Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:20 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

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.


How simple your world is :wideeyed:

And still no hate. And no threat. Compared to whatever. Still juuuuuust a plane.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:34 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

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.


How simple your world is :wideeyed:

And still no hate. And no threat. Compared to whatever. Still juuuuuust a plane.


It was just an observation. We've had several threads on the 787-10 where people have chimed in with their "yeah but an A350 would do it better".
 
marcelh
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:03 am

[quote="TTailedTiger"]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.[/quote

The A359 is a B787-10 on steroids. If you don't need the range/payload of the A359, ther B787-10 is the perfect alternative.
 
User avatar
vhqpa
Posts: 1709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:28 am

From what I understand I think it's fair to say that the A350-1000 is more capable than the 787-10 in strictly that it can carry more payload further, the same way a 737-800 is more capable than say a A220-300. But that's not to say it's an inferior product as for missions it can fly it can do so more efficiently than the heavier A350-1000. It comes down to the airlines route network and other fleet types. What might the best fit for one particular airline might not necessarily be for another. If a 787-10 can carry a full payload or close to it 5000 nm more efficiently than anything else that's still good for most Transatlantic and Asian routes which is covers a wide variety of routes.

If anything the A330 neo, 787, A350 and 777X lie on a continuum where the A350 doesn't necessarily compete directly with any particular Boeing product but slots in between the 787 and 777X.
"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:28 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
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.


How simple your world is :wideeyed:

And still no hate. And no threat. Compared to whatever. Still juuuuuust a plane.


It was just an observation. We've had several threads on the 787-10 where people have chimed in with their "yeah but an A350 would do it better".


And a dodge charger would do a 'better' stand 1/4 mile than my lowly diesel Kia Rio diesel, I wouldn't feel the hate from that.

'Better' is just and opinion, if you (or they) could define what 'better' means then perhaps you'd understand and feel less aggreived.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13487
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:46 am

vhqpa wrote:
From what I understand I think it's fair to say that the A350-1000 is more capable than the 787-10 in strictly that it can carry more payload further,


The A359 is the 787-10 competitor, the A351 is much more capable in every regard, size, payload, payload range ... and of course higher fuel burn. The A359 is just a touch smaller, much more payload-range and somewhat higher fuelburn aircraft, the difference getting smaller with increasing stage lenght as the higher aspect ration wing starts to shine.

the same way a 737-800 is more capable than say a A220-300. .


The A223 flies further and with less fuelburn per seat, so not quite the comparison I would have chosen.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
reply1984
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:55 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:54 am

keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:17 am

reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL

This is what happens when things are posted without context.
While this was in fact a United slide, it was presented as the compelling argument as to why they changed the 35 a350-1000 on order to 45 a350-900 and delayed the deliveries to coincide with 77E retirement.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:36 am

reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL


I think this is specifically about 77E replacement, clearly UA doesn't see the aircraft in their fleet (many of which have had top off orders) as too small, large, capable or incapable.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:56 am

I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between. It explains why the succesfull 777-200ER's are replaced by A350's with AF, UA, Emirates, JAL, SQ, BA, CX, Air China, Qatar.

For years many have "warned" Boeing for this :wink2: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277 , but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening and the stockprice and 787 & 777X orders books looked good, at that stage. So another stock buy back had more priority.

Image
Last edited by keesje on Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:14 pm

sadiqutp wrote:
reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL

This is what happens when things are posted without context.
While this was in fact a United slide, it was presented as the compelling argument as to why they changed the 35 a350-1000 on order to 45 a350-900 and delayed the deliveries to coincide with 77E retirement.


And yet since that slide in 2017, UA decided that it wasn't compelling enough to take the A359s from '22 onwards and kicked the deliveries five years down the road again. However "just right" the A359 was as a 77E replacement for UA, the business case clearly wasn't good enough for UA to actually start replacing the 77Es with them for a significant while.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:24 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
reply1984 wrote:

I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL

This is what happens when things are posted without context.
While this was in fact a United slide, it was presented as the compelling argument as to why they changed the 35 a350-1000 on order to 45 a350-900 and delayed the deliveries to coincide with 77E retirement.


And yet since that slide in 2017, UA decided that it wasn't compelling enough to take the A359s from '22 onwards and kicked the deliveries five years down the road again. However "just right" the A359 was as a 77E replacement for UA, the business case clearly wasn't good enough for UA to actually start replacing the 77Es with them for a significant while.


Yes as they communicated, other types (757, 767) have more priority. And I guess A320/737 fleets now also.. https://airlinerwatch.com/united-airlin ... t-renewal/
787-9/10s, 772ER, 773ER, 764ER's can be reshuffled over the network while the oldest aircraft are retired and 787s keep coming in.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SQ317
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:29 pm

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


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.


Fine, a 787-9 pax payload on a 787-10, if I must spell it out. EY 789 is 235 pax (I think they use the 3 class config on BNE but could be wrong), so that would be 101 empty seats if all 235 were sold. FWIW, I think the 787-10 is a great aircraft, I've never written anything to the contrary
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:37 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
reply1984 wrote:

I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL

This is what happens when things are posted without context.
While this was in fact a United slide, it was presented as the compelling argument as to why they changed the 35 a350-1000 on order to 45 a350-900 and delayed the deliveries to coincide with 77E retirement.


And yet since that slide in 2017, UA decided that it wasn't compelling enough to take the A359s from '22 onwards and kicked the deliveries five years down the road again. However "just right" the A359 was as a 77E replacement for UA, the business case clearly wasn't good enough for UA to actually start replacing the 77Es with them for a significant while.

This is off topic, but I wonder why UA increased their commitment to the 350 if they don't want it! Backward logic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:37 pm

keesje wrote:
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.

Nope. It was made by Edward Russel. He wrote articles for Flight Global that were always positive Airbus news and orders. Now he is just a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias.

He is probably pissed off that United will never have A350's. Now we have 787-10's replacing the 777-200ER's.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:02 pm

I don't understand all this A.net fascination with range...

The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes.
It will be an excellent transatlantic machine and an excellent trans-Asian bus. It can also do the shorter transpacific runs. It will be the true spiritual successor to the A330-300 and will replace many of them down the road.

It doesn't need the range if you ask me. But don't let me get in the way of a good A v B fight...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:39 pm

SQ317 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
SQ317 wrote:

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.


Fine, a 787-9 pax payload on a 787-10, if I must spell it out. EY 789 is 235 pax (I think they use the 3 class config on BNE but could be wrong), so that would be 101 empty seats if all 235 were sold. FWIW, I think the 787-10 is a great aircraft, I've never written anything to the contrary


Wrong!! BNE is operated by a 2 class 789 as is MEL, the load factor on the day the 787-10 operating in lieu of the 789 was 86.3%
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1789
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:41 pm

zkojq wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
zeke wrote:

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.

Image


And the A350-1000 has a six wheel bogey, with the wheels being a bit smaller (I believe) albeit much closer together in length and width.
I wonder, if Boeing hypothetically would increase MTOW of the 787-10, what would be a better solution? increasing the dimensions of the 4 wheel bogey, or adding another axle to the current bogey? Wheels already seem a tad small for the size of the aircraft.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:48 pm

Francoflier wrote:
I don't understand all this A.net fascination with range...

The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes.
It will be an excellent transatlantic machine and an excellent trans-Asian bus. It can also do the shorter transpacific runs. It will be the true spiritual successor to the A330-300 and will replace many of them down the road.

It doesn't need the range if you ask me. But don't let me get in the way of a good A v B fight...


Absolutely agree.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
SQ317
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:56 pm

qf789 wrote:
SQ317 wrote:
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 787-10 gets a lot of hate around here. That must mean they perceive it as a threat.


Fine, a 787-9 pax payload on a 787-10, if I must spell it out. EY 789 is 235 pax (I think they use the 3 class config on BNE but could be wrong), so that would be 101 empty seats if all 235 were sold. FWIW, I think the 787-10 is a great aircraft, I've never written anything to the contrary


Wrong!! BNE is operated by a 2 class 789 as is MEL, the load factor on the day the 787-10 operating in lieu of the 789 was 86.3%


Thank you for the correction
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8270
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:13 pm

reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL


Are those your 'too big', 'too small' annotations, not United's? Would you care to share your detailed analysis of the current and prospective UA routes and aircraft assignments and seat demand for the next 15 years? Yeh, that's sarcasm.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13487
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:24 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
However "just right" the A359 was as a 77E replacement for UA, the business case clearly wasn't good enough for UA to actually start replacing the 77Es with them for a significant while.


There are always assumptions about fuel prices involved in this, and as long fuel prices stay reasonable there is no point replacing 77Es and forgo future A350 pips. If United wanted to get rid of the order, taking some A350 off it for the A321XLR would probably have been the way to go....

Francoflier wrote:
It will be an excellent transatlantic machine and an excellent trans-Asian bus. It can also do the shorter transpacific runs. It will be the true spiritual successor to the A330-300 and will replace many of them down the road.


:checkmark:
The A333 really took of when MZFW range got to ~5000ish nm, I would assume the 787-10 will see the same effect.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:39 pm

frigatebird wrote:
And the A350-1000 has a six wheel bogey, with the wheels being a bit smaller (I believe) albeit much closer together in length and width.


The middle wheels on the -1000 actually are not in line with the front and rear wheels, they stick out about an inch wider. This makes the footprint area slightly larger.

tommy1808 wrote:
There are always assumptions about fuel prices involved in this, and as long fuel prices stay reasonable there is no point replacing 77Es and forgo future A350 pips. If United wanted to get rid of the order, taking some A350 off it for the A321XLR would probably have been the way to go....


I think UA want to keep their 77Es around a few ore years (which are probably fully paid off) and get the new engines on the A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1543
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:57 pm

Airbus does not currently offer a direct competitor to the 787-10. It will do so only when it stretches the 359. This was hinted at by Zeke in another thread, referring to an interview with CX's CEO following an Airbus presentation.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4328
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:09 pm

What seems to be true is that the newest models of the 330, 787,359, and 777X leave few gaps in capability. Hence fiercely fought sales campaigns in those small gaps. In many cases one of those models is perfect for one of today's flights. Complicating an easy decision is how will it do in other flights, and in tomorrow's flights for the next 20 years. And how will it integrate into the rest of the fleet.

The 777Xs are in danger of becoming odd man out the next iteration of 787,350 models. But (for us home team Seattle folks*) Boeings MOMs are going to hit all sorts of routes for anything less that the most capable of other new planes.

*home team - don't expect any sympathy or lack of derision when you screw up
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
reply1984
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:55 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:15 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL


Are those your 'too big', 'too small' annotations, not United's? Would you care to share your detailed analysis of the current and prospective UA routes and aircraft assignments and seat demand for the next 15 years? Yeh, that's sarcasm.


Could you please read the chart I quoted? Thanks.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:15 pm

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

Lightsaber


KLM seems to have the same sort of route structure, interesting times ahead! 4 787-10 in service, more to follow.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:21 pm

inkjet7 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
[
BA has a route structure where the 787-10 is ideal, at least TATL, India, and most of Africa. They will be fascinating to follow.

Lightsaber


KLM seems to have the same sort of route structure, interesting times ahead! 4 787-10 in service, more to follow.


Not surprising, the British and the Dutch both went on the same pillaging and flag erecting tours in the past.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:29 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
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.

Nope. It was made by Edward Russel. He wrote articles for Flight Global that were always positive Airbus news and orders. Now he is just a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias.

He is probably pissed off that United will never have A350's. Now we have 787-10's replacing the 777-200ER's.


Ah, I sse, sorry. I thought it was from the July 18, 2017 United investor update. No Idea Edward Russel was in the mix, I thought he was just a messenger. What a bias..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
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.

Nope. It was made by Edward Russel. He wrote articles for Flight Global that were always positive Airbus news and orders. Now he is just a random guy on twitter with extreme Airbus bias.

He is probably pissed off that United will never have A350's. Now we have 787-10's replacing the 777-200ER's.


Nope, it's directly from United's presentation at the JP Morgan Leveraged Finance Conference in February 2017. See slide #15. The context was specifically around the A350-900 and 787-10 replacing 777-200ER's.

http://ir.united.com/static-files/ae29b ... bc14a84b5a

keesje wrote:
I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between.


This is also not correct about the 787-10. See the slide in the link above. United clearly states that the 787-10 is more than adequate to replace 777-200ER's for markets below 7,200 sm.
Last edited by heavymetal on Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:45 pm

gloom wrote:
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



I think your summation is very fair. The 787-10 is a great aircraft up to about 5000nm. Think roughly a 35-38 ton payload. To me this sounds like a very capable frame. It certainly can do the U.S. West coast to Japan, Korea, or northern China (i.e.Bejing), or Europe to Asia. This is with full pax and bags and meaningful cargo.

Much beyond 5000nm the cargo side would really take a hit. Can the 787-10 do SFO-AKL? The answer is obviously yes, but with very little cargo.

I think the 787-10 is ideal for BA as it can fly any route in their network with cargo except maybe LHR-SIN or LHR-EZE. For high density TATL flights it should be the king of the Atlantic.

But for ULH with cargo (ex. HKG-IAD), an A350 or 779 is to me obviously the better choice. I think this is a wonderful time for airlines in that they have so many excellent choices in wide body aircraft. For many missions the 787-10 is ideal, but certainly not all. I think anyone who would claim otherwise is mistaken.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27233
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:53 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between. It explains why the successful 777-200ER's are replaced by A350's with AF, UA, Emirates, JAL, SQ, BA, CX, Air China, Qatar.


Puhleeze.

I don't recall any counter-arguments from yourself when Airbus noted the HGW A330-300 could operate over 90% of the actual missions being flown by 777-200ERs and the 787-10 is at least as capable an airframe.

Which explains why a fair number of those airlines have bought 787-10s, I guess.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:01 pm

Francoflier wrote:
I don't understand all this A.net fascination with range...

The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes.
It will be an excellent transatlantic machine and an excellent trans-Asian bus. It can also do the shorter transpacific runs. It will be the true spiritual successor to the A330-300 and will replace many of them down the road.

It doesn't need the range if you ask me. But don't let me get in the way of a good A v B fight...

Indeed.

Maybe it’s an issue because the -10, being a straight shrink, has less range than the -9 ... and because the 787, for whatever reason, seems to generate stronger partisan views than anything else in the air.

Case in point: Air New Zealand and the 787. Asian routes are in the sweet spot for the -10 ex Auckland. US west coast is on the edge of its range, and inland USA looks too much of a stretch. But it’s not easy to have a straight technical discussion about the limitations of the new NZ fleet – some of the fans are adamant it’s also the 77W replacement. :banghead:
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:31 pm

UA has a fleet of well maintained and paid-for 777s in a fairly stable fuel price environment. They've identified the a/c replacement (359) and aren't in a rush for delivery since the 777 fleet is doing fine. Deferring the purchase isn't hating on the 359; its giving them years of no finance and training charges while they see which 777 routes go 787 (9 or 10) and which would best benefit from the 359.

It's smart, much smarter than the immediate post-merger mess.
 
9Patch
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:06 am

keesje wrote:
I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between. It explains why the succesfull 777-200ER's are replaced by A350's with AF, UA, Emirates, JAL, SQ, BA, CX, Air China, Qatar.

For years many have "warned" Boeing for this :wink2: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277 , but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening and the stockprice and 787 & 777X orders books looked good, at that stage. So another stock buy back had more priority.

Image


And for years 'many' have warned that bigger is not always better and airlines don't necessarily replace size for size, but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:29 am

9Patch wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between. It explains why the succesfull 777-200ER's are replaced by A350's with AF, UA, Emirates, JAL, SQ, BA, CX, Air China, Qatar.

For years many have "warned" Boeing for this :wink2: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277 , but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening and the stockprice and 787 & 777X orders books looked good, at that stage. So another stock buy back had more priority.

Image


And for years 'many' have warned that bigger is not always better and airlines don't necessarily replace size for size, but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening.


Tell that the 777 operators listed above. The 777x backlog shrunk 50-60 aircraft this year. If the 777x was 20t lighter, cheaper to build/buy and certified in a more conservative way, this would have been a different situation.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:39 am

Flying Belgian wrote:
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.


the answer? I'll bet Nobody really Knows, or? Nobody is really Telling, Boeing has been understating their range for quite while now causing Airbus to freak out with Model after Model to increase range while they say Nothing, that the 781 can fly SFO-AKL Non Stop?? Leaves me to wonder just what else it can do..
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:56 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
reply1984 wrote:
keesje wrote:
This is how United sees it.

Image

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


I am quite interested about this picture. UA actually ordered some 'too big' planes(B77W), more 'too small' planes(B789), some 'too short' planes(B78X), and POSTPONE the 'right' planes(A359) forever. LOL


Are those your 'too big', 'too small' annotations, not United's? Would you care to share your detailed analysis of the current and prospective UA routes and aircraft assignments and seat demand for the next 15 years? Yeh, that's sarcasm.

'where exactly did you get that analysis? Because you sure as HELL didn't get that from United!! United bought 777-300ER's and 787-10's while still pushing off the A350/ So something is Lacking to them with the A350. Personally? I believe they do NOT wish to fly the Rolls Royce engines. If Airbus would allow the GE to be installed? I think we might see some "Smoke" happening with the order. and I can see what they're concerned with. Delta is the US major repair Center for the engine.
There isn't a chance in HELL United would send an engine to Delta for repair. YGBKM!! But? were Airbus to install the GE90 series? That would be a whole Nuther Story.!! (IMHO of Course)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:59 am

Francoflier wrote:
The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes..


Jayunited posted some details of one of the United 787-10 flights leaving TLV back to the states on another thread. The empty weight of the United 787-10 he posted was slightly higher than the empty weight of a CX A359. The 787-10 has a higher empty weight compared to a 787-9.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus does not currently offer a direct competitor to the 787-10. It will do so only when it stretches the 359. This was hinted at by Zeke in another thread, referring to an interview with CX's CEO following an Airbus presentation.


The 787-9/10 compete fairly well with the A330-900 and A350-900 depending on if you are looking at lower or higher range.

The Bloomberg article was talking about a stretched A350-1000 to compete with the 777-9. Nothing to do with the A350-900 and 787-10.

heavymetal wrote:
This is also not correct about the 787-10. See the slide in the link above. United clearly states that the 787-10 is more than adequate to replace 777-200ER's for markets below 7,200 sm.


Well they are saying the combination of 787-10 and A350-900 works.

“ The A350-900 & 787-10 provide a solid tag-team 777-200ER replacement solution:
In terms of seat capacity, the A350-900 and 787-10 emerged as contenders
787-10 will sufficiently cover markets below 7,200sm while A350-900 will cover longer-range markets
Existing order for 35x A350-1000’s was used to fulfill this replacement need”

Look at the recent UA SFO-AKL flights, the 787-10 is flying the route on light cargo days, and they put the 777-300ER on the heavy cargo days.

The flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm), one of the insiders on another thread said they got some staff on the flight however had to leave many behind as they ran out of payload.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:18 am

zeke wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes..


Jayunited posted some details of one of the United 787-10 flights leaving TLV back to the states on another thread. The empty weight of the United 787-10 he posted was slightly higher than the empty weight of a CX A359. The 787-10 has a higher empty weight compared to a 787-9.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus does not currently offer a direct competitor to the 787-10. It will do so only when it stretches the 359. This was hinted at by Zeke in another thread, referring to an interview with CX's CEO following an Airbus presentation.


The 787-9/10 compete fairly well with the A330-900 and A350-900 depending on if you are looking at lower or higher range.

The Bloomberg article was talking about a stretched A350-1000 to compete with the 777-9. Nothing to do with the A350-900 and 787-10.

heavymetal wrote:
This is also not correct about the 787-10. See the slide in the link above. United clearly states that the 787-10 is more than adequate to replace 777-200ER's for markets below 7,200 sm.


Well they are saying the combination of 787-10 and A350-900 works.

“ The A350-900 & 787-10 provide a solid tag-team 777-200ER replacement solution:
In terms of seat capacity, the A350-900 and 787-10 emerged as contenders
787-10 will sufficiently cover markets below 7,200sm while A350-900 will cover longer-range markets
Existing order for 35x A350-1000’s was used to fulfill this replacement need”

Look at the recent UA SFO-AKL flights, the 787-10 is flying the route on light cargo days, and they put the 777-300ER on the heavy cargo days.

The flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm), one of the insiders on another thread said they got some staff on the flight however had to leave many behind as they ran out of payload.


Exactly. The proof is in the numbers, the 787-10 is unquestionably capable below about 12.5 hours flying time or 5500nm. If you want to haul freight. Knock an hour off of that time and bump the range down to 5000nm. The A359 is a tad bit smaller, seats nominally about one or two rows or 9-18 pax less in an equivalent configuration, but hauls freight and will go significantly farther.
 
9Patch
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:51 am

keesje wrote:
9Patch wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the United Airlines picture makes clear what many to deny on this threads topic, that neither the 787-10 and 777-8 are very good 777-200ER replacements. There a significant gap between the 787-10 and 777-8 and the A350's are in between. It explains why the succesfull 777-200ER's are replaced by A350's with AF, UA, Emirates, JAL, SQ, BA, CX, Air China, Qatar.

For years many have "warned" Boeing for this :wink2: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277 , but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening and the stockprice and 787 & 777X orders books looked good, at that stage. So another stock buy back had more priority.

Image


And for years 'many' have warned that bigger is not always better and airlines don't necessarily replace size for size, but there always seems to have been a strong resistance to listening.


Tell that the 777 operators listed above. The 777x backlog shrunk 50-60 aircraft this year. If the 777x was 20t lighter, cheaper to build/buy and certified in a more conservative way, this would have been a different situation.


Stitch already shot you down:

Stitch wrote:
Puhleeze.

I don't recall any counter-arguments from yourself when Airbus noted the HGW A330-300 could operate over 90% of the actual missions being flown by 777-200ERs and the 787-10 is at least as capable an airframe.

Which explains why a fair number of those airlines have bought 787-10s, I guess.
:checkmark:
 
SDL
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:16 am

Wouldn’t it be more logical for Emirates to take the -10 instead of -9? Seems to me it cover a lot of their routes including all Europe and they can use A350/777x for the longer routes. Or does the heat in Dubai make the capacity much lower?
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:42 am

Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.

This is about 100 statue miles farther than Boeing's listed brochure range of 6430 statue miles with full pax and bags. And this is going westbound against the jet stream.

The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.
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: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:34 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.


To be factually correct the poster above said the “flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm)”

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.


So it’s now impressive when an aircraft goes its design distance with a reduced payload. You are easy to impress, it should come as no surprise to anyone.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:11 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.


To be factually correct the poster above said the “flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm)”

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.


So it’s now impressive when an aircraft goes its design distance with a reduced payload. You are easy to impress, it should come as no surprise to anyone.



You were incorrect and shortchanged the 787-10 to make your point. Twisting facts in no way to make an argument.

Second, you may be ignorant to the fact that brochure range is still air. As I stated factually and clearly the the 787-10 went 100 statue miles over its brochure rangewestbound against the jet stream . You stated it went its design distance which again is factually incorrect. The 787-10 exceeded its brochure range going westbound. I would assume any reasonable person can understand the difference. :smile:
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: 15153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:34 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
You were incorrect and shortchanged the 787-10 to make your point. Twisting facts in no way to make an argument.


I don’t think anyone would be mistaken if I said around 5600 mm, and it wasn’t exactly that. The number you claim was the exact figure would not be the number on the flight plan.

ElroyJetson wrote:
Second, you may be ignorant to the fact that brochure range is still air. As I stated factually and clearly the the 787-10 went 100 statue miles over its brochure rangewestbound against the jet stream .


Where is the evidence to show it went “westbound against the jet stream”. I would suggest any flight planning system will maximise SAR.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sabby
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:45 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.

This is about 100 statue miles farther than Boeing's listed brochure range of 6430 statue miles with full pax and bags. And this is going westbound against the jet stream.

The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.


Please verify before posting something as factually correct. Boeing's brochure range for 787-10 is 6345 nautical miles with 336 pax and bags. SFO-AKL is 5663nm in gc route.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/
Last edited by sabby on Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:46 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.


To be factually correct the poster above said the “flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm)”

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.


So it’s now impressive when an aircraft goes its design distance with a reduced payload. You are easy to impress, it should come as no surprise to anyone.



You were incorrect and shortchanged the 787-10 to make your point. Twisting facts in no way to make an argument.

Second, you may be ignorant to the fact that brochure range is still air. As I stated factually and clearly the the 787-10 went 100 statue miles over its brochure rangewestbound against the jet stream . You stated it went its design distance which again is factually incorrect. The 787-10 exceeded its brochure range going westbound. I would assume any reasonable person can understand the difference. :smile:


The stated range for B78x is 6345nmi with full payload. The distance from SFO-AKl is 5676nmi. So in other words the plane made the journey within its designed range, granted in the range is in still air, but even with wind speed it is still 669nmi lower than its designed range and to add to this fact this is also with a light cargo load.

Williams-
B747>A340>A350>B777>MD11>B767>B757>MD88/90>B787>A380>A330>A220>A320>B737.
CPT JNB
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:11 am

tealnz wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
I don't understand all this A.net fascination with range...

The 787-10 is an excellent airplane because it provides great payload capacity on a relatively light frame with very good fuel burn with a range that covers (my estimate) 85 to 90% of widebody routes.
It will be an excellent transatlantic machine and an excellent trans-Asian bus. It can also do the shorter transpacific runs. It will be the true spiritual successor to the A330-300 and will replace many of them down the road.

It doesn't need the range if you ask me. But don't let me get in the way of a good A v B fight...

Indeed.

Maybe it’s an issue because the -10, being a straight shrink, has less range than the -9 ... and because the 787, for whatever reason, seems to generate stronger partisan views than anything else in the air.

Case in point: Air New Zealand and the 787. Asian routes are in the sweet spot for the -10 ex Auckland. US west coast is on the edge of its range, and inland USA looks too much of a stretch. But it’s not easy to have a straight technical discussion about the limitations of the new NZ fleet – some of the fans are adamant it’s also the 77W replacement. :banghead:


We will see won’t we, I bang my head to, what will NZ replace the 77W with? Luxon is no longer CEO I don’t think things will change to dramatically, the 787 wasn’t in the running to replace the 77E, that was between the 77X and the A350, the 77X dropped out of the running, guess what, they ordered the 78X. Luxon May have said they will look at larger more capable frames to replace the 77W, ie 77X and A350 but that again doesn’t mean they will order either.

There’s not a lot technical to talk about, the airline like most is about cost reduction, do you really see another type being added to a carrier that Is a small airline by world standards? Like I keep saying I would be very surprised, we will be having this discussion for a few more years yet, the oldest 77W turns 9 today, the youngest just 5.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: The Boeing 787-10 range: how far can it stretch its wings ?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:12 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Just to be as factually correct as possible, SFO-AKL is exactly 5676 nm. A poster above shortchanged the route distance by 76 nm.


To be factually correct the poster above said the “flight is around 5600 nm (6500 sm)”

ElroyJetson wrote:
The 787-10 is clearly more impressive than many thought.


So it’s now impressive when an aircraft goes its design distance with a reduced payload. You are easy to impress, it should come as no surprise to anyone.



You were incorrect and shortchanged the 787-10 to make your point. Twisting facts in no way to make an argument.

Second, you may be ignorant to the fact that brochure range is still air. As I stated factually and clearly the the 787-10 went 100 statue miles over its brochure rangewestbound against the jet stream . You stated it went its design distance which again is factually incorrect. The 787-10 exceeded its brochure range going westbound. I would assume any reasonable person can understand the difference. :smile:

So how exactly do you know what the payload WAS? And exactly how would you know whether it left freight behind? I have never seem the ramp ever load more freight than an airplane could uplift. Nor have I ever seen OPS remove passengers though I have seen them Limit passengers booked on a particular flight, I used to work near Load planning and those guys manage the loads pretty darn well.

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