8136
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:33 pm

I see the 787-10 as a replacement for the older A330 models for ranges up to 5,800 nautical miles. Perfect for transatlantic flying from the eastern half of the continental USA and throughout eastern Asia.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:34 pm

lightsaber wrote:
smartplane wrote:
I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

The 777X should have the lowest cost per passenger for *long* (over 4500nm, still air) flights. I think it will sell well. About half what the 777-300ER sold plus about 200 freighters (over 20 to 25 years for the freighter sales, passenger sales will be PIP dependent, in particular follow up CMC PIPs on the engines for the 2nd stage turbine and then 1st stage turbine).

What Boeing really needs to do is extend 787-10 range. (Same CMC PIPs need to be brought to the GEnX and one hopes T1000, starting with the fixed blades the GE9x on the 777x launches).

The 777X is in that awkward stage of its performance isn't proven, but the first few years of production are set. So first slots are way out in 2022 (or maybe even later).

But this is a 787-10 thread. The 789 continues to do well, the 788 has a small bump due to cost cutting and the 787-10 is just starting production. Boeing needs to finalize that EK order and win a few more. There are only 7 firm orders for the 787-10 from airlines, by quantity: SQ, EY (at risk), EVA, UA (I'm betting on further top up options being used), BA, KLM, and ANA.
Obvious missing airlines are EK, QR, TK, AA, and some airline from India (albeit, their long haul airlines are bleeding cash). As part of IAG, IB might take some, or they might stick with A359s for the hot/high.

I exclude LH due to their statements on range, JAL due to their A350 buys, and DL due to the A330N/A350 purchases.

Of the buyers, AF/KLM are almost certain to buy more and I would expect more than half the others to top off (in particular, UA with their buy a handful at a time strategy). I do expect a cancellation (at least in part) by EY.

My list of airlines will expand as the range improves. But that will take a weight reduction (it won't be huge, 1 ton is my prediction) and engine PIPs. Otherwise, the airframe is too mature for dramatic improvements (then again, with 66,000 FC and 200,000 FH LOV, what are airlines asking for?).

Lightsaber


Not sure the EY one is at risk seeing as they have already taken delivery of one and the second will be delivered by end month.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
texl1649
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:42 pm

No widebodies have been selling well the past few years, as Aboulafia noted recently. I think Boeing sees some pricing power /unique market fit too on the 787-10, so I don't think they've been willing to discount it too much. The exceptions for the current firm orders were part of large campaigns (including 789 etc), for sure.

Once the GE engine PIP's are validated and rolling off the line (as well, maybe, the actual in service RR reliability is back, for the new builds anyway; I think AN, SQ, and BA are the only RR customer -10 orders), and the 77W replacement cycle really kicks into gear here in a year or two (since slots aren't available for a few years), I am sure AA, IAG, EK, UA, and various others will be getting updated pitches/proposals.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21234
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:07 pm

texl1649 wrote:
No widebodies have been selling well the past few years, as Aboulafia noted recently. I think Boeing sees some pricing power /unique market fit too on the 787-10, so I don't think they've been willing to discount it too much. The exceptions for the current firm orders were part of large campaigns (including 789 etc), for sure.

Once the GE engine PIP's are validated and rolling off the line (as well, maybe, the actual in service RR reliability is back, for the new builds anyway; I think AN, SQ, and BA are the only RR customer -10 orders), and the 77W replacement cycle really kicks into gear here in a year or two (since slots aren't available for a few years), I am sure AA, IAG, EK, UA, and various others will be getting updated pitches/proposals.

I'm not sure why we have the emphasis on PIPs. Sure, it's nice to get new things, but is another 5% or so that important? Going from 6,000 miles to 6,300 isn't going to change the market dynamics much if at all, and it will add cost.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
itchief
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:38 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
I dont think you will see AA ordering the 787-10 anytime soon. They seem happy with their current fleet mix. Had they wanted them I think you would have seen an order by now. AA needs to get it debt in check and soon.


I’m sure they ll need to start looking at B772ER replacements soon


Seating on AA,
787-9 = 285
772ER = 273

I would say that AA has already found the B772ER replacement.
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:49 pm

lightsaber wrote:
smartplane wrote:
I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

The 777X should have the lowest cost per passenger for *long* (over 4500nm, still air) flights. I think it will sell well. About half what the 777-300ER sold plus about 200 freighters (over 20 to 25 years for the freighter sales, passenger sales will be PIP dependent, in particular follow up CMC PIPs on the engines for the 2nd stage turbine and then 1st stage turbine).

What Boeing really needs to do is extend 787-10 range. (Same CMC PIPs need to be brought to the GEnX and one hopes T1000, starting with the fixed blades the GE9x on the 777x launches).

The 777X is in that awkward stage of its performance isn't proven, but the first few years of production are set. So first slots are way out in 2022 (or maybe even later).

But this is a 787-10 thread. The 789 continues to do well, the 788 has a small bump due to cost cutting and the 787-10 is just starting production. Boeing needs to finalize that EK order and win a few more. There are only 7 firm orders for the 787-10 from airlines, by quantity: SQ, EY (at risk), EVA, UA (I'm betting on further top up options being used), BA, KLM, and ANA.
Obvious missing airlines are EK, QR, TK, AA, and some airline from India (albeit, their long haul airlines are bleeding cash). As part of IAG, IB might take some, or they might stick with A359s for the hot/high.

I exclude LH due to their statements on range, JAL due to their A350 buys, and DL due to the A330N/A350 purchases.

Of the buyers, AF/KLM are almost certain to buy more and I would expect more than half the others to top off (in particular, UA with their buy a handful at a time strategy). I do expect a cancellation (at least in part) by EY.

My list of airlines will expand as the range improves. But that will take a weight reduction (it won't be huge, 1 ton is my prediction) and engine PIPs. Otherwise, the airframe is too mature for dramatic improvements (then again, with 66,000 FC and 200,000 FH LOV, what are airlines asking for?).

Lightsaber


I imagine it is probably quite difficult to answer, but based on your speculation, would the PIPs be retrofitable to 2018~2022 models that predated them, or would it have to wait until an engine change?

Simply because, from Boeing's perspective, it's great that they are coming, but if buyers are holding out, that leaves them a few years with greatly reduced selling potential, which could stretch capital and cause investor concern, which by my estimation isn't ideal considering the 777X and 797 development are ongoing, and still costing rather than making money.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17953
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:01 pm

whywhyzee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
smartplane wrote:
I'm suggesting Boeing have a financial and customer dilemma.

They have an extremely profitable per unit 787 family. In contrast, they have an extremely unprofitable 777X family, due to generous launch discounts, and A380 capping market prices.

At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

The 777X should have the lowest cost per passenger for *long* (over 4500nm, still air) flights. I think it will sell well. About half what the 777-300ER sold plus about 200 freighters (over 20 to 25 years for the freighter sales, passenger sales will be PIP dependent, in particular follow up CMC PIPs on the engines for the 2nd stage turbine and then 1st stage turbine).

What Boeing really needs to do is extend 787-10 range. (Same CMC PIPs need to be brought to the GEnX and one hopes T1000, starting with the fixed blades the GE9x on the 777x launches).

The 777X is in that awkward stage of its performance isn't proven, but the first few years of production are set. So first slots are way out in 2022 (or maybe even later).

But this is a 787-10 thread. The 789 continues to do well, the 788 has a small bump due to cost cutting and the 787-10 is just starting production. Boeing needs to finalize that EK order and win a few more. There are only 7 firm orders for the 787-10 from airlines, by quantity: SQ, EY (at risk), EVA, UA (I'm betting on further top up options being used), BA, KLM, and ANA.
Obvious missing airlines are EK, QR, TK, AA, and some airline from India (albeit, their long haul airlines are bleeding cash). As part of IAG, IB might take some, or they might stick with A359s for the hot/high.

I exclude LH due to their statements on range, JAL due to their A350 buys, and DL due to the A330N/A350 purchases.

Of the buyers, AF/KLM are almost certain to buy more and I would expect more than half the others to top off (in particular, UA with their buy a handful at a time strategy). I do expect a cancellation (at least in part) by EY.

My list of airlines will expand as the range improves. But that will take a weight reduction (it won't be huge, 1 ton is my prediction) and engine PIPs. Otherwise, the airframe is too mature for dramatic improvements (then again, with 66,000 FC and 200,000 FH LOV, what are airlines asking for?).

Lightsaber


I imagine it is probably quite difficult to answer, but based on your speculation, would the PIPs be retrofitable to 2018~2022 models that predated them, or would it have to wait until an engine change?

Simply because, from Boeing's perspective, it's great that they are coming, but if buyers are holding out, that leaves them a few years with greatly reduced selling potential, which could stretch capital and cause investor concern, which by my estimation isn't ideal considering the 777X and 797 development are ongoing, and still costing rather than making money.

PIP can retrofit, but these will be expensive PIPs. I expect only at overhauls and that some engines will get hand me down parts for instead of the PIP.

So no reason to wait.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17953
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
No widebodies have been selling well the past few years, as Aboulafia noted recently. I think Boeing sees some pricing power /unique market fit too on the 787-10, so I don't think they've been willing to discount it too much. The exceptions for the current firm orders were part of large campaigns (including 789 etc), for sure.

Once the GE engine PIP's are validated and rolling off the line (as well, maybe, the actual in service RR reliability is back, for the new builds anyway; I think AN, SQ, and BA are the only RR customer -10 orders), and the 77W replacement cycle really kicks into gear here in a year or two (since slots aren't available for a few years), I am sure AA, IAG, EK, UA, and various others will be getting updated pitches/proposals.

I'm not sure why we have the emphasis on PIPs. Sure, it's nice to get new things, but is another 5% or so that important? Going from 6,000 miles to 6,300 isn't going to change the market dynamics much if at all, and it will add cost.

It is to at least 6,500 and overall will reduce costs.

My experience is there is a payload and range expectation.

From FRA to the US West coast, another 300nm of range would allow 1 more pallet to be sold. Same for AMS. The 787-10 has volume that cannot be used. The PIPs will, in my opinion, change that.
For certain airlines, an engine PIP changes the business case. For TPAC today the 787-10 need not apply. It will be capable.

If you will, the PIPs do as much for 787-10 range as the MTOW increase for the A339, but cutting fuel burn cuts per flight costs shifting relative efficiency.

In my opinion, one reason the 777-300ER and A330 kept selling was PIP after PIP (including for both several MTOW improvements, that I assume won't happen for the 787).

We shall see. First we shall see the A321NEO and later 797 fragment the market. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: B787-10 future prospects?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:02 pm

lightsaber wrote:
whywhyzee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
At this time, due to the much higher fuel burn per passenger of the A380, excluding EK, I do not think the A380 has any impact on 777X pricing.

The 777X should have the lowest cost per passenger for *long* (over 4500nm, still air) flights. I think it will sell well. About half what the 777-300ER sold plus about 200 freighters (over 20 to 25 years for the freighter sales, passenger sales will be PIP dependent, in particular follow up CMC PIPs on the engines for the 2nd stage turbine and then 1st stage turbine).

What Boeing really needs to do is extend 787-10 range. (Same CMC PIPs need to be brought to the GEnX and one hopes T1000, starting with the fixed blades the GE9x on the 777x launches).

The 777X is in that awkward stage of its performance isn't proven, but the first few years of production are set. So first slots are way out in 2022 (or maybe even later).

But this is a 787-10 thread. The 789 continues to do well, the 788 has a small bump due to cost cutting and the 787-10 is just starting production. Boeing needs to finalize that EK order and win a few more. There are only 7 firm orders for the 787-10 from airlines, by quantity: SQ, EY (at risk), EVA, UA (I'm betting on further top up options being used), BA, KLM, and ANA.
Obvious missing airlines are EK, QR, TK, AA, and some airline from India (albeit, their long haul airlines are bleeding cash). As part of IAG, IB might take some, or they might stick with A359s for the hot/high.

I exclude LH due to their statements on range, JAL due to their A350 buys, and DL due to the A330N/A350 purchases.

Of the buyers, AF/KLM are almost certain to buy more and I would expect more than half the others to top off (in particular, UA with their buy a handful at a time strategy). I do expect a cancellation (at least in part) by EY.

My list of airlines will expand as the range improves. But that will take a weight reduction (it won't be huge, 1 ton is my prediction) and engine PIPs. Otherwise, the airframe is too mature for dramatic improvements (then again, with 66,000 FC and 200,000 FH LOV, what are airlines asking for?).

Lightsaber


I imagine it is probably quite difficult to answer, but based on your speculation, would the PIPs be retrofitable to 2018~2022 models that predated them, or would it have to wait until an engine change?

Simply because, from Boeing's perspective, it's great that they are coming, but if buyers are holding out, that leaves them a few years with greatly reduced selling potential, which could stretch capital and cause investor concern, which by my estimation isn't ideal considering the 777X and 797 development are ongoing, and still costing rather than making money.

PIP can retrofit, but these will be expensive PIPs. I expect only at overhauls and that some engines will get hand me down parts for instead of the PIP.

So no reason to wait.


Normally I'd agree but there are only about 10 787-10's in service, and all with top tier airlines planning to run them for about 25-35 years. Replacing a whole section is not cheap in an engine but for 5% gains over several decades it's probably going to be worth it for the 40-80 or so delivered pre-PIP's this year/next. These upper mid-sized carbon framed WB's are going to get a lot of hours of fuel burn time on them over the next few decades.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos