VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:37 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
I find it interesting that a year or two ago on a.net some folks were saying the 787-10 could barely fly 4000 nm. How times have changed once the facts come out.

And before folks talk about range at MTOW, the reality is very few flights leave at MTOW.

I think a safe rule of thumb is 35T payload. Maybe 40T. At those payloads the 787-10 is a very capable frame.

And btw....I love the A 350, it is a great plane. But as always there is the balance between fuel efficiency and brute ability to fly a heavy payload a long way. This debate is happening in the Project Sunrise discussion. There is the lighter more fuel efficient A351 versus the heavier but more capable 778. This is the same dynamic. Each type has it's own advantages and disadvantages.


I built an Excel spreadsheet representing 787-10 payload range. It doesn't have any macro so it's safe.

You can modify the MTOW and then play around with the solver (find target value) to find the max range with the 6 tonne MTOW increase.

I think it breaks the psychological barrier of 7,000 nm range with the new MTOW.

Here's the spreadsheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VBBz-Z ... sp=sharing
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:44 pm

VV wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
I find it interesting that a year or two ago on a.net some folks were saying the 787-10 could barely fly 4000 nm. How times have changed once the facts come out.

And before folks talk about range at MTOW, the reality is very few flights leave at MTOW.

I think a safe rule of thumb is 35T payload. Maybe 40T. At those payloads the 787-10 is a very capable frame.

And btw....I love the A 350, it is a great plane. But as always there is the balance between fuel efficiency and brute ability to fly a heavy payload a long way. This debate is happening in the Project Sunrise discussion. There is the lighter more fuel efficient A351 versus the heavier but more capable 778. This is the same dynamic. Each type has it's own advantages and disadvantages.


I built an Excel spreadsheet representing 787-10 payload range. It doesn't have any macro so it's safe.

You can modify the MTOW and then play around with the solver (find target value) to find the max range with the 6 tonne MTOW increase.

Thank you for the excellent information.
I think it breaks the psychological barrier of 7,000 nm range with the new MTOW.

Here's the spreadsheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VBBz-Z ... sp=sharing



Thank you for the excellent information.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:58 pm

Can you explain what the formula for the ZFW is supposed to do ?

What is the background behind the estimated fuel burn formula you have used , (TOW-ZFW)/1.125 ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:17 pm

zeke wrote:
Can you explain what the formula for the ZFW is supposed to do ?

What is the background behind the estimated fuel burn formula you have used , (TOW-ZFW)/1.125 ?



The formula works very well, that's the only thing I need. Look into the different tabs.

As for the fuel burn, it is a very rough empirical estimate based on my past experience helping to sell widebody aircraft in an aircraft manufacturer.

The spreadsheet is mainly for payload-range capability.

With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm.

There is an instruction in the comment section.
https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/bad-weather/
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:53 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
I did not know that the A350-900 is a competitor of the 777-8X

...I mean, an adjustable iteration of it only touts the title of longest-ranged passenger aircraft ever produced; and until recently the two were very publicly pitted against each other to fly the longest nonstop ever realistically proposed. So hmm, why on Earth would people see the two as competing? :roll:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:55 pm

VV wrote:
zeke wrote:
Can you explain what the formula for the ZFW is supposed to do ?

What is the background behind the estimated fuel burn formula you have used , (TOW-ZFW)/1.125 ?



The formula works very well, that's the only thing I need. Look into the different tabs.

As for the fuel burn, it is a very rough empirical estimate based on my past experience helping to sell widebody aircraft in an aircraft manufacturer.

The spreadsheet is mainly for payload-range capability.

With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm.

There is an instruction in the comment section.
https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/bad-weather/


I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm

zeke wrote:
VV wrote:
zeke wrote:
Can you explain what the formula for the ZFW is supposed to do ?

What is the background behind the estimated fuel burn formula you have used , (TOW-ZFW)/1.125 ?



The formula works very well, that's the only thing I need. Look into the different tabs.

As for the fuel burn, it is a very rough empirical estimate based on my past experience helping to sell widebody aircraft in an aircraft manufacturer.

The spreadsheet is mainly for payload-range capability.

With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm.

There is an instruction in the comment section.
https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/bad-weather/


I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.


Fair enough. You can think whatever you want to think.
Perhaps you should also try to learn how to read a ZFW-range diagram.
I wrote, "With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm."

ANZ seems to be happy with that and ordered 8 787-10 (still LoI today, to be firmed on a later date).
https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 0er-fleet/
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:42 pm

zeke wrote:
VV wrote:
zeke wrote:
Can you explain what the formula for the ZFW is supposed to do ?

What is the background behind the estimated fuel burn formula you have used , (TOW-ZFW)/1.125 ?



The formula works very well, that's the only thing I need. Look into the different tabs.

As for the fuel burn, it is a very rough empirical estimate based on my past experience helping to sell widebody aircraft in an aircraft manufacturer.

The spreadsheet is mainly for payload-range capability.

With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm.

There is an instruction in the comment section.
https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/bad-weather/


I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.



A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?

I recognize you do not like the data other poster's have provided, but the fact you do not like the data does not make them wrong. People can disagree. :?
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:06 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
VV wrote:


The formula works very well, that's the only thing I need. Look into the different tabs.

As for the fuel burn, it is a very rough empirical estimate based on my past experience helping to sell widebody aircraft in an aircraft manufacturer.

The spreadsheet is mainly for payload-range capability.

With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm.

There is an instruction in the comment section.
https://verovenia.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/bad-weather/


I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.



A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?

I recognize you do not like the data other poster's have provided, but the fact you do not like the data does not make them wrong. People can disagree. :?

What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.

Everyone should be respectful of the different mindsets brought here.

Every PIP makes an aircraft more competitive. If the 787-10 dies receive'
1. Weight reduction. It should this close to introduction.
2. MTOW increase, should be possible for some. 6T seems ambitious to me, but 6T more fuel should be possible.
3. CMC and other GE OIPs. It is time. However, GE is incredibly short and on the learning curve making CMCs. I hope the yield rates for the GE9x are better than the rumors I hear. New tech is tough...

For myself, these range extensions will sell 787-10s for West coast US to Europe with cargo.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:14 am

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.



A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?

I recognize you do not like the data other poster's have provided, but the fact you do not like the data does not make them wrong. People can disagree. :?

What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.

Everyone should be respectful of the different mindsets brought here.

Every PIP makes an aircraft more competitive. If the 787-10 dies receive'
1. Weight reduction. It should this close to introduction.
2. MTOW increase, should be possible for some. 6T seems ambitious to me, but 6T more fuel should be possible.
3. CMC and other GE OIPs. It is time. However, GE is incredibly short and on the learning curve making CMCs. I hope the yield rates for the GE9x are better than the rumors I hear. New tech is tough...

For myself, these range extensions will sell 787-10s for West coast US to Europe with cargo.

Lightsaber


The ZFW-Range chart and the other data from Boeing's website indicate that 787-10 can carry 310 passengers at 210 lbs over slightly more than 7,000 nm..

It's too bad if some people don't know how to interpret a ZFW-Range diagram. Too bad for them.

What's the problem.?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:29 am

VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?

I recognize you do not like the data other poster's have provided, but the fact you do not like the data does not make them wrong. People can disagree. :?

What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.

Everyone should be respectful of the different mindsets brought here.

Every PIP makes an aircraft more competitive. If the 787-10 dies receive'
1. Weight reduction. It should this close to introduction.
2. MTOW increase, should be possible for some. 6T seems ambitious to me, but 6T more fuel should be possible.
3. CMC and other GE OIPs. It is time. However, GE is incredibly short and on the learning curve making CMCs. I hope the yield rates for the GE9x are better than the rumors I hear. New tech is tough...

For myself, these range extensions will sell 787-10s for West coast US to Europe with cargo.

Lightsaber


The ZFW-Range chart and the other data from Boeing's website indicate that 787-10 can carry 310 passengers at 210 lbs over slightly more than 7,000 nm..

What's the problem.?

Problem? None. The 787-10 and 777-9 are amazing combis. For the missions I listed, they will still need more fuel capacity for the potential payload. If a flight makes an extra mere say $8,000 per day, which is what I estimate in cargo revenue US West coast to Europe, that is about $2.5 million per year or it increases the value of an aircraft by half of a decade's worth. So if the PIPs proposed actually happen, it increases the value of a 787-10 by $12.5 million for half the routes or say $6 million per aircraft

That sells. If Boeing can add the range as projected, I see an additional 800 to 1400 787-10 sales over 15 years due to expanded missions and added revenue

Not a problem, an opportunity to sell enough for two thirds to all of the 787-10 production capability. Not a bad market to expand into....

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:34 am

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

I don’t really care what your previous job was.

You simply cannot get 600nm/75 minutes range out of a 787-10 with its design payload by adding 6 tonnes more fuel.



A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?

I recognize you do not like the data other poster's have provided, but the fact you do not like the data does not make them wrong. People can disagree. :?

What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.

Everyone should be respectful of the different mindsets brought here.

Every PIP makes an aircraft more competitive. If the 787-10 dies receive'
1. Weight reduction. It should this close to introduction.
2. MTOW increase, should be possible for some. 6T seems ambitious to me, but 6T more fuel should be possible.
3. CMC and other GE OIPs. It is time. However, GE is incredibly short and on the learning curve making CMCs. I hope the yield rates for the GE9x are better than the rumors I hear. New tech is tough...

For myself, these range extensions will sell 787-10s for West coast US to Europe with cargo.
The
Lightsaber



As a number of posters have previously stated, neither manufacturer will stand still. I think Airbus has the opportunity to significantly eat into 777X sales if further meaningful PIP's can happen with the a350 program.

You have mentioned several times possible PIP's to the GE's CMC and expected improvement in performance. The combination of engine improvements and possible MTOW and weight reduction with the 787-10 makes this an exciting time for the 787-10. But this is no way diminishes the competition.

This is why a.net exists imho. Both the 787 and A350 have been game changing aircraft. I hope both continue to evolve and improve.
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
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 am

Lets look at the Boeing ACAP document for the 787. It has all the answers.

The current 787-10 can fly 7000nm with 60,000lb or 280 passengers.

The 787-9 can carry 80,000lb 7000nm. Or with the same 60,000lb the 787-9 can fly 8000nm.

So the 787-9 can fly the same payload 1000nm further or carry 33% more payload the same distance.

It is worth noting that the 777 ACAP had the 777-300ER lifting only 70,000lb of payload 7000nm. So the 787-9 has excellent capability. The 787-10 actually has a payload range curve very close to the 777-300ER.

The Boeing ACAP document actually has payload range curves with takeoff weights going up in 20,000lb increments. So we can accurately predict what a 6T MTOW increase could provide.

The 787-9 gained only 550nm from the last 20,000lb increase of MTOW increase. So the 6T increase will increase range by only 350nm. It also shows that the 6T increase will only allow 3T or extra payload as approximately 3T of extra fuel needs to be added to cover the increased fuel burn.

With a premium 3 class cabin of 300 passengers the current 787-10 could probably fly 6800nm still air or 6500nm both ways (headwinds). A 6T increase will see the 787-10 reach 7100nm still air or 6800nm with headwinds.

The 787-10 could now do Sydney to Los Angeles for example. That is very impressive.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:16 am

Nothing diminishes the competition by being excited about a set of PIPs. Each aircraft has a role.

Personally, Boeing rolled the dice increasing 787 to 168 per year as that was a bet also on the 787-10.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-10 could now do Sydney to Los Angeles for example. That is very impressive.

Very exciting. However, I believe the CMC PIP is required for SYD-LAX with the cargo expected on this route.

However the mere fact we are now discussing the plausibility might be due to the amazing PER-LHR performance of the 789.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:02 am

lightsaber wrote:
Very exciting. However, I believe the CMC PIP is required for SYD-LAX with the cargo expected on this route.

Lightsaber

Perhaps that was also why ANZ ordered their B787-10 with GE engines.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:15 am

Can someone here screenshot the payload range graphs from the 787 and A350 ACAPs and host them somewhere as an photo?

It would help people understand the differences.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:26 am

lightsaber wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-10 could now do Sydney to Los Angeles for example. That is very impressive.

Very exciting. However, I believe the CMC PIP is required for SYD-LAX with the cargo expected on this route.

However the mere fact we are now discussing the plausibility might be due to the amazing PER-LHR performance of the 789.

Agreed, people often forget how a bit of extra payload reduces range significantly.

A good example is Jetstar probably couldn't even do SYD-LAX with a 787-9 due to their high density cabin. With 40T payload the 787-9 can only fly 6500nm.

The premium airlines that run fairly low density can get much greater range than the brochure. Qantas cabin density could probably do LAX-SIN with the 787-10 but united cabin density probably couldn't due to the extra few ton of passengers.

Because the 787 has a flatter payload range curve it gains more range as you reduce payload compared to say the 77W. With 50,000lb of payload the 787-10 actually has the same range as the 777-300ER ehich is quite mind blowing.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:48 am

VV wrote:
Perhaps you should also try to learn how to read a ZFW-range diagram.
I wrote, "With 310 passengers, the 787-10 with the rumoured MTOW increase will reach 7,000 nm."


I know how to read them thank you for the condescending comments.

And I reiterate what I stated before, the 787-10 CANNOT do 7000 nm with its design payload, the 787-10 has always been able to do 7000 with less than design payload. That is not something new.

BTW it is nice how you took the best part of 5 tonnes out of the OEW as well as dropping the payload.


VV wrote:
ANZ seems to be happy with that and ordered 8 787-10 (still LoI today, to be firmed on a later date).
https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 0er-fleet/


However NZ are not looking at operating them to IAH which is a current 77E route, just west coast.

ElroyJetson wrote:

A previous poster provided a table of data that stated using Airbus's formula to compute range the existing 787-10 can do 7000 nm still air range. Why would an additional six tons of fuel make it fly less?


Incorrect. Another Boeing fanboy got a table out of flight global when Boeing changed the seat pitch in their from say 38" in first class to something more realistic, and the old range with the old Boeing seat configuration they use Photoshop or some other manipulation software and called that the "Airbus Method". It had nothing to do with what Airbus was doing.

lightsaber wrote:
[What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.


You make it sound as if only GE use CMCs and only GE does engine PIPs ?

Can you be a bit more balanced an say this is the way the industry is going, others already are using CMCs as well.

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets look at the Boeing ACAP document for the 787. It has all the answers.

The current 787-10 can fly 7000nm with 60,000lb or 280 passengers.

The 787-9 can carry 80,000lb 7000nm. Or with the same 60,000lb the 787-9 can fly 8000nm.


It is less than 280 passengers, the chart says 360,000 lb, OEW 300,563, leaves a payload of 26965 kg, or 270 passengers, no cargo.

From the first page of this thread, read 787-10 data.

“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 on a 12 hr sector the 787-10 lifts a total payload of 43.9 tonnes. The A350-900 will lift about 60 tonnes payload over the same flight time. To put this is perspective the A350-900 can do AKL- JFK without even needing MTOW. The 787-10 with the 6 tonne increase would have that sort of payload range for NZ24 AKL-YVR which is 12:50.

Increasing the TOW on the 787-10 will only result in something like another 45 minutes of range, it will burn about 2 tonnes of the 6 tonnes to carry it 12 hours.
Why would you bother then with a 787-10 when the smaller passenger count can be accommodated in a smaller aircraft ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:49 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Can someone here screenshot the payload range graphs from the 787 and A350 ACAPs and host them somewhere as an photo?

It would help people understand the differences.


Here are the docs

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:56 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
There have been multiple media reports regarding NZ recent commitment to purchase eight 787-10 aircraft from Boeing. NZ is stating that after intensive discussion with Boeing they feel the 787-10 can fly any existing 77E route In their network. The statement suggests Boeing has made upgrades to both the 789 and 787-10. Keep in mind that NZ has the 77E currently flying AKL-IAH which is 6448 nm, and also flying AKL- YVR at 6181 nm. If the 787-10 can truly fly these missions that would be a significant upgrade.

Credible media reports are stating Boeing is increasing the 787-10's MTOW by six tons. If true, this would make the 787-10 a true 14 hour plane.

So if Boeing is able to boost payload/range performance for the 787-10 to match the 77E what are the implications for the A359 which has been marketed as a direct 77E replacement?

Do the rumored 787-10 upgrades seriously encroach on the A 359? Is there a place for both frames as a 77E replacement?


No. The rumored 787-10 upgrades do not seriously encroach on the A 359

When the 787-10 was launched it was a 254t and the A350-900 was a 268t aircraft.
The A350-900 is now a 280t aircraft.
A rumoured 260t 787-10 is only following the same trajectory as the A350-900 - if anything to a lesser extent.
The A350 has gained 12t of MTOW - a rumoured 260t 787-10 will have gained only 6t of MTOW, so if anything, the capability gap has widened since the launch of the 787-10

That's without a reminder that a 260t 787-10 is still just a rumour

Rgds
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:09 am

lightsaber wrote:
What excites me the most is GE's CMC PIP. After the GE9x, the GEnX is the next logical application than the leap. This should make the 787-10 a 7200nm aircraft. That is traditionally the near TPAC range. For UA, AA, and SQ that should be quite attractive.

Everyone should be respectful of the different mindsets brought here.

Every PIP makes an aircraft more competitive. If the 787-10 dies receive'
1. Weight reduction. It should this close to introduction.
2. MTOW increase, should be possible for some. 6T seems ambitious to me, but 6T more fuel should be possible.
3. CMC and other GE OIPs. It is time. However, GE is incredibly short and on the learning curve making CMCs. I hope the yield rates for the GE9x are better than the rumors I hear. New tech is tough...

For myself, these range extensions will sell 787-10s for West coast US to Europe with cargo.

Lightsaber


This was something I was wondering about as well. I don't think the MTOW increase is the whole story. We should be expecting a major PiP from GE at least. The GEnX seemed a wee bit behind the later Rolls that launched with the A350. So we should be expecting this to happen. Maybe this PiP is why ANZ went GE..
Last edited by justloveplanes on Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:10 am

RJMAZ wrote:
A good example is Jetstar probably couldn't even do SYD-LAX with a 787-9 due to their high density cabin. With 40T payload the 787-9 can only fly 6500nm.


Jetstar do not have crew rests installed, the aircraft is limited by the human flight time limitations.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:47 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Can someone here screenshot the payload range graphs from the 787 and A350 ACAPs and host them somewhere as an photo?

It would help people understand the differences.


Here are the docs

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

I have both docs. I just want someone to screenshot just the graphs and host the images so they can have the images embedded into a post. It would be a great way helping describe the advantages having both payload range charts side by side. As thet say a picture is worth a thousand words.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:49 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets look at the Boeing ACAP document for the 787. It has all the answers.

The current 787-10 can fly 7000nm with 60,000lb or 280 passengers.

The 787-9 can carry 80,000lb 7000nm. Or with the same 60,000lb the 787-9 can fly 8000nm.

So the 787-9 can fly the same payload 1000nm further or carry 33% more payload the same distance.

It is worth noting that the 777 ACAP had the 777-300ER lifting only 70,000lb of payload 7000nm. So the 787-9 has excellent capability. The 787-10 actually has a payload range curve very close to the 777-300ER.

The Boeing ACAP document actually has payload range curves with takeoff weights going up in 20,000lb increments. So we can accurately predict what a 6T MTOW increase could provide.

The 787-9 gained only 550nm from the last 20,000lb increase of MTOW increase. So the 6T increase will increase range by only 350nm. It also shows that the 6T increase will only allow 3T or extra payload as approximately 3T of extra fuel needs to be added to cover the increased fuel burn.

With a premium 3 class cabin of 300 passengers the current 787-10 could probably fly 6800nm still air or 6500nm both ways (headwinds). A 6T increase will see the 787-10 reach 7100nm still air or 6800nm with headwinds.

The 787-10 could now do Sydney to Los Angeles for example. That is very impressive.



So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. They was no statement made that the 787-10 would not or could not do AKL-IAH despite what another poster stated.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:08 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. .


No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:11 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. .


No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.



Yes on both counts. Try again. Boeing spreadsheet data provided. No problem with a 6T increase in MTOW. RJMAZ provided the data direct from Boeing. If you don't like Boeing's data i would take it up with them.

Remember, UA flew the 787-10 from IAD-PEK westbound. Not hypothetical.....real world.
And ANZ has never said they would not fly the 787-10 AKL-IAH. I provided a link to the direct statement by ANZ's CEO. They may choose to initially deploy to the west coast, but AKL-YVR is 6181 nm and that is West coast.

What was said is that the 787-10 can fly their current 77E missions. Specifically "we have ensured the 787-10 can fly out current 777-200 missions.". So AKL-IAH is one of their 77E flights. I have no reason to believe NZ is lying. But you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:16 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. .


No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.

This is what Air NZ actually said about the order, it's all from their own press release.

"The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we've ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet."

"These new long-haul aircraft will replace Air New Zealand's fleet of eight 777-200 aircraft, which will be phased out by 2025."

press release:
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... reamliners


These 787-10s are a 77E replacement, this will happen within 3 years after the 1st 787-10 is delivered, not 8 years. They only said the 787-10 will fly similar missions to their 77Es. Which means that they haven't said anything specifically about the range, something that has already been noticed several times in this thread. We don't know what the improvements actually will be, it's all a theoretical discussion (like most of the times) about specifications that are unknown to us (on both sides of the discussion).
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:16 am

The point is that the 787-10 has just increased its range by about 350 nm or so or has just increased its payload capability by about 4 tonnes at its previous max range.

Just like one poster mentioned above, it has just improved its attractiveness considering the aircraft has a good economics compared to some others on routes where 787-10 can fly.

Its capability covers more than 90% of current existing widebody routes and it can do them with good economics.
That's the "issue".

As of today, there are about 173 firm orders for the 787-10, but this number will go up slowly, despite possible future cancellations.

That's the conclusion.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:29 am

Momo1435 wrote:
These 787-10s are a 77E replacement, this will happen within 3 years after the 1st 787-10 is delivered, not 8 years. They only said the 787-10 will fly similar missions to their 77Es. Which means that they haven't said anything specifically about the range, something that has already been noticed several times in this thread. We don't know what the improvements actually will be, it's all a theoretical discussion (like most of the times) about specifications that are unknown to us (on both sides of the discussion).


First 787-10 in 2022, 8 aircraft over 5 years. 2027-2019 is 8 years, they are keeping the 77E for another 6 years.

NZ said similar routes to the 77E, not the same.

"Here’s a comparison of some of the specs of the three variants:

Image

6,430 nautical miles is about 7,400 miles. This is sufficient range for them to operate flights from Auckland to Australia, Asia, and select destinations in North America. For example, they could fly the 787-10 to Los Angeles and San Francisco, but not to Chicago and Houston, and Vancouver would probably be a stretch too with strong winds.

What’s interesting is this quote from Air New Zealand’s CEO:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”"

from https://onemileatatime.com/air-new-zeal ... ng-787-10/
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:06 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. .


No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.



Yes on both counts. Try again. Boeing spreadsheet data provided. No problem with a 6T increase in MTOW. RJMAZ provided the data direct from Boeing. If you don't like Boeing's data i would take it up with them.

Remember, UA flew the 787-10 from IAD-PEK westbound. Not hypothetical.....real world.
And ANZ has never said they would not fly the 787-10 AKL-IAH. I provided a link to the direct statement by ANZ's CEO. They may choose to initially deploy to the west coast, but AKL-YVR is 6181 nm and that is West coast.

What was said is that the 787-10 can fly their current 77E missions. Specifically "we have ensured the 787-10 can fly out current 777-200 missions.". So AKL-IAH is one of their 77E flights. I have no reason to believe NZ is lying. But you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like.


How many times B781 operated UA807 IAD-PEK flight? And what payload?

If you look at the flight history on FR24 isince 10.mar.2019 it is B788 route and if UA used B781 it was with pax payload equivalent to 788, because it was swapped for technical or operational reason but B781 was not scheduled for the flight.

UA807 is 13h everage flight time and if you carry normal payload of 788 it shoul be 30T? It is not breath taking if A359 can carry on same distance 50-55T?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6888
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:36 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. .


No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.



Yes on both counts. Try again. Boeing spreadsheet data provided. No problem with a 6T increase in MTOW. RJMAZ provided the data direct from Boeing. If you don't like Boeing's data i would take it up with them.

Remember, UA flew the 787-10 from IAD-PEK westbound. Not hypothetical.....real world.
And ANZ has never said they would not fly the 787-10 AKL-IAH. I provided a link to the direct statement by ANZ's CEO. They may choose to initially deploy to the west coast, but AKL-YVR is 6181 nm and that is West coast.

What was said is that the 787-10 can fly their current 77E missions. Specifically "we have ensured the 787-10 can fly out current 777-200 missions.". So AKL-IAH is one of their 77E flights. I have no reason to believe NZ is lying. But you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like.


They said similar routes not all end of story, it will need a true ER version to do IAH, EZE could be a problem aswell, not sure yet.

However given the 77W isn’t going anywhere I’d expect them to continue operating LAX/LHR/SFO while they are in the fleet with the new 78J deployed mainly to Asia and 789s sent to YVR/IAH/EZE, I’m quite certain however that when the time comes for a 77W replacement that the 78J will be chosen and then used to LAX/SFO, maybe by then it will have more range again.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:36 am

Mrakula wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

No on both counts

AKL-IAH yes, tailwinds reduce the air nautical miles. NZ29 IAH-AKL is 14-15 hr flight with headwinds.

The NZ CEO said the 787-10 will be deployed on west coast routes and Asia. They are planning something like 8 years to bring them in, and plan on keeping the 77E as they do.

This is no sudden 77E replacement plan.



Yes on both counts. Try again. Boeing spreadsheet data provided. No problem with a 6T increase in MTOW. RJMAZ provided the data direct from Boeing. If you don't like Boeing's data i would take it up with them.

Remember, UA flew the 787-10 from IAD-PEK westbound. Not hypothetical.....real world.
And ANZ has never said they would not fly the 787-10 AKL-IAH. I provided a link to the direct statement by ANZ's CEO. They may choose to initially deploy to the west coast, but AKL-YVR is 6181 nm and that is West coast.

What was said is that the 787-10 can fly their current 77E missions. Specifically "we have ensured the 787-10 can fly out current 777-200 missions.". So AKL-IAH is one of their 77E flights. I have no reason to believe NZ is lying. But you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like.


How many times B781 operated UA807 IAD-PEK flight? And what payload?

If you look at the flight history on FR24 isince 10.mar.2019 it is B788 route and if UA used B781 it was with pax payload equivalent to 788, because it was swapped for technical or operational reason but B781 was not scheduled for the flight.

UA807 is 13h everage flight time and if you carry normal payload of 788 it shoul be 30T? It is not breath taking if A359 can carry on same distance 50-55T?


Who needs 50-55 t ???
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:41 am

zeke wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
These 787-10s are a 77E replacement, this will happen within 3 years after the 1st 787-10 is delivered, not 8 years. They only said the 787-10 will fly similar missions to their 77Es. Which means that they haven't said anything specifically about the range, something that has already been noticed several times in this thread. We don't know what the improvements actually will be, it's all a theoretical discussion (like most of the times) about specifications that are unknown to us (on both sides of the discussion).


First 787-10 in 2022, 8 aircraft over 5 years. 2027-2019 is 8 years, they are keeping the 77E for another 6 years.

NZ said similar routes to the 77E, not the same.

"Here’s a comparison of some of the specs of the three variants:

Image

6,430 nautical miles is about 7,400 miles. This is sufficient range for them to operate flights from Auckland to Australia, Asia, and select destinations in North America. For example, they could fly the 787-10 to Los Angeles and San Francisco, but not to Chicago and Houston, and Vancouver would probably be a stretch too with strong winds.

What’s interesting is this quote from Air New Zealand’s CEO:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”"

from https://onemileatatime.com/air-new-zeal ... ng-787-10/

And still Air NZ says that the 77E will be gone in 2025, not 2027. This means that they are only planning to have both the 777-200 and the 787-10 in their fleet together for 3 years. So yes it's not as you said a sudden replacement, but it's not as slow as you make it out to be. And yes, the 787-10 is the replacement of the 777-200 at Air NZ, even if the missions don't match up exactly the same.


And I already said that we don't know exactly what they mean with similar routes to the 77E, that's open to discussion. And because we don't know the details yet on how exactly Boeing is going to improve the 787-10 it's not really worth to very specific details. But it's obvious that an improved 787-10, which is much closer to the 77E will be an even better replacement then the current version. Just like the later versions of the A333 was already a much better alternative to the 77E then the early A333s.

We just need to wait on more detailed info on the improvements to know exactly how this will effect specific business cases.
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:04 am

When you look into the fuel efficiency on per seat basis of the 787-10, you can see there are not so many aircraft with a better efficiency for routes up to about 6,600 nm.

It is however interesting to note that the total order of the 787-10 hovers at around 175 aircraft since its launch in 2013. On average it is 30 orders per year.

Considering its efficiency on per seat basis, it is very likely the aircraft will attract more orders.
It is strange there are not more orders today.

It is true that the 787-10 production rate is still relatively low, but I guess it will ramp up a little bit more.
Is there any relationship between the amount of 787-10 orders and the current production rate?
I mean I am wondering if Boeing is not pushing hard to sell more 787-10 until its production can increase.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:26 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


Yes on both counts. Try again. Boeing spreadsheet data provided. No problem with a 6T increase in MTOW. RJMAZ provided the data direct from Boeing. If you don't like Boeing's data i would take it up with them.

Remember, UA flew the 787-10 from IAD-PEK westbound. Not hypothetical.....real world.
And ANZ has never said they would not fly the 787-10 AKL-IAH. I provided a link to the direct statement by ANZ's CEO. They may choose to initially deploy to the west coast, but AKL-YVR is 6181 nm and that is West coast.

What was said is that the 787-10 can fly their current 77E missions. Specifically "we have ensured the 787-10 can fly out current 777-200 missions.". So AKL-IAH is one of their 77E flights. I have no reason to believe NZ is lying. But you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like.


How many times B781 operated UA807 IAD-PEK flight? And what payload?

If you look at the flight history on FR24 isince 10.mar.2019 it is B788 route and if UA used B781 it was with pax payload equivalent to 788, because it was swapped for technical or operational reason but B781 was not scheduled for the flight.

UA807 is 13h everage flight time and if you carry normal payload of 788 it shoul be 30T? It is not breath taking if A359 can carry on same distance 50-55T?


Who needs 50-55 t ???


There are a lot more operators of A359 then B781. Ask them :-)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:26 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
So with a 6T increase in MTOW the 787-10 should be able to do AKL-IAH in both directions at a flight distance of 6444 nm without a problem.

And again the ANZ CEO said the 787-10 should be able to do most any mission of their currently existing 77E fleet. They was no statement made that the 787-10 would not or could not do AKL-IAH despite what another poster stated.

Maybe, That range was with 60,000lb of payload. Qantas density.

ANZ runs a fairly dense cabin. So they would most likely have 70,000lb of payload dropping range 300-400nm. So it would not be able to fly 6444nm against the headwind.
 
marcelh
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:43 am

VV wrote:
When you look into the fuel efficiency on per seat basis of the 787-10, you can see there are not so many aircraft with a better efficiency for routes up to about 6,600 nm.

It is however interesting to note that the total order of the 787-10 hovers at around 175 aircraft since its launch in 2013. On average it is 30 orders per year.

Considering its efficiency on per seat basis, it is very likely the aircraft will attract more orders.
It is strange there are not more orders today.

It is true that the 787-10 production rate is still relatively low, but I guess it will ramp up a little bit more.
Is there any relationship between the amount of 787-10 orders and the current production rate?
I mean I am wondering if Boeing is not pushing hard to sell more 787-10 until its production can increase.


The 78X is efficient when you can fill the seats. Otherwise, the 789 is a better choice.
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:02 am

marcelh wrote:
VV wrote:
When you look into the fuel efficiency on per seat basis of the 787-10, you can see there are not so many aircraft with a better efficiency for routes up to about 6,600 nm.

It is however interesting to note that the total order of the 787-10 hovers at around 175 aircraft since its launch in 2013. On average it is 30 orders per year.

Considering its efficiency on per seat basis, it is very likely the aircraft will attract more orders.
It is strange there are not more orders today.

It is true that the 787-10 production rate is still relatively low, but I guess it will ramp up a little bit more.
Is there any relationship between the amount of 787-10 orders and the current production rate?
I mean I am wondering if Boeing is not pushing hard to sell more 787-10 until its production can increase.


The 78X is efficient when you can fill the seats. Otherwise, the 789 is a better choice.


You can say the same between 787-9 and 787-8. Or between A350-900 and A350-1000 and 777-9 and so on.

Your argument does not make much sens.

If ANZ chose 787-10 it is probably because they think they can fill the aircraft since they already know what the average 777-200ER's load factor is in their network.

I know in this discussion forum it is all about writing down stuff, but time to time I find things are a little bit weird.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:13 am

VV, I think that is funny that you are so dismissing about the A220 mtow bump, and that for you the 789-10 mtow bump would be the better thing since sliced bread ;)
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:35 am

As zeke has repeatedly pointed out, this 6t bump will have no effect whatsoever on the a359s market. It does bring a very useful lift upgrade for existing operators but still falls far short of the a350-900's capabilities. From the figures posted in another thread, the 787-10 can lift 43t over 11 and 10 mins hours(tlv-ewr). Another 6t will improve this to 12:00hrs. The a350-900 with the latest mods lifts 45t over 14.5hrs and close to 60t for a 11.5hr sector. Even when you consider that the 787-10 figures quoted above were probably with highly conservative rules which most U.S carriers follow, the a350-900 still has a substantial advantage with the fuel burn per hour being a wash despite the additional capabilities.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:35 am

. . . . . . Delete..
Last edited by keesje on Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:36 am

Thank you for an entertaining discussion. There's a bit of arrogance, conditions selection, half truths in there but that's acceptable.

Who truly believes in long haul WB flights without 10-15t of cargo or CEO's to be taken literary.. :beady:

Thanks VV for sharing an xls with his insights. That's nice / value adding.

I think everybody over the last 15 years could see the 787-10 is compromized on payload-range. The 777-8 too, on the other side, so Airbus took over a string of big 777 operators with their inbetween A350s.

In my opinion it makes total sense for Boeing to invest in a 787-10 payload range. We discussed the topic for years on this site. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339277#p19010353

I remember the wing of the 787-9/-10 was specified bigger originally. That's going to hunt a long haul 787-10 from hot, cargo heavy Asian and ME airports. I expect Boeing overtime to do some serious mods in the wing area.

When A350s are filling the skies and airlines remain shy on the heavy 777-8, that will convince Boeing management to assign development resources to the 787 program.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
VV
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:49 am

Olddog wrote:
VV, I think that is funny that you are so dismissing about the A220 mtow bump, and that for you the 789-10 mtow bump would be the better thing since sliced bread ;)


It is a little bit off topic, but since you mention it I would like to express my rationale here.

787-10 case

The case of this rumored 6 tonnes MTOW increase for the 787-10 is obviously very specific for ANZ campaign. It looks like there is at least one route in their network that needs an MTOW bump to get an economically viable payload. The route could be LAX-AKL or SEA-AKL, I do not know because I do not work in an aircraft manufacturer anymore.

It is very likely the increased MTOW is absolutely needed to win the campaign against the A350-1000 or A350-900. Again I know nothing about it.

In essence, the MTOW increase is not necessarily needed by most other airlines. For instance, I am prety sure Singapore Airlines does not bother requesting the rumored higher MTOW because they already have A350-900 along with their 787-10. One will cover the other when the range is needed.

So, this MTOW increase by 6 tonnes is not a big deal except for ANZ's sales and maybe for a very few number of exceptions in the future. As previously mentioned, the 787-10's capability already covers more than 90% of current existing widebody routes. It is of prime importance Boeing keeps the modification to the 787-10, if any, at a very minimum level.

For the remaining other routes that need more performing aircraft, ANZ can opt for A350, 777-9 or 777-8. As you probably know, ANZ still has 8 777-300ER to replace in the future.

A220 case

Recently Airbus announced the increase of A220's MTOW by 5,000 lb or 2.3 tonnes, increasing its maximum range way above 3,000 nm.

The reality is that only 3% of routes currently operated by aircraft with fewer than 150 seats is above 2,000 nm. Only 1% of current routes operated by aircraft with fewer than 150 seats is above 2,500 nm.

So the MTOW increase for the A220 does not add anything to its attractiveness. On the contrary, it only shows that the aircraft has not been optimized for its current capacity. A stretch of the A220-300 will obviously be very attractive because its range will be around 2,500 nm and its economics will be much better than A320neo or 737 MAX 8.

Announcing an MTOW increase of 5,000 lb for the CS100 and CS300 today is only a waste of time and money unless if they want to launch the stretch next year.

And yes, I dismiss the importance of the 5,000 lb MTOW increase for the CS100 and CS300. I insist.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:51 am

Mrakula wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

How many times B781 operated UA807 IAD-PEK flight? And what payload?

If you look at the flight history on FR24 isince 10.mar.2019 it is B788 route and if UA used B781 it was with pax payload equivalent to 788, because it was swapped for technical or operational reason but B781 was not scheduled for the flight.

UA807 is 13h everage flight time and if you carry normal payload of 788 it shoul be 30T? It is not breath taking if A359 can carry on same distance 50-55T?


Who needs 50-55 t ???


There are a lot more operators of A359 then B781. Ask them :-)


... And there are many operators who have used more A330 since the launch of the A350-900.

And as the 787-10 is getting closer to the design range of the A330-300/-900's

The 787-10 is certainly between the 777-200ER and A330-300 / -900 in range today

So, I see a potential market of 1,200 aircrafts for the 787-10 in the next 20 years for 90% of routes ... :roll:

One more time, who needs 50-55 t???
Answer : Very few airlines when you compared A330's VS A359 orders since 15 last years!

My conclusion is that the A350-900 will slow down in terms of orders (we are already seeing it today) while the 787-10 orders grows as it anticipates clearly the future market needs :roll:
 
Dupli
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:42 am

Checklist787 wrote:

... And there are many operators who have used more A330 since the launch of the A350-900.

And as the 787-10 is getting closer to the design range of the A330-300/-900's

The 787-10 is certainly between the 777-200ER and A330-300 / -900 in range today

So, I see a potential market of 1,200 aircrafts for the 787-10 in the next 20 years for 90% of routes ... :roll:

One more time, who needs 50-55 t???
Answer : Very few airlines when you compared A330's VS A359 orders since 15 last years!

My conclusion is that the A350-900 will slow down in terms of orders (we are already seeing it today) while the 787-10 orders grows as it anticipates clearly the future market needs :roll:


I can't follow your logic.

Either the market is not there, and both will not sell. Either the market is there and both will sell.

Unless you assume the a350 is vastly different (or inferior) to the 787. Is that what your are saying? Where is the proof?
Last edited by Dupli on Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
marcelh
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:48 am

VV wrote:
marcelh wrote:
VV wrote:
When you look into the fuel efficiency on per seat basis of the 787-10, you can see there are not so many aircraft with a better efficiency for routes up to about 6,600 nm.

It is however interesting to note that the total order of the 787-10 hovers at around 175 aircraft since its launch in 2013. On average it is 30 orders per year.

Considering its efficiency on per seat basis, it is very likely the aircraft will attract more orders.
It is strange there are not more orders today.

It is true that the 787-10 production rate is still relatively low, but I guess it will ramp up a little bit more.
Is there any relationship between the amount of 787-10 orders and the current production rate?
I mean I am wondering if Boeing is not pushing hard to sell more 787-10 until its production can increase.


The 78X is efficient when you can fill the seats. Otherwise, the 789 is a better choice.


You can say the same between 787-9 and 787-8. Or between A350-900 and A350-1000 and 777-9 and so on.

Your argument does not make much sense.

That’s an opinion. But KLM is going to put 50 seats more in the -10, compared to the -9 and will be the second largest plane in their fleet when the 747 is gone. It isn’t a “small” plane and is less an allrounder as the -9
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:24 am

Let's stop assuming WB flights in the 4000-7000NM don't need revenue cargo from hot places in Asia. Let's assume 15t.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:33 am

VV wrote:
ANZ decided to take the 787-10 because it can do almost all 777-200ER's missions at ANZ with a much-much better economics.


No they said "787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet".

Notice how they said meet our network needs first ?

While the 787-10 will be capable of operating to North America with payloads below the specification design payload (330 passengers and bags only, no cargo), I see their real use being to free up 787-9s from other routes and deploying the 787-9s elsewhere across the network. There is no need or justification to send a 787-10 long haul regularly where it is carrying around empty seats where a 787-9 could do the route with the limited 787-10 payload plus cargo and does not need to carry around the extra empty fuselage.

There may well be seasonal loads as well, where the 787-10 can do North America with a tailwind with good pax and cargo, and doesn't have a high passenger load on the return leg.

I have said from the outset I think NZ would go with the 787-8/1/10, it made no sense to add a small subfleet of A350s when they already had 13 787-9s. But people like yourself are taking this way out of proportion to suggest the 787-10 has turned into a genuine long haul aircraft. Sure it can do some long haul sectors, but it will not ne very flexible.

VV wrote:
It is all written in their press release and also in the press article below.
https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 0er-fleet/


I have read that article several times now, it has nothing new to offer anyone, it is the same information that was in Flight Global after the order was announced.

Checklist787 wrote:
Who needs 50-55 t ???


Thats the sort of capability you need to be able to lift around 250-300 pax and 20 tonnes of freight.

marcelh wrote:
The 78X is efficient when you can fill the seats. Otherwise, the 789 is a better choice.


My analysis is this is passenger revenue driven. Even on a shorter route like AKL-HKG the 789 will lift more payload than the 78X.

I ran some flight plans with todays conditions, maximum payload over YVR-AKL and AKL-HKG

YVR-AKL,Payload,Trip Fuel

A350-900,50.1,81.7
B787-10,30.9,74.2
B787-9,37.3,74.2
B777-200ER,44.5,96.1


AKK-HKG,Payload,

A350-900,60.7,65.5
B787-10,48,61.8
B787-9,50.9,60.8
B777-200ER,58.6,77.6

VV wrote:
[For instance, I am prety sure Singapore Airlines does not bother requesting the rumored higher MTOW because they already have A350-900 along with their 787-10.


SQ do not have crew rests in the 787-10s, like the Jetstar 787s mentioned earlier, the operational limitation of their aircraft is the human flight time limitations.

Checklist787 wrote:
One more time, who needs 50-55 t???
Answer : Very few airlines when you compared A330's VS A359 orders since 15 last years!


Cargo pallets normally weight around 6 tonnes in my experience with general freight. An A330 would have around 200-250 passengers with 3 pallets, giving around 40 tonnes payload. The A350-900 would also be 250-300 pax with 3-4 pallets, around 50 tonnes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:36 am

Checklist787 wrote:
90% of routes ... :roll:

One more time, who needs 50-55 t???
Answer : Very few airlines when you compared A330's VS A359 orders since 15 last years!


Checklist787, most A350 / 787 leave close to MTOW. You know the passenger load, fuel, OEW. The difference towards MTOW is cargo. So if you put in 300 passengers (30t) but can add 15t of cargo and still do that 12 hours flight with reserves, headwinds from a hot airport, that weighs in heavily for operators.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:46 am

Dupli wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

... And there are many operators who have used more A330 since the launch of the A350-900.

And as the 787-10 is getting closer to the design range of the A330-300/-900's

The 787-10 is certainly between the 777-200ER and A330-300 / -900 in range today

So, I see a potential market of 1,200 aircrafts for the 787-10 in the next 20 years for 90% of routes ... :roll:

One more time, who needs 50-55 t???
Answer : Very few airlines when you compared A330's VS A359 orders since 15 last years!

My conclusion is that the A350-900 will slow down in terms of orders (we are already seeing it today) while the 787-10 orders grows as it anticipates clearly the future market needs :roll:


I can't follow your logic.

Either the market is not there, and both will not sell. Either the market is there and both will sell.

Unless you assume the a350 is vastly different (or inferior) to the 787. Is that what your are saying? Where is the proof?


Your question is relevant.

The reason is that the 787 is more in the A330s class than the A350's / 777's class

The A330 has a lower range than the A359 / 789 and 772ER while the 787-10 rather join the A333 / 339 lower range

There is nothing to say that the 787-10 will not satisfy a replacement and growth market in the next 20 years

Believing the opposite is simply unthinkable... :duck:

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