Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Varsity1 wrote:Boeing has stated they plan to raise the MTOW of the -10 by 13,000lb. It would allow AirNZ to operate AKL-LAX without penalty.
Varsity1 wrote:Boeing has stated they plan to raise the MTOW of the -10 by 13,000lb. It would allow AirNZ to operate AKL-LAX without penalty.
Antaras wrote:With 2-class config the 78X can reach 350 seats.
Seems like an acceptable 77W-replacement.
(NZ can also have a look at JL's A359 3-class config too)
frigatebird wrote:Varsity1 wrote:Boeing has stated they plan to raise the MTOW of the -10 by 13,000lb. It would allow AirNZ to operate AKL-LAX without penalty.
Can you post a link please? I’ve heard this rumoured ever since the NZ order for 787-10s but I’ve never seen any official confirmation this is in the works.
zkojq wrote:The 787-10s have been delayed, the chances of the 77Ws returning is probably marginal - two 77Ws have been returned to lessors.
The 77W has a very premium heavy configuration which is fantastic for full, high yielding flights to LAX, SFO and IAH but generally superfluous to the rest of the long haul network. I'd point out that until the pandemic, when 77Ws started being used for cargo runs to HKG, Air New Zealand had sent 77Ws to Asia on a grand total of five individual flights. Three of which were charters IIRC.
Given the fragmentation Air New Zealand's long haul market's have undergone over the past five years, you could argue that 77W sized aircraft aren't needed at all. On the other hand the pandemic may well have the effect of undoing much of that. It seems unlikely that the planned launch of EWR will happen in the next five years, though hopefully that will change for the better.
IMO there's every chance that the 787-10 order keeps getting kicked down the road before it eventually gets converted into -9s. There's probably going to need to be a -9 Config3 anyway for EWR though the airline would need to be confident that they could aggregate the premium traffic for that.
Opus99 wrote:zkojq wrote:The 787-10s have been delayed, the chances of the 77Ws returning is probably marginal - two 77Ws have been returned to lessors.
The 77W has a very premium heavy configuration which is fantastic for full, high yielding flights to LAX, SFO and IAH but generally superfluous to the rest of the long haul network. I'd point out that until the pandemic, when 77Ws started being used for cargo runs to HKG, Air New Zealand had sent 77Ws to Asia on a grand total of five individual flights. Three of which were charters IIRC.
Given the fragmentation Air New Zealand's long haul market's have undergone over the past five years, you could argue that 77W sized aircraft aren't needed at all. On the other hand the pandemic may well have the effect of undoing much of that. It seems unlikely that the planned launch of EWR will happen in the next five years, though hopefully that will change for the better.
IMO there's every chance that the 787-10 order keeps getting kicked down the road before it eventually gets converted into -9s. There's probably going to need to be a -9 Config3 anyway for EWR though the airline would need to be confident that they could aggregate the premium traffic for that.
By about 1 year. from late 2022 to 2023
Opus99 wrote:I'm not quite learned on the role the 300ERs play for NZ but....Thoughts?
zkncj wrote:Opus99 wrote:I'm not quite learned on the role the 300ERs play for NZ but....Thoughts?
The 77W (pre covid) did long-haul by night (AKL-LAX, LAX-LHR, AKL-SFO). By day they were allocated for to the short haul network and would be regulars on AKL-SYD/BNE/MEL also seasonally on NAN/RAR services.
The 781 would be much more flexible, with fleet spending half its time on short haul duties.
Dutchy wrote:Wouldn't the landing gear be maxed out for the -10? As it is the case with the B777?
Opus99 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Wouldn't the landing gear be maxed out for the -10? As it is the case with the B777?
It seems like 260 is the absolute MAX they can get out of the 789/10
Dutchy wrote:Opus99 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Wouldn't the landing gear be maxed out for the -10? As it is the case with the B777?
It seems like 260 is the absolute MAX they can get out of the 789/10
According to wiki (I know, but I am lazy), the MTOW of the 787-9 and 787-10 560,000 lb / 254,011 kg, so that would mean they still have 40.000lb/ 5.989kg to play with before the structural limits of the gear is reached? So plus 13.000lb is doable?
frigatebird wrote:Can you post a link please? I’ve heard this rumoured ever since the NZ order for 787-10s but I’ve never seen any official confirmation this is in the works.
Opus99 wrote:Just came across this. I know NZ was going to look at an order for either the 350 or 777X to replace the 300ERs but this seems to have gone under the radar somehow because i've not seen a discussion on it.
RJMAZ wrote:Air New Zealand has 9 777-200ER's and 8 777-300ER's. So this order of 8 787-10's and 12 787-9 options is also replacing the 777W fleet next decade. The options are to get delivery slots.
People often think aircraft get replaced by the model that is the closest in floor area and range, this is very rarely the case.
RJMAZ wrote:As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.
The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.
I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.
The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.
zeke wrote:The 787-10 is not capable of US flights.
RJMAZ wrote:I was saying the 787 was going to replace the 777W for the last 2 years. It is good to see that I am right.
RJMAZ wrote:Auckland to Los Angeles is only 5670nm. The 787-10 regularly operates routes that long. The whole south west of the USA is within reach of the 787-10. The 787-9 will be used for the longer routes.
RJMAZ wrote:
Auckland to New York is actually 150nm shorter than Perth to London comfortablly operated by Qantas. Granted Air New Zealand's current 787-9 fleet has a higher density cabin but I heard a rumour that two ultra long haul routes might have a premium cabin.
Dutchy wrote:Opus99 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Wouldn't the landing gear be maxed out for the -10? As it is the case with the B777?
It seems like 260 is the absolute MAX they can get out of the 789/10
According to wiki (I know, but I am lazy), the MTOW of the 787-9 and 787-10 560,000 lb / 254,011 kg, so that would mean they still have 40.000lb/ 5.989kg to play with before the structural limits of the gear is reached? So plus 13.000lb is doable?
zeke wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I was saying the 787 was going to replace the 777W for the last 2 years. It is good to see that I am right.
And you were clearly wrong at the time, NZ specifically stated at the time that was not the case.
“Our intention at this stage is that when the 777-300s come up for replacement towards the mid-to-late 2020s . . . that would be the logical time when we will probably want to look at a larger aircraft. The A350s and the Boeing 777Xs come into the frame.”
https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 787-order/
You didn’t predict the global pandemic.RJMAZ wrote:Auckland to Los Angeles is only 5670nm. The 787-10 regularly operates routes that long. The whole south west of the USA is within reach of the 787-10. The 787-9 will be used for the longer routes.
Jayunited has talked about this on many threads on this site, UA did operate the 787-10 to AKL WITHOUT CARGO and often with blocked seats. This is a heavy cargo route for NZ which makes the 787-10 unable to perform those flights.
zeke wrote:frigatebird wrote:Can you post a link please? I’ve heard this rumoured ever since the NZ order for 787-10s but I’ve never seen any official confirmation this is in the works.
There has been absolutely nothing from the manufacturer regarding this, and even when the NZ order came out NZ didn’t even confirm it. All that was mentioned was a slight improvement from the GEnx.
The NZ order had from memory options for up to 20 787s with purchases, options and substitution rights that can be tailored for a changing economic climate and growth opportunities. I think they will down gauge US flights to 787-9s. The 787-10 is not capable of US flights.
I think the 777 fleet will be retired completely, and that is the way others are thinking
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 0d305552fb
zeke wrote:RJMAZ wrote:
Auckland to New York is actually 150nm shorter than Perth to London comfortablly operated by Qantas. Granted Air New Zealand's current 787-9 fleet has a higher density cabin but I heard a rumour that two ultra long haul routes might have a premium cabin.
I see you edited your post to include this.
The 787-9 only barely does LHR-PER and is significantly restricted on what it can take.
NZ have mentioned a heavy premium configuration for the 787-9 to JFK in 2019, that I think is very low on their priority list now. I think they will just down gauge the 777-300ER down to the 787-9 for west coast USA flights.
lightsaber wrote:AKL-LAX is 6400sm, so 6700nm allows some cargo, but not 77W levels.
Opus99 wrote:So why would ANZ elude to the fact that they have worked with Boeing to allow the 787-10 to fly to all routes that the 200ER operates. when the 200ER ALSO operated LAX. Or maybe they lied?
Opus99 wrote:There has been nothing from the manufacturer and so? multiple have confirmed from insiders they are working on an MTOW Bump. is it everything they must announce as soon as they've decided on it or do you think it's a lie? and EIS is still 3 years away. Boeing did not announce the last 77W 2016 PIP until 2015, when do you think they started working on it? please. how else will the jet be able to handle all the 77Es routes
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:So why would ANZ elude to the fact that they have worked with Boeing to allow the 787-10 to fly to all routes that the 200ER operates. when the 200ER ALSO operated LAX. Or maybe they lied?
They never did say “fly to all routes that the 200ER” for example they never stated the 787-10 would operate 77E flights like Chicago and Huston. In Australian aviation about 6 months after the MOU was signed they stated the aircraft would be used to Asia.Opus99 wrote:There has been nothing from the manufacturer and so? multiple have confirmed from insiders they are working on an MTOW Bump. is it everything they must announce as soon as they've decided on it or do you think it's a lie? and EIS is still 3 years away. Boeing did not announce the last 77W 2016 PIP until 2015, when do you think they started working on it? please. how else will the jet be able to handle all the 77Es routes
They never stated the 787-10 would handle all the 777-200ER routes.
This is a fact based discussion forum, rumors and speculation MUST to stated as such and not passed off as fact, look at your OP you have passed it off as fact. And another poster challenged you on it because it has never been confirmed. The has been nothing from Boeing or other operators (including NZ) to indicate this is being offered.
The obvious question is if this was on the table, why haven’t other operators ordered it ?
When the 280 MTOW increase came to the A359, many operators went for it and it was confirmed by Airbus and many operators, and that happened years before EIS.
Opus99 wrote:In Jon ostrowers article on this topic he makes reference to lessors that are lining up their deliveries to take advantage of the higher weight option. Article is upthread.
On second look they said Routes similar to the 200ER.
But please what is NZ referring to in their eluded to by working with Boeing to ensure the -10 will fly missions to the 200ER, which for them was the "game changer". The floor is yours. I even replied the poster above to say we have not heard from Boeing only multiple media sources which i linked. But please let us know the insight you have
Also since NZ ordered, Korean, ANA and Untied have ordered the -10. Does that include the Update? I don't know but because they didn't say so, does not mean they did not. When airbus changed the winglet on the A359 did any airline announce they have ordered it because of the winglet. It was already a super jet
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:In Jon ostrowers article on this topic he makes reference to lessors that are lining up their deliveries to take advantage of the higher weight option. Article is upthread.
On second look they said Routes similar to the 200ER.
But please what is NZ referring to in their eluded to by working with Boeing to ensure the -10 will fly missions to the 200ER, which for them was the "game changer". The floor is yours. I even replied the poster above to say we have not heard from Boeing only multiple media sources which i linked. But please let us know the insight you have
Also since NZ ordered, Korean, ANA and Untied have ordered the -10. Does that include the Update? I don't know but because they didn't say so, does not mean they did not. When airbus changed the winglet on the A359 did any airline announce they have ordered it because of the winglet. It was already a super jet
Lots of words however again without facts. NZ said the 787-10 would replace the 777-200ER, they never stated it would replace the same routes.
The exact quote from the Boeing press release was
“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we've ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”
From https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth
I would ask you look back in history where NZ also said the 787-9 would replace the 767, has the 787-9 only fly 767 routes ? The answer is no.
The NZ 787-10 MOU was clearly stated as being up to 20 aircraft which can be swapped between 787-9 and 787-10, and deliveries could be changed in line with business requirements. It is entirely possible under the MOU that no 787-10s be delivered, or 20, it could also mean 20 787-9s, or just 8 more 787-9s in total.
Yes it is entirely possible for them to down gauge the 777 to 787, however statements trying to suggest the 787-10 can replace the longer sectors the 777 was doing is false.
The 787-9 can cover that network and more, pre COVID NZ even gave an indication at one stage they would start NYC before the orders came in.
Opus99 wrote:This back and forth is exhausting...(as usual) let’s see what happens. You’ve still not answered what the point of working with Boeing to achieve similar capabilities to their 209 fleet. Maybe they wanted the similar capabilities for fun and games. Please. Let’s just see what happens
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:This back and forth is exhausting...(as usual) let’s see what happens. You’ve still not answered what the point of working with Boeing to achieve similar capabilities to their 209 fleet. Maybe they wanted the similar capabilities for fun and games. Please. Let’s just see what happens
The problem is you are adding or removing words from what was actually said which changes the meaning completely.
For example they didn’t say “achieve similar capabilities”. When you say that to me means the same range AND payload, not just passenger numbers.
They also never said at any stage their “network needs” would ONLY be achieved with the 787-10, they went to some depth over various channels including annual reports and investor relations, press releases to state the MOU was flexible to swap between the -9 and -10, and between 8-20 aircraft.
That means they could say let’s go with 12 787-9s to replace the grounded 77E/77W and leave 8 options for 787-10s for later when things recover after covid. That would be a very smart move in my book.
Dutchy wrote:Opus99 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Wouldn't the landing gear be maxed out for the -10? As it is the case with the B777?
It seems like 260 is the absolute MAX they can get out of the 789/10
According to wiki (I know, but I am lazy), the MTOW of the 787-9 and 787-10 560,000 lb / 254,011 kg, so that would mean they still have 40.000lb/ 5.989kg to play with before the structural limits of the gear is reached? So plus 13.000lb is doable?
lightsaber wrote:I want the variable Turbine cooling from the LEAP/GE9x, but I haven't heard anything on that. That would be 2.25% or so or 140nm to 150nm more range.
zeke wrote:Yes it is entirely possible for them to down gauge the 777 to 787, however statements trying to suggest the 787-10 can replace the longer sectors the 777 was doing is false.
RJMAZ wrote:As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.
The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.
RJMAZ wrote:No one said the 787-10 would replace the 777 longer sectors.
RJMAZ wrote:As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.
RJMAZ wrote:Vancouver would be a route that would operate the 787-9. The 6,430nm brochure range of the 787-10 allows it to comfortably do San Francisco and Los Angeles with a full brochure load of 330 passengers. Of course this is with no extra revenue payload in the belly.
If Air New Zealand needed to regularly transport extra freight to Los Angeles then a 787-9 could be used. Air New Zealand aren't going to operate a second aircraft type with all of the costs involved just for extra freight revenue on one route.
The goal was always to be streamlined single widebody type airline. Paying lip service to Airbus will help get the best 787 price.
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:In Jon ostrowers article on this topic he makes reference to lessors that are lining up their deliveries to take advantage of the higher weight option. Article is upthread.
On second look they said Routes similar to the 200ER.
But please what is NZ referring to in their eluded to by working with Boeing to ensure the -10 will fly missions to the 200ER, which for them was the "game changer". The floor is yours. I even replied the poster above to say we have not heard from Boeing only multiple media sources which i linked. But please let us know the insight you have
Also since NZ ordered, Korean, ANA and Untied have ordered the -10. Does that include the Update? I don't know but because they didn't say so, does not mean they did not. When airbus changed the winglet on the A359 did any airline announce they have ordered it because of the winglet. It was already a super jet
Lots of words however again without facts. NZ said the 787-10 would replace the 777-200ER, they never stated it would replace the same routes.
The exact quote from the Boeing press release was
“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we've ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”
From https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-05-26 ... ure-Growth
I would ask you look back in history where NZ also said the 787-9 would replace the 767, has the 787-9 only fly 767 routes ? The answer is no.
The NZ 787-10 MOU was clearly stated as being up to 20 aircraft which can be swapped between 787-9 and 787-10, and deliveries could be changed in line with business requirements. It is entirely possible under the MOU that no 787-10s be delivered, or 20, it could also mean 20 787-9s, or just 8 more 787-9s in total.
Yes it is entirely possible for them to down gauge the 777 to 787, however statements trying to suggest the 787-10 can replace the longer sectors the 777 was doing is false.
The 787-9 can cover that network and more, pre COVID NZ even gave an indication at one stage they would start NYC before the orders came in.
Opus99 wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/08/28/air-new-zealand-mulls-dreamliner-only-fleet-to-meet-covid-horror-for-long-haul-travel/?sh=55c06fa152fb
NZ is also saying the 200ERs will not come back and they will essentially shrink and then have the -10s replace the 300ERs.
I'm not quite learned on the role the 300ERs play for NZ but....Thoughts?
zkncj wrote:I’m half expecting that some of the 20 787 options will go towards replacing some of the older 789s towards 2028-2030.
Keeping in mind that NZ currently has some the oldest 789s in operation. They have an couple of 789s which were the Boeing test aircraft, which are around 4 years older than the first deliverd 789.
zeke wrote:frigatebird wrote:Can you post a link please? I’ve heard this rumoured ever since the NZ order for 787-10s but I’ve never seen any official confirmation this is in the works.
There has been absolutely nothing from the manufacturer regarding this, and even when the NZ order came out NZ didn’t even confirm it. All that was mentioned was a slight improvement from the GEnx.
The NZ order had from memory options for up to 20 787s with purchases, options and substitution rights that can be tailored for a changing economic climate and growth opportunities. I think they will down gauge US flights to 787-9s. The 787-10 is not capable of US flights.
I think the 777 fleet will be retired completely, and that is the way others are thinking
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 0d305552fb
StudiodeKadent wrote:Opus99 wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/08/28/air-new-zealand-mulls-dreamliner-only-fleet-to-meet-covid-horror-for-long-haul-travel/?sh=55c06fa152fb
NZ is also saying the 200ERs will not come back and they will essentially shrink and then have the -10s replace the 300ERs.
I'm not quite learned on the role the 300ERs play for NZ but....Thoughts?
I think its pretty likely that NZ will move to a fleet of 787-9s and 787-10s exclusively for widebody.
We all know the long-term trend is fragmentation (smaller planes at higher frequencies). Auckland Airport isn't currently slot restricted to my knowledge, so frequency-growth is viable. We all know fleet simplification reduces various costs, too. In addition, NZ's execs have said that they worked with Boeing on making sure that the 787-10 will be able to perform routes "similar to" the ones currently flown by the 777-200ERs.
To be frank, I think a 789/7810 fleet is perfect for NZ. 787-10 to big Pacific destinations (incl. LAX and SFO). 787-9s in 3 different density configurations can handle the rest. It would be fantastically consistent and very efficient.
zeke wrote:RJMAZ wrote:No one said the 787-10 would replace the 777 longer sectors.
Read this thread for examples, direct your comments to those who have.RJMAZ wrote:As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.
And pre-COVID NZ said that was not the case, quote provide above.RJMAZ wrote:Vancouver would be a route that would operate the 787-9. The 6,430nm brochure range of the 787-10 allows it to comfortably do San Francisco and Los Angeles with a full brochure load of 330 passengers. Of course this is with no extra revenue payload in the belly.
If Air New Zealand needed to regularly transport extra freight to Los Angeles then a 787-9 could be used. Air New Zealand aren't going to operate a second aircraft type with all of the costs involved just for extra freight revenue on one route.
The goal was always to be streamlined single widebody type airline. Paying lip service to Airbus will help get the best 787 price.
Brochure ranges are based upon ISA, no wind, non EDTO, and 200 nm alternate.
Today, SFO-AKL which is not unusual
ISA+10 average
15 kts headwind average
20 minutes additional mandatory fuel required for EDTO
Alternate CHC 400+ nm
Hence the brochure range is meaningless on such a city pair.
As for cargo, pre-COVID airspace (https://airspaceas.com/carrier-portfoli ... w-zealand/) was selling 24 tonnes a day LAX-AKL cargo capacity, 787-10 total payload available today LAX-AKL is around 32 tonnes. Hence the 787-10 would not be able to replace the 77W. That is why NZ has stated previously that the 77X/A350 were being looked at for the 77W replacement well into the future.
Dutchy wrote:lightsaber wrote:I want the variable Turbine cooling from the LEAP/GE9x, but I haven't heard anything on that. That would be 2.25% or so or 140nm to 150nm more range.
I have no clue what you are talking about, but 2,25% decrease in fuel consumption is a lot, could make the plane a lot more attractive for airlines and thus GE / Boeing could sell the plane for more. So why isn't it implemented if it has so much potential.
zeke wrote:zkncj wrote:I’m half expecting that some of the 20 787 options will go towards replacing some of the older 789s towards 2028-2030.
Keeping in mind that NZ currently has some the oldest 789s in operation. They have an couple of 789s which were the Boeing test aircraft, which are around 4 years older than the first deliverd 789.
That is a very good point, do you know how many of them would be owned vs leased ?
For engine commonality it would make sense to replace them also.