Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:54 pm

The -10 is starting at the same point as the final A333 at the end of the run. They are coincidentally in the same range class now, but 787-10 promises to go further. 6500nm published range class (~5800nm scheduled bidirectional). In the end, 78J will rival the 744's range. It will always be sensitive to long ranges and not "optimal." But let me say a word about that commercially. I don't know a whit about flying or engineering. But commercially, the optimal tool has the best costs at high reliability. 787-10 will own that statistic. It will be commercially optimal at a long range. Peak freight capacity is unlikely to be a meaningful factor at all - much less, the definition of "optimal service" for the 78J. Nice to know its favorite freight distance, but the fact it is the pax cost leader out to 12 hours, that IMO, will be the lead story.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13942
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:27 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 787-10 has a massive cargo hold so when folks say things like....."well yeah....but it can't fly LAX-TLV with a full load," I just laugh. As one of the other posters stated, if every plane flew with an absolutely full cargo hold the 77L would have sold a 1,000 copies. In reality it sold less than one hundred.

I think Lightsaber nailed it. 35t of payload gets you from pretty much anywhere in Europe to the West Coast with a 787-10. That's sounds very good to me. With the addition of PIP's I also agree with many that the 787-10 will increase significantly in capability as the A330 has over the years.


Don't feed the trolls. Lightsaber in post #9 gave the answer needed.


This isn't about opinions or KLM. It's about numbers.

35t payload, 344 seats, place for 40 LD3s, around 8 -10 needed for the bags.

I assume you can do the math on cargo.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:55 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:
An 787-10 can take 40 LD3, an impressive number. If a filled LD3 container weigh on average 1400kg and holds 300 passengers on average, with a little headwind, you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO. And youcan play soccer lower deck. KLM probably can better utilize the 772ER's to Asia and A333s east coast.


Let’s see:

1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.

Not very impressive.



Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.

I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.

Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.

Lightsaber

Based on this, the engines should amount to a total fuel burn improvement of 7.5% - 11%. That's almost like a re-engine, if you look at the upper set of numbers. Mind boggling! :wideeyed:
Do you know when these PIPs are scheduled to EIS? And also, if GE is planning this, then RR has to have something up its sleeve to compete, no?

Also, regarding your weight reduction prediction, I suspect removing a ton will be harder on modern designs like that 787 and the A350 than it was for older designs, because these aircraft are designed using extensive FEA / CFD, with the tools getting better and better. So the weight should already be reduced to a greater degree even before the frames are under production.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:24 am

gatibosgru wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:
An 787-10 can take 40 LD3, an impressive number. If a filled LD3 container weigh on average 1400kg and holds 300 passengers on average, with a little headwind, you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO. And youcan play soccer lower deck. KLM probably can better utilize the 772ER's to Asia and A333s east coast.


Let’s see:

1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.

Not very impressive.



Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?


I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:50 am

I don’t know what the other guys have done but can tell you first hand GE has made massive investments in materials science and broken new ground on cmc’s
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:26 am

tkoenig95 wrote:
With KLM discontinuing the 74M out of many cargo-heavy markets such as ORD, IAH and SFO what are they doing to recoup the lose of the cargo capacity?


1 Why do they need to?
2. New generation WB can take impressive amounts of cargo - they are 'horizontal combis'
3. Odd size/ specialist cargo better suited to charter flights with freighters than scheduled pas flights
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19989
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:29 am

NeBaNi wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.

I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.

Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.

Lightsaber

Based on this, the engines should amount to a total fuel burn improvement of 7.5% - 11%. That's almost like a re-engine, if you look at the upper set of numbers. Mind boggling! :wideeyed:
Do you know when these PIPs are scheduled to EIS? And also, if GE is planning this, then RR has to have something up its sleeve to compete, no?

Also, regarding your weight reduction prediction, I suspect removing a ton will be harder on modern designs like that 787 and the A350 than it was for older designs, because these aircraft are designed using extensive FEA / CFD, with the tools getting better and better. So the weight should already be reduced to a greater degree even before the frames are under production.


First a trip down memory lane. Right as I was starting my first internship *decades ago*, CMCs were put in the first test engine. it was a known game changer.

Yes, CMCs are as good as a re-engine for a retrofit.
New design engines will save 1% to 2% more. :wideeyed:

There is no official schedule that I know of. First engine EIS is the GE9x in 2020, so the first 787 application will trail by probably 2 years? (Question mark as I'm not 100% sure.) The 2nd row turbine blades will probably happen for the GE9x in 2024 or so with the 787 getting them about a year afterwards. First row turbine blades... oh... That requires a CMC improvement that might happen by 2028 or it might be 2040. :faint: I don't know. I predicted flying CMCs would happen in about 1993 way back when, so I might be a wee bit off on these estimates. No, that isn't a typo. I thought they would be EIS for commercial aircraft 25 years ago. Oops, I missed that one and paid off that bet a *long* time ago... (I make a lot of beverage wagers with friends as who really losses?)

Removing a ton will be hard; it will take years and hundreds of engineers working on it. I think the 787 volume is high enough to invest in the engineering.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:47 am

From a structures perspective, I wonder how optimized the barrels are? I understood puncture resistance, lightning, and a couple other load cases were the controlling factor(s) determining minimum skin and stringer thickness. Stretching reduces these excesses and likely provides more room for optimization. Is anyone aware of how much time has been spent refining variable sections of the barrels? The 787’s construction method is rip for these types of optimizations. However, extensive data must be analyzed to proceed with the optimizations. IF (and I’m unaware) this hasn’t happened yet, I bet there is 1-2t of optimization possible in the main fuse and floor structures. It’s an area you’ll need some feedback from C checks to increase confidence in fine tuning the FEA assumptions. IF (key word) the 797 will be a composite barrel, this will be of even greater importance and value.

The 787 platform is now on its 3rd (no joke!) tail optimization. Weight vs drag vs maintenance & manufacturing cost evaluations.

Regardless the 78J is an easy 5000nm airplane with decent revenue cargo. No one should be shocked by this news.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:38 am

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.

I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.

Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%.

Lightsaber


If accurate, that is simply amazing. Already the best engine in its class (by far imho), they are now going to cut fuel consumption by almost 10%?!?!?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:26 am

10% fuel burn improvement on the 787-10 would result in brochure range somewhere around 7200 nm. That's right about where the 275 t A340-300 landed. And the 787-10 would be doing it with a 257 t MTOW and several tonnes more payload. :faint:

More importantly, that would be just enough improvement to make it a solid Europe-East Asia airplane.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:02 am

SteelChair wrote:

If accurate, that is simply amazing. Already the best engine in its class (by far imho), they are now going to cut fuel consumption by almost 10%?!?!?


I do trust what Lightsaber always has to say, but this 10% is massive. This is the same improvement the GE9X has over GE90! Even if they don't achieve that through PIPs, a 787 re-engine is due sometime next decade I suppose.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:24 am

ElroyJetson wrote:

If you want to fly 40T 6000 nm or more sure.....an A350 or 777X will be great. For the 95% of long haul missions that do not need to fly 40 or more tons that far the 787-10 looks pretty damn good imho.


You didn't respond to my comment last time out on a similar subject, so I'll post it again here:

6000nm is a bit of an exaggeration when you factor in real world considerations, the A330 for example has a very similar range its longest route at present is just under 5200nm (SZX-LHR). Add cargo and that number drops, and realistically most airlines flying that far will fly cargo. More to the point though is that while it may be possible to fly the 78X on a route, that doesn't mean it is the most economic choice for the route. The A359 and 789 offer more flexibility and capability while still being good on the shorter routes, and additionally the 78X doesn't seem to have the much-reduced cost to manufacture.

95% of long haul flying is too optimistic a figure IMO.


The 78X will not be the better choice for 95% of long haul missions, long haul is greater than 8/9 hours, and the 78X will not fly 95% of long haul missions, there will be an overlap where it's possible to fly the 78X and it will be competitive, but at some point it just makes more sense to fly something with more capability. Don't forget: at present most widebody airliners delivered have more capability (way more A359s and 789s than 78Xs and A330s on order). If the 78X was as good as you imply then there would be very little reason for airlines to order more capable airliners... the market at present disagrees.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9630
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:04 am

Or maybe the obvious point is that lots of the cargo on the route is made up by perishables. Flowers and fruits are usually not very heavy.
 
armchairceonr1
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:09 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:15 am

People seems to forget that AF/KL/DL JV have multiple choices to get cargo to any destination in US. 787-10 works very fine year around with full pax load. Cargo can go different route if necessary or wait next day 787-9 flight.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:38 am

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.

I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.

Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.

What is the KLM seat map? How many tons of people? ;). Then 4t per pallet. I'm curious how the 35t will be allocated.

Lightsaber

Lightsaber


Even before the PIPs the 787-10 is a new model that will need to prove its performance on these routes. Nearly every airline has planes with larger capacity and larger range. But once the airlines know it can do the route without falloff in seasonal winds etc it will be the most economical plane on the routes that is performs well on. This frees up the more capable plane to fly the routes needing those capabilities.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:39 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Let’s see:

1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.

Not very impressive.



Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?


I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.


From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.

1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.

So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.
@DadCelo
 
MrBretz
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:59 am

Since I am an amateur, I hate to get involved but the comment "playing soccer in the lower deck" meant to me there would be empty space, i.e., NO CARGO, if you were going to fly the plane that far. That's how I took it. But again, I am a tyro. Maybe kessje can tell us what he meant? But in some ways it is irrelevant. What KLM actually does is what is important.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13942
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:26 am

gatibosgru wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:


Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?
8

I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.


From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.

1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.

So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.



To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:34 am

MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

If you want to fly 40T 6000 nm or more sure.....an A350 or 777X will be great. For the 95% of long haul missions that do not need to fly 40 or more tons that far the 787-10 looks pretty damn good imho.


You didn't respond to my comment last time out on a similar subject, so I'll post it again here:

6000nm is a bit of an exaggeration when you factor in real world considerations, the A330 for example has a very similar range its longest route at present is just under 5200nm (SZX-LHR). Add cargo and that number drops, and realistically most airlines flying that far will fly cargo. More to the point though is that while it may be possible to fly the 78X on a route, that doesn't mean it is the most economic choice for the route. The A359 and 789 offer more flexibility and capability while still being good on the shorter routes, and additionally the 78X doesn't seem to have the much-reduced cost to manufacture.

95% of long haul flying is too optimistic a figure IMO.


The 78X will not be the better choice for 95% of long haul missions, long haul is greater than 8/9 hours, and the 78X will not fly 95% of long haul missions, there will be an overlap where it's possible to fly the 78X and it will be competitive, but at some point it just makes more sense to fly something with more capability. Don't forget: at present most widebody airliners delivered have more capability (way more A359s and 789s than 78Xs and A330s on order). If the 78X was as good as you imply then there would be very little reason for airlines to order more capable airliners... the market at present disagrees.



My 95% figure comes from Tim Clark with EK who said the 787-10 can fly 90-95% of the routes in EK's network.

If you look at an airline like DL, they have less than 10 routes over 6000 nm. It is a tiny fraction of what they fly, and the same is true for most major airlines. For example, BA only has two route in the 6000 nm category.....LHR-EZE and LHR-SIN.

A-net fanboys love to talk about ULH, but the reality is those flights are uncommon. Too many long haul aircraft are simply over built imho. Airbus figured this out and sold a lot of A 330's because many airlines simply did not need all the range of larger, heavier aircraft.

I believe as airlines begin to fully understand the 787-10's capabilities it will sell in steadily building numbers like the A330.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:38 am

keesje wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
8

I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.


From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.

1. keesje literally said "y[threeid][/threeid]ou can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.

So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.



To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.



The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
armchairceonr1
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:09 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:52 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.

How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:39 am

armchairceonr1 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.

How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.


Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.

787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11124
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:55 am

sabby wrote:
armchairceonr1 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.

How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.


Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.

787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.


wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats

https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/
Forum Moderator
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:17 am

qf789 wrote:

wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats

https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/


Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.
 
Joost
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:33 am

KLM, in the 2015/2016 Winter season, flew the 235t (no center tank) A330-300 3x weekly to SFO (next to 3x weekly 330-200). At the time, it was the 2nd longest 333-route. Also, in more distant past, they used the 763 in the winter season. To me, it shows that heavy cargo isn't so relevant for AMS-SFO (and volume-constrained cargo could be more interesting)
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:48 am

ElroyJetson wrote:

My 95% figure comes from Tim Clark with EK who said the 787-10 can fly 90-95% of the routes in EK's network.


So '90-95% of EK's network' is the same as '95% of all long haul flying'? 95% of ALL long haul flying was your original claim, remember. EK's (the ME3's) geographic position is somewhat unique, the same is not applicable to all airlines. Do you think the 78X could handle 95% of QF's longhaul flying? Unlikely. So I would suggest that in the future you note that the 95% figure is for one airline only, not imply that it can do 95% of ALL long haul flying.

If you look at an airline like DL, they have less than 10 routes over 6000 nm. It is a tiny fraction of what they fly, and the same is true for most major airlines. For example, BA only has two route in the 6000 nm category.....LHR-EZE and LHR-SIN.


Pedants note: KUL and SCL are also in that category for BA.

That may be true, however you're making the assumption that below 6000nm the 78X will be the best option, which is not necessarily true, at around 4000nm or so the advantage lessens, at 5000nm the 789, 777X and A350 are carrying a full load, the 78X isn't if we look at the payload-range charts provided. The other options will be the better choice for most airlines above 4500/5000nm IMO, and above 4500nm is a sizeable section of flying, especially for widebodies.

A-net fanboys love to talk about ULH, but the reality is those flights are uncommon. Too many long haul aircraft are simply over built imho. Airbus figured this out and sold a lot of A 330's because many airlines simply did not need all the range of larger, heavier aircraft.


So they are, however the point of the A359, 789 and 777X is that they will lift a lot more than the 78X after a certain point, and that point is maybe around 4000nm or so. There is no shortage of flights over 4000nm, I counted 18 from BA alone off the top of my head. I wager that in BA's fleet you won't see it go to S. America, Southeast and Northern Asia or South Africa, these aren't insignificant markets for BA. In general don't forget that the 789 and A359 open up lots of new, longer routes that weren't viable before, the 78X won't really compete in that space.

One should also note that the A330 was basically on its own in terms of size once 77E production wound down, the same is not true for the 78X, there are 3 (789, A359, maybe the A339 at a stretch).

I believe as airlines begin to fully understand the 787-10's capabilities it will sell in steadily building numbers like the A330.


The A330 didn't have much competition in its space, the A359 is a more viable competitor on the shorter routes than the 77E was to the A333. The 78X would do well to match the A333's figure, especially given that the MOM may take away some of the lower end.
 
Flanker7
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:05 am

sabby wrote:
qf789 wrote:

wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats

https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/


Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.


No 2-2-2 layout it's going to be the same as the 787-9
Flying blue only if possible
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:08 am

sabby wrote:
qf789 wrote:

wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats

https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/


Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.


Actually, Wiki is correct. The article quoted by QF789 is old, this article is confirming 344 seats: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -10-bekend

Business class will be 1-2-1 on the 787-10, like on the -9 (the J seats on the -10 are new though. Lighter, more space and comfort). You can see pics in the article I provided. The -10 offers more room between doors 1 and 2, allowing 2 additional rows of J compared to the -9. The -10 does have significantly less Y+ seats (27, vs 48 on the -9) but 63 additional standard Y seats (279 vs 216, 7 additional rows). Must say it will be an aircraft pretty to look at, but not great for comfort as an economy passenger.

A388 wrote:
Seeing that the KLM 787-10 will replace their 747-400, Will KLM also use their 787-10 to Curacao seeing that they use their 747-400 to Curacao now?

EDIT: Sorry, I see now their 787-10 will replace the 747 Combi versions. Never mind. Which aircraft will their A350-900 replace?

A388

The A359 will probably replace the 744 full pax aircraft, which will be retired in 2021, the year the A350s will come. Although I think KL should convert their A350 order to -1000s unless they plan to decrease capacity (which I doubt, KL needs the capacity of the 747 full pax aircraft).
Or perhaps Kl will return the A330s when the leases expire (4x A333 and 1 A332 lease will expire in 2022).
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
RandWkop
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:28 am

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.

I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.

Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.

What is the KLM seat map? How many tons of people? ;). Then 4t per pallet. I'm curious how the 35t will be allocated.

Lightsaber

Lightsaber


Are you saying a total of 7.5% to 10.5% fuel burn savings? If you are then even with the retrofitted weight savings and wing changes, from the A350-1000 to the -900 and the XWB EP package in 2019 , the A350 would be dead in the water.
I take it you mean a total of 2.5% to 3.5%. The A350 should have some hope of competing with that.
Also if the GENX changes aren`t happenning until circa 2023 then any post 2019 XWB operators (actually any XWB operator replacing engines) will have the benefit of improved fuel consumption and weight savings for four years. Thats a lot of money to leave on the table waiting for GE and the 78X.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:01 pm

This route is very similar at AMS-NRT.......
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:02 pm

Flanker7 wrote:
sabby wrote:
Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.


No 2-2-2 layout it's going to be the same as the 787-9

I was talking about Boeing standard config (which is 330, not 336 as I thought). Usually both Airbus and Boeing use 2-2-2 J seats in their standard configs which they use for published ranges.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:06 pm

I am going to go out on a limb and say that KLM knows what they have with the 787-10 far better than any pissing contest that develops in these threads. Which usually turns into a number of people insinuating that the A350 easily beats the B787 across the board and every airline that ordered the 787 should have and wishes they had ordered the 350 instead.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:21 pm

Still can't see why putting the -10 on a 4800nm route should cause debate - it's comfortably inside the range for which the -10 has been optimised. Doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of routes out there that the aircraft can't do with a viable payload. NZ have talked of buying the -10 for Asian routes (eg AKL-NRT 4800nm) but have been firm in saying the -10 is not in play for their 77E replacement, which is focused on North America (starting with AKL-LAX 5600nm). This is not a criticism of the -10: like the 789 it's clearly a fine aircraft, it's just that it won't work for longer routes such as trans-Pacific out of A/NZ.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:22 pm

Still can't see why putting the -10 on a 4800nm route should cause debate - it's comfortably inside the range for which the -10 has been optimised. Doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of routes out there that the aircraft can't do with a viable payload. NZ have talked of buying the -10 for Asian routes (eg AKL-NRT 4800nm) but have been firm in saying the -10 is not in play for their 77E replacement, which is focused on North America (starting with AKL-LAX 5600nm). This is not a criticism of the -10: like the 789 it's clearly a fine aircraft, it's just that it won't work for longer routes such as trans-Pacific out of A/NZ.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:50 pm

B752OS wrote:
I am going to go out on a limb and say that KLM knows what they have with the 787-10 far better than any pissing contest that develops in these threads. Which usually turns into a number of people insinuating that the A350 easily beats the B787 across the board and every airline that ordered the 787 should have and wishes they had ordered the 350 instead.


Totally agree KLM knows what they are doing. They currently operate the 787-9 between SFO and AMS and know how much cargo is being carried and how much below MTOW they are. They know the operating Impact of 50 seats and/or the bigger cargo hold.

On this forum we have a few users that like to frequently bring up the higher payload that the A350 can fly when comparing 787s and A350s and tend to ignore purchase price and CASM to point out why the A350 is better. Similarly the same people tend to bring up program accounting and acquisition price when comparing the A330neo and 787 and tend to forget that the 787 carries more payload to point out why the A330neo is better. Flying at MTOW and maxing out on cargo must be in the conversation when comparing the A350 and 787, but it simply doesn’t matter when comparing the A330neo and 787 since program accounting is so deceitful. The A vs B undertone never seems to die in this forum and many of us are guilty of it.

Even a chart like this draws debate in the A vs B world
Image

Comparing the A350 vs 787-10 looks a bit different. KLM has both the A359 and 787-10 on order. They also have a lot of routes right around 5000nm. Airbus marketing wants to convince us the 787-10 doesn’t have enough range so airlines buy the A350. Boeing marketing tells us that the 787-10 has more range than the A330neo so it is a long haul plane that is quite versatile.

Image

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/14/ponti ... -edginess/

KLM deciding to use the 787-10 on a 4700nm route doesn’t help the Airbus marketing point of view. No surprises that it will generate some A vs B rhetoric on this forum
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:01 pm

keesje wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
8

I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.


From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.

1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.

So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.



To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.


Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:10 pm

To be fair, those charts contain the lower MTOW A339 figures, the 251T A339 has actually 750nm more range than 787-10. However, the 787-10 will definitely be the CASM king within 5000-5500nm range which covers a lot of the routes. Unfortunately, unlike the A333, 787-10 has to compete with 789, A359, A339 and a lot of the 789/A359 have already been delivered and/or firmed up. The next wave of significant 787-10 orders will be when a vast majority of the relative new and cheap A333 (and some 77A/B/E/W used on short/medium haul) are retired.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:32 pm

I suspect,at the distances this thread is discussing,that cargo carrying will be the primary differential.If you don't take much then it makes sense to use a lighter,smaller winged/engined, lower mtow aircaft.If not then the laws of physics states you will need more,which is where the A359 sits.Horses for courses.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13942
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:28 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:

From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.

1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.

So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.



To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.


Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.


No, it's simply specifications and distances. No magic in the air :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:06 pm

keesje wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:


To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.


Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.


No, it's simply specifications and distances. No magic in the air :wink2:


If it is simply specifications and distances, do you mind taking a payload range chart and plotting out how you get to a few LD3s? Id like to know what OEW you are using for the KLM 787-10 if you take the payload range chart from the ACAP.

The 787-10 is only 15,000lbs below MZFW on a 4700nm sector per the ACAP so id like to know how you got to only a few LD3s of available payload for cargo
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:17 pm

sabby wrote:
armchairceonr1 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.

How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.


Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.

787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.


With the corrected seat count of 338, let's call it 34 tons. At 5000nm still air, using Ferpe's payload range charts, which are naturally conservative, assuming the worst frame in life cycle at a 4% penalty, which KLM is not likely to recieve given that there has already been a reasonable amount of time in service, and 3 airlines now have at least one frame, there should be ample time to work most kinks out, that leaves 4 tons of cargo, agreed, not much, but also not insignificant. That is also assuming an absolutely full load in the cabin, which is unlikely to occur every flight.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:23 pm

keesje wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
keesje wrote:


To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.


Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.


No, it's simply specifications and distances. No magic in the air :wink2:


You should add the fly to the math then it will really be impenetrable logic.
 
sabby
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:35 pm

whywhyzee wrote:
sabby wrote:
armchairceonr1 wrote:
How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.


Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.

787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.


With the corrected seat count of 338, let's call it 34 tons. At 5000nm still air, using Ferpe's payload range charts, which are naturally conservative, assuming the worst frame in life cycle at a 4% penalty, which KLM is not likely to recieve given that there has already been a reasonable amount of time in service, and 3 airlines now have at least one frame, there should be ample time to work most kinks out, that leaves 4 tons of cargo, agreed, not much, but also not insignificant. That is also assuming an absolutely full load in the cabin, which is unlikely to occur every flight.


I think someone updated that the latest article says the configuration is at 344 pax.

Anyway, your calculations look about right and that is what I said in my first post in this thread. Some airlines would use 787-10 at full payload at ~4000nm (or less if operated from hot/high airports), some would use it to carry 330+ pax to 5700+nm and some if not most, like KLM, would use it to haul a lot of people along side cargo as per their load on that day. Doesn't mean all the airlines need this particular plane but also it means many airlines will utilize it for different purposes. Anyone who claims that either of the 787-10 or the A350-900 is better than the other at every use-cases, either they lack understanding or just trolling/fanboying and hence should be ignored.
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:10 pm

tisr123 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
Ugh, this again. Over a route of this length, the 787-10 is perfectly capable of carrying a full passenger + bags load and a typical cargo load. Can KLM fill up that giant hold with fruit? No. But that's not usually what it needs to carry on a route like this anyway.

The 787-10 is just fine on almost all TATL service, unless the eastern destination is somewhere like TLV. Where it is limited is on TPAC and, to some extent, on East Asia to Europe.


I don't see a reason why the 787-10 won't be able to do JFK/EWR-TLV.


There's only 1 reason the 787-10 isn't doing EWR-TLV...the 777-300ER and the incredible demand for premium and non-premium demand on that route!
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:47 pm

sabby wrote:
whywhyzee wrote:
sabby wrote:

Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.

787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.


With the corrected seat count of 338, let's call it 34 tons. At 5000nm still air, using Ferpe's payload range charts, which are naturally conservative, assuming the worst frame in life cycle at a 4% penalty, which KLM is not likely to recieve given that there has already been a reasonable amount of time in service, and 3 airlines now have at least one frame, there should be ample time to work most kinks out, that leaves 4 tons of cargo, agreed, not much, but also not insignificant. That is also assuming an absolutely full load in the cabin, which is unlikely to occur every flight.


I think someone updated that the latest article says the configuration is at 344 pax.

Anyway, your calculations look about right and that is what I said in my first post in this thread. Some airlines would use 787-10 at full payload at ~4000nm (or less if operated from hot/high airports), some would use it to carry 330+ pax to 5700+nm and some if not most, like KLM, would use it to haul a lot of people along side cargo as per their load on that day. Doesn't mean all the airlines need this particular plane but also it means many airlines will utilize it for different purposes. Anyone who claims that either of the 787-10 or the A350-900 is better than the other at every use-cases, either they lack understanding or just trolling/fanboying and hence should be ignored.


Well said. The -10 is highly flexible to a point, but that is a pretty wide range of potential uses. TATL and near TPAC alone are a pretty huge market. The way I look at it, the -10 has a rough payload advantage over the 789 to about 4500nm give or take configuration. That covers a pretty significant portion of most airlines route networks, and given the ever increasing problem of slots, it could prove to be a highly useful platform. I use AC as an example, given they are my home carrier, a huge portion of their long haul network could easily be covered by the 787-10, and it would provide them with incremental growth potential over smaller widebodies where additional frequencies aren't possible, yet in low seasons, still not cost all that much more to operate if they cannot fill them every day of the week. The very advantage of the plane is it isn't overbuilt, meaning that even if you don't fill it, it's not going to sting you like a 77W might.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:48 pm

I find it curious that coming from an environment where only the largest planes available could fly 7,000+NM routes and the big sellers (A330, 767) were very popular and well utilized on many shorter routes that suddenly a new plane with more range, capacity, and better economics than either of these should suddenly be inadequate.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
pabloeing
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:45 pm

¿How many B787-10 in KLM in 2019?
 
ELBOB
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:50 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.


Maybe it'll finally start to do point-to-point hub-skipping...?

;)
 
pabloeing
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: KLM Starts 787-10 on AMS-SFO Route. But I thought the 787-10 Had No Range?

Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:05 pm

Another long route in the B787-10......EWR-TLV in UA

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