BA777FO
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

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

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:09 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
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.


The A380 will be a mainstay of HKG, SIN and JNB. The A350 could happily do South America and Cape Town, the 777-300ERs offer flexibility leaving the 78X to do pretty much what the super hi-J 747s do today: ORD, BOS, JFK, IAD, PHL, RUH, DXB, LOS etc. BA has no need for the 78X on the markets you (almost certainly correctly) predict it won't be used on because there are enough A380s, A350s and 777-300ERs to cover what the 78X can't do so well. It'll beat anything on those current super hi-J 747 routes.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
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?

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:21 pm

BA777FO wrote:
The A380 will be a mainstay of HKG, SIN and JNB. The A350 could happily do South America and Cape Town, the 777-300ERs offer flexibility leaving the 78X to do pretty much what the super hi-J 747s do today: ORD, BOS, JFK, IAD, PHL, RUH, DXB, LOS etc. BA has no need for the 78X on the markets you (almost certainly correctly) predict it won't be used on because there are enough A380s, A350s and 777-300ERs to cover what the 78X can't do so well. It'll beat anything on those current super hi-J 747 routes.


Sure, there's no doubt in my mind that the 78X will not be suitable in terms of size or capable for a sizeable number of airlines or routes, including some of BA's network. The point I was responding to was that '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.' That was on the basis of one airline's CEO saying that the 78X should be able to do 90-95% of EK's flights (in terms of capability). I was highlighting how that was far too optimistic a figure for 78X long haul flying IMO for the reasons I stated, Ba were just a good a example, though the same will be true for other airlines too.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
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?

Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:56 pm

ELBOB wrote:
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...?

;)


It, the 797, A321's, and B737's are all very much doing the 'skip the hub' game, I love it. The routes that used to connect thru 2 hubs are fast turning into single hub flights, and for us that live at a hub (Seattle) the number of cities with non-stop flights keeps growing. There are some like SEA to Memphis that have disappeared, but 3 new ones pop up for each that is lost. AS has flights to 5 LA airports, why go to to the LAX mess. :roll:
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:37 pm

One thing I find so interesting in today's airliner markets is that there are so many options available to airlines. They no longer have to make do with 'one size fits all' fleets. They can get exactly the plane required to most efficiently operate each route.

The 787-10 doesn't have to be all things to all airlines. It just has to be enough things for enough airlines to make its development financially worthwhile. Every aircraft can't be the number one best seller. There will always be the model that sells the least number of units but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a loser.

Sometimes, it seems the few things that an aircraft can't do, can overshadow the many things it can do.
What the...?
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:01 pm

sabby wrote:
The answer is Cargo (or lack thereof). KLM knows the amount of cargo they have to haul between all city pairs and apparently the cargo demand is not that much but they think they can fill 300+ seats regularly hence the deployment at SFO. The 787-10 with full payload can only do 4000nm in still air.


The 77W and E can only do 5500 or so with a full payload yet are deployed on routes longer than this all the time. Full payload isn't necessary to deploy a plane on a route. How common is full payload? Rare.
 
A388
Posts: 7844
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

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

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Will KLM's 787-10 be able to do AMS-CUR nonstop with a full payload and year round or is the 777-300ER better suited for such a mission?

A388
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:01 am

A388 wrote:
Will KLM's 787-10 be able to do AMS-CUR nonstop with a full payload and year round or is the 777-300ER better suited for such a mission?

A388


AMS-CUR is only 4300nm; they should be able to fly pretty full payload-wise there
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6471
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?

Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:08 am

A388 wrote:
Will KLM's 787-10 be able to do AMS-CUR nonstop with a full payload and year round or is the 777-300ER better suited for such a mission?

A388


It won't do maximum structural payload, but you're rarely going to carry maximum structural payload in a 787-10 anyway. It will do the route with full passengers and many tonnes of cargo.
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:38 am

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


Wouldn't the 787-10s be best for exactly those routes (based on the conditions identified above by the broad range of capacities expected)? I mean, perhaps these would be best for KLM do serve the ABC region, and even perhaps Suriname as well?
 
Caryjack
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:17 am

Just reading this thread I'd think that Boeing made this airliner for Seattle.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sea-ams%0D ... 85&SU=mach

Looks like the best thing Delta could do is to place a fleet of 787-10s in SEA.:smile:
Thanks,
Cary
 
sabby
Posts: 322
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?

Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:08 pm

trav777 wrote:
sabby wrote:
The answer is Cargo (or lack thereof). KLM knows the amount of cargo they have to haul between all city pairs and apparently the cargo demand is not that much but they think they can fill 300+ seats regularly hence the deployment at SFO. The 787-10 with full payload can only do 4000nm in still air.


The 77W and E can only do 5500 or so with a full payload yet are deployed on routes longer than this all the time. Full payload isn't necessary to deploy a plane on a route. How common is full payload? Rare.

So basically you paraphrased what I said.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:42 pm

trav777 wrote:
sabby wrote:
The answer is Cargo (or lack thereof). KLM knows the amount of cargo they have to haul between all city pairs and apparently the cargo demand is not that much but they think they can fill 300+ seats regularly hence the deployment at SFO. The 787-10 with full payload can only do 4000nm in still air.


The 77W and E can only do 5500 or so with a full payload yet are deployed on routes longer than this all the time. Full payload isn't necessary to deploy a plane on a route. How common is full payload? Rare.


We regularly take the 777-200ER to EZE and the 77W to SIN, both 6000nm+, and comfortably do it full and with 10-15+ tonnes of cargo. Much further would be a stretch for the 77E at those weights but the 77W has more in hand.
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:55 pm

BA777FO wrote:
trav777 wrote:
sabby wrote:
The answer is Cargo (or lack thereof). KLM knows the amount of cargo they have to haul between all city pairs and apparently the cargo demand is not that much but they think they can fill 300+ seats regularly hence the deployment at SFO. The 787-10 with full payload can only do 4000nm in still air.


The 77W and E can only do 5500 or so with a full payload yet are deployed on routes longer than this all the time. Full payload isn't necessary to deploy a plane on a route. How common is full payload? Rare.


We regularly take the 777-200ER to EZE and the 77W to SIN, both 6000nm+, and comfortably do it full and with 10-15+ tonnes of cargo. Much further would be a stretch for the 77E at those weights but the 77W has more in hand.


I have the P/R graphs in front of me for the 777. The 77E lists 6000nm at 50t. The 77W 65t. Those are the older configs, tho, I'd cut this by 500nm. Not doubting what you're saying at all. With 10t cargo the E looks good for 6300ish.

The 789 only goes full to 4400ish. I think people in the 78J discussion should look at the PR charts for the 787.

the 78J is adding like 8.5t payload (pax) and some fuselage to the 789 and if you slide up the PR chart from the 25t point, you get bang on, wow, 6400nm.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:05 pm

trav777 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
trav777 wrote:

The 77W and E can only do 5500 or so with a full payload yet are deployed on routes longer than this all the time. Full payload isn't necessary to deploy a plane on a route. How common is full payload? Rare.


We regularly take the 777-200ER to EZE and the 77W to SIN, both 6000nm+, and comfortably do it full and with 10-15+ tonnes of cargo. Much further would be a stretch for the 77E at those weights but the 77W has more in hand.


I have the P/R graphs in front of me for the 777. The 77E lists 6000nm at 50t. The 77W 65t. Those are the older configs, tho, I'd cut this by 500nm. Not doubting what you're saying at all. With 10t cargo the E looks good for 6300ish.

The 789 only goes full to 4400ish. I think people in the 78J discussion should look at the PR charts for the 787.

the 78J is adding like 8.5t payload (pax) and some fuselage to the 789 and if you slide up the PR chart from the 25t point, you get bang on, wow, 6400nm.



The 77W and L were both 1 hour better than the charts. Which Boeing never fixed.
Part of why the 77W is so liked by airlines.
Since introduction, there have been 3 engine PIPS (about 4% total SFC improvement) and one aerodynamic cleanup introduced as part of the end of line sales pitch.
The 77E does what the book says, with the note that the Trents are about 2000 lb lighter each engine. That 2t goes into payload or fuel on long trips . . but only if you have RRs
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:19 pm

jagraham wrote:
trav777 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:

We regularly take the 777-200ER to EZE and the 77W to SIN, both 6000nm+, and comfortably do it full and with 10-15+ tonnes of cargo. Much further would be a stretch for the 77E at those weights but the 77W has more in hand.


I have the P/R graphs in front of me for the 777. The 77E lists 6000nm at 50t. The 77W 65t. Those are the older configs, tho, I'd cut this by 500nm. Not doubting what you're saying at all. With 10t cargo the E looks good for 6300ish.

The 789 only goes full to 4400ish. I think people in the 78J discussion should look at the PR charts for the 787.

the 78J is adding like 8.5t payload (pax) and some fuselage to the 789 and if you slide up the PR chart from the 25t point, you get bang on, wow, 6400nm.



The 77W and L were both 1 hour better than the charts. Which Boeing never fixed.
Part of why the 77W is so liked by airlines.
Since introduction, there have been 3 engine PIPS (about 4% total SFC improvement) and one aerodynamic cleanup introduced as part of the end of line sales pitch.
The 77E does what the book says, with the note that the Trents are about 2000 lb lighter each engine. That 2t goes into payload or fuel on long trips . . but only if you have RRs


thx for the info. This indicates that, for the 77W/L, they lose about the same amount of range as they've gained back. The W's original spec had it at 7800nm which is pretty exceptional.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
I predicted flying CMCs would happen in about 1993 way back when, so I might be a wee bit off on these estimates.


Don´t worry, Tom Clancy expected CMCs to roll out in the Air Forces Helicopter engines around that time as well in his 1989 Book "Clear an present Danger"...... :mrgreen:

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:03 am

11910km in new Boeing calculation method is a lot, similar to 13000 in the old or Airbus method. Remember they stated 13000km when launched and somehow decided to reduce the range estimation of all aircraft in 2016-17
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
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?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:56 pm

UA is also using/subbing the 787-10 on 5000nm SFO-FRA flights. I assume they are using their 777 flights to carry the cargo, but nonetheless it is interesting to see the 787-10 used on a flight longer than SFO-AMS.
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:59 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
11910km in new Boeing calculation method is a lot, similar to 13000 in the old or Airbus method. Remember they stated 13000km when launched and somehow decided to reduce the range estimation of all aircraft in 2016-17


Boeing reduced range in brochure to reflect more typical (heavier) real world airline configs. basically it seems like they match UAL's spec now.

As for the 78J...it's got probably better range with 300pax than the 268t 359 does. No clue why people are negative on this aircraft.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17702
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?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:12 pm

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.

First, the massive cargo will do very well on 4,000nm still air routes. (Near TATL).

The comparison to the A330 should be emphasized. Any route flown by the A333 can be flown by the 787-10 with more payload.

When the A333s come due for replacement, the A339 will be matched against the 787-10. The A332s were bought for more range than the 763ER or earlier (5,200nm range or less) A333s.

At this time, the 787-10 is going up against the A339 The competition will be facinating.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
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?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:27 pm

lightsaber 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.

First, the massive cargo will do very well on 4,000nm still air routes. (Near TATL).

The comparison to the A330 should be emphasized. Any route flown by the A333 can be flown by the 787-10 with more payload.

When the A333s come due for replacement, the A339 will be matched against the 787-10. The A332s were bought for more range than the 763ER or earlier (5,200nm range or less) A333s.

At this time, the 787-10 is going up against the A339 The competition will be facinating.

Lightsaber


I agree. The most direct competitor for the 787-10 will be the A333 Neo. The 787-10 can carry more pax and cargo, the question will be is the additional capacity needed.

I have seen direct trip cost and casm data comparisons between the 789 and the A339. For missions under 4000nm it is pretty close.

I have not seen comparison data between the 787-10 and the A339. If anyone does have any data I would love to see it. That might go a long way in determining which frame will eventually win the sales competition.
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
 
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?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

Bit of a love in going on! The more you agree with each other the truer it gets ;-)
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:50 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
I have not seen comparison data between the 787-10 and the A339.


There's no reason to have any (significant) difference between 787-9 and 787-10 for assumed TOW. So I guess same trip cost, around -10% CASM (depending on config) for 787s at same TOW is a reasonable guess. One would need to reduce payload or increase weight accordingly to DOW difference, though.
Once it's calculated, comparison to 339 should be easy.

Cheers,
Adam
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:32 pm

Mangs wrote:
I guess there's gonna be alot of roses in the belly of the 787-10, and roses doesn't weigh that much



Exactly! KLM ships A LOT of flowers which will bulk out in size before weight. The westbound cargo could be thought of as lighter than eastbound. Leaving SFO I’d imagine seafood and vegetables.
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:27 pm

lightsaber 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.

First, the massive cargo will do very well on 4,000nm still air routes. (Near TATL).

The comparison to the A330 should be emphasized. Any route flown by the A333 can be flown by the 787-10 with more payload.

When the A333s come due for replacement, the A339 will be matched against the 787-10. The A332s were bought for more range than the 763ER or earlier (5,200nm range or less) A333s.

At this time, the 787-10 is going up against the A339 The competition will be facinating.

Lightsaber


The 78J can also be pitted favorably against the lighter 359 variants like the 268.

For SFO-FRA or AMS the plane has 1500+nm of range to swap for cargo. That's 15t easily.
 
User avatar
Irehdna
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:40 am

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:31 pm

UA is switching EWR-TLV to 78J. If memory serves me correctly that is a bit longer then SFO-FRA/AMS. Does anyone know of any planned 78J routes longer than that?
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:36 pm

Irehdna wrote:
UA is switching EWR-TLV to 78J. If memory serves me correctly that is a bit longer then SFO-FRA/AMS. Does anyone know of any planned 78J routes longer than that?


http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-TLV%2C ... =wls&DU=nm
 
trex8
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:39 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:


I have seen direct trip cost and casm data comparisons between the 789 and the A339. For missions under 4000nm it is pretty close.

I have not seen comparison data between the 787-10 and the A339. If anyone does have any data I would love to see it. That might go a long way in determining which frame will eventually win the sales competition.



A339 has only been in service a few weeks, any trip/CASM data you may have seen comparing to 789, which has been around a few years where real data is available, must be hypothetical. Based perhaps on test flying but till we have some more time for TAP and then Azul to get real data it is all only a good guess.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
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?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:26 am

gloom wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
I have not seen comparison data between the 787-10 and the A339.


There's no reason to have any (significant) difference between 787-9 and 787-10 for assumed TOW. So I guess same trip cost, around -10% CASM (depending on config) for 787s at same TOW is a reasonable guess. One would need to reduce payload or increase weight accordingly to DOW difference, though.
Once it's calculated, comparison to 339 should be easy.

Cheers,
Adam



The major difference is the larger fuselage of the 787-10 versus a 789 (i.e. The greater wetted area of the 787-10 creating more induced drag).

I would speculate this at least a .5% difference in fuel burn versus the 789 but I do not know precisely.
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
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:50 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
gloom wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
I have not seen comparison data between the 787-10 and the A339.


There's no reason to have any (significant) difference between 787-9 and 787-10 for assumed TOW. So I guess same trip cost, around -10% CASM (depending on config) for 787s at same TOW is a reasonable guess. One would need to reduce payload or increase weight accordingly to DOW difference, though.
Once it's calculated, comparison to 339 should be easy.

Cheers,
Adam



The major difference is the larger fuselage of the 787-10 versus a 789 (i.e. The greater wetted area of the 787-10 creating more induced drag).

I would speculate this at least a .5% difference in fuel burn versus the 789 but I do not know precisely.


You also have to calculate heavier airframe and more pax on board and you got that trip fuel will be higher for 787-10 against 787-9.

Cheers
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
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?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:07 pm

Mrakula wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
gloom wrote:

There's no reason to have any (significant) difference between 787-9 and 787-10 for assumed TOW. So I guess same trip cost, around -10% CASM (depending on config) for 787s at same TOW is a reasonable guess. One would need to reduce payload or increase weight accordingly to DOW difference, though.
Once it's calculated, comparison to 339 should be easy.

Cheers,
Adam



The major difference is the larger fuselage of the 787-10 versus a 789 (i.e. The greater wetted area of the 787-10 creating more induced drag).

I would speculate this at least a .5% difference in fuel burn versus the 789 but I do not know precisely.


You also have to calculate heavier airframe and more pax on board and you got that trip fuel will be higher for 787-10 against 787-9.

Cheers


Yes, so you have more pax, more bags, and a heavier air frame even though the MTOW is the same between the 789 and the 787-10. However, the 787-10 typically seats around 30 more pax than the A339 Neo. Factoring in all of those variables I would think a 10% CASM advantage for the 787-10 would not be unreasonable versus the A339, but of course, I have no idea.

The actual trip cost is probably close to identical, so you would then have to ask yourself if you can consistent fill the extra seats in the 787-10 or make more use of its bigger cargo hold.

If anyone has any data regarding comparison between the 787-10 and the A339 it would be appreciated. Again, my speculation is the 787-10 has a big CASM advantage, but actual trip cost I am not certain.
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
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:20 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

The major difference is the larger fuselage of the 787-10 versus a 789 (i.e. The greater wetted area of the 787-10 creating more induced drag).

I would speculate this at least a .5% difference in fuel burn versus the 789 but I do not know precisely.


You mean skin friction drag.

Induced drag is the term used for drag due to lift.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Strato2
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:49 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Again, my speculation is the 787-10 has a big CASM advantage, but actual trip cost I am not certain.


Balancing this will be a RASM disadvantage for the 787-10.
 
waly777
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

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

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:20 pm

Strato2 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Again, my speculation is the 787-10 has a big CASM advantage, but actual trip cost I am not certain.


Balancing this will be a RASM disadvantage for the 787-10.

Why would it be a RASM disadvantage if it's matched to routes suited to it's capacity?
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
77H
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

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

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:53 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
FrancisBegbie wrote:
Also, all please note that the -10 will only fly days 3,5,7 as per the article linked in the OP. So if KL have too-heavy-for-7810-cargo to ship to SFO, they can always opt to ship it on the other days of the week (unless those are flown with A333 but I don’t think so). 74M, 77E/W or 789 should be able to pick up the heavy stuff without concern.


Indeed. All cargo is not created equal. It's not like every cargo container will be filled to the brim with lead pellets.


Thank you. Cargo is as dynamic as the passengers that sit above it. And like passengers, cargo customers don’t all pay the same price. It is possible for a flight to operate with 2-4 positions of cargo and make the same revenue as another with 20 positions filled.

As a matter of fact, payload restricted flights can, in some cases be a value add to the airline. When demand for a route exceeds supply of payload, yield goes up and the airline makes more money on less freight. Less freight equals lower handling and fuel costs which equals more profit. I sell cargo out of a station with several routes operated by payload restricted aircraft. You can sell every lb/kg at a higher premium because the demand doesn’t go away just because an aircraft can’t carry all of it.

My understanding is that AMS is a big pharma center which means a lot of temperature regulated cargo. It is not uncommon for temperature regulated cargo to be worth $3k-$4k per LD3 position. It wouldn’t take much to make the route a success if KL was tapping cargo customers shipping pharma or other products in need of temp regulated transport.

77H

Who is online

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