YYZORD
Topic Author
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 8:30 pm

I was comparing the ranges for both the 787-10 and A350-900 from Singapore Changi and I see that Vancouver is in the 787-10 range while Seattle is a bit off the range. Is this why the SIN-SEA route will have a A350-900 instead of the 787-10? Also what is the feasibility for a SIN-YVR route if the 787-10 was viable for that route vs the feasibility of an A350 being used on the same route like SIN-SEA?

Another thing I wanted to mention about SG's fleet is that I saw the A350-900 range borders both ORD and YYZ so I'm confused as to if the aircraft can also fly to those destinations non-stop or would they need an A350ULR like SG uses on SIN-EWR?
 
User avatar
SRQKEF
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:10 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 8:57 pm

AFAIK, the 787-10 is more of a regional workhorse for SQ while the A359 is the designated long range plane. I don't think it operates any routes outside Australasia. If YVR gets added, I'd assume that'd be an A359 as well.
Nothing compares to taking off in an empty 757 with full thrust!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3557
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 8:59 pm

SQ 787-10’s are not configured for longhaul. And in reality, couldn’t do a route like that with a meaningful load.
come visit the south pacific
 
alan3
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 9:17 pm

In general can 787-10's do Transpacific like West Coast to China/Japan/Hong Kong. Or is it more like an A330-300, meant for high density but medium haul?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 9:24 pm

alan3 wrote:
In general can 787-10's do Transpacific like West Coast to China/Japan/Hong Kong. Or is it more like an A330-300, meant for high density but medium haul?


Part of that answer depends on how its configured. United's 781's should be able to do SFO to ICN, NRT and the like. It's in the neighborhood of a ten hour airplane.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12807
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 10:41 pm

It seems one can carry significant more payload on 7000NM.

Image

Specially from hot SIN, where wingloading plays a role.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 10:57 pm

I don’t thInk SQs 787-10s could make it. With the exception of the A380, the 787-10s have more seats than any other plane in the SQ fleet. The 787-10 has 10% more seats than the A350s used for long haul. That is too many seats to make it that far
 
leftcoast8
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:59 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 11:31 pm

I don't think SQ will serve YVR for a long time. I'm surprised they even started 4 weekly to SEA considering they went all in with SFO and LAX. Perhaps it's to capture tech traffic.

-Singapore is a tech hub and a gateway to India. 9% of SG citizens/PRs are of Indian descent. YVR used HKG (a route with lots of business demand) as its main gateway to India for decades.
-There's a large AMZN/MSFT presence in Delhi, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. AMZN opened its new campus in Hyd about a month ago, which houses half of the company's 60,000 headcount in India.
-Sea-Tac has only one Chinese carrier at the moment, Hainan, whereas U.S. carriers have given up on India. Emirates and SQ can handle a lot of the high-yielding corporate demand fuelled by the tech industry, whereas YVR is flooded with Chinese carriers that offer cheap 1-stop flights to India (this caters to the mostly working-class Indian population in Vancouver). I presume that the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative (the so-called "$1 trillion New Silk Road") will only increase the Ind-China traffic in the coming years.

There's a lot of business travel between the Puget Sound and India, despite the Indian population of Metro Vancouver being much larger. Most Indo-Canadians in Metro Vancouver came in three or four waves:

1. The early labourers from Punjab who worked on the railroad, and settled in BC

2. Family reunification after the federal government removed immigration quotas in the 1960s. Many were relatives of the original settlers from Punjab.

3. Starting in 1984-85, many Sikh refugees fled anti-Sikh violence in India that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination (which in turn was triggered by the Indian Govt's storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar that June). Most of the refugees ended up settling in in Metro Vancouver. Along with family reunification, this was the main source of Indo-Canadian immigration to Metro Vancouver throughout the 1980s and 90s

4. In the post-9/11 fallout, Parliament passed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, which shifted the focus of Canada's immigration policy from poorer labourers/refugees to more highly-qualified skilled workers. Another motivation for this change were the effects of globalization and technological advances in the 90s and 2000s, as well as Canada's declining birthrate, both contributing to a shortage of labour shortage. Much of the Indian migration to Metro Vancouver since 9/11 has been under the skilled worker class, alongside family reunification.

In modern times, the U.S. has had a much stricter immigration policy than Canada, so not as many Indians ended up settling in the Puget Sound, other than skilled workers in the last 10-15 years. They mostly live in Bellevue/Redmond and work in tech.

The long and short of it is, Vancouver's Indian population = mostly working-class, travel to India is biased towards VFR. Seattle's Indian population = mostly professional, travel to India has more business demand. Also many tech corporations HQ'd in the Puget Sound have offices in India; not many companies HQ'd in BC have a large Indian presence. Most of the corporate demand to India is based around Toronto and the 905 belt.

I'm not sure about demand from Seattle to other major Indian centres (Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai, etc.), nor do I know if there's lots of travel motivated by Seattle's other tech anchors (Expedia, Tableau, Blue Origin, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Stripe, etc.) to India or Singapore. Grab, which has taken SG by storm, has an engineering office at the Columbia Center in downtown Seattle.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4911
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 15, 2019 11:33 pm

The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:03 am

It could fly the distance nonstop, but with payload restrictions severe enough that there is no chance the payload would be economic.

But this is all moot as SQ's 787-10 is configured for regional, not intercontinental, service. The A350-900 is the aircraft configured for this sort of route.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:16 am

behramjee wrote:
The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.

*78X
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:17 am

behramjee wrote:
The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.


The 787-10 can do around 4000 nm/8 hrs with full payload before being MTOW limited.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
c933103
Posts: 3641
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:22 am

leftcoast8 wrote:
I don't think SQ will serve YVR for a long time. I'm surprised they even started 4 weekly to SEA considering they went all in with SFO and LAX. Perhaps it's to capture tech traffic.

-Singapore is a tech hub and a gateway to India. 9% of SG citizens/PRs are of Indian descent. YVR used HKG (a route with lots of business demand) as its main gateway to India for decades.
-There's a large AMZN/MSFT presence in Delhi, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. AMZN opened its new campus in Hyd about a month ago, which houses half of the company's 60,000 headcount in India.
-Sea-Tac has only one Chinese carrier at the moment, Hainan, whereas U.S. carriers have given up on India. Emirates and SQ can handle a lot of the high-yielding corporate demand fuelled by the tech industry, whereas YVR is flooded with Chinese carriers that offer cheap 1-stop flights to India (this caters to the mostly working-class Indian population in Vancouver). I presume that the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative (the so-called "$1 trillion New Silk Road") will only increase the Ind-China traffic in the coming years.

There's a lot of business travel between the Puget Sound and India, despite the Indian population of Metro Vancouver being much larger. Most Indo-Canadians in Metro Vancouver came in three or four waves:

1. The early labourers from Punjab who worked on the railroad, and settled in BC

2. Family reunification after the federal government removed immigration quotas in the 1960s. Many were relatives of the original settlers from Punjab.

3. Starting in 1984-85, many Sikh refugees fled anti-Sikh violence in India that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination (which in turn was triggered by the Indian Govt's storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar that June). Most of the refugees ended up settling in in Metro Vancouver. Along with family reunification, this was the main source of Indo-Canadian immigration to Metro Vancouver throughout the 1980s and 90s

4. In the post-9/11 fallout, Parliament passed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, which shifted the focus of Canada's immigration policy from poorer labourers/refugees to more highly-qualified skilled workers. Another motivation for this change were the effects of globalization and technological advances in the 90s and 2000s, as well as Canada's declining birthrate, both contributing to a shortage of labour shortage. Much of the Indian migration to Metro Vancouver since 9/11 has been under the skilled worker class, alongside family reunification.

In modern times, the U.S. has had a much stricter immigration policy than Canada, so not as many Indians ended up settling in the Puget Sound, other than skilled workers in the last 10-15 years. They mostly live in Bellevue/Redmond and work in tech.

The long and short of it is, Vancouver's Indian population = mostly working-class, travel to India is biased towards VFR. Seattle's Indian population = mostly professional, travel to India has more business demand. Also many tech corporations HQ'd in the Puget Sound have offices in India; not many companies HQ'd in BC have a large Indian presence. Most of the corporate demand to India is based around Toronto and the 905 belt.

I'm not sure about demand from Seattle to other major Indian centres (Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai, etc.), nor do I know if there's lots of travel motivated by Seattle's other tech anchors (Expedia, Tableau, Blue Origin, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Stripe, etc.) to India or Singapore. Grab, which has taken SG by storm, has an engineering office at the Columbia Center in downtown Seattle.

I don't think Indian is the main reason for them to operate either of the two routes.
This is a placeholder.
 
alan3
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:31 am

If SQ restarts SIN-YVR that they dropped some years back really depends on what market they’re going after .

YVR has more Chinese carriers than any other airport in North America and as mentioned above they already provide cheap connections to India and Southeast Asia.

Australia? YVR already has 3 Australian routes with an AC-VA tie up for connections.

So that leaves connecting traffic from the US? Possibly.
 
YYZORD
Topic Author
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 12:55 am

SQ seems like the only asian airline other than OZ that doesn't serve YVR but serves SEA. I'm not counting EK cause that's a middle eastern carrier and politics is why EK can't serve YVR. AC already serves ICN as a *A carrier and OZ financial problems, we will likely not see them serving YVR for awhile especially after cutting ORD. This leaves SQ as the only asian airline that is missing from YVR but could be served in the future. SQ even mentioned that YVR is a likely destination that they could add as it's the most unserved destination from SIN with most pax according to an article.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 4936
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 2:12 am

Don't forget that SQ has a codeshare agreement with AS through SEA.
 
User avatar
lydh
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 2:37 am

Scarebus34 wrote:
behramjee wrote:
The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.

*78X


Pretty sure it’s 78J?
 
EChid
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:00 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 2:40 am

Scarebus34 wrote:
behramjee wrote:
The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.

*78X

Actually, if you want to get really punctilious, it's:

ICAO = B78X (it's always 4 characters, not 3)
IATA = 781 (always 3)
2018: DRW-PER-HKG-ICN-MEL-AVV-BNE-OOL-SYD-YYZ-YYZ-YUL-YVR-PDX-SEA-SFO-PEK-KIX-CDG-IST-NRT-HND-BKK-FAT; AC J-TK J-OZ F-DL F-TG J/F-NH J/F-CX J-VA J
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 2:52 am

zeke wrote:
behramjee wrote:
The B787-10 can fly 11.5-12 hours maximum with a full payload. Its current longest scheduled flights in S19 and in S20 are TLV-EWR on UA and AMS-SFO on KL.

SIN-SEA is 14 hours 40 minutes block time so unfortunately the B781 cannot operate this route nonstop.


The 787-10 can do around 4000 nm/8 hrs with full payload before being MTOW limited.



And as the payload range chart indicated about 6000nm with full pax and bags. Still, better choices for SIN-YVR.
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
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 3:30 am

YYZORD wrote:
I was comparing the ranges for both the 787-10 and A350-900 from Singapore Changi and I see that Vancouver is in the 787-10 range while Seattle is a bit off the range. Is this why the SIN-SEA route will have a A350-900 instead of the 787-10? Also what is the feasibility for a SIN-YVR route if the 787-10 was viable for that route vs the feasibility of an A350 being used on the same route like SIN-SEA?

Another thing I wanted to mention about SG's fleet is that I saw the A350-900 range borders both ORD and YYZ so I'm confused as to if the aircraft can also fly to those destinations non-stop or would they need an A350ULR like SG uses on SIN-EWR?


No they can not use the 787-10 for YVR-SIN. It's 6923nm, the 787-10 range with 330 pass is only 6430nm.
 
Overthecascades
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 4:23 am

Untrue. Both Hainan Airlines and Xiamen Airlines serve SEA.

leftcoast8 wrote:
-Sea-Tac has only one Chinese carrier at the moment, Hainan, whereas U.S. carriers have given up on India. Emirates and SQ can handle a lot of the high-yielding corporate demand fuelled by the tech industry, whereas YVR is flooded with Chinese carriers that offer cheap 1-stop flights to India (this caters to the mostly working-class Indian population in Vancouver). I presume that the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative (the so-called "$1 trillion New Silk Road") will only increase the Ind-China traffic in the coming years.

There's a lot of business travel between the Puget Sound and India, despite the Indian population of Metro Vancouver being much larger. Most Indo-Canadians in Metro Vancouver came in three or four waves:

1. The early labourers from Punjab who worked on the railroad, and settled in BC

2. Family reunification after the federal government removed immigration quotas in the 1960s. Many were relatives of the original settlers from Punjab.

3. Starting in 1984-85, many Sikh refugees fled anti-Sikh violence in India that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination (which in turn was triggered by the Indian Govt's storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar that June). Most of the refugees ended up settling in in Metro Vancouver. Along with family reunification, this was the main source of Indo-Canadian immigration to Metro Vancouver throughout the 1980s and 90s

4. In the post-9/11 fallout, Parliament passed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, which shifted the focus of Canada's immigration policy from poorer labourers/refugees to more highly-qualified skilled workers. Another motivation for this change were the effects of globalization and technological advances in the 90s and 2000s, as well as Canada's declining birthrate, both contributing to a shortage of labour shortage. Much of the Indian migration to Metro Vancouver since 9/11 has been under the skilled worker class, alongside family reunification.

In modern times, the U.S. has had a much stricter immigration policy than Canada, so not as many Indians ended up settling in the Puget Sound, other than skilled workers in the last 10-15 years. They mostly live in Bellevue/Redmond and work in tech.

The long and short of it is, Vancouver's Indian population = mostly working-class, travel to India is biased towards VFR. Seattle's Indian population = mostly professional, travel to India has more business demand. Also many tech corporations HQ'd in the Puget Sound have offices in India; not many companies HQ'd in BC have a large Indian presence. Most of the corporate demand to India is based around Toronto and the 905 belt.

I'm not sure about demand from Seattle to other major Indian centres (Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai, etc.), nor do I know if there's lots of travel motivated by Seattle's other tech anchors (Expedia, Tableau, Blue Origin, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Stripe, etc.) to India or Singapore. Grab, which has taken SG by storm, has an engineering office at the Columbia Center in downtown Seattle.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 4:51 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
And as the payload range chart indicated about 6000nm with full pax and bags. Still, better choices for SIN-YVR.


A still air range of 6000 nm would not reach Hong Kong let alone SIN which is another 3-4 hours away.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Thu May 16, 2019 4:55 am

rbavfan wrote:
No they can not use the 787-10 for YVR-SIN. It's 6923nm, the 787-10 range with 330 pass is only 6430nm.


With headwinds it is more equivalent to 7500 nm still air range required.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
seahawks7757
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:54 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Sat May 18, 2019 11:25 am

leftcoast8 wrote:


-Sea-Tac has only one Chinese carrier at the moment, Hainan, whereas U.S. carriers have given up on India. Emirates and SQ can handle a lot of the high-yielding corporate demand fuelled by the tech industry, whereas YVR is flooded with Chinese carriers that offer cheap 1-stop flights to India (this caters to the mostly working-class Indian population in Vancouver). I presume that the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative (the so-called "$1 trillion New Silk Road") will only increase the Ind-China traffic in the coming years.



Never mind Xiamen and Cathay Pacific.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 4:49 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
And as the payload range chart indicated about 6000nm with full pax and bags. Still, better choices for SIN-YVR.



Hence why I said better choices. Please read more carefully. Thank you. ;)
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
 
ewt340
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 5:31 am

B787-10 is more a 8-10 hours aircraft if you want to carry normal payload. Just like A330.

For YVR I only see standard A350 though.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 6:36 am

SQ 787-10s don't have the crew rest facilities required for routes >8hours.
Fleet is meant for regional flying not longhaul.
mercure f-wtcc
 
jayunited
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 7:00 pm

zeke wrote:
The 787-10 can do around 4000 nm/8 hrs with full payload before being MTOW limited.


That is not true at all. Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.

The block time for UA85 is 11 hours 9 minutes, so as you can see the 78X is a very capable aircraft it can fly 11 hour missions and take everything while going out with a full load. If this flight had a block time of 12 hours UA could still fly the route with this aircraft but would have to sacrifice some of that 26,089 pounds of cargo. An 8 hour mission would be something like FRA-EWR or BCN-EWR both of which are on the 78X and neither flight is anywhere close to be weight restricted.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 8:45 pm

jayunited wrote:
That is not true at all. Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.

The block time for UA85 is 11 hours 9 minutes, so as you can see the 78X is a very capable aircraft it can fly 11 hour missions and take everything while going out with a full load. If this flight had a block time of 12 hours UA could still fly the route with this aircraft but would have to sacrifice some of that 26,089 pounds of cargo. An 8 hour mission would be something like FRA-EWR or BCN-EWR both of which are on the 78X and neither flight is anywhere close to be weight restricted.


Depends what you mean by "full payload." This TLV-EWR flight went out with full pax/bags and probably with a bulked-out cargo hold, but on a shorter flight the airplane could theoretically have carried another 12 t of cargo--about double what this flight actually carried. At maximum structural payload the 787-10 is a 9-10 hour aircraft. At economically useful real-world loads it's an 11-12-hour aircraft.

Zeke, as an A330/A340 pilot, understands the difference well--the A330/A340 have a very high maximum structural payload that is rarely carried in passenger service.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 8:56 pm

Let's assume that the Maximum Payload is reaching the MZFW 192,777 Kg (425,000 LB) of the airframe which leaves arround 61,234 Kg (135,000LB) of fuel before beeing MTOW 254,011 Kg (560,000 LB) limited. In these conditions the 4000 nm range that Zeke stated doesn't seem off to me.
Last edited by AECM on Wed May 29, 2019 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 11:09 pm

jayunited wrote:
[Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.


As the others have mentioned you have stated your ZFW was 27,665 lb below MZFW as you are MTOW limited.

That is why I say “full payload before being MTOW limited”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like SIN-SEA

Wed May 29, 2019 11:58 pm

I should have added the payload UA85 took of 96772 lb (43903 kg) and the 27665 lb (12551 kg) under maximum structural payload, they were, the A350-900 should be able to carry around that full 787-10 maximum structural payload of around 125,000 lb over a 12 hour sector depending on the airline configuration which will vary the OEW.

Just an example of the flexibility analysis airlines would need to do when looking at aircraft types.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jayunited
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 30, 2019 12:35 am

zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:
[Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.


As the others have mentioned you have stated your ZFW was 27,665 lb below MZFW as you are MTOW limited.

That is why I say “full payload before being MTOW limited”


UA just started flying the 78X between FRA-EWR which does fit your parameters of being around an 8 hour flight. Looking through the history of this flight just from the time its been a 78X I don't see any UA flight coming any where close to MZFW or MTOG, this despite the fact that we've had full cabins, over 350 bags and a few flights have reach 40,000 pounds. I don't see any thing while going through the history that comes close to being weight restricted out of FRA. I also checked BCN-EWR and CDG-EWR, however coming out of BCN on most days its just passengers and bags the most cargo I found was a 12,853 pounds and CDG-EWR with a full passenger and bag count tops out around 21,347 pounds of cargo. I went back to see if UA had at least one flight to match your exact parameters there isn't one yet, the only flight that would come close perhaps later in the summer is FRA-EWR simply because outside of LHR, UA moves a lot of cargo out of FRA on our U.S. bound flights.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13658
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 30, 2019 1:52 am

jayunited wrote:
UA just started flying the 78X between FRA-EWR which does fit your parameters of being around an 8 hour flight. Looking through the history of this flight just from the time its been a 78X I don't see any UA flight coming any where close to MZFW or MTOG, this despite the fact that we've had full cabins, over 350 bags and a few flights have reach 40,000 pounds. I don't see any thing while going through the history that comes close to being weight restricted out of FRA. I also checked BCN-EWR and CDG-EWR, however coming out of BCN on most days its just passengers and bags the most cargo I found was a 12,853 pounds and CDG-EWR with a full passenger and bag count tops out around 21,347 pounds of cargo. I went back to see if UA had at least one flight to match your exact parameters there isn't one yet, the only flight that would come close perhaps later in the summer is FRA-EWR simply because outside of LHR, UA moves a lot of cargo out of FRA on our U.S. bound flights.


That does surprise me that UA are not getting full cargo loads out of FRA. There is a lot more competition and established contracts for freight.

These are not “my” parameters, I simply responded to people claiming above that the 787-10 was lifting maximum payload on that route. Full passenger load, bags, and cargo, and fuel may take you up to MTOW. As demonstrated however reaching the MTOW limited maximum payload, is still well below the maximum payload the aircraft can uplift.

40 tonnes of payload over 8 hrs is nothing that special, 777-200s and A330s have been doing that medium haul for a long time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jayunited
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Can Singapore Airlines Start SIN-YVR With 787-10 or does it need A350-900 like YVR-SEA

Thu May 30, 2019 11:27 am

zeke wrote:
That does surprise me that UA are not getting full cargo loads out of FRA. There is a lot more competition and established contracts for freight.

These are not “my” parameters, I simply responded to people claiming above that the 787-10 was lifting maximum payload on that route. Full passenger load, bags, and cargo, and fuel may take you up to MTOW. As demonstrated however reaching the MTOW limited maximum payload, is still well below the maximum payload the aircraft can uplift.

40 tonnes of payload over 8 hrs is nothing that special, 777-200s and A330s have been doing that medium haul for a long time.


What do you consider full cargo loads? With 40 tonnes and over 300 bags all belly positions are full. Keep in mind UA first and foremost is a passenger carrier, UA isn't going to hold off revenue bags to load cargo, also our cargo sale team isn't going to overload one flight with cargo when they have 9 UA flights to choose from. To find a flight that matches your exact parameters is going to be tuff because with a full passenger load at least 10 of the positions in the containerize cargo pit have to be used for baggage. Also the bulk pit on all 787s is smaller than the bulk pit on a 767, Boeing sacrificed the bulk pit so these aircraft would have more containerized positions. On a UA 777 (any variant) you can easily fit 100-120 bags in the bulk pit (its been done on UA multiple times at some of our international stations). The maximum number of bags I've ever seen on a UA 787 (any variant) is 70. Most domestic and international stations don't like to get anywhere close to 70 planed bags in the bulk pit because your bulking it out the bulk pit and leaving yourself no way out if you should get bags, strollers, or a wheelchair off the jet bridge.

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