tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:03 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Air New Zealand placed a large number of options for more 787-10's the correct number to replace their 777-300ER's. The 777-300ER will get replaced by the 787 with the 787-9's used on the longest routes or the ones with high belly freight.

One more time. Let's quote the Australian Aviation interview with Luxon again:

THE 777 REPLACEMENTS

Luxon said the question of replacement for the airline’s seven 777-300ERs was a separate decision from the options on the 787-10.

“We’ve actually compartmentalised those decisions so our view at this point is that we would still need a replacement for the 777-300ER,” he said.

“Our intention at this stage is that when the 777-300s come up for replacement towards the mid-to-late 2020s . . . that would be the logical time when we will probably want to look at a larger aircraft. The A350s and the Boeing 777Xs come into the frame.

“At this point the 787-10s (or nines) are not code for replacing the -300s.

“We are really impressed with the candidate aircraft (to replace them). The A350-1000 is a great aircraft, as is the Boeing 777X, though it still has to come through development.”

So yes, you can say a decision has not yet been taken. But no, you cannot say Luxon is signaling a future decision to replace the 77Ws with 787s. In fact you cannot read this as anything except an expectation – on the back of the detailed technical and commercial analysis that went into the 78J decision – that the airline will replace the 77Ws with a type that is more capable than the 787. With the presumption being that it will be a choice between 35K and 77X.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:43 pm

tealnz wrote:
One more time. Let's quote the Australian Aviation interview with Luxon again:

They just ordered eight 787-10's to replace the eight 777-200ER's. In the contract they also added options for an additional 12 787-10's with rights to convert some of them to 787-9's.

Now what would the 12 options be for other than a 777-300ER replacement? Unless Air New Zealand has grand plans to double its size.

The 787 is the most in demand widebody so to replace the 777-300ER in 2025 they need to get in the queue now. Sure they could let the 787 options lapse and order something bigger but the fact remains they still got in the queue for the 787.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:45 pm

Can't see what your agenda is mate. You don't think Luxon knows what he's talking about? Even though he's just ordered/optioned a bunch of 78Js... You think he's faking? I don't get it.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:21 am

All he has done is give generic answers like a typical CEO. He will continue to say they are "looking into the A350" until the day the 787 options are firmed. That is all part of negotiations to get the best price.

Next month their widebody fleet will be:
14 787-9's
8 777-200ER's
7 777-300ER's

They just ordered 8 787-10's to replace the 777-200ER's one for one. What do you think the 12 extra 787 options are for? What will they replace?
 
Dave05
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:01 am

787-10 will be used by carriers who are using the A330-300 right now... The benefits of 787-10 will be the extra 30-50 seats on their current A330-300...
 
zkncj
Posts: 3259
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:19 am

RJMAZ wrote:
All he has done is give generic answers like a typical CEO. He will continue to say they are "looking into the A350" until the day the 787 options are firmed. That is all part of negotiations to get the best price.

Next month their widebody fleet will be:
14 787-9's
8 777-200ER's
7 777-300ER's

They just ordered 8 787-10's to replace the 777-200ER's one for one. What do you think the 12 extra 787 options are for? What will they replace?


Some history with the NZ 787 fleet:

Back around 2004 NZ ordered 8x 77E, and 2x 7E7 to replace there 9x 763ERs.

The 763 fleet was reduced down 5x, to in the process of waiting with delays etc the 7E7 became the 787 and over time the order got increased 14x 789s

So in short 9x 763ERs fleet got replaced by 8x 77E and 14x 789s. Effectively and 13x aircraft increase.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:28 am

zkncj wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
All he has done is give generic answers like a typical CEO. He will continue to say they are "looking into the A350" until the day the 787 options are firmed. That is all part of negotiations to get the best price.

Next month their widebody fleet will be:
14 787-9's
8 777-200ER's
7 777-300ER's

They just ordered 8 787-10's to replace the 777-200ER's one for one. What do you think the 12 extra 787 options are for? What will they replace?


Some history with the NZ 787 fleet:

Back around 2004 NZ ordered 8x 77E, and 2x 7E7 to replace there 9x 763ERs.

The 763 fleet was reduced down 5x, to in the process of waiting with delays etc the 7E7 became the 787 and over time the order got increased 14x 789s

So in short 9x 763ERs fleet got replaced by 8x 77E and 14x 789s. Effectively and 13x aircraft increase.


When the last 763 left in March 2017 there were 9 789s, anything since has been additional growth. My main thing for another topic is what happens between the 14th 789 this year and the first 78J in 2022, they may slow growth and free up other aircraft ie 772s off short haul back to long haul. Or bring forward some additional 787s but with the new product in 2022 I’m not sure I see then adding more aircraft before then, anyway that is for another thread.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
All he has done is give generic answers like a typical CEO. He will continue to say they are "looking into the A350" until the day the 787 options are firmed. That is all part of negotiations to get the best price.
Next month their widebody fleet will be:
14 787-9's
8 777-200ER's
7 777-300ER's
They just ordered 8 787-10's to replace the 777-200ER's one for one. What do you think the 12 extra 787 options are for? What will they replace

You are struggling on this one mate. There is nothing generic about Luxon's answer on 77W replacement. Read it again: it is quite specific. He says:

- the question of replacement for the airline’s seven 777-300ERs was separate decision from the 78J options
- "At this point the 787-10s (or nines) are not code for replacing the -300s"
- he says the airline's view is that it would still need a replacement for the 77W
- they would probably want to look at a larger aircraft
- he specifies the A35K and 77X as candidate aircraft for the 77W replacement.

This is specific and detailed. You can't read it as anything but a firm signal that NZ expects to go for a different, larger, more capable type to replace the 77W.

Whether you agree with Luxon's view is another matter. If you believe NZ will change their minds and find a way to make a late-2020s variant of the 78J work as a 77W replacement you're free to do so. Just don't tell us there is any evidence for it.

The 78J options are a red herring. Options are options. NZ could take up all or none. They could be for growth (up to 40% on top of current/committed wide body fleet – I don't know where you get "double" from). They could be for replacement of some of the original Trent 1000 789s with higher-MTOW GEnX-powered 789s if it turns out there is indeed a higher weight airframe on offer. They could be for upgauging of some 789s to 78Js if Boeing is offering good terms on trade-ins – evidence is that Boeing and GE offered NZ a super sweet deal. Several plausible possibilities in there – none involving 77W replacement.

As for the "getting in the queue..." argument, it just doesn't begin to stand up. Take a look at the forward orders chart for 787s in the recent Leeham piece: https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/29/boeing-max-crisis-overshadows-other-challenges/. Even after you add the most recent commitments including NZ the orders fall off the edge of the cliff after 2021. The order book from 2023 onwards is barren.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13173
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:36 am

Transpac is full of cargo opportunity * volume.

Looking at passenger only performance for a 787-10 is interesting, but not realistic from an airline perspective.

Image

https://www.brinknews.com/asia-pacific-leads-in-global-air-freight-market-share/
https://www.trefis.com/stock/alk/articles/376124/what-is-the-role-of-passenger-airlines-in-the-air-cargo-industry/2016-09-09
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:54 pm

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
All he has done is give generic answers like a typical CEO. He will continue to say they are "looking into the A350" until the day the 787 options are firmed. That is all part of negotiations to get the best price.
Next month their widebody fleet will be:
14 787-9's
8 777-200ER's
7 777-300ER's
They just ordered 8 787-10's to replace the 777-200ER's one for one. What do you think the 12 extra 787 options are for? What will they replace

You are struggling on this one mate. There is nothing generic about Luxon's answer on 77W replacement. Read it again: it is quite specific. He says:

- the question of replacement for the airline’s seven 777-300ERs was separate decision from the 78J options
- "At this point the 787-10s (or nines) are not code for replacing the -300s"
- he says the airline's view is that it would still need a replacement for the 77W
- they would probably want to look at a larger aircraft
- he specifies the A35K and 77X as candidate aircraft for the 77W replacement.

This is specific and detailed. You can't read it as anything but a firm signal that NZ expects to go for a different, larger, more capable type to replace the 77W.

Whether you agree with Luxon's view is another matter. If you believe NZ will change their minds and find a way to make a late-2020s variant of the 78J work as a 77W replacement you're free to do so. Just don't tell us there is any evidence for it.

The 78J options are a red herring. Options are options. NZ could take up all or none. They could be for growth (up to 40% on top of current/committed wide body fleet – I don't know where you get "double" from). They could be for replacement of some of the original Trent 1000 789s with higher-MTOW GEnX-powered 789s if it turns out there is indeed a higher weight airframe on offer. They could be for upgauging of some 789s to 78Js if Boeing is offering good terms on trade-ins – evidence is that Boeing and GE offered NZ a super sweet deal. Several plausible possibilities in there – none involving 77W replacement.

As for the "getting in the queue..." argument, it just doesn't begin to stand up. Take a look at the forward orders chart for 787s in the recent Leeham piece: https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/29/boeing-max-crisis-overshadows-other-challenges/. Even after you add the most recent commitments including NZ the orders fall off the edge of the cliff after 2021. The order book from 2023 onwards is barren.



I think they'll end up with the 779X and will do great things with it.

It will be a superlative choice on the AKL-LAX (and LHR follow on) and AKL-SFO trunk routes, will really give them the space to offer the products they want to offer. Big premium class, etc. Will also be a handy people-mover on the Australia turns in between the long haul runs. I think thats a fleet of 6-8 big birds on their own.

The 789 makes a lot of sense but isnt big enough for these routes, thats a lot of premium yield you'd be leaving behind vs the 77Ws.
 
Blockplus
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:50 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
trex8 wrote:
george77300 wrote:

There is no “certified” range. There is a range stated that the plane can fly with a given load. Merely an indication. The plane has to dispatch with enough fuel to arrive at destination and with the reserve fuel for alternate and 45 mins holding. If it can do this by taking less pax or cargo then it can.

For example the Qantas LHR-PER Flight is above the “published” range of the 787-9 but it still can fly it and with no seats blocked either way most of the time.

There are also many delivery flights and charter flights that can fly really far due to fewer passengers on board. There have been a number of 737NG flights over 11 hours. Seattle-Prague direct springs to mind. That’s 5,200+ miles in a 737. Well above the “published” range.

It’s quite incredible how the range varies so hugely by taking out lots of passengers and/or cargo.

Back when PanAm flew 7474SP NYC to TYO they would submit a flight plan which didnt actually go all the way to Japan, IIRC they filed for ANC or something, as west bound it was stretching the Sps range to the limit. When things on the flight were clearly favorable to continue all the way without problems they would refile a new flight plan to the real intended destination.
Do airlines still do this?


It’s called a redispatch and yes it is still used. I’m not 100% sure what drives dispatch to this but I’m sure it is cost based, just like everything else. If fuel is tight and weather is poor we will get one for sure.


The airline I fly for has several ways to file a flight plan based on conditions and how long a flight has been operated.
The 10% rule : 30min reserve plus 10% of the flight time
The 5%rule: 30 min plus 5%
The 10% of class2 rule: 30 min plus 10% of class 2 time
Analysed regulatory fuel: 30min plus historical over burn for 90% of flights analyzed
Redispatch : 30 min plus 10% of dispatched flight time. The attempt being to get reserve fuel as low as possible by having an atc flight plan not match a dispatch release. Dispatch releases you to a point it knows you will have enough fuel legally to go to, then releases you again from that point to destination with fuel reserves calculated from that point.
 
RainerBoeing777
Topic Author
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:59 am

It is already official United begins its new route with Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner between LAX-HND from March 28, 2020

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/285920/united-airlines-expands-tokyo-haneda-service-in-s20/
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
RainerBoeing777
Topic Author
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:19 pm

United will start flying with Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner SFO-AKL and SFO-HND! Who would say that the mayor of this family was also going to dominate the trans-Pacific market

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/286358/united-nw19-international-service-changes-as-of-13sep19/

I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:00 pm

Anyone have any idea of UA's current cargo loads on SFO-AKL?

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ

NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes – and that he expects the airline will eventually look for a larger type (he mentioned A350 and 77X) to replace the 77Ws. So I guess they expect they will continue to need higher payload capability on the SFO/LAX routes than the 78J can offer.
 
OmerMaz
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:37 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United will start flying with Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner SFO-AKL and SFO-HND! Who would say that the mayor of this family was also going to dominate the trans-Pacific market

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/286358/united-nw19-international-service-changes-as-of-13sep19/

I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ



United is going WILD with this bird! Who knows, this could be some really good PR for the 78J in case there are airlines that still examining it.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18095
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:02 pm

tealnz wrote:
Anyone have any idea of UA's current cargo loads on SFO-AKL?

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ

NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes – and that he expects the airline will eventually look for a larger type (he mentioned A350 and 77X) to replace the 77Ws. So I guess they expect they will continue to need higher payload capability on the SFO/LAX routes than the 78J can offer.

For highly profitable cargo routes, obviously an aircraft with higher uplift is required. The question is, what fraction of Asia routes are high profitable cargo? With the 77W, A359, A35K, 789, and 779 being combis, cargo yield must not be what it was. So fewer routes need cargo.

Oh dang, I just spelled out a worse 779 business case. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:31 pm

tealnz wrote:
Anyone have any idea of UA's current cargo loads on SFO-AKL?

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ

NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes – and that he expects the airline will eventually look for a larger type (he mentioned A350 and 77X) to replace the 77Ws. So I guess they expect they will continue to need higher payload capability on the SFO/LAX routes than the 78J can offer.


Not to surprising IMO the 78J to AKL for UA, they were using a 772 3 years ago which may have been to small so went to a 77W which may have been to big, the 78J is super efficient and right in the middle and has enough lift for most of the season bar a few days where a 77W will be used.

This will be a very good measure for NZ, a JV partner using the 78J on this route. NZ will look at 77X/350 of course, it doesn’t mean they will choose either.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:44 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United will start flying with Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner SFO-AKL and SFO-HND! Who would say that the mayor of this family was also going to dominate the trans-Pacific market


Not surprising at all. 787-10 is the most efficient aircraft in the market for the vast majority of the trans-pacific market, except for a few ULH routes that are better served by 787-9, such as US-Singapore. 787-10 can do US east coast to NE Asia and US west coast to SE Asia at a full cabin payload, and burns less fuel than its competitor.

Let's wait for the high-MTOW variant of 787-10. It will be able to dominate US east coast to SE Asia as well, such as NYC-HKG.
 
77H
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Anyone have any idea of UA's current cargo loads on SFO-AKL?

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
I emphasize that in the future Air New Zealand could replace the Boeing 777-300ER with Boeing 787-10 can easily fly to SFO and LAX which are the high density destinations of the NZ route network and with the JV with United they do not need to increase such a capacity a fleet of Boeing 787-9 / 10 would be suitable for NZ

NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes – and that he expects the airline will eventually look for a larger type (he mentioned A350 and 77X) to replace the 77Ws. So I guess they expect they will continue to need higher payload capability on the SFO/LAX routes than the 78J can offer.

For highly profitable cargo routes, obviously an aircraft with higher uplift is required. The question is, what fraction of Asia routes are high profitable cargo? With the 77W, A359, A35K, 789, and 779 being combis, cargo yield must not be what it was. So fewer routes need cargo.

Oh dang, I just spelled out a worse 779 business case. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber


Not always the case. The most profitable cargo for airlines are often shipments that are less dense and more voluminous. Dense, heavy shipments equal higher fuel burn which cuts into profits. Any Cargo Revenue Management Analyst or Cargo Sales Rep will tell you they’d rather take a cargo hold full of pillows than bowling balls. Since most airlines use chargeable weight to bill shippers, you’d likely make more revenue on the pillows. Additionally, fuel burn would be significantly less so that revenue is more profitable.

Routes that have high density freight, like perishables would require aircraft that can support higher payloads over range (789,77E,359,35K,77W). For routes with shipments more bulky than dense, aircraft with higher capacity, more “positions” are preferred. In my experience, much of the freight traffic from Asia tends to be more voluminous than dense. For this the 78X would excel relative to the 789 or 77E as it has more capacity and payload isn’t as much of an issue. Aircraft like the 359,35K and 77W have payload and capacity advantages but are slightly less efficient.

Airlines operating the 78X TPAC can flow heavier freight over connections on their metal or via interline. For example, when UA uses the 78X from SFO to PVG, heavier freight beyond the payload performance of the 78X could be routed SFO-NRT and interlined to PVG. This allows them to reserve payload and capacity for less dense freight that will pay a premium for the nonstop.
I don’t have any information to support this but I imagine this done with many flights that push the limits of aircraft capabilities. QF’s PER-LHR flights probably take very little cargo in terms of payload but they may take a lot of light, bulky shipments. At the same time, heavier freight is likely routed PER-SIN-LHR.

77H
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 pm

tealnz wrote:
NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes

You still going on about this? The CEO did not say any of that.

The CEO simply said the decision is not final and they will compare the 787-10 with the 777X and A350 in a year or two. This is why they got a large number of extra options for the 787-10 and have not officially ordered it. The options allow them to get in the queue so that when the 787-10 wins they can actually take delivery in the year they want.

As other members keep pointing out the 787-10 is perfectly suited to replace the 777W's for ANZ. Their 777W's are flying well within the 787-10's capabilities.
 
77H
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:30 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes

You still going on about this? The CEO did not say any of that.

The CEO simply said the decision is not final and they will compare the 787-10 with the 777X and A350 in a year or two. This is why they got a large number of extra options for the 787-10 and have not officially ordered it. The options allow them to get in the queue so that when the 787-10 wins they can actually take delivery in the year they want.

As other members keep pointing out the 787-10 is perfectly suited to replace the 777W's for ANZ. Their 777W's are flying well within the 787-10's capabilities.


Agreed. The primary concern NZ should have is whether or not the 78X can operate AKL-SFO/LAX and LAX-LHR with a full passenger load. If cargo is of importance to NZ, which I’m led to believe it is, they can use interline agreements to move heavier freight via places like HNL. NZ currently does this out of IAH and ORD and to places like NYC where they currently don’t serve. I’ve personally been involved in setting up and overseeing interline shipments with NZ. Great group of folks by the way.

77H
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes

You still going on about this? The CEO did not say any of that.

The CEO simply said the decision is not final and they will compare the 787-10 with the 777X and A350 in a year or two. This is why they got a large number of extra options for the 787-10 and have not officially ordered it. The options allow them to get in the queue so that when the 787-10 wins they can actually take delivery in the year they want.

As other members keep pointing out the 787-10 is perfectly suited to replace the 777W's for ANZ. Their 777W's are flying well within the 787-10's capabilities.

Luxon’s words were perfectly clear. I don’t know why you can’t take them at face value. It’s not a criticism of the 78J - they’ll no doubt be great money-makers for NZ. But Luxon was clear that the airline would be wanting a more capable frame to replace the 77Ws. Clearly you believe you know better. Can’t help you there. :banghead:
 
jayunited
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:16 am

77H wrote:

Routes that have high density freight, like perishables would require aircraft that can support higher payloads over range (789,77E,359,35K,77W). For routes with shipments more bulky than dense, aircraft with higher capacity, more “positions” are preferred. In my experience, much of the freight traffic from Asia tends to be more voluminous than dense. For this the 78X would excel relative to the 789 or 77E as it has more capacity and payload isn’t as much of an issue. Aircraft like the 359,35K and 77W have payload and capacity advantages but are slightly less efficient.

Airlines operating the 78X TPAC can flow heavier freight over connections on their metal or via interline. For example, when UA uses the 78X from SFO to PVG, heavier freight beyond the payload performance of the 78X could be routed SFO-NRT and interlined to PVG. This allows them to reserve payload and capacity for less dense freight that will pay a premium for the nonstop.
77H


I think you may be on to something here, for UA SFO-AKL isn't a route dependent on cargo or revenue from cargo in fact for this route it is not uncommon to see no cargo on this route it to AKL or from AKL. But on the same token we also have times when there are spurts where we have 15,000 to 30,000 pounds of cargo on the flight. When we see high cargo weights we also see low load factors which leads me to believe UA's cargo sales division is selling a lot of cargo on this route last minute. A fully loaded PW 77E can not carry 30,000 pounds of cargo maybe 12,000 to 15,000 depending on the route and fuel load, I suspect the 78X or 78J (whichever people use) will face similar hurdles.

During the busy season November through early March this route is basically supported by revenue passengers and bags only so the 78X/J is the perfect aircraft because it provides UA the 300 plus seats the routes needs but at a much lower operating cost vs the 77W. However on those days when the load factor is low UA's cargo sales division can get to work and offset that low load factor with cargo. A lot of time UA's cargo sale will go after high priority cargo on those days booking perishable products that the shipper will book at the guaranteed rate which garners a much higher price than general freight because UA guarantees the cargo will arrive on this date at this time or it is shipped for free.

I think the 78X will have no issues on this route as the payload of just a full passenger cabin and their bags should be within the wheelhouse of the 78X on a 12 plus hour flight .
 
inkjet7
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:45 am

OmerMaz wrote:

United is going WILD with this bird!


Looks like KLM agrees.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:00 am

OmerMaz wrote:
United is going WILD with this bird! Who knows, this could be some really good PR for the 78J in case there are airlines that still examining it.

The payload range is way better than people expect. It has a very flat curve and most people can't understand how this translates into real world versatility.

Auckland to Houston is 6500nm
Auckland to Vancouver is 6150nm
Auckland to Los Angeles is 5700nm

787-10
80,000lb to 6000nm
70,000lb to 6500nm
60,000lb to 7000nm
50,000lb to 7500nm

777-300ER
100,000lb to 6000nm
85,000lb to 6500nm
70,000lb to 7000nm
55,000lb to 7500nm

As you can see the 777-300ER can carry 25% more payload to 6000nm but only 10% more payload to 7500nm. What this means is the 787-10 can stretch to operate longer routes in a network by simply flying passengers and bags only. It can effectively replace the 777-300ER with similar seat density on long haul routes.

Another interesting fact is the 787-10 has a higher maximum payload than both the 777-300ER and the A350-900.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:14 am

RJMAZ wrote:
OmerMaz wrote:
United is going WILD with this bird! Who knows, this could be some really good PR for the 78J in case there are airlines that still examining it.

The payload range is way better than people expect. It has a very flat curve and most people can't understand how this translates into real world versatility.

Auckland to Houston is 6500nm
Auckland to Vancouver is 6150nm
Auckland to Los Angeles is 5700nm

787-10
80,000lb to 6000nm
70,000lb to 6500nm
60,000lb to 7000nm
50,000lb to 7500nm

777-300ER
100,000lb to 6000nm
85,000lb to 6500nm
70,000lb to 7000nm
55,000lb to 7500nm

As you can see the 777-300ER can carry 25% more payload to 6000nm but only 10% more payload to 7500nm. What this means is the 787-10 can stretch to operate longer routes in a network by simply flying passengers and bags only. It can effectively replace the 777-300ER with similar seat density on long haul routes.

Another interesting fact is the 787-10 has a higher maximum payload than both the 777-300ER and the A350-900.

The 787-10 and 359 are about the same depending on WV for the 359. The 77W is a different beast in terms of payload carried, I thought it was roughly ~73t. And the 359 between ~53-60, 78X at ~58
 
Eyad89
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:

Another interesting fact is the 787-10 has a higher maximum payload than both the 777-300ER and the A350-900.



Yeah, just no.

For the A359, it could have a maximum structural payload up to 60t, as we have seen with the IB frame for example.

That’s easy to see using the equation:
max payload = MZFW - OEW
60t = 195.7t - 136.7t


As for the 77W claim, I just don’t know how to respond to that.
 
OmerMaz
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
OmerMaz wrote:
United is going WILD with this bird! Who knows, this could be some really good PR for the 78J in case there are airlines that still examining it.

The payload range is way better than people expect. It has a very flat curve and most people can't understand how this translates into real world versatility.

Auckland to Houston is 6500nm
Auckland to Vancouver is 6150nm
Auckland to Los Angeles is 5700nm

787-10
80,000lb to 6000nm
70,000lb to 6500nm
60,000lb to 7000nm
50,000lb to 7500nm

777-300ER
100,000lb to 6000nm
85,000lb to 6500nm
70,000lb to 7000nm
55,000lb to 7500nm

As you can see the 777-300ER can carry 25% more payload to 6000nm but only 10% more payload to 7500nm. What this means is the 787-10 can stretch to operate longer routes in a network by simply flying passengers and bags only. It can effectively replace the 777-300ER with similar seat density on long haul routes.

Another interesting fact is the 787-10 has a higher maximum payload than both the 777-300ER and the A350-900.



I'm more of an A350 fan than the 787, but it seems that in such scenarios, the 78J might create quite of a threat to UA's A350 order...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13965
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
NZ themselves have basically killed the idea that the -10s could replace the 77W. Their CEO has said specifically that the -10 decision doesn't point in that direction. He has said the -10s will mostly be used on Asian routes

You still going on about this? The CEO did not say any of that.

The CEO simply said the decision is not final and they will compare the 787-10 with the 777X and A350 in a year or two. This is why they got a large number of extra options for the 787-10 and have not officially ordered it. The options allow them to get in the queue so that when the 787-10 wins they can actually take delivery in the year they want.

As other members keep pointing out the 787-10 is perfectly suited to replace the 777W's for ANZ. Their 777W's are flying well within the 787-10's capabilities.


I think you need to fall on your sword, per Australian Aviation https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 787-order/


THE 777 REPLACEMENTS

Luxon said the question of replacement for the airline’s seven 777-300ERs was a separate decision from the options on the 787-10.

“We’ve actually compartmentalised those decisions so our view at this point is that we would still need a replacement for the 777-300ER,” he said.

“Our intention at this stage is that when the 777-300s come up for replacement towards the mid-to-late 2020s . . . that would be the logical time when we will probably want to look at a larger aircraft. The A350s and the Boeing 777Xs come into the frame.

“At this point the 787-10s (or nines) are not code for replacing the -300s.

“We are really impressed with the candidate aircraft (to replace them). The A350-1000 is a great aircraft, as is the Boeing 777X, though it still has to come through development.”“

Eyad89 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

Another interesting fact is the 787-10 has a higher maximum payload than both the 777-300ER and the A350-900.



Yeah, just no.

For the A359, it could have a maximum structural payload up to 60t, as we have seen with the IB frame for example.

That’s easy to see using the equation:
max payload = MZFW - OEW
60t = 195.7t - 136.7t


As for the 77W claim, I just don’t know how to respond to that.


The comments are are rubbish, jayunited has put on other threads eg viewtopic.php?t=1422657

the OEW of a UA 787-10 is 300,563 lb and MZFW of 425,000 lb, that gives a maximum structural payload of 56,454 kg.

The 77W ACAPS lists a maximum structural payload of 69,853 kg, a OEW of 167,829 kg, and MZFW of 237,683 kg. That’s 13398 kg higher than the 787-10.

The OEW figure given by jayunited of 300,563 lb is higher than our A359-900 OEW. The A350-900 MZFW is 195,700 kg (431 445 lb), the 787-10 is 425,000 lb. there is no way the 787-10 carries more payload than either the 77W or A350-900.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Eyad89
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:28 pm

zeke wrote:

the OEW of a UA 787-10 is 300,563 lb and MZFW of 425,000 lb, that gives a maximum structural payload of 56,454 kg.

The 77W ACAPS lists a maximum structural payload of 69,853 kg, a OEW of 167,829 kg, and MZFW of 237,683 kg. That’s 13398 kg higher than the 787-10.

The OEW figure given by jayunited of 300,563 lb is higher than our A359-900 OEW. The A350-900 MZFW is 195,700 kg (431 445 lb), the 787-10 is 425,000 lb. there is no way the 787-10 carries more payload than either the 77W or A350-900.


Some folks around here make it sound as if the 78X is the magic answer for any route. It is a great plane for sure, but it is not always the obvious answer.

I always wondered why Boeing went with the 60m wingspan. Probably that was the answer for a modern 767 replacement that would fly long and thin routes. It made sense for 788 and 789. But if it ended up with a 64.75m span, it would have been just another A359 with 3 extra Y rows, heavier but more capable with a higher L/D ratio. That’s what Boeing really wanted, a product that would serve a different purpose than the A359. That’s how it should be in a duopoly.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:52 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
zeke wrote:

the OEW of a UA 787-10 is 300,563 lb and MZFW of 425,000 lb, that gives a maximum structural payload of 56,454 kg.

The 77W ACAPS lists a maximum structural payload of 69,853 kg, a OEW of 167,829 kg, and MZFW of 237,683 kg. That’s 13398 kg higher than the 787-10.

The OEW figure given by jayunited of 300,563 lb is higher than our A359-900 OEW. The A350-900 MZFW is 195,700 kg (431 445 lb), the 787-10 is 425,000 lb. there is no way the 787-10 carries more payload than either the 77W or A350-900.


Some folks around here make it sound as if the 78X is the magic answer for any route. It is a great plane for sure, but it is not always the obvious answer.

I always wondered why Boeing went with the 60m wingspan. Probably that was the answer for a modern 767 replacement that would fly long and thin routes. It made sense for 788 and 789. But if it ended up with a 64.75m span, it would have been just another A359 with 3 extra Y rows, heavier but more capable with a higher L/D ratio. That’s what Boeing really wanted, a product that would serve a different purpose than the A359. That’s how it should be in a duopoly.


If I remember correctly the 787-9 (Which the -10 is a simple stretch of) was originally going to have a larger wing than the 60m it shares now. I wanna say it was going to be about a 63m wingspan if I remember correctly. But because of all the delays and such they kept the wing the same for the -9.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:16 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
If I remember correctly the 787-9 (Which the -10 is a simple stretch of) was originally going to have a larger wing than the 60m it shares now. I wanna say it was going to be about a 63m wingspan if I remember correctly. But because of all the delays and such they kept the wing the same for the -9.


Yeah, that is how I have it as well. Off course it is spun as the current wing was found to be better than envisaged so the extra cost and weight that the 789 wing was supposed to have was just a wash. A very convenient finding when the program was heavily delayed and over budget, but you create your own luck, or is that the story?
 
sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:07 pm

Eyad89 wrote:

Some folks around here make it sound as if the 78X is the magic answer for any route. It is a great plane for sure, but it is not always the obvious answer.


Bingo! Both A and B fanboys can't get their heads around the fact that you can't have ONE frame that can be super efficient across all payload and range spectrum not to mention the varying need of passengers and cargo. 77W, 787, A350 are all fantastic aircraft and each have their own place among the carriers.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:17 pm

sabby wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

Some folks around here make it sound as if the 78X is the magic answer for any route. It is a great plane for sure, but it is not always the obvious answer.


Bingo! Both A and B fanboys can't get their heads around the fact that you can't have ONE frame that can be super efficient across all payload and range spectrum not to mention the varying need of passengers and cargo. 77W, 787, A350 are all fantastic aircraft and each have their own place among the carriers.


Nobody said 78X is the answer for any route. But a combination of 787-9 (for ULH), 787-10 (for most long-haul routes), and 777-9 (for trunk routes) can form the most efficient fleet for any mission.
 
9Patch
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:36 pm

enzo011 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
If I remember correctly the 787-9 (Which the -10 is a simple stretch of) was originally going to have a larger wing than the 60m it shares now. I wanna say it was going to be about a 63m wingspan if I remember correctly. But because of all the delays and such they kept the wing the same for the -9.


Yeah, that is how I have it as well. Off course it is spun as the current wing was found to be better than envisaged so the extra cost and weight that the 789 wing was supposed to have was just a wash. A very convenient finding when the program was heavily delayed and over budget, but you create your own luck, or is that the story?


Stitch has addressed this in the past with you.

Stitch wrote:
I would assume where the span increase helped the most was at the farther end of the payload-range curve and the significant majority of 787-9 flights are nowhere near that based on average stage length reports. And the 787-10 is even farther down that range curve so I am inclined to believe it would have done little to nothing to improve it's performance.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424845&p=21497981&hilit=787+wing#p21497981
Last edited by 9Patch on Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:32 pm

9Patch wrote:
Stitch has addressed this in the past with you.

Stitch wrote:
I would assume where the span increase helped the most was at the farther end of the payload-range curve and the significant majority of 787-9 flights are nowhere near that based on average stage length reports. And the 787-10 is even farther down that range curve so I am inclined to believe it would have done little to nothing to improve it's performance.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424845&p=21497981&hilit=787+wing#p21497981



He has and in his post he states that he is sure the delays and cost played a role. We differ on how much of a role it played. I don't take Boeing's word on the changes as gospel, they have very little credibility when it comes to the actual reasons on why decisions are made from me. Other posters may feel differently, but...

Boeing Celebrates the Premiere of the 787 Dreamliner

Following the premiere, the first 787 Dreamliner will be completed in the Everett factory - including the installation of final systems elements, interiors and flight test equipment. First flight of the airplane is expected in late August or September. A total of six airplanes will be included in the flight test program, which will conclude in May 2008 with the certification of the airplane followed shortly by the first delivery of a 787 to ANA.
 
leftcoast8
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:59 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:39 pm

Are ANA's 78K or 77X going to be placed on domestic trunk routes (HND-CTS, HND-FUK, etc.), or will their pre-existing fleet + 737 MAX orders cover it?
 
kengo
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:28 am

leftcoast8 wrote:
Are ANA's 78K or 77X going to be placed on domestic trunk routes (HND-CTS, HND-FUK, etc.), or will their pre-existing fleet + 737 MAX orders cover it?


Per ANA press release, the 787-10s will be placed on Southeast Asian routes.

https://www.ana.co.jp/group/en/pr/201904/20190405.html
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12485
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:08 am

jagraham wrote:
ANZ's 77Es have Trent 892s, similar to Delta's 77Es. Delta rates their 77Es at 8700 sm, or about 7500 nm.

Not the best comparison, as DL's engines are Trent895 and the MTOW on its 77E is 656,000lbs, which only two other Trent 77E operators (BA and LY) have.

NZ's would be Trent892s with (IINM) 648,000lb MTOW.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:14 am

Please stay on topic and do not turn this into another B. vs. A. discussion, thanks.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:08 pm

lightsaber wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

787-10's range is greatly understated by Boeing; in real world 78J can comfortably fly with full passengers and bags from US east coast to Japan, Korea or PEK, or from US west coast to anywhere in the east Asia, such as PVG, HKG. There are multiple reports about its performance in this forum.

Boeing tends to be too conservative on the published range; Airbus tends to be too optimistic. In terms of the real world range under the same payload, 78J is about the same as 268t A350-900.


Let's say Boeing does understate the range. But that is the certified range, right? Authorities are not going to approve any flight plans that exceed that published/certified range, are they?

Actually, it is mission planning that determines. After a year, an airline must use real world data to plan. Do aircraft can be dispatched further if the aircraft has proven itself.

Every aircraft has its own individual payload range chart as no two have exactly the same performance. Aircraft tend to loose weight in production as Boeing or Airbus PIP components to loose weight. It is common for two aircraft to have an empty weight one or two tons different depending on line number and weight of repairs.

Boeing guarantees range after some weight of doublers or just a heavy example.

That said, the 787-10 is, in my opinion, shirt on TPAC payload at range. It is a fine EU to US or EU to mid-Asia aircraft (a bit short of range for EU to Japan).

That said, GE is ahead on CMCs. I expect the GEnX to be the next engine PIP'd with turbine inlet guide vanes. A nice 150nm range boost or so.

Lightsaber


Interesting information. It makes sense but didnt realize the airlines track each plane's performance like that.
 
Dave05
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:50 am

I am pretty sure 787-10 has the range flying taipei to seattle, sfo and lax. However, due to the competetive nature of these routes, I am sure most carriers will still stick to the 777w or now a350-1000 because of passengers comfort.... And 787-10 will be stuck with its role as a large regional aircraft.
 
77H
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:52 am

Dave05 wrote:
I am pretty sure 787-10 has the range flying taipei to seattle, sfo and lax. However, due to the competetive nature of these routes, I am sure most carriers will still stick to the 777w or now a350-1000 because of passengers comfort.... And 787-10 will be stuck with its role as a large regional aircraft.


What in your opinion would make the 78X any less comfortable than the 35K or 77W ?

As long as the 78X can make it from the departure airport to the arrival airport without any passengers getting wet I’m sure it would be every bit as comfortable for passengers as the aforementioned types..

77H
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:42 pm

77H wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
I am pretty sure 787-10 has the range flying taipei to seattle, sfo and lax. However, due to the competetive nature of these routes, I am sure most carriers will still stick to the 777w or now a350-1000 because of passengers comfort.... And 787-10 will be stuck with its role as a large regional aircraft.


What in your opinion would make the 78X any less comfortable than the 35K or 77W ?

As long as the 78X can make it from the departure airport to the arrival airport without any passengers getting wet I’m sure it would be every bit as comfortable for passengers as the aforementioned types..

77H



Wider fuselage compared to the A350 when both is at 9-abreast, or does that not count as more comfortable for passengers? I agree the 777 may not be that much more comfortable, but it probably has a fraction of an inch or two over the 787 per seat in Y.
 
NYKiwi
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:41 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:06 pm

Hers my 2 cents....NZ and QF for that matter are fragmenting markets like the US, ie. not requiring all passengers through LAX or SFO by flying non-stop to IAH, ORD and soon to by NYC (hopeful).
The 77W is their premium heavy plane that is used for premium heavy routes, but as you fragment you will not need all that capacity into LAX and now UA are sharing the SFO flying.
Freight is an important part of NZ, well cream on top of the pie, as every flight I see into the west coast they carry pallets, this is from my own observation out the window...not the best approach. further east if may not play a critical role.
Once the 78J are in the fleet in a few years they will be used on Asia routes but NZ will test these out to the USA I am sure, and there will be improvements, I remember back to the comments about who knew the 77W could fly HKG - JFK or the 789 fly SFO - SIN.....there will be improvements, and if I was guessing NZ will have a mixed fleet of 789 and 78J that they can inter change....if there needs to be more capacity then through in 2 flights per day....I just do not see a need for 77X or 350 as they will need to keep their products consistent up front etc.

My only hope is AKL keeps up with the fleet growth.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:52 am

NYKiwi wrote:
Hers my 2 cents....NZ and QF for that matter are fragmenting markets like the US, ie. not requiring all passengers through LAX or SFO by flying non-stop to IAH, ORD and soon to by NYC (hopeful).
The 77W is their premium heavy plane that is used for premium heavy routes, but as you fragment you will not need all that capacity into LAX and now UA are sharing the SFO flying.
Freight is an important part of NZ, well cream on top of the pie, as every flight I see into the west coast they carry pallets, this is from my own observation out the window...not the best approach. further east if may not play a critical role.
Once the 78J are in the fleet in a few years they will be used on Asia routes but NZ will test these out to the USA I am sure, and there will be improvements, I remember back to the comments about who knew the 77W could fly HKG - JFK or the 789 fly SFO - SIN.....there will be improvements, and if I was guessing NZ will have a mixed fleet of 789 and 78J that they can inter change....if there needs to be more capacity then through in 2 flights per day....I just do not see a need for 77X or 350 as they will need to keep their products consistent up front etc.

Yeah fragmentation is the new reality – and great for pax who want to minimise journey time and connections and luggage loss. And NZ seem completely on board with that as a strategy – fits their interest in having as many monopoly or semi-monopoly routes as possible to maximise yields.

Problem with the theory that they can get by with 787 variants, including for the 77W replacement, is that the NZ CEO, on the back of the evaluation that produced the 78J decision, has said he expects the airline will go for a larger airframe when the 77W comes up for replacement. a.netters seem to think the 78J was a great decision. What I can't work out is why Luxon was then a fool when in the next breath he said he didn't expect the 787 to work as the 77W replacement. After all the analysis and fleet scenario planning the airline has just been through on the 77E replacement... What am I missing? :scratchchin:
 
NYKiwi
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:41 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:00 am

Your missing the fact that the 77W decision will be made by the new CEO lol.......I cant say whose right either tbh just from.fleet simplification etc 787 and 78J seems like a good mix.......once the increase the pitch in the rear cabin for us econ travellers
 
jagraham
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:32 am

With widebodies, the comfort choices are entirely in the hands of the airlines. And the customers. It has been noted elsewhere that Y customers seem ready to switch for only a few dollars difference in ticket prices - despite any seat (or bag, or meal, or IFE, or bathroom size, etc) differences.
 
maps4ltd
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Missions in the transpacific market

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:51 am

jagraham wrote:
With widebodies, the comfort choices are entirely in the hands of the airlines. And the customers. It has been noted elsewhere that Y customers seem ready to switch for only a few dollars difference in ticket prices - despite any seat (or bag, or meal, or IFE, or bathroom size, etc) differences.


...which is why you get Y customers choosing an ancient AA 763 over a UA 78X that's a bit more expensive--most are none the wiser.
Delta Gold Medallion and Southwest A-List

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