MileHFL400 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

There were pre pandemic rumors of the 10ER happening but i havent heard anything since to be honest, aside from ANZ needing them as part of their order.

It’s not a 10ER. It won’t be sold as a new aircraft. It’s just an MTOW bump really. The 787 has already had one back in 2014

Is the MTOW bump confirmed?

Explicitly By Boeing nope. But a range boost to match the 777-200ER is and the only way to achieve that is an MTOW bump and other sources have confirmed

Opus99 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s not a 10ER. It won’t be sold as a new aircraft. It’s just an MTOW bump really. The 787 has already had one back in 2014

Is the MTOW bump confirmed?

Explicitly By Boeing nope. But a range boost to match the 777-200ER is and the only way to achieve that is an MTOW bump and other sources have confirmed

Great thanks! When would we expect to see the first frames with this enhancement?

MileHFL400 wrote:

N880BJ taxiing to the runway for it's delivery flight right now.

1st 787 delivery in almost one and a half years.

Is it strange that i am as excited about this moment as i was on this types first delivery?

Flightradar24 sent me a push notification about the flight as well. Finally! American needs these badly.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Is the MTOW bump confirmed?

Explicitly By Boeing nope. But a range boost to match the 777-200ER is and the only way to achieve that is an MTOW bump and other sources have confirmed

Great thanks! When would we expect to see the first frames with this enhancement?

2024 is the current EIS from what I gather

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

Heavierthanair wrote:

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

There is plenty of room for growth with the wing. The A343 had a similar sized wing with a ~20t higher MTOW, so I’m not sure why the 787s wing is suddenly too “small”.

The gear is the biggest limiting factor.

It doesn’t have to be better than a A350. Just good enough to keep 787 only customers loyal and make operating a split 787/A350 fleet much more difficult to justify. Think airlines like UA, NZ, etc. If UA replaces entire 777 fleet with the 787s instead of A350s for example Boeing would consider it a huge win.

Heavierthanair wrote:

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

For the millionth time. There is no ER. It is a simple MTOW bump. That is all. Second bump of the 787 program. There’s nothing to launch

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... -RdFaA21yw

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... -RdFaA21yw

I made a very positive post citing the Flightradar24 flight for this AA 787 Delivery... But the post was deleted? Did it cause an uproar that I missed?

I know it was scheduled to fly t 3pm... but I don't remember if that was EST or PST time?

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I made a very positive post citing the Flightradar24 flight for this AA 787 Delivery... But the post was deleted? Did it cause an uproar that I missed?

I know it was scheduled to fly t 3pm... but I don't remember if that was EST or PST time?

Its approaching VCV now.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I made a very positive post citing the Flightradar24 flight for this AA 787 Delivery... But the post was deleted? Did it cause an uproar that I missed?

I know it was scheduled to fly t 3pm... but I don't remember if that was EST or PST time?

Its approaching VCV now.

Cool. I wonder if there will be any kind of fan fare... or just really subdued?

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I made a very positive post citing the Flightradar24 flight for this AA 787 Delivery... But the post was deleted? Did it cause an uproar that I missed?

I know it was scheduled to fly t 3pm... but I don't remember if that was EST or PST time?

Its approaching VCV now.

Cool. I wonder if there will be any kind of fan fare... or just really subdued?

It’s VCV. There won’t be any fanfare.

Polot wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Its approaching VCV now.

Cool. I wonder if there will be any kind of fan fare... or just really subdued?

It’s VCV. There won’t be any fanfare.

well it's a boneyard.... 787 has received a resurrection of sorts.... cause for celebration.

It's officially been delivered.. just awesome! Good for Boeing and AA.

MileHFL400 wrote:

N880BJ taxiing to the runway for it's delivery flight right now.

1st 787 delivery in almost one and a half years.

Is it strange that i am as excited about this moment as i was on this types first delivery?

Was TC-LLP the last 787 delivery in June 2021.

Polot wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Its approaching VCV now.

Cool. I wonder if there will be any kind of fan fare... or just really subdued?

It’s VCV. There won’t be any fanfare.

Ah, but I was there
https://www.instagram.com/p/ChGUZ14vFdt/

Business as usual for the induction team though. The crew were whisked away in a blacked-out Suburban just 20 minutes after arrival and the jet was deserted 30 minutes after that.

Polot wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

There is plenty of room for growth with the wing. The A343 had a similar sized wing with a ~20t higher MTOW, so I’m not sure why the 787s wing is suddenly too “small”.

The gear is the biggest limiting factor.

It doesn’t have to be better than a A350. Just good enough to keep 787 only customers loyal and make operating a split 787/A350 fleet much more difficult to justify. Think airlines like UA, NZ, etc. If UA replaces entire 777 fleet with the 787s instead of A350s for example Boeing would consider it a huge win.

Am I correct the wing load of the 777-300ER is higher than for the 787-10? If so, it proves the 787-10 does not necessarily need a bigger wing for more range.

KLM would also welcome a range boost for the 787-10 to eventually replace their 77E fleet.

frigatebird wrote:

Polot wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

There is plenty of room for growth with the wing. The A343 had a similar sized wing with a ~20t higher MTOW, so I’m not sure why the 787s wing is suddenly too “small”.

The gear is the biggest limiting factor.

It doesn’t have to be better than a A350. Just good enough to keep 787 only customers loyal and make operating a split 787/A350 fleet much more difficult to justify. Think airlines like UA, NZ, etc. If UA replaces entire 777 fleet with the 787s instead of A350s for example Boeing would consider it a huge win.

Am I correct the wing load of the 777-300ER is higher than for the 787-10? If so, it proves the 787-10 does not necessarily need a bigger wing for more range.

KLM would also welcome a range boost for the 787-10 to eventually replace their 77E fleet.

You are correct

frigatebird wrote:

Polot wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

Well, I had a previous post about the "ER" removed, I likely stated truths that some here did not like. For one, the thing has not been launched yet, there is no statement from the manufacturer that it has so as of this date you cannot order it. Lets face it, the 787 development has been rather minimalistic, as opposed to the original plan the -9 came with the same wing as the -8. The -10 being a simple stretch inherited the same smallish wing. For most applications that worked out fine, however, to increase range without compromising payload a bigger wing and higher weights are definitely required. The present wing and gear are simply not good enough, so we are talking about a considerable investment for the substantial improvements required for an ER version. I take it this would cost in the area of US$ 2 billion, which would necessitate substantial sales in the area of several hundreds of aircraft. I do not see that happening in particular since the A company likely will come up with an Ultrafan update of the A350 at around the same time.

OK, I see that post deleted shortly as some here do not like face reality

There is plenty of room for growth with the wing. The A343 had a similar sized wing with a ~20t higher MTOW, so I’m not sure why the 787s wing is suddenly too “small”.

The gear is the biggest limiting factor.

It doesn’t have to be better than a A350. Just good enough to keep 787 only customers loyal and make operating a split 787/A350 fleet much more difficult to justify. Think airlines like UA, NZ, etc. If UA replaces entire 777 fleet with the 787s instead of A350s for example Boeing would consider it a huge win.

Am I correct the wing load of the 777-300ER is higher than for the 787-10? If so, it proves the 787-10 does not necessarily need a bigger wing for more range.

KLM would also welcome a range boost for the 787-10 to eventually replace their 77E fleet.

I believe so. In any event wing loading primarily affects takeoff and climb performance. The A350’s will be better but a hypothetical 787ER’s would likely be more than sufficient for most operators.

I've heard tell that the 787 family wing was designed (with the necessary strengthening) to handle upwards of 290,000kg.

It appears that the current undercarriage is the real limiter on MTOW at the moment, with 255,000kg what I have heard said is the current limit (likely driven by tire speed and/or pavement loading).

Stitch wrote:

I've heard tell that the 787 family wing was designed (with the necessary strengthening) to handle upwards of 290,000kg.

It appears that the current undercarriage is the real limiter on MTOW at the moment, with 255,000kg what I have heard said is the current limit (likely driven by tire speed and/or pavement loading).

Must be tire speed because pavement loading is also with limits of the 300ER. At least according to Leeham

Opus99 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I've heard tell that the 787 family wing was designed (with the necessary strengthening) to handle upwards of 290,000kg.

It appears that the current undercarriage is the real limiter on MTOW at the moment, with 255,000kg what I have heard said is the current limit (likely driven by tire speed and/or pavement loading).

Must be tire speed because pavement loading is also with limits of the 300ER. At least according to Leeham

Could we see Boeing upgrading the 78X landing gear to be triple bogey, a la 777/A35K? Would that do anything to increase the MTOW? Would it even be worth the cost to Boeing to change the landing gear structure?

itripreport wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I've heard tell that the 787 family wing was designed (with the necessary strengthening) to handle upwards of 290,000kg.

It appears that the current undercarriage is the real limiter on MTOW at the moment, with 255,000kg what I have heard said is the current limit (likely driven by tire speed and/or pavement loading).

Must be tire speed because pavement loading is also with limits of the 300ER. At least according to Leeham

Could we see Boeing upgrading the 78X landing gear to be triple bogey, a la 777/A35K? Would that do anything to increase the MTOW? Would it even be worth the cost to Boeing to change the landing gear structure?

Boeing says that it will retain full commonality with todays 787-10 and -9

Any changes will probably not be visible to the human eye.

It’s going to be a fuel system software update and MTOW increase. But the aircraft will need structural reinforcement for the the MTOW update which all 787-9s and -10s will get from late 2023 at the earliest

Pretty much it

Opus99 wrote:

itripreport wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Must be tire speed because pavement loading is also with limits of the 300ER. At least according to Leeham

Could we see Boeing upgrading the 78X landing gear to be triple bogey, a la 777/A35K? Would that do anything to increase the MTOW? Would it even be worth the cost to Boeing to change the landing gear structure?

Boeing says that it will retain full commonality with todays 787-10 and -9

Any changes will probably not be visible to the human eye.

It’s going to be a fuel system software update and MTOW increase. But the aircraft will need structural reinforcement for the the MTOW update which all 787-9s and -10s will get from late 2023 at the earliest

Pretty much it

I guess some folks don't like good news? Airbus routinely does these types of enhancements (the A350 comes to mind) and it is no big deal. Boeing proposes very similar enhancements and suddenly it's the most difficult thing in the world. Very strange.

It is absolutely clear cut in my mind this is a fairly simple update for Boeing. As you correctly stated pavement loading and wing loading will be less than the 77W. Again, not sure why folks think they understand the issue better than Boeing engineers.

As this is the Production/Delivery Thread I kindly ask you to continue discussion about B787 improvements in a separate thread and keep this thread on topic.

Second 787 delivery for AA taking place today from KPAE

AA9824 at 5pm local time heading to VCV for cabin modification and wifi installation

Opus99 wrote:

Second 787 delivery for AA taking place today from KPAE

AA9824 at 5pm local time heading to VCV for cabin modification and wifi installation

Thanks for the update. I’ve seen LH’s first bird taking a customer flight this weekend. Delivery this week maybe?

Does anyone know when QR will receive their next 787? and how many will they receive this year?

MileHFL400 wrote:

I’ve seen LH’s first bird taking a customer flight this weekend. Delivery this week maybe?

no, won't happen this week. End of August is the target

How many of the presently built 787's are considered white tails? There are 3 Westjet frames for example that Westjet isn't taking - what is happening to these frames?

I'm not sure if this was a delivery flight today but it makes sense.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/ ... 3-28-7-118

It was the 2nd for AA since the restart. Went to VCV for Cabin fitting and WIFI installation

Sorry if this is a silly question, but are some 787s built elsewhere besides Charleston? I drove by the flight line near the CHS delivery center the other day and didn’t see a LH there. Several AA and UA, plus Westjet, Oman, BA, KLM, AirEurope, etc.

chrisnh wrote:

Sorry if this is a silly question, but are some 787s built elsewhere besides Charleston? I drove by the flight line near the CHS delivery center the other day and didn’t see a LH there. Several AA and UA, plus Westjet, Oman, BA, KLM, AirEurope, etc.

Plenty are still in Everett, VCV and maybe other locations.

ikolkyo wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Sorry if this is a silly question, but are some 787s built elsewhere besides Charleston? I drove by the flight line near the CHS delivery center the other day and didn’t see a LH there. Several AA and UA, plus Westjet, Oman, BA, KLM, AirEurope, etc.

Plenty are still in Everett, VCV and maybe other locations.

I recall that production moved to CHS, a lot of the rework took place at Everett. Probably workers that had been building the 787, the production stop in Everett and the rework starting overlapped.

Yes, the Everett line has remained open for rework, after production ended there and moved to Charleston.

So when is the next delivery?

MileHFL400 wrote:

So when is the next delivery?

LH apparently is 31st August

Another AA did a customer flight yesterday so probably those two.

Now Jon Ostrower says that after the first of 4 deliveries. There will be another short pause in deliveries because the fixes take time, add supply chain shortages for parts that will need to be replaced. You get the story

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... uEw8rJ5q0A

Would it be possible that customers could receive some later build frames earlier than earlier builds because they would need less rework?

inkjet7 wrote:

Would it be possible that customers could receive some later build frames earlier than earlier builds because they would need less rework?

Yup, that’s possible.

Probably why Boeing wants to speed up production to 5 a month because new frames coming off the line don’t have those issues

Opus99 wrote:

inkjet7 wrote:

Would it be possible that customers could receive some later build frames earlier than earlier builds because they would need less rework?

Yup, that’s possible.

Probably why Boeing wants to speed up production to 5 a month because new frames coming off the line don’t have those issues

It also means those later frames are not delayed (or as delayed) so Boeing doesn’t owe compensation (or as much compensation) on them.

Boeing.com is listing only 1 787-9 remaining for WestJet, does anyone know which LN this is? There were three built and painted for them but two are NTUs.

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know the delivery dates of Turkish Airlines 3 frames kept in storage?

Thank you

inkjet7 wrote:

Would it be possible that customers could receive some later build frames earlier than earlier builds because they would need less rework?

Most likely. You saw the same with the 737MAX where they delivered new builts with LN 8100 and up quite quickly after the grounding was lifted, while many older LN's are still not delivered. Back to the 787, many of the earlier, pre LN1050 frames also have problematic assigned customers like any Chinese airline and Norwegian who either cancelled or aren't eager to receive them, so it's much easier to focus on the new builts there as well.

Is HA still slated to get their -9 next year? I know deliveries have just started, but I'm definitely hoping for sooner rather than later. I keep seeing "late 2023", but that could mean almost anything.

superbizzy73 wrote:

Is HA still slated to get their -9 next year? I know deliveries have just started, but I'm definitely hoping for sooner rather than later. I keep seeing "late 2023", but that could mean almost anything.

I’ve seen Feb 2023 as a delivery date

Opus99 wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

Is HA still slated to get their -9 next year? I know deliveries have just started, but I'm definitely hoping for sooner rather than later. I keep seeing "late 2023", but that could mean almost anything.

I’ve seen Feb 2023 as a delivery date

Thank you for the update. I'll keep my eyes open. I'm definitely curious about this because it will probably be my first 787 to fly in.

9V-SCI is heading to VCV, is SQ sending it in to storage.

Also deliveries gone quiet again. Is anyone getting a plane soon?

MileHFL400 wrote:

9V-SCI is heading to VCV, is SQ sending it in to storage.

Also deliveries gone quiet again. Is anyone getting a plane soon?

Yup. Lufthansa next week Wednesday.

So that will be 3 this month.

United September 5th
ANA September 22nd
I also expect an American OR BA in September

But yeah that’s strange. Why is SQ sending that 78X to VCV

Opus99 wrote:

But yeah that’s strange. Why is SQ sending that 78X to VCV

Personally I don't know in the case of SQ but in a broader perspective, it needs two to tango.

I dont know the contractual technicalities but originally Boeing and SQ agreed of a time window when the delivery happens. Boeing could not deliver so new time windows were agreed. The question is, after more than a year, was Boeing still willing to fix date and times or is it now more adhoc (as to not incure more penalties if the window would have been missed again) and SQ is just not ready to take it? Or was the window actually fixed way later just to be safe and SQ is happy to wait until the formal delivery time window and Boeing has to bear the storage costs till then?

Difficult to say...

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

But yeah that’s strange. Why is SQ sending that 78X to VCV

Personally I don't know in the case of SQ but in a broader perspective, it needs two to tango.

I dont know the contractual technicalities but originally Boeing and SQ agreed of a time window when the delivery happens. Boeing could not deliver so new time windows were agreed. The question is, after more than a year, was Boeing still willing to fix date and times or is it now more adhoc (as to not incure more penalties if the window would have been missed again) and SQ is just not ready to take it? Or was the window actually fixed way later just to be safe and SQ is happy to wait until the formal delivery time window and Boeing has to bear the storage costs till then?

Difficult to say...

The thing is. This is an already delivered frame that has been flying for about 3 years and flew yesterday too and pretty much everyday for the past 3 years