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.
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.
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.
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
[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.
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.