Hi,

I've seen UA has now started to operate its SFO-AKL flight with a 787-10. With flight times of up to 12:55' hours on the headwind Westbound sector and apparently absolutely no PAX load restrictions as all recent flights appear to have left SFO with full cabins (only an average of 8-10 empty seats). Assuming they still have to keep an extra hour of fuel for a possible diversion, I'm quite amazed to see this performance for the 787-10 that was originally given as a US East Coast to Europe workhorse and certainly not an ULR model. Of course, I don't have a clue regarding the cargo load UA is having on this route where the 77W used to operate.

I also read on Wiki this about NZ's 781 orders: "To replace Air New Zealand’s 777-200 fleet, Boeing wants to increase the 787-10 MTOW by over 13,000 lb (6 t) to 572,000 lb (260 t) with some reinforcements and updated fuel systems. This would allow more range, like the 5,600 nmi (10,400 km) trip from Auckland to Los Angeles with no passenger restrictions and some cargo. The increased performance could trickle down to the 787-9, allowing Auckland to New York flight". --> LAX-AKL is still shorter than SFO-AKL, strange.

My question is: is the 781 a possible 777 killer and also a real long-hauler like the A350-1000 is ? What is its absolute limit in its current variant ? Can it fly even longer at full load ?

Thanks for your answers.

Payload range chart says it’ll run out of fuel volume at just over 8000nm regardless of MTOW with act would do about 9300nm with 0 payload.

Normal (330pax?) gets you to 6400nm I believe.

An extra 6t MTOW would likely get you just under an hour cruising time and so add about 450nm to any current, non fuel volume limited flight and you’d have a good enough guess.

With regards to it being a true ULR machine like the A350-1000 it is extremely unlikely as the MTOW required would be extremely high (300t +) tondo the same routes wich the current frame really isn’t capable of (structurally and aerodynamically).

Do you have a link for the 260t rumour? We hear a lot about it on here but everything seems to circle back to rumours borne on a.net.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flying Belgian wrote:

My question is: is the 781 a possible 777 killer and also a real long-hauler like the A350-1000 is ? What is its absolute limit in its current variant ? Can it fly even longer at full load ?

Thanks for your answers.

Simple answer is no, the 787-10 will not match the capability of the A350-1000, the latter lifts above 20 tonnes more payload.

NZ clarified later it will not use the 777-10 to replace all 77E routes, and likely the 8x787-10s will only go as far as Asia. NZ have said they are still looking at the 777-X and A350 for their long haul replacement aircraft.

The NZ MOU was some time ago now, nothing from Boeing at all on a 6 tonne MTOW increase.

The 787-10 is fine on these sort of routes if all you have is passenger payload. It is no good if you want to carry cargo also.

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

Sure you could, however look at the pavement loading of the 787 it is already at the highest level. Any weight increase would also include a triple axle gear and something similar to the 777 for tail strike protection.

Flying Belgian wrote:

With flight times of up to 12:55' hours on the headwind Westbound.

Are these scheduled times or real times?



Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

The 787-10 weighs about 135t empty so if you add a full tank of fuel as it stands (101t) then you are only left with ~18t before you hit the MTOW. That’s about 185 pax which for a frame the size of the 787-10 isnt very much, if you added more fuel volume you’d only ever use it with a lower payload.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the moment, UA has the lowest seat count on the B787-10 with 318 seats. SQ,EY,BR,KL have 331-344 seats in their B787-10.

Soon, BA will introduce the B787-10 with only 256 seats (F/J/Y+/Y) which is 60-90 seats less than the other operators (5-8 tonnes less pax and baggage). We keep hearing that the B787-10 will be the new main workhorse on LON-NYC but with a high premium seat count and very long range one would think that BA should use the B787-10 on its longest premium demand routes... unless the huge cargo capacity is the main reason it will fly mostly LON-NYC.

BA's use of the B787-10 will be very interesting to follow.

So which is the longest current route for the 787-10?

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

This really annoys me. I see posts like this every week.

The 787-10 standard fuel tanks aren't even full with a normal passenger load. It doesn't need extra fuel tanks to fly further it can simply fill the standard tanks up to a higher level.

The 787-10 is MTOW limited. With 300 passengers onboard the standard fuel tanks can only be filled to 85% capacity and at that point it is at MTOW. To fill the fuel tanks up to full capacity the 787-10 would need to have only 150 passengers onboard. Even with a 6t MTOW increase the 787-10 would not be able to fill the existing fuel tanks with any realistic payload.

It is the 787-9 that might become fuel limited with the rumoured 6t MTOW increase.

Flying Belgian wrote:

My question is: is the 781 a possible 777 killer and also a real long-hauler like the A350-1000 is ?

Absolutely not.

The 7810 is great for 777-200 and less-demanding 777-200ER missions.

If you need the top-end of the 777-200ER's range or even more range, there's the A350-900.

Air NZ are geographically lucky because all of their "big" destinations are pacific rim cities within a 787-10's range (here's a graph: http://www.gcmap.com/dist?P=AKL-SFO;+AK ... =nm&SU=mph). The jet can make those routes, at least in terms of passengers (if you add cargo things become a bit more difficult, but NZ has 787-9s as well).

Clearly NZ considered cargo demand when replacing the 777-200ERs, and they concluded the A350-900 was Too Much Plane for them.

But the 787-10 cannot replace the top-end of 777-200ER performance, so only airlines which don't need the 777-200ER's full performance but do need its capacity will want to get the 787-10. Fortunately, that's actually a lot of airlines.

The 777-300 might be replaceable by the 787-10 if slot restrictions aren't a factor and frequency upgauges are preferred.

The 777-300ER cannot be replaced by the 787-10 (unless the airline with 777-300ERs had a huge Too Much Plane problem with them). The 787-10 hauls a substantially smaller number of people across substantially smaller distances. If you want a 777-300ER replacement, go to Airbus and ask for an A350-1000.

The 787-10 will sell fantastically. It will essentially become the new A330-300 (workhorse jet of crowded air corridors for flights of around 8-11 hours for the most part). It covers the 777-200 and most of the 777-200ER mission profile whilst also having great commonality with the 787-9. Its a great jet.

But it isn't a replacement for 777-300ERs. For that, you need an A350-1000.

EY operated a 787-10 AUH-BNE on November 19. Whether weight restricted...light load..I have no clue. Just over 7400m

Hi. Would the plane be a profitable choice for TG and its intra asian / european routes with a cabin configuration akin to UA. Same for KL. Their flights to LHR are always full on since it doungauged from 2x A380s and i think itll be a solid capacity plane for its Australia, possibly restarting CDG and AMS as well.

CRJ900 wrote:

At the moment, UA has the lowest seat count on the B787-10 with 318 seats. SQ,EY,BR,KL have 331-344 seats in their B787-10.

Soon, BA will introduce the B787-10 with only 256 seats (F/J/Y+/Y) which is 60-90 seats less than the other operators (5-8 tonnes less pax and baggage). We keep hearing that the B787-10 will be the new main workhorse on LON-NYC but with a high premium seat count and very long range one would think that BA should use the B787-10 on its longest premium demand routes... unless the huge cargo capacity is the main reason it will fly mostly LON-NYC.

BA's use of the B787-10 will be very interesting to follow.

Regarding BA, yes the 787-10 is coming in a very premium config. The first two routes are LHR-ATL and LHR-SEA, presumably as one aircraft can operate within a day so easy to schedule.

As for NYC it’s the 777-300ER going to be dominating that with the new incredibly premium to Door 4 configuration with just 254 seats (less than 787-10), 8F/76J/40W/130Y config.

The 787-10 has the range to do ALL BAs routes so expect it on some of the premium destinations probably taking over 777-200ERs. We will wait and see I suppose, 6/12 of BAs arriving next year.

Scotron12 wrote:

EY operated a 787-10 AUH-BNE on November 19. Whether weight restricted...light load..I have no clue. Just over 7400m

It was an equipment swap from the regular B789 so yes would've been a very light load

jacobchoi wrote:

Hi. Would the plane be a profitable choice for TG and its intra asian / european routes with a cabin configuration akin to UA. Same for KL. Their flights to LHR are always full on since it doungauged from 2x A380s and i think itll be a solid capacity plane for its Australia, possibly restarting CDG and AMS as well.

I don’t see why TG could not consolidate their fleet and just have 787-9/10

They could get rid off all of their Airbus widebodies.

RJMAZ wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

This really annoys me. I see posts like this every week.

The 787-10 standard fuel tanks aren't even full with a normal passenger load. It doesn't need extra fuel tanks to fly further it can simply fill the standard tanks up to a higher level.

The 787-10 is MTOW limited. With 300 passengers onboard the standard fuel tanks can only be filled to 85% capacity and at that point it is at MTOW. To fill the fuel tanks up to full capacity the 787-10 would need to have only 150 passengers onboard. Even with a 6t MTOW increase the 787-10 would not be able to fill the existing fuel tanks with any realistic payload.

It is the 787-9 that might become fuel limited with the rumoured 6t MTOW increase.

RJMAZ thank you for your post because people need to understand the 787-10 issues has nothing to do with the fuel tanks.

The last 787-10 UA operated on SFO-AKL-SFO route left on December 19th (for the next few days UA917/916 will operate on a 77W because we need to move a lot of cargo). However the 787-10 will return to the route on December 23rd or 24th. Looking at the fuel load for the December 19th flight the gate fuel was 191,200 LBS and the cleared fuel was 190,000.

The 787-10 max tank capacity is 226,900 LBS. Like you correctly pointed out there is plenty of space left in the tanks even on a flight like SFO-AKL but with 304 passengers (final passenger count on the December 19th flight) and 8987 LBS in luggage with no cargo there was only 5542 LBS remaining. MTOG for a 787-10 is 560,000 LBS the December 19 flight weight in at 554,458 LBS if UA were to max out the tanks that would add an additional 35,700 LBS of fuel meaning we would have to cut 35,700 pounds of passengers and their bags.

As you correctly pointed out the fuel tanks are not the issue the MTOG is. If Boeing could address the MTOG then the 787-10 could compete with the A35J. I'm no expert in that field but raising the MTOG by 36,000 pounds would require a lot of work. Can the wings at their current length even support an additional 36,000 pounds?

This is how United sees it.



All of course depends on how much cargo you need realistically on long flights (Asia?)

Longer term I see Boeing investing in a higher MTOW 787-10. That won't be for free, significant wing beef up, but definitely a good investment. The 777-8 is heavy/ expensive and A350's are replacing most 772ER's at this stage (BA, AF, CX, UA, SQ, JAL, etc.)

viewtopic.php?t=1339277

flipdewaf wrote:

Do you have a link for the 260t rumour? We hear a lot about it on here but everything seems to circle back to rumours borne on a.net.

He wrote:

Flying Belgian wrote:

I also read on Wiki this about NZ's 781 orders: "To replace Air New Zealand’s 777-200 fleet, Boeing wants to increase the 787-10 MTOW by over 13,000 lb (6 t) to 572,000 lb (260 t) with some reinforcements and updated fuel systems. This would allow more range, like the 5,600 nmi (10,400 km) trip from Auckland to Los Angeles with no passenger restrictions and some cargo. The increased performance could trickle down to the 787-9, allowing Auckland to New York flight". --> LAX-AKL is still shorter than SFO-AKL, strange.

A search gives us the same text at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... ner#787-10 which cites https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/ which is a members only post.

I remember at the time that this was posted there really wasn't any more detai than given above.

Thus we have circled back to a published rumor on a subscription based aviation media web site.

Full cite:

Jon Ostrower (May 30, 2019). "Boeing chases range frontier on 787 and 777X to win Air New Zealand, Qantas deals". The air current.

The 787-10 is essentially an advanced A330-300 with moderately greater range and cargo carrying capacity. It is also a much more efficient aircraft. Beyond 6000nm there are better choices.

AKL-SFO is well within the 787-10 range with full pax and bags and a bit of cargo. Much beyond this there are better options. Not every plane can be all things to all airlines.

Note: a UA employee posted that a 787-10 flew SFO-ICN on 3/31 this year with 244 pax and bags and 13T of cargo. On 3/30 it flew with 258 pax and 11T of cargo.


The distance is right at 5000nm westbound.

That should give folks an idea of the 787-10 capability. It is a very good aircraft. However, it cannot fly at the outer end of a 772-ER payload range. The A359 was specifically designed to do this so if that is your need as an airline maybe the A359 is a better choice.

zeke wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

Sure you could, however look at the pavement loading of the 787 it is already at the highest level. Any weight increase would also include a triple axle gear and something similar to the 777 for tail strike protection.

The tail strike protection can be written into the FBW logic like the latest 77W, but any change to MLG configuration would be a major, costly engineering task.

george77300 wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

At the moment, UA has the lowest seat count on the B787-10 with 318 seats. SQ,EY,BR,KL have 331-344 seats in their B787-10.

Soon, BA will introduce the B787-10 with only 256 seats (F/J/Y+/Y) which is 60-90 seats less than the other operators (5-8 tonnes less pax and baggage). We keep hearing that the B787-10 will be the new main workhorse on LON-NYC but with a high premium seat count and very long range one would think that BA should use the B787-10 on its longest premium demand routes... unless the huge cargo capacity is the main reason it will fly mostly LON-NYC.

BA's use of the B787-10 will be very interesting to follow.

Regarding BA, yes the 787-10 is coming in a very premium config. The first two routes are LHR-ATL and LHR-SEA, presumably as one aircraft can operate within a day so easy to schedule.

As for NYC it’s the 777-300ER going to be dominating that with the new incredibly premium to Door 4 configuration with just 254 seats (less than 787-10), 8F/76J/40W/130Y config.

The 787-10 has the range to do ALL BAs routes so expect it on some of the premium destinations probably taking over 777-200ERs. We will wait and see I suppose, 6/12 of BAs arriving next year.

BA's 787-10s are also picking up DFW & BNA in the mid-summer - seems ideal for the 7-10 hour flights. There aren't a huge amount on order though, they could conceivably be used well anywhere in the USA and Middle East and probably perfect for Abuja too.

Not sure the 787-10 could do EZE, SCL, SIN or KUL with any meaningful load, though. Forgetting the fact they don't have cabin crew bunks either.

Flying Belgian wrote:

LAX-AKL is still shorter than SFO-AKL, strange.

11 nautical miles shorter on the great circle

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Do you have a link for the 260t rumour? We hear a lot about it on here but everything seems to circle back to rumours borne on a.net.

He wrote:

Flying Belgian wrote:

I also read on Wiki this about NZ's 781 orders: "To replace Air New Zealand’s 777-200 fleet, Boeing wants to increase the 787-10 MTOW by over 13,000 lb (6 t) to 572,000 lb (260 t) with some reinforcements and updated fuel systems. This would allow more range, like the 5,600 nmi (10,400 km) trip from Auckland to Los Angeles with no passenger restrictions and some cargo. The increased performance could trickle down to the 787-9, allowing Auckland to New York flight". --> LAX-AKL is still shorter than SFO-AKL, strange.

A search gives us the same text at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... ner#787-10 which cites https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... tas-deals/ which is a members only post.

I remember at the time that this was posted there really wasn't any more detai than given above.

Thus we have circled back to a published rumor on a subscription based aviation media web site.

Full cite:

Jon Ostrower (May 30, 2019). "Boeing chases range frontier on 787 and 777X to win Air New Zealand, Qantas deals". The air current.

Lol, I totally missed the wiki bit, teaches me to either ride a horse or be on A.net.

I guess we’ll see when It comes to launch the thing for NZ but I’m pretty sceptical. Mr Ostrower appears to be to Boeing what Bjorn Fehrm is to Airbus...

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Clearly NZ considered cargo demand when replacing the 777-200ERs, and they concluded the A350-900 was Too Much Plane for them.

But the 787-10 cannot replace the top-end of 777-200ER performance, so only airlines which don't need the 777-200ER's full performance but do need its capacity will want to get the 787-10. Fortunately, that's actually a lot of airlines.

NZ haven’t fully explained the basis for their decision. But from what they have said publicly it seems to have been a mix of:

- caution on capital spend at a time when traffic growth has stalled
- a great price from Boeing and GE
- avoiding the cost of introducing a new type
- anticipation of dropping London – freeing up additional 77W capacity for North America.

I think this last point gives you the answer on cargo. The LAX and SFO 77W services will be able to operate with full holds in both directions. The 78Js will be able to fly with full holds on the shorter Asian sectors. And Luxon has said explicitly that the 78Js will mostly be used on Asian routes.

BA777FO wrote:

Forgetting the fact they don't have cabin crew bunks either.

A hotly debated topic in house... Im sure you’re aware.
However, they do have the bunks for you drivers...

How far will the 787-10 fly when it's not flying with near empty cargo bays?

In other words, range at max payload? I can't find a payload-range chart for the 787-10.

reidar76 wrote:

How far will the 787-10 fly when it's not flying with near empty cargo bays?

In other words, range at max payload? I can't find a payload-range chart for the 787-10.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Page 38.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last week, on SFO-AKL, we only accommodated 8 standbys. 18 were left behind. Seats were available. So I'd say AKL (at 6525 miles) is just a little too much with full pax and cargo.

RJMAZ wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

This really annoys me. I see posts like this every week.

The 787-10 standard fuel tanks aren't even full with a normal passenger load. It doesn't need extra fuel tanks to fly further it can simply fill the standard tanks up to a higher level.

The 787-10 is MTOW limited. With 300 passengers onboard the standard fuel tanks can only be filled to 85% capacity and at that point it is at MTOW. To fill the fuel tanks up to full capacity the 787-10 would need to have only 150 passengers onboard. Even with a 6t MTOW increase the 787-10 would not be able to fill the existing fuel tanks with any realistic payload.

It is the 787-9 that might become fuel limited with the rumoured 6t MTOW increase.

Why would it annoy you that somebody asks a genuine question in order to understand something? Isn't that the very reason why somebody would ask a question even if in doing so they have misunderstood some aspect?

RJMAZ wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

This really annoys me. I see posts like this every week.

The 787-10 standard fuel tanks aren't even full with a normal passenger load. It doesn't need extra fuel tanks to fly further it can simply fill the standard tanks up to a higher level.

The 787-10 is MTOW limited. With 300 passengers onboard the standard fuel tanks can only be filled to 85% capacity and at that point it is at MTOW. To fill the fuel tanks up to full capacity the 787-10 would need to have only 150 passengers onboard. Even with a 6t MTOW increase the 787-10 would not be able to fill the existing fuel tanks with any realistic payload.

It is the 787-9 that might become fuel limited with the rumoured 6t MTOW increase.

Why would it annoy you that somebody asks a genuine question in order to understand something? Isn't that the very reason why somebody would ask a question even if in doing so they have misunderstood some aspect?

ukoverlander wrote:

Why would it annoy you that somebody asks a genuine question in order to understand something? Isn't that the very reason why somebody would ask a question even if in doing so they have misunderstood some aspect?

It is nothing personal against you, the same question keeps getting asked over and over every month.

It is not just regarding the 787 but members often suggest adding fuel tanks to other models of aircraft to make them fly further. The vast majority of aircraft are MTOW limited not fuel capacity limited. It is very rare for an aircraft to fly at maximum fuel capacity yet aircraft regularly take off at MTOW. Flights usually add cargo in the hold until they hit MTOW and then fly the route with the fuel tanks two thirds full.

SQ317 wrote:

Scotron12 wrote:

EY operated a 787-10 AUH-BNE on November 19. Whether weight restricted...light load..I have no clue. Just over 7400m

It was an equipment swap from the regular B789 so yes would've been a very light load

Very? What's the seating difference? More than 50%? Because that's the only way it could be defined as "very light".

The 787-10 gets a lot of hate around here. That must mean they perceive it as a threat.

tealnz wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Clearly NZ considered cargo demand when replacing the 777-200ERs, and they concluded the A350-900 was Too Much Plane for them.

But the 787-10 cannot replace the top-end of 777-200ER performance, so only airlines which don't need the 777-200ER's full performance but do need its capacity will want to get the 787-10. Fortunately, that's actually a lot of airlines.

NZ haven’t fully explained the basis for their decision. But from what they have said publicly it seems to have been a mix of:

- caution on capital spend at a time when traffic growth has stalled
- a great price from Boeing and GE
- avoiding the cost of introducing a new type
- anticipation of dropping London – freeing up additional 77W capacity for North America.

I think this last point gives you the answer on cargo. The LAX and SFO 77W services will be able to operate with full holds in both directions. The 78Js will be able to fly with full holds on the shorter Asian sectors. And Luxon has said explicitly that the 78Js will mostly be used on Asian routes.

And Luxon isn't the head honcho at NZ any more, it very much remains to be seen what the new guy would like to do with the 78Js.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Very? What's the seating difference? More than 50%? Because that's the only way it could be defined as "very light".

The 787-9 and 787-10 share the same MTOW, however the 787-10 is longer, hence an empty weight 7-8 tonnes higher. So the weight of the additional fuselage length on the 787-10 comes out of the payload figure the 787-9 can carry.

So if a 787-9 is already payload limited on a sector, swapping it to a 787-10 would mean a drop in payload if around 7-8 tonnes, or 70-80 passengers.

zeke wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

Sure you could, however look at the pavement loading of the 787 it is already at the highest level. Any weight increase would also include a triple axle gear and something similar to the 777 for tail strike protection.

How does the A359 stay within the pavement loading parameters on a double bogey while having a 27-28T higher MTOW? Is it spacing between wheels or larger/wider tires?

CRJ900 wrote:

At the moment, UA has the lowest seat count on the B787-10 with 318 seats. SQ,EY,BR,KL have 331-344 seats in their B787-10.

Soon, BA will introduce the B787-10 with only 256 seats (F/J/Y+/Y) which is 60-90 seats less than the other operators (5-8 tonnes less pax and baggage). We keep hearing that the B787-10 will be the new main workhorse on LON-NYC but with a high premium seat count and very long range one would think that BA should use the B787-10 on its longest premium demand routes... unless the huge cargo capacity is the main reason it will fly mostly LON-NYC.

BA's use of the B787-10 will be very interesting to follow.

BA has a route structure where the 787-10 is ideal, at least TATL, India, and most of Africa. They will be facinating to follow.

Lightsaber

JohanTally wrote:

How does the A359 stay within the pavement loading parameters on a double bogey while having a 27-28T higher MTOW? Is it spacing between wheels or larger/wider tires?

Larger wheels over a larger footprint. The footprint on the A350-900 is almost the same size as a 777-300ER.

It is like the difference between wearing trainers and high heels when walking on soft ground.

JohanTally wrote:

zeke wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to add a fuel tank in part of the longer cargo hold to extend the legs? Suitably encased and self contained for safety.

These longer length frames do seem to lose about 20% range. Why can’t the extra length be used to carry more fuel, so the range stays roughly the same?

Sure you could, however look at the pavement loading of the 787 it is already at the highest level. Any weight increase would also include a triple axle gear and something similar to the 777 for tail strike protection.

How does the A359 stay within the pavement loading parameters on a double bogey while having a 27-28T higher MTOW? Is it spacing between wheels or larger/wider tires?

The wheels are spaced very widely. Looks a little peculiar, but obviously it's been done like that for good reason.

flipdewaf wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

How far will the 787-10 fly when it's not flying with near empty cargo bays?

In other words, range at max payload? I can't find a payload-range chart for the 787-10.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Page 38.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Fred. So the 787-10 has a range of approximately 4200 nm when it is "full", compared to 5300 nm for the 787-9.

That is, maximum range in still air, with an sea level MTOW departure, when carrying cargo as well as standard pax numbers.

keesje wrote:

This is how United sees it.

That is how a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias sees it. This is definitely not from United as they wouldn't make a mistake like listing the 787-9 as having greater range than both A350 family members.

It is worth noting that at MTOW the 777-200ER loses 25,000lb of payload for every 1000nm gained. The 787-10 loses only 20,000lb of payload for every 1000nm gained. This is massive. A flatter payload range curves means the 787-10 closes the gap in capability as payloads become lighter.

This is how United managed to replace a 787-9 with a 787-10 in an emergency to perform a flight that appears beyond the range of the 787-10. Putting only 250 passengers on the 787-10 means it would gain around 800nm in range from the 330 seat brochure spec.

The 777-200ER is listed with a brochure spec of 7,065nm with 313 passengers and the 787-10 is listed as 6,430nm with 330 seats. Putting 313 passengers on the 787-10 would see it gain roughly 135nm in range, or 6,565nm.

Aircraft rarely fly their brochure range as they have to take into account headwinds. But the flatter payload range curves allows the 787 and also the A350 to fly closer to brochure spec without restrictions. An airline might push an 777-200ER up to 85% of the brochure spec on a long route. With the 787-10 they could push the routes up to 90% of brochure range with a equal risk of a diversion for fuel or blocked seats. This now puts the 787-10 within 100nm range of the 777-200ER with similar seat count.

So the end result is the 787-10 has only 2% less range range in the real world but has 5% more cabin area than the 777-200ER. The best part is the 787-10 does it while burning 25% less fuel. This is why New Zealand is replacing the 777-200ER with the 787-10.

TUGMASTER wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Forgetting the fact they don't have cabin crew bunks either.

A hotly debated topic in house... Im sure you’re aware.
However, they do have the bunks for you drivers...

It has been - almost as controversial as the new 77Ws not having a toilet in the flight crew bunk - that hasn't gone down well! Flight crew bunks enable the US west coast or India but it's restricted much beyond that operationally, even if not capability-wise.

TTailedTiger wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

Scotron12 wrote:

EY operated a 787-10 AUH-BNE on November 19. Whether weight restricted...light load..I have no clue. Just over 7400m

It was an equipment swap from the regular B789 so yes would've been a very light load

The 787-10 gets a lot of hate around here. That must mean they perceive it as a threat.

Seriously dude, cut the rhetoric. "Hate"? "Threat"?

It is a god damn aircraft, not an ISIS guy we are talking about. And people are not hating the -10, they are trying to understand the difference to a 35K for example.

JustSomeDood wrote:

tealnz wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Clearly NZ considered cargo demand when replacing the 777-200ERs, and they concluded the A350-900 was Too Much Plane for them.

But the 787-10 cannot replace the top-end of 777-200ER performance, so only airlines which don't need the 777-200ER's full performance but do need its capacity will want to get the 787-10. Fortunately, that's actually a lot of airlines.

NZ haven’t fully explained the basis for their decision. But from what they have said publicly it seems to have been a mix of:

- caution on capital spend at a time when traffic growth has stalled
- a great price from Boeing and GE
- avoiding the cost of introducing a new type
- anticipation of dropping London – freeing up additional 77W capacity for North America.

I think this last point gives you the answer on cargo. The LAX and SFO 77W services will be able to operate with full holds in both directions. The 78Js will be able to fly with full holds on the shorter Asian sectors. And Luxon has said explicitly that the 78Js will mostly be used on Asian routes.

And Luxon isn't the head honcho at NZ any more, it very much remains to be seen what the new guy would like to do with the 78Js.

I don’t know what your point is mate. Are you suggesting Luxon was out on his own on the 78J buy? Or on how they will be used after they’re delivered? There wasn’t any hint of this at the time of the announcements – both markets and a.net seemed to think it was a smart call. UA’s launch of a 78J service SFO-AKL suggests the aircraft will be useable from US west coast at least for pax-only service. But I can’t see anything controversial about using the 78J mainly on Asian routes – for destinations such as Japan it will offer both premium capacity and hold space that offers higher yield.

reidar76 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

How far will the 787-10 fly when it's not flying with near empty cargo bays?

In other words, range at max payload? I can't find a payload-range chart for the 787-10.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Page 38.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Fred. So the 787-10 has a range of approximately 4200 nm when it is "full", compared to 5300 nm for the 787-9.

That is, maximum range in still air, with an sea level MTOW departure, when carrying cargo as well as standard pax numbers.

No problem, those figures are about right. The latest Boeing and Airbus widebodies appear to be able to perform very close to what they advertise. As time goes forward they will begin to beat it with new builds I would expect.

TTailedTiger wrote:

The 787-10 gets a lot of hate around here. That must mean they perceive it as a threat.

Lol, can you show anywhere on a.net where it receives ‘hate’. It does the job it was designed to do and is less good at jobs outside this compared to other models who are more optimised for those missions. Feels to me that it might be a case of “is it cos I is black” going on.

Fred





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 787-10 is essentially an advanced A330-300 with moderately greater range and cargo carrying capacity. It is also a much more efficient aircraft. Beyond 6000nm there are better choices.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Note: a UA employee posted that a 787-10 flew SFO-ICN on 3/31 this year with 244 pax and bags and 13T of cargo. On 3/30 it flew with 258 pax and 11T of cargo.

The distance is right at 5000nm westbound.

Based on your own citations, I'd say it's best to 5000nm mark. That's where 787-10 is the best airplane in the world, if you need its volume/full board.

But from 5000nm, it starts to lose ground. At 5000nm mark it starts to lose its value. 359 is a match there, and on cargo heavy routes it already has an edge. At 5000, it's 300pax/30t plane. The farther we go, it's more difference. Finnair is the clear indication with their 359s flying cargo to/from Asia.

787-10 best mission profile is mid to long range sector (8-12 hours) with full board and some cargo (depending on actual takeoff weight). It's not an ULR machine. While it can do longer sectors, it will not match true leaders for these sectors - that is 789 (lighter by few tons, thus taking more pax/fuel at ULR), 359 (similar weight of frame and fuel flow, but much higher takeoff weight and thus more cargo/pax/fuel), 350-1000 (heavier frame, same pax but at much higher range/cargo) and 777-300ER (more cargo and more range, even with higher fuel consumption).

There is not a simple answer. There is not a best plane. They are only most suitable to missions planned.

Cheers,
Adam

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

This is how United sees it.

That is how a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias sees it. This is definitely not from United as they wouldn't make a mistake like listing the 787-9 as having greater range than both A350 family members.

Nope. This is directly from United Airlines, CFO Andrew Levy. I wouldn't qualify him as a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias.

During 777-200ER replacement press conference, sept 2017. No way to dismiss info that doesn't fit your story line.

https://airlinerwatch.com/content/image ... ates_2.jpg, https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 94.article

Nicoeddf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

It was an equipment swap from the regular B789 so yes would've been a very light load

The 787-10 gets a lot of hate around here. That must mean they perceive it as a threat.

Seriously dude, cut the rhetoric. "Hate"? "Threat"?

It is a god damn aircraft, not an ISIS guy we are talking about. And people are not hating the -10, they are trying to understand the difference to a 35K for example.

People are comparing it to the A350. The A350 competes with the 777, not the 787. The A330neo competes with the 787. The 777X is the A350 competitor.

TTailedTiger wrote:

People are comparing it to the A350. The A350 competes with the 777, not the 787. The A330neo competes with the 787. The 777X is the A350 competitor.

Yes - and no. Comparison of two planes is not a simple match-no match story.

If you want to carry 350 people on a 5000nm sector, what options would you have? 787-10 is an option there along with both 350s (359 would be a stretch, though) and both/triple 777s (773, 77X) as well.

It will depend on cargo possibilities, other fleet, time availability, capital cost vs operation cost, others sectors rotation and many other big and small considerations, which one will suit you best. But, probably all should be a part of comparison. Plus perhaps a couple of other machines as well (maybe two daily would be better to go with, than one daily? Or just slow to four weekly? Or rotate like USAirways did with SFO-AKL I believe, have 787-10 and 773, one taking just full board, the other cargo belly as well). "The best fit" IS really much more complicated to do simple comparisons like above.

Cheers,
Adam