Opus99 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

majano wrote:

I find reference to the 787-10 on page 19 of the ANZ presentation in the 2027 column. Is this the uncommitted fleet plan in your view or do I misunderstand your point?

The proposed 6 ton increased in MTOW to my knowledge has not been definitively confirmed by Boeing despite what some have said. If anyone has a link from Boeing with a definitive statement, by all means, please post.

If the 6 ton increase is true that would mean roughly a 400 nmi increase in range or equivalent payload capability.

What I’ve read is 6 tonnes AND fuel management software update

Can a software update give you the additional 600 nm? A PIP of 3-4% is also mentioned but that would be almost miraculous if achieved. So I really wonder about the 6t. Yet I could be wrong. I have been wrong many times before.

majano wrote:

Thanks for the correction and response Zeke. So in your opinion, what type of MTOW increase would an aircraft like the 787-10 require to gain 1,000 nm range? Others in the know are obviously also welcome to respond.
Also to the house at large, why then is there a fixation around the 12,000lb?

Ballpark number using the Breguet Range Equation assuming we are talking about the everything being the same except for the weight

Assume
Original MTOW 254000 kg
OEW = 136000 kg
Passenger and bags 33600 kg (336 pax and bags @100 kg each)
Reserve fuel 5000 kg
Landing weight 174500 kg

6330=F*ln(254000/174500)
F=16862

Incensed by 1000 nm solve for new MTOW

7330=(6330/ln(508/349))*ln(MTOW/174500)
Ballpark MTOW = 269519 kg

That’s a ballpark 17 ton (34,206 lb) increase

majano wrote:

I find reference to the 787-10 on page 19 of the ANZ presentation in the 2027 column. Is this the uncommitted fleet plan in your view or do I misunderstand your point?

Uncommitted, it’s outside the scope of current financials. NZ have said from the start they can swap between models.

The only way I see NZ resuming their cargo loads when things pickup is to use a IGW 787-9 from the west coast and increase frequency.

zeke wrote:

majano wrote:

Thanks for the correction and response Zeke. So in your opinion, what type of MTOW increase would an aircraft like the 787-10 require to gain 1,000 nm range? Others in the know are obviously also welcome to respond.
Also to the house at large, why then is there a fixation around the 12,000lb?

Ballpark number using the Breguet Range Equation assuming we are talking about the everything being the same except for the weight

Assume
Original MTOW 254000 kg
OEW = 136000 kg
Passenger and bags 33600 kg (336 pax and bags @100 kg each)
Reserve fuel 5000 kg
Landing weight 174500 kg

6330=F*ln(254000/174500)
F=16862

Incensed by 1000 nm solve for new MTOW

7330=(6330/ln(508/349))*ln(MTOW/174500)
Ballpark MTOW = 269519 kg

That’s a ballpark 17 ton (34,206 lb) increase

Thank you. This is helpful and I will take time to understand the Breguet equation. I have seen it mentioned a few times before.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The proposed 6 ton increased in MTOW to my knowledge has not been definitively confirmed by Boeing despite what some have said. If anyone has a link from Boeing with a definitive statement, by all means, please post.

Are the posters in this thread, talking up a future MTOW as if a done deal, the same ones who were critical of the A350F not being a real project, with no real orders a month ago?
Are the posters in this thread, sure NZ will take delivery of the 787-10 in 4 years because it's in the annual report, the same ones just as sure UA won't take delivery of A35's, in the same timeframe, despite appearing in their annual report?

Take a deep breath, smile, remember your New Year's resolution to be nice to people and respect conflicting views. If you want to encourage insiders to contribute, be more welcoming and receptive to views at variance with your own. Save your passion for really important stuff, like family, friends, and looking after your neighbourhood.

Revelation wrote:

Fred, if it's not too much of a bother, it would be interesting to see 789 vs 77E and 781 vs 77W as it might help resolve the current squabble.

The 789, 77E and 77W are similar in their payload/range performance in that they all have just over 5knm MZFW range and then 7-7600nm Pax and bags range (almost entirely driven by specific range of better engines of new gen). The 781 is much more akin to the 773 with a ~4knm MZFW range and 6-6400nm pax and bags range, again dependent on engine generation).

The improvements in the order given to the 77W over the 773 is what would be required to get the 781 to the 789 payload range performance sweet spot, a generationally new engine and large MTOW increase. That might be on the cards if Airbus was occupying that market space with an A346esque offering but that’s really not the case with the A359.

Additional performance is always welcome no doubt but some folks here start with the end they’d like to see then derive pips and weight increases to match the preconceived outcome…

The charts aren’t a one vs another scenario, they are how one fits within a plethora of others. The generational differences would make it almost completely one sided, I.e. only the new would look remotely useful. It may well be better to show which missions each of the aircraft populate within their respective generations.

Current gen - 789,781,359,35K
Early 00s gen- 77W, 346, 388
90s gen 773, 77E, 343, 342.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

smartplane wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The proposed 6 ton increased in MTOW to my knowledge has not been definitively confirmed by Boeing despite what some have said. If anyone has a link from Boeing with a definitive statement, by all means, please post.

Are the posters in this thread, talking up a future MTOW as if a done deal, the same ones who were critical of the A350F not being a real project, with no real orders a month ago?
Are the posters in this thread, sure NZ will take delivery of the 787-10 in 4 years because it's in the annual report, the same ones just as sure UA won't take delivery of A35's, in the same timeframe, despite appearing in their annual report?

Take a deep breath, smile, remember your New Year's resolution to be nice to people and respect conflicting views. If you want to encourage insiders to contribute, be more welcoming and receptive to views at variance with your own. Save your passion for really important stuff, like family, friends, and looking after your neighbourhood.

I think you need to read the article in the first post of this thread. Unless you don't believe Dominic Gates is credible.

This was from Stan Deal.

"He also revealed that Boeing is currently designing a new “high gross weight” version of the largest Dreamliner, the 787-10, bumping up its payload and range to make it more competitive against the Airbus A350-900."

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Fred, if it's not too much of a bother, it would be interesting to see 789 vs 77E and 781 vs 77W as it might help resolve the current squabble.

The 789, 77E and 77W are similar in their payload/range performance in that they all have just over 5knm MZFW range and then 7-7600nm Pax and bags range (almost entirely driven by specific range of better engines of new gen). The 781 is much more akin to the 773 with a ~4knm MZFW range and 6-6400nm pax and bags range, again dependent on engine generation).

The improvements in the order given to the 77W over the 773 is what would be required to get the 781 to the 789 payload range performance sweet spot, a generationally new engine and large MTOW increase. That might be on the cards if Airbus was occupying that market space with an A346esque offering but that’s really not the case with the A359.

Additional performance is always welcome no doubt but some folks here start with the end they’d like to see then derive pips and weight increases to match the preconceived outcome…

The charts aren’t a one vs another scenario, they are how one fits within a plethora of others. The generational differences would make it almost completely one sided, I.e. only the new would look remotely useful. It may well be better to show which missions each of the aircraft populate within their respective generations.

Current gen - 789,781,359,35K
Early 00s gen- 77W, 346, 388
90s gen 773, 77E, 343, 342.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think you will find many in here assuming that a 781 can get to 359 performance without major change which is not going to happen - I think most are speculating 90-95% which may be good enough and that would probably require all 3 - MTOW Increase, PIP and weight loss.

Although a 789 with those changes could be just as capable as an existing A350, maybe not lift quite as much but be close.

Of course they could put the same effort into an A359 and make it into more of an 77L or 778 - but we know how well those have sold.

In any case I suspect sales/production will be more or less equal going forward with neither manufacturer gaining significantly more market share.

Polot wrote:

Select A350s also replaced A330s and 787s also replaced 772 and 773As…together both are a part of the regional fleet. SQ mixes and matches regional A350s and 787s depending on market need. The 787-10 was never an option to replace long haul 777s at SQ, considering SQ ordered the A359 for that role long before the 787-10 variant was even launched (and SQ was the 787-10 launch customer along with being first operator).

I think the SQ fleet planners did a good job to match the capabilities of the new aircraft to their network. The A350-900 is used on routes where cargo carrying and range is more important and the B787-10 on regional routes where pax carrying takes priority. When SQ ordered the A350, that was the only game in town to replace both its B777 and A330 fleets. When the B787-10 was launched, they saw an opportunity to further enhance their fleet.

It is unfortunate that Covid-19 has killed international travel and set it back 3-5 years. But this will give Boeing more time to evaluate the requirements for a more capable B787-10.

flipdewaf wrote:

The charts aren’t a one vs another scenario, they are how one fits within a plethora of others. The generational differences would make it almost completely one sided, I.e. only the new would look remotely useful. It may well be better to show which missions each of the aircraft populate within their respective generations.

Current gen - 789,781,359,35K
Early 00s gen- 77W, 346, 388
90s gen 773, 77E, 343, 342.

Fair enough. I think the question that seems to be generating buzz is can the current generation's simple stretch (781) serve as a replacement for the two-generation-old sweet spot (77E). The 77E was originally sold as the 777-200 IGW, with a decent MTOW boost and minor PIPs. In my view there were three 777 generations: 772/773, 77E, 77W/77L. The 781 pretty much was a straight stretch of 789 so sacrificing range but now (as is abundantly clear to me and others) is about to get a MTOW bump. If there isn't an acceptable way to show the compatibility or lack thereof, so be it.

Given the charts are prepared on the basis of lowest CASM, it'd be hard for the older generation to beat the newer generation.

It's like we'd need 3d contour plots of each plane's CASM as a function of payload and range, then put them into a 3d visualization tool that one could use to further understand each plane's relative strength/weakness.

flee wrote:

Polot wrote:

Select A350s also replaced A330s and 787s also replaced 772 and 773As…together both are a part of the regional fleet. SQ mixes and matches regional A350s and 787s depending on market need. The 787-10 was never an option to replace long haul 777s at SQ, considering SQ ordered the A359 for that role long before the 787-10 variant was even launched (and SQ was the 787-10 launch customer along with being first operator).

I think the SQ fleet planners did a good job to match the capabilities of the new aircraft to their network. The A350-900 is used on routes where cargo carrying and range is more important and the B787-10 on regional routes where pax carrying takes priority. When SQ ordered the A350, that was the only game in town to replace both its B777 and A330 fleets. When the B787-10 was launched, they saw an opportunity to further enhance their fleet.

This is not completely correct. SQ was one of the key players to force the redesign from A350 to A350XWB. They ordered the 787-9 first stating clearly and publicly that the A350 Mk1 was inadequate and when Airbus announced the A350XWB, the Airbus announcement came with a firm commitment from SQ to buy 20 and a strong endorsement that Airbus had listened to SQ and redesigned the A350 to their needs and it was now a much better aircraft (than the A350 Mk1). The next customer for the A350XWB came more than a year after SQ. SQ subsequently changed the 787-9 order to 787-10 and became the launch customer for that program and overall the 787 was bought before the A350.

BTW the regional fleet went from 77-200/300 -> A333 -> mix 787-10/A350-900. A few 777-200 and 777-300 were kept for certain routes during the A333 period and the A333 were always meant to be an interim solution.

AngMoh wrote:

flee wrote:

Polot wrote:

Select A350s also replaced A330s and 787s also replaced 772 and 773As…together both are a part of the regional fleet. SQ mixes and matches regional A350s and 787s depending on market need. The 787-10 was never an option to replace long haul 777s at SQ, considering SQ ordered the A359 for that role long before the 787-10 variant was even launched (and SQ was the 787-10 launch customer along with being first operator).

I think the SQ fleet planners did a good job to match the capabilities of the new aircraft to their network. The A350-900 is used on routes where cargo carrying and range is more important and the B787-10 on regional routes where pax carrying takes priority. When SQ ordered the A350, that was the only game in town to replace both its B777 and A330 fleets. When the B787-10 was launched, they saw an opportunity to further enhance their fleet.

This is not completely correct. SQ was one of the key players to force the redesign from A350 to A350XWB. They ordered the 787-9 first stating clearly and publicly that the A350 Mk1 was inadequate and when Airbus announced the A350XWB, the Airbus announcement came with a firm commitment from SQ to buy 20 and a strong endorsement that Airbus had listened to SQ and redesigned the A350 to their needs and it was now a much better aircraft (than the A350 Mk1). The next customer for the A350XWB came more than a year after SQ. SQ subsequently changed the 787-9 order to 787-10 and became the launch customer for that program and overall the 787 was bought before the A350.

BTW the regional fleet went from 77-200/300 -> A333 -> mix 787-10/A350-900. A few 777-200 and 777-300 were kept for certain routes during the A333 period and the A333 were always meant to be an interim solution.

The majority of SQ's 787 order were allocated to Scoot

morrisond wrote:

Very simply you are not comparing Apples to Apples.

I'm not comparing apples to apples because it is not my intention to compare apples to apples (not everything in life is). As you could have understood from my earlier post, it is a possible sequence of decisions and events that identifies a possible vulnerability in Boeing strategy related to the 787 if they not sufficiently anticipate an ultrafan A350. Again you are forcing me to take the thread further off topic.

morrisond wrote:

You are talking about a PIP and increasing the MTOW on 787 which may cost $1B in total and could be delivered in less than 5 years to a $15-20B program (Engine $10B, 3 custom length frames - $5-10B) that you may not be able to deliver in numbers until after 2032 - assuming everything goes well on an Engine that has a ton of new tech.

Okay, let's put this in some context. The 777x program for instance required:

- New engines ($2+ billion)
- New wing ($2 billion)
- 2 changed length's (simple stretches) and further development and initial certification cost ($1 billion)

Total was $5 billion which, has gone up to $6.5 billion apparently with all the certification drama).

In the market it provides a 400+ seat replacement with a sales expectation of 350.


Now let's look at what I'm proposing for the A350UF:

- New engines (granted more extensive development so more expensive then the GE9X but 10 billion instead of $2+ billion does not seem realistic). Let's give it $6 billion.
- No new wing,
- 3 changed length's (2 if you exclude the 850) which are also simple stretches and further development and certification cost: $2 billion.
- Possible development of a lighter "850"; $2 billion

So a total of ~$10 billion (remember the whole A350 up till now, with all it's weights and wing variants is estimated at $15 billion). What this provides in the market:

- In my view a total capture of any new sales in the 400+ market.
- A totally revamped and future (SAF) proofing of the A350.
- Protection of the A350 against new variants of the 787
- With a possible 265T "850" an answer to the 787-9 and a long term replacement for the A330NEO.

So if you compare what the $6.5 billion brought Boeing with the 777x program and what this potential $10 billion investment could provide for the A350 than yes I think that could be a very worthwhile investment. Also consider a small part of the difference is due to inflation.

morrisond wrote:

If Airbus goes to that amount of investment - which they have no real reason to do so - why do you not think Boeing would as well?

If have already explained the reasons for Airbus to do so in the very post you quoted. If you think that line of thought is not valid than please engage in what was said and provide reasoning why it is not valid.

The reason why it would be difficult for Boeing to respond in a time frame sufficiently short that would not lead to significant 787 market share erosion would be because, as again already explained, 1) they would have already committed and introduced a PIP and 2) as Lightsaber has explained you don't just develop a widebody GTF on a whim, it takes years of development. If Airbus helps RR in financing (because they have even more to gain), they would want exclusivity (or at least a significant period of exclusivity) in return, preventing Boeing to just slap on ultrafan as a quick fix.


I want to further point out that I'm not attacking Boeing, as an outsider it is not even possible to know which scenario's they are looking at and which possible product enhancements they are actually considering. As someone interested in product strategy, I'm merely identifying a possible risk in Boeing's 787 strategy if they would commit to only a PIP. What I do often experience is that overzealous enthusiasts of either A or B are so defensive about any issue addressed about their favourite brand that a meaningful discussion is very difficult to have and quickly leads to threads going way off topic as is now again the case.



On the general notion that there will be no new widebody engines before 2035:

In 2018 Airbus was acquiring engineering workforce for work on the A350NEO. In the mean time we have had COVID, which indeed drastically reduced the market, but also permanently took out quite a bit of older WB metal. Also of course we have seen narrowbodies gaining capability, compromising the low end of the WB market. That said I find it very hard to believe that, considering the above, there would be a 17 year delay between Airbus starting to hire A350NEO workforce and an eventual introduction. Especially considering that the A350NEO part of the market would not be as affected by these new more capable narrowbodies.

I could not edit my post any more but as a further explanation:

If you allocate $3 billion of that $10 billion to the "1050", then you have $7 billion left for addressing part of the A350 that competes more head to head with the 787. Sure $7 billion is a lot more than $1 or $2 billion leading to a significant purchase price difference. However a new plane is also much more expensive than existing one, yet still the new planes starts selling while the old plane fades away. Why? Because over the lifetime of the plane it is the better economic proposition to the airline. That's the same reason why a $7 billion investment can makes sense in comparison to a $1 to $2 billion investment.

flipdewaf wrote:

So I have been working on some additional Modelling for the last few weeks before Christmas and looking at CASM rather than just fuel burn as I would normally. Inevitably there will be more assumptions but I figured this would be a good opportunity to make some suitable comparisons.

long story short: The charts show green where the aircraft has the lowest CASM of the selected and the blue is where it is within 5% of the lowest CASM available. The Range of the mission is shown along the top and the Additional Payload available to be carried is on the left in tons. Once the cost is calculated with the additional payload taken up (if possible) then the additional revenue of the payload is taken in to account ($0.2/t-nm) then the figure is divided by a figure that represents the number of seats (1.1seats/m^2).

The upper of the 2 charts shows the B781 with a 254t MTOW and the lower with 260t MTOW.



The interesting part is that the 781 MTOW increase only affects the sweet spot of the A359 when they get towards high additional cargo at 'low' range (sub 5000nm) and above 25t additional cargo availability. Its biggest effect is on the sweet spot of the 789, of course that is with the 789 at 254t MTOW so may not be relevant as this may too get the upgrade.

Fred

Thanks for these Fred they are very informative.

A quick question on what you have included in your CASM calculations. Is it just relative fuel consumption? In reality to my knowledge each company will have different CASM due to the routes they fly (route cost change by weight as well as country overflying), airports charges etc.

Then there is the tricky depreciation charges (which favour older airframes) and maintenance (which favours newer frames).

Tim

Taxi645 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Very simply you are not comparing Apples to Apples.

I'm not comparing apples to apples because it is not my intention to compare apples to apples (not everything in life is). As you could have understood from my earlier post, it is a possible sequence of decisions and events that identifies a possible vulnerability in Boeing strategy related to the 787 if they not sufficiently anticipate an ultrafan A350. Again you are forcing me to take the thread further off topic.

morrisond wrote:

You are talking about a PIP and increasing the MTOW on 787 which may cost $1B in total and could be delivered in less than 5 years to a $15-20B program (Engine $10B, 3 custom length frames - $5-10B) that you may not be able to deliver in numbers until after 2032 - assuming everything goes well on an Engine that has a ton of new tech.

Okay, let's put this in some context. The 777x program for instance required:

- New engines ($2+ billion)
- New wing ($2 billion)
- 2 changed length's (simple stretches) and further development and initial certification cost ($1 billion)

Total was $5 billion which, has gone up to $6.5 billion apparently with all the certification drama).

In the market it provides a 400+ seat replacement with a sales expectation of 350.


Now let's look at what I'm proposing for the A350UF:

- New engines (granted more extensive development so more expensive then the GE9X but 10 billion instead of $2+ billion does not seem realistic). Let's give it $6 billion.
- No new wing,
- 3 changed length's (2 if you exclude the 850) which are also simple stretches and further development and certification cost: $2 billion.
- Possible development of a lighter "850"; $2 billion

So a total of ~$10 billion (remember the whole A350 up till now, with all it's weights and wing variants is estimated at $15 billion). What this provides in the market:

- In my view a total capture of any new sales in the 400+ market.
- A totally revamped and future (SAF) proofing of the A350.
- Protection of the A350 against new variants of the 787
- With a possible 265T "850" an answer to the 787-9 and a long term replacement for the A330NEO.

So if you compare what the $6.5 billion brought Boeing with the 777x program and what this potential $10 billion investment could provide for the A350 than yes I think that could be a very worthwhile investment. Also consider a small part of the difference is due to inflation.

morrisond wrote:

If Airbus goes to that amount of investment - which they have no real reason to do so - why do you not think Boeing would as well?

If have already explained the reasons for Airbus to do so in the very post you quoted. If you think that line of thought is not valid than please engage in what was said and provide reasoning why it is not valid.

The reason why it would be difficult for Boeing to respond in a time frame sufficiently short that would not lead to significant 787 market share erosion would be because, as again already explained, 1) they would have already committed and introduced a PIP and 2) as Lightsaber has explained you don't just develop a widebody GTF on a whim, it takes years of development. If Airbus helps RR in financing (because they have even more to gain), they would want exclusivity (or at least a significant period of exclusivity) in return, preventing Boeing to just slap on ultrafan as a quick fix.


I want to further point out that I'm not attacking Boeing, as an outsider it is not even possible to know which scenario's they are looking at and which possible product enhancements they are actually considering. As someone interested in product strategy, I'm merely identifying a possible risk in Boeing's 787 strategy if they would commit to only a PIP. What I do often experience is that overzealous enthusiasts of either A or B are so defensive about any issue addressed about their favourite brand that a meaningful discussion is very difficult to have and quickly leads to threads going way off topic as is now again the case.



On the general notion that there will be no new widebody engines before 2035:

In 2018 Airbus was acquiring engineering workforce for work on the A350NEO. In the mean time we have had COVID, which indeed drastically reduced the market, but also permanently took out quite a bit of older WB metal. Also of course we have seen narrowbodies gaining capability, compromising the low end of the WB market. That said I find it very hard to believe that, considering the above, there would be a 17 year delay between Airbus starting to hire A350NEO workforce and an eventual introduction. Especially considering that the A350NEO part of the market would not be as affected by these new more capable narrowbodies.

If your whole argument is that Boeing would box themselves by committing to a low cost program for 787 and then Airbus goes and does extensive changes to A350 - well that one is blown up by the fact that that is exactly what they did on 777. In fact they committed to improving 77W/F even after launching 77X.

Why could Boeing not respond to a larger effort? If Airbus could get an exclusive on Ultrafan - and that's a big if - Rolls would probably be a lot happier to get it on both frames - GE I'm sure could come up with something quite competitive in that time frame as well.

We know GE is working on a geared Turbofan itself. Combine that with the GE9X advances and that is something Rolls would have a hard time matching.

It will always be tit-for-tat. For some reason you believe Boeing would do nothing in response and sit back and lose the market.

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

Plus with a smaller wing on 787 (than A350) and potentially higher thrust therefore possibly needed the thrust differential may not be that material.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Fred, if it's not too much of a bother, it would be interesting to see 789 vs 77E and 781 vs 77W as it might help resolve the current squabble.

The 789, 77E and 77W are similar in their payload/range performance in that they all have just over 5knm MZFW range and then 7-7600nm Pax and bags range (almost entirely driven by specific range of better engines of new gen). The 781 is much more akin to the 773 with a ~4knm MZFW range and 6-6400nm pax and bags range, again dependent on engine generation).

The improvements in the order given to the 77W over the 773 is what would be required to get the 781 to the 789 payload range performance sweet spot, a generationally new engine and large MTOW increase. That might be on the cards if Airbus was occupying that market space with an A346esque offering but that’s really not the case with the A359.

Additional performance is always welcome no doubt but some folks here start with the end they’d like to see then derive pips and weight increases to match the preconceived outcome…

The charts aren’t a one vs another scenario, they are how one fits within a plethora of others. The generational differences would make it almost completely one sided, I.e. only the new would look remotely useful. It may well be better to show which missions each of the aircraft populate within their respective generations.

Current gen - 789,781,359,35K
Early 00s gen- 77W, 346, 388
90s gen 773, 77E, 343, 342.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think you will find many in here assuming that a 781 can get to 359 performance without major change which is not going to happen - I think most are speculating 90-95% which may be good enough and that would probably require all 3 - MTOW Increase, PIP and weight loss.

Although a 789 with those changes could be just as capable as an existing A350, maybe not lift quite as much but be close.

Of course they could put the same effort into an A359 and make it into more of an 77L or 778 - but we know how well those have sold.

In any case I suspect sales/production will be more or less equal going forward with neither manufacturer gaining significantly more market share.

This sums it up. There is an obsession that aircraft are compared apples to apples. That is never the case. In sales campaigns they look at the cost of split orders, top off orders for existing larger and smaller aircraft and the aircraft in the bid.

This is a system optimization. I agree the 787-10 needs a PiP, MTOW increase, and weigh reduction. When that happens, it will be 789+787-10 vs. A359 (possibly A350-1000, but that guage needs the same before it has volume).

This is a business case by the engine vendors looking out for their self interest and the airframer looking out for their self interest.

If Boeing can sell 300 more 787-10, get the 777x to market, and develop the MoM, good enough. There is a need for a modern widebody with the improvements I posted about about a hundred posts back. The obvious market is the bottom of the widebody market as there is no doubt the 789/787-10/A359 will improve and thus be tough competition.

The 787-10 only needs to be a bit better for TPAC and Europe to Pacific coast Asia. It will never be the frame for Japan to Europe, the A359 is much better optimized for that mission. Good enough will sell.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 789, 77E and 77W are similar in their payload/range performance in that they all have just over 5knm MZFW range and then 7-7600nm Pax and bags range (almost entirely driven by specific range of better engines of new gen). The 781 is much more akin to the 773 with a ~4knm MZFW range and 6-6400nm pax and bags range, again dependent on engine generation).

The improvements in the order given to the 77W over the 773 is what would be required to get the 781 to the 789 payload range performance sweet spot, a generationally new engine and large MTOW increase. That might be on the cards if Airbus was occupying that market space with an A346esque offering but that’s really not the case with the A359.

Additional performance is always welcome no doubt but some folks here start with the end they’d like to see then derive pips and weight increases to match the preconceived outcome…

The charts aren’t a one vs another scenario, they are how one fits within a plethora of others. The generational differences would make it almost completely one sided, I.e. only the new would look remotely useful. It may well be better to show which missions each of the aircraft populate within their respective generations.

Current gen - 789,781,359,35K
Early 00s gen- 77W, 346, 388
90s gen 773, 77E, 343, 342.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think you will find many in here assuming that a 781 can get to 359 performance without major change which is not going to happen - I think most are speculating 90-95% which may be good enough and that would probably require all 3 - MTOW Increase, PIP and weight loss.

Although a 789 with those changes could be just as capable as an existing A350, maybe not lift quite as much but be close.

Of course they could put the same effort into an A359 and make it into more of an 77L or 778 - but we know how well those have sold.

In any case I suspect sales/production will be more or less equal going forward with neither manufacturer gaining significantly more market share.

This sums it up. There is an obsession that aircraft are compared apples to apples. That is never the case. In sales campaigns they look at the cost of split orders, top off orders for existing larger and smaller aircraft and the aircraft in the bid.

This is a system optimization. I agree the 787-10 needs a PiP, MTOW increase, and weigh reduction. When that happens, it will be 789+787-10 vs. A359 (possibly A350-1000, but that guage needs the same before it has volume).

This is a business case by the engine vendors looking out for their self interest and the airframer looking out for their self interest.

If Boeing can sell 300 more 787-10, get the 777x to market, and develop the MoM, good enough. There is a need for a modern widebody with the improvements I posted about about a hundred posts back. The obvious market is the bottom of the widebody market as there is no doubt the 789/787-10/A359 will improve and thus be tough competition.

The 787-10 only needs to be a bit better for TPAC and Europe to Pacific coast Asia. It will never be the frame for Japan to Europe, the A359 is much better optimized for that mission. Good enough will sell.

Lightsaber

Just tagging on to what you said. No single plane can be all things to all airlines. CX and SQ for example, fly a lot of cargo and have many long range routes to Western Europe or North America. The A350 is optimized for long range routes with significant payload. As a result they both ordered the A350 which was obviously the right plane for them.

Other carriers may not have a mix of as many very long range routes or are as cargo intensive.

The good news for airlines is how many quality choices exist in the wide body market. It is no longer the day when airlines bought 747's because it was the only wide body aircraft with significant range, even if it was too much capacity for many of their routes.

With a MTOW bump the 787-10 may, as you say, be good enough for some carriers. Time will tell.

Seeing how there are two ways to increase the range of an aircraft, the first (and best) being to increase efficiency, and the second is to simply enable it to carry more fuel, let’s look at both of them. Increasing efficiency, especially on a new plane such as the 787 which was designed with efficiency as one of the primary goals, is not easy. Short a new engine (for which the technology is not ready to give enough improvement to make it worthwhile) any improvement possible with reasonable cost will probably be in the low single digits, or even fractions of a percent. The other possibility is a new larger wing, which would also fail on economic grounds. Perhaps when a GTF is available Boeing will choose to do a 787X with a new engine and wing combo. But this would be for just the 787-10, as the 789 does not need a larger wing.

Enabling it to carry more fuel is fine as long as the gain in empty weight is minimal. Adding a lot of weight, like adding a center body main gear will cause the efficiency to go down detracting from the 787-10’s most attractive feature, the ability to fly medium length routes with unbeatable efficiency. Which is one reason, the other being cost, why Boeing did not put a larger wing on it to begin with. So I see it as likely that any increase in MTOW at this point will be almost all in fuel. As I understand that the 787 in general is very close to pavement load limits for the landing gear this won’t be able to be much.

It is interesting to see that as jetliners have increased in efficiency practical ranges have increased. And as they have, it seems that airliners that have less than the maximum practical range have been less successful, even though the vast majority of routes are much shorter. I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM, it would appeal to airlines who either don’t have any super long routes that exceed its range, or just a few for which they can buy the 789. But then comes NZ that wants just a bit more range, and of course Boeing wants the order and is trying to oblige them. I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

SEPilot wrote:

... I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM, it would appeal to airlines who either don’t have any super long routes that exceed its range, or just a few for which they can buy the 789. But then comes NZ that wants just a bit more range, and of course Boeing wants the order and is trying to oblige them. I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

In case they would need to reduce efficiency for shorter routes maybe they would offer both variants? I believe their competitor does offer several MTOW versions even if some of them are technically identical.

SEPilot wrote:

I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM, it would appeal to airlines who either don’t have any super long routes that exceed its range, or just a few for which they can buy the 789. But then comes NZ that wants just a bit more range, and of course Boeing wants the order and is trying to oblige them.

I am going to presume that NZ feels the 787-10 has sufficient capacity to serve as an acceptable 777-300ER replacement and just need a bit more performance out of it to allow it to take that passenger load even if conditions are less than optimal.

SEPilot wrote:

I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

Me too, this is what Airbus learned when they thought they needed to HGW the A346 in response to the B77W, then only offered the HGW version

JerseyFlyer wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

Me too, this is what Airbus learned when they thought they needed to HGW the A346 in response to the B77W, then only offered the HGW version

Well Airbus did that (made HGW standard that is) because the A345/6 wasn’t selling and they wanted to recuperate at least some of the cost of the HGW development. The 787 probably wouldn’t have that issue, with the lower MTOW available for those who don’t need higher.

Polot wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

Me too, this is what Airbus learned when they thought they needed to HGW the A346 in response to the B77W, then only offered the HGW version

Well Airbus did that (made HGW standard that is) because the A345/6 wasn’t selling and they wanted to recuperate at least some of the cost of the HGW development. The 787 probably wouldn’t have that issue, with the lower MTOW available for those who don’t need higher.

Veering off-topic now, but this response makes no sense. Because the A345/6 was not selling, Airbus only offered the A345/6 to recoup its investment?

Hope this is on topic but any chance these new HGW versions of -9 and -10 will be of interest to QR if their relationship with Airbus goes completely down the drain?

SEPilot wrote:

Seeing how there are two ways to increase the range of an aircraft, the first (and best) being to increase efficiency, and the second is to simply enable it to carry more fuel, let’s look at both of them. Increasing efficiency, especially on a new plane such as the 787 which was designed with efficiency as one of the primary goals, is not easy.

Enabling it to carry more fuel is fine as long as the gain in empty weight is minimal. Adding a lot of weight, like adding a center body main gear will cause the efficiency to go down detracting from the 787-10’s most attractive feature, the ability to fly medium length routes with unbeatable efficiency. Which is one reason, the other being cost, why Boeing did not put a larger wing on it to begin with.

It is interesting to see that as jetliners have increased in efficiency practical ranges have increased. And as they have, it seems that airliners that have less than the maximum practical range have been less successful, even though the vast majority of routes are much shorter. I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM,

The 789 clearly is on the sweet spot in terms of all of the trade offs made in a clean sheet design. The A350XWB to differentiate added a substantial amount of practical range, pushing into the 777W territory. I too thought the 787-10 would be selling more as its practical range covers at least 2/3 of the city pairs flown by wide bodies. It may be that the airlines are being cautious, in the past there were issues of transcon US narrow bodies needing to block out seats or do fuel stops if head winds encountered. But there are not easy fuel stops in the middle of the Pacific. So they wanted to get a long term experience of the 787 to gauge the 98% performance range at varying payloads, a 100 nm difference can be a lot when selecting for a route.

The 787-10 first flight was in 2017 and entered service in March 2018, which was already in a lower order period due to over capacity. It should get great orders in the future as the 777 early versions come up for retirement. These have similar practical ranges to the 787-10 helping its pick up.

The -10 is a lot like the A321 ceo right now, it was the neo version that transformed it from just so - so sales to being the hottest in the market.

Polot wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I just hope Boeing can do it without sacrificing CASM at lower ranges.

Me too, this is what Airbus learned when they thought they needed to HGW the A346 in response to the B77W, then only offered the HGW version

Well Airbus did that (made HGW standard that is) because the A345/6 wasn’t selling and they wanted to recuperate at least some of the cost of the HGW development. The 787 probably wouldn’t have that issue, with the lower MTOW available for those who don’t need higher.

I always thought the HGW had the laser beam welding that made it lighter than the pre-HGW versions, is that not the case?

JayinKitsap wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Seeing how there are two ways to increase the range of an aircraft, the first (and best) being to increase efficiency, and the second is to simply enable it to carry more fuel, let’s look at both of them. Increasing efficiency, especially on a new plane such as the 787 which was designed with efficiency as one of the primary goals, is not easy.

Enabling it to carry more fuel is fine as long as the gain in empty weight is minimal. Adding a lot of weight, like adding a center body main gear will cause the efficiency to go down detracting from the 787-10’s most attractive feature, the ability to fly medium length routes with unbeatable efficiency. Which is one reason, the other being cost, why Boeing did not put a larger wing on it to begin with.

It is interesting to see that as jetliners have increased in efficiency practical ranges have increased. And as they have, it seems that airliners that have less than the maximum practical range have been less successful, even though the vast majority of routes are much shorter. I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM,

The 789 clearly is on the sweet spot in terms of all of the trade offs made in a clean sheet design. The A350XWB to differentiate added a substantial amount of practical range, pushing into the 777W territory. I too thought the 787-10 would be selling more as its practical range covers at least 2/3 of the city pairs flown by wide bodies. It may be that the airlines are being cautious, in the past there were issues of transcon US narrow bodies needing to block out seats or do fuel stops if head winds encountered. But there are not easy fuel stops in the middle of the Pacific. So they wanted to get a long term experience of the 787 to gauge the 98% performance range at varying payloads, a 100 nm difference can be a lot when selecting for a route.

The 787-10 first flight was in 2017 and entered service in March 2018, which was already in a lower order period due to over capacity. It should get great orders in the future as the 777 early versions come up for retirement. These have similar practical ranges to the 787-10 helping its pick up.

The -10 is a lot like the A321 ceo right now, it was the neo version that transformed it from just so - so sales to being the hottest in the market.

I agree with that last paragraph. I think a re-engine 787-10 will be a formidable aircraft

-10 sales were picking up just before covid though.

ANZ- 8
Korean - 10
United - 7
ANA - 11

Total: 36 new frames all within the space of 5 months

Gar1G wrote:

Hope this is on topic but any chance these new HGW versions of -9 and -10 will be of interest to QR if their relationship with Airbus goes completely down the drain?

Possibly. Particularly the -9

majano wrote:

Polot wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Me too, this is what Airbus learned when they thought they needed to HGW the A346 in response to the B77W, then only offered the HGW version

Well Airbus did that (made HGW standard that is) because the A345/6 wasn’t selling and they wanted to recuperate at least some of the cost of the HGW development. The 787 probably wouldn’t have that issue, with the lower MTOW available for those who don’t need higher.

Veering off-topic now, but this response makes no sense. Because the A345/6 was not selling, Airbus only offered the A345/6 to recoup its investment?

I’m not sure if you have a typo or don’t fully understand. There are two versions of the A345/A346. The base version (MTOW 365-370t, can’t remember exactly) and a HGW with a higher MTOW (380t) and other changes to support higher weights and longer flights.

After a certain point, when it was clear that the 77W was better but before it completely ran away with the market Airbus made it so anyone wanting to place top up orders, or any new customers Airbus could manage to snag, had to get HGW…with the appropriate up charge included in the base price. Unfulfilled orders got HGW after a certain point to lower production variances and ensure the HGW engineering wasn’t completely for nought, although I’m not sure at a higher price than already agreed. Needless to say airlines were not particularly happy about the situation.

There are some interesting numbers in this very old thread, speculating on 265T with the 4 Bogie gear and that the gear could take up to 280T (from Stitch).

No idea if any of this is right - I would assume pavement loading becomes a big issue - but what is the limit with the existing gear? Is 265T theoretically possible? Has anyone actually done the math?

viewtopic.php?t=754663

This site is really interesting - allows you to calculate ground pressure on an 787.

https://www.787guide.com/how-to-evaluat ... ng-acn-pcn

If you buy the $55 App - Oops.

Looking at Boeing's ACAP's the 787-10 seems to have ACN pavement loading numbers at least 5% less than 779 on Rigid Pavement.

The pavement loading charts talk about being able to use linear interpolation.

Take 254T (or 254.7T max taxi weight) and add 5% and you get over 265T for the same pavement loading as the 779.

Where did 260T come from? An extra 5T could help explain why some of the articles are talking about close to 1,000 nm extra range.

Boeing 787 ACAP - Look at Section 7.10.https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Boeing 779 ACAP - Look at Section 7.10 as well. https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevC.pdf

lightsaber wrote:

morrisond wrote:

StTim wrote:

I think the gains in engine performance are becoming much harder to achieve and getting 10% in 8 years is I suspect fantasy extrapolation of previous performance gains.

How about adding something vs just being critical.

I did put put a question mark behind the 10. If you don't think 10% is possible - what do you think is possible? What do you think could be achieved with a clean sheet based off Ge9X or an Ultrafan? Or what PIP's are available in 3-4 years to upgrade the existing engines.

8 Years? Where do you get that from? 2030 would be a good 15 years since EIS of GenX or Trent 1000's.

The Ge9X got a 10% fuel burn improvement over GE90-115. The Entry into service between the two is about 15 years (the engines were done by then).

How GE could acheive 10% in ten years:
1. 3.5: 1 GTF, about 6.5% fuel burn reduction
2. Higher match # high pressure compressor (needs better bearings and seals), about 1% fuel burn reduction
3. Fan improvements, about 0.2%(yes, just a fraction of a percent)
4. CMC inlet guide vanes to high turbine: 2.5% (s/b within 5 years, if not sooner)
5. CMC turbine stators, perhaps 0.5%
6. CMC combustor liners, perhaps 0.5%
7. Now what is really in question for within ten years, is CMC 2nd stage high turbine blades (about 2.5%), but due to the stresses, iffy. I do not consider 1st stage turbine blades possible within ten years, but that is just my opinion.
8. Improved compressor variable bleet (0.25% or so)
9. Improved variable turbine cooling (0.35% or so)

They also need to add to the 787 the GE9x technologies (already developed):
10. Variable turbine cooling, 2.7% or so
11. Improved cooling loops 0.75% or so
12. CMC coated combustor liner 0.2%
13. Fan blade tech (needs a new design to change bypass ratio) 0.5%

The could also do conter-rotation,but GE has chosen a different tech path and this might be a bridge too far in terms of bearing and seal speeds.

Lightsaber

What about just putting GE9X on the 787? The GE9X is supposed to already be 10% better than the GEnx - although at about a 5000 lb per engine penalty . . .

jagraham wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

morrisond wrote:

How about adding something vs just being critical.

I did put put a question mark behind the 10. If you don't think 10% is possible - what do you think is possible? What do you think could be achieved with a clean sheet based off Ge9X or an Ultrafan? Or what PIP's are available in 3-4 years to upgrade the existing engines.

8 Years? Where do you get that from? 2030 would be a good 15 years since EIS of GenX or Trent 1000's.

The Ge9X got a 10% fuel burn improvement over GE90-115. The Entry into service between the two is about 15 years (the engines were done by then).

How GE could acheive 10% in ten years:
1. 3.5: 1 GTF, about 6.5% fuel burn reduction
2. Higher match # high pressure compressor (needs better bearings and seals), about 1% fuel burn reduction
3. Fan improvements, about 0.2%(yes, just a fraction of a percent)
4. CMC inlet guide vanes to high turbine: 2.5% (s/b within 5 years, if not sooner)
5. CMC turbine stators, perhaps 0.5%
6. CMC combustor liners, perhaps 0.5%
7. Now what is really in question for within ten years, is CMC 2nd stage high turbine blades (about 2.5%), but due to the stresses, iffy. I do not consider 1st stage turbine blades possible within ten years, but that is just my opinion.
8. Improved compressor variable bleet (0.25% or so)
9. Improved variable turbine cooling (0.35% or so)

They also need to add to the 787 the GE9x technologies (already developed):
10. Variable turbine cooling, 2.7% or so
11. Improved cooling loops 0.75% or so
12. CMC coated combustor liner 0.2%
13. Fan blade tech (needs a new design to change bypass ratio) 0.5%

The could also do conter-rotation,but GE has chosen a different tech path and this might be a bridge too far in terms of bearing and seal speeds.

Lightsaber

What about just putting GE9X on the 787? The GE9X is supposed to already be 10% better than the GEnx - although at about a 5000 lb per engine penalty . . .

10% better than the GE90*

morrisond wrote:

Looking at Boeing's ACAP's the 787-10 seems to have ACN pavement loading numbers at least 5% less than 779 on Rigid Pavement.

The pavement loading charts talk about being able to use linear interpolation.

Take 254T (or 254.7T max taxi weight) and add 5% and you get over 265T for the same pavement loading as the 779.

Where did 260T come from? An extra 5T could help explain why some of the articles are talking about close to 1,000 nm extra range.

Boeing 787 ACAP - Look at Section 7.10.https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Boeing 779 ACAP - Look at Section 7.10 as well. https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevC.pdf

Leeham says Boeing can take it up to 265 and keep it within pavement loading of the 300ER

Polot wrote:

majano wrote:

Polot wrote:

Well Airbus did that (made HGW standard that is) because the A345/6 wasn’t selling and they wanted to recuperate at least some of the cost of the HGW development. The 787 probably wouldn’t have that issue, with the lower MTOW available for those who don’t need higher.

Veering off-topic now, but this response makes no sense. Because the A345/6 was not selling, Airbus only offered the A345/6 to recoup its investment?

I’m not sure if you have a typo or don’t fully understand. There are two versions of the A345/A346. The base version (MTOW 365-370t, can’t remember exactly) and a HGW with a higher MTOW (380t) and other changes to support higher weights and longer flights.

After a certain point, when it was clear that the 77W was better but before it completely ran away with the market Airbus made it so anyone wanting to place top up orders, or any new customers Airbus could manage to snag, had to get HGW…with the appropriate up charge included in the base price. Unfulfilled orders got HGW after a certain point to lower production variances and ensure the HGW engineering wasn’t completely for nought, although I’m not sure at a higher price than already agreed. Needless to say airlines were not particularly happy about the situation.

Okay thanks. Understand

Stitch wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I would have thought that the 787-10 would have been very successful because not having as much range as the others of its generation but offering better CASM, it would appeal to airlines who either don’t have any super long routes that exceed its range, or just a few for which they can buy the 789. But then comes NZ that wants just a bit more range, and of course Boeing wants the order and is trying to oblige them.

I am going to presume that NZ feels the 787-10 has sufficient capacity to serve as an acceptable 777-300ER replacement and just need a bit more performance out of it to allow it to take that passenger load even if conditions are less than optimal.

In an interview after he announced the original 787-10 order the then-CEO of Air NZ said explicitly that the -10 would not be the 77W replacement – and that there would be a further selection process so years down the track for that purpose. I expect that comment reflected a view that a 77W replacement would need similar capacity and capability which even the -10 HGW couldn’t offer. That of course was pre-covid…

ZK-NBT wrote:

In reality the then NZ CEO said the 781 order wasn’t code for replacing the 77W, I wouldn’t say he said ‘explicitly’ it wouldn’t replace the 77W. In reality the 772 replacement was initially said to be between the 77X/350, what happened there? The 77X was and still is to big and the need to introduce another fleet type in the A350 wasn’t there either, enter more 787s. Weather they take any 781s remains to be seen, in a post covid world an all 789 fleet wouldn’t surprise me with the option to take the larger 781 further in the future.

My take would be that they will be happy to either use 789s to replace 77Ws or that they will be happy to take a payload hit on the 10 on SFO/LAX-AKL where they can carry additional pax atleast over the 789 while leaving some freight behind. Nobody expected the 77W to be so good let’s see how a beefed up 10 will go.

In the interview with Australian Aviation Luxon said:

“Our intention at this stage is 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.
“At this point the 787-10s [or nines] are not code for replacing the 300’s.
“We are really impressed with the candidate aircraft [to replace them]. The A350-1000 is a great aircraft, as is the Boeing 777X, though it still has to come through development.”

So on the basis of whatever specs were in the contract Luxon didn’t seem to see the 787-10 HGW as the solution for the 77W sectors.

But sure, as things settle after covid they’ll want to redo their numbers, and it’s quite conceivable an all 78x fleet emerges as the safest bet, capability limitations notwithstanding.

NZ had, if you recall, previously dismissed the 787-10 altogether as a candidate for North American routes – and had suggested even the 789 was marginal. My inference was that their business model depended on both comparatively high pax density (in contrast to QF and SQ) and heavy freight loads, including on the trunk routes from LAX, SFO and IAH. Westbound those are demanding sectors. Luxon also commented at the time that the 787-10s were likely to be used primarily on Asian routes.

So yes, I think they were quite serious about selecting something more capable as the eventual 77W replacement. And the expansion and profitability of their point-to-point North American network would have made that feel realistic at the time – the same logic that has driven QF’s Sunrise project.

Equally I think we have to accept that with the impact of the pandemic they’ll now want to focus on rebuilding their long-haul business and redo the numbers on fleet development. Until we see hard numbers I think we have to reserve judgment on how much of a solution a 787-10 HGW can be for the North American trunk routes - especially now that the pax/freight revenue mix is looking so different. But let’s wait and see on that.

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

Why are you upset about posters that are suggestive being against the B787-10 at ANZ? We don't know what the details are that Boeing is proposing. If they do the same to the B787-9, it maybe more attractive to ANZ. Right now it's all speculation until Boeing publishes the hard numbers.

Rgds

Scotron12 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

Why are you upset about posters that are suggestive being against the B787-10 at ANZ? We don't know what the details are that Boeing is proposing. If they do the same to the B787-9, it maybe more attractive to ANZ. Right now it's all speculation until Boeing publishes the hard numbers.

Rgds

The 787-10 at ANZ is not speculation though it’s a firm order that has been revised once due to Covid. Even if they want to use it for pacific rim it’s a very good aircraft.

But there’s a backlash with some posters on a more capable -10 for whatever reason

Further expanding on why Airbus would launch a A350NEO:
I think most will agree that it is most likely that Boeing will be the first to do a new NB cleansheet. Airbus then will have to respond. Would Airbus want to respond to a cleansheet Boeing NB with an equal situation in the widebody segment or with a lead? Of course it would be the latter. Otherwise you run the risk having to respond (and be seen as a follower) in the narrowbody segment and when busy with that response Boeing launches a big widebody update and again you have to respond (and be seen as a follower again). You loose the initiative and are not sufficiently in control any more of your own product strategy and timing. Thus Airbus also in this context has an interest to be able to be the first to act in the widebody segment so it s not running after Boeing in both segments as described above.

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

True, but the problem for RR is that finalising ultrafan is now not possible. They have a several year lead on GTF tech in de widebody segment which is potentially extremely valuable, but they are not in the position to convert that into market share, margin and years of extra maintenance revenue right now. Airbus could assist on that, but they would want something in return. Depending on what kind of deal would be struck it could be part of the development cost in return for an agreed number of years of exclusivity.

morrisond wrote:

If your whole argument is that Boeing would box themselves by committing to a low cost program for 787 and then Airbus goes and does extensive changes to A350 - well that one is blown up by the fact that that is exactly what they did on 777. In fact they committed to improving 77W/F even after launching 77X.

Why could Boeing not respond to a larger effort? If Airbus could get an exclusive on Ultrafan - and that's a big if - Rolls would probably be a lot happier to get it on both frames - GE I'm sure could come up with something quite competitive in that time frame as well.

We know GE is working on a geared Turbofan itself. Combine that with the GE9X advances and that is something Rolls would have a hard time matching.

It will always be tit-for-tat. For some reason you believe Boeing would do nothing in response and sit back and lose the market.

I'm not saying they will do nothing, I'm saying with a widebody GTF responding takes much more time because it is not simply an accumulative set of smaller improvements of current technology. It's a whole different approach, that comes with unique technical challenges. What takes the most time for the widebody GTF is developing and testing the gearbox. Rolls-Royce has done so and thus has a big lead. The GE GTF engine you are talking about AFAIK is a narrowbody engine. That does help, but due to the lack of a WB GTF gearbox there is still a multi-year catch up to do. Until we hear about a US WB GTF gearbox, I remain sceptical about Boeing's ability to quickly and successfully respond to an A350ultrafan. Perhaps part of the delay is the US engine manufacturers have no clear guidance from Boeing what the required thrust is. Does is need to cover up to 260-265T or does it need to go up to ~300T after certain hard decisions have been made?

morrisond wrote:

Where did 260T come from? An extra 5T could help explain why some of the articles are talking about close to 1,000 nm extra range.

The original 787-9 62.1m wing, a 1.5% SFC improvement and about 262T would get you in the +1.000 nm range. That would it be a serious capability and efficiency boost for the 787-10 and I suspect would give a serious shorter term sales boost.

Personally and carrying on from Smartplane’s reply #234 on product(team)s competing internally, I think Boeing is hitting a very big dilemma here; how to further develop the 787?

Will they keep it at 260-265T max or will they allow it to grow into a 290-300T 787-11 with the obvious implications in their wider widebody product range. A lot of work on the former will be in vain if you are forced to do the latter anyway.

Taxi645 wrote:

Further expanding on why Airbus would launch a A350NEO:
I think most will agree that it is most likely that Boeing will be the first to do a new NB cleansheet. Airbus then will have to respond. Would Airbus want to respond to a cleansheet Boeing NB with an equal situation in the widebody segment or with a lead? Of course it would be the latter. Otherwise you run the risk having to respond (and be seen as a follower) in the narrowbody segment and when busy with that response Boeing launches a big widebody update and again you have to respond (and be seen as a follower again). You loose the initiative and are not sufficiently in control any more of your own product strategy and timing. Thus Airbus also in this context has an interest to be able to be the first to act in the widebody segment so it s not running after Boeing in both segments as described above.

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

True, but the problem for RR is that finalising ultrafan is now not possible. They have a several year lead on GTF tech in de widebody segment which is potentially extremely valuable, but they are not in the position to convert that into market share, margin and years of extra maintenance revenue right now. Airbus could assist on that, but they would want something in return. Depending on what kind of deal would be struck it could be part of the development cost in return for an agreed number of years of exclusivity.

morrisond wrote:

If your whole argument is that Boeing would box themselves by committing to a low cost program for 787 and then Airbus goes and does extensive changes to A350 - well that one is blown up by the fact that that is exactly what they did on 777. In fact they committed to improving 77W/F even after launching 77X.

Why could Boeing not respond to a larger effort? If Airbus could get an exclusive on Ultrafan - and that's a big if - Rolls would probably be a lot happier to get it on both frames - GE I'm sure could come up with something quite competitive in that time frame as well.

We know GE is working on a geared Turbofan itself. Combine that with the GE9X advances and that is something Rolls would have a hard time matching.

It will always be tit-for-tat. For some reason you believe Boeing would do nothing in response and sit back and lose the market.

I'm not saying they will do nothing, I'm saying with a widebody GTF responding takes much more time because it is not simply an accumulative set of smaller improvements of current technology. It's a whole different approach, that comes with unique technical challenges. What takes the most time for the widebody GTF is developing and testing the gearbox. Rolls-Royce has done so and thus has a big lead. The GE GTF engine you are talking about AFAIK is a narrowbody engine. That does help, but due to the lack of a WB GTF gearbox there is still a multi-year catch up to do. Until we hear about a US WB GTF gearbox, I remain sceptical about Boeing's ability to quickly and successfully respond to an A350ultrafan. Perhaps part of the delay is the US engine manufacturers have no clear guidance from Boeing what the required thrust is. Does is need to cover up to 260-265T or does it need to go up to ~300T after certain hard decisions have been made?

morrisond wrote:

Where did 260T come from? An extra 5T could help explain why some of the articles are talking about close to 1,000 nm extra range.

The original 787-9 62.1m wing, a 1.5% SFC improvement and about 262T would get you in the +1.000 nm range. That would it be a serious capability and efficiency boost for the 787-10 and I suspect would give a serious shorter term sales boost.

Personally and carrying on from Smartplane’s reply #234 on product(team)s competing internally, I think Boeing is hitting a very big dilemma here; how to further develop the 787?

Will they keep it at 260-265T max or will they allow it to grow into a 290-300T 787-11 with the obvious implications in their wider widebody product range. A lot of work on the former will be in vain if you are forced to do the latter anyway.

Well - you still haven't explained why the Ultrafan would be 350 only, other than Airbus would finance it. Effectively that would mean Rolls is forgoing any future 787 orders. That's a big thing to give up.

You are also still dealing with probably a decade before Ultrafan is ready. A PIP 787/350 could be ready in half the time. Rolls would be smarter to do the PIP as it could apply to both 787 and 350 without the massive capital investment of the Ultrafan.

Yes - it would take GE a long time to build a new Gearbox - however it will also take Rolls a long time to match some of the Ge9X advancements. A GE9X based GTF with some of the improvements that should be available by then that Lightsaber has mentioned could be quite the engine by 2035.

Until then Boeing could probably have a nicely improved 265T 787 available from about 2026. Our engine Guru (Lightsaber) is suggesting that with existing Ge9X tech GeNX could be made 3-4% better. No need for the longer more expensive wing.

Personally I think we see improved 350/787's long before we see NEO's.

There will be nothing quick about clean sheet engines from any manufacturer - if one ends up arriving a year or two later I doubt it's that big of a deal. From what we have seen with recent engines and as complexity grows I would suggest the on-wing testing programs could grow substantially in length before Airlines are willing to take them into service. As these would be re-engines (and frames will easily be available for testing) Airbus and Boeing will probably not have a big issue with this as they continue to sell and manufacture frames with PIP'd engines.

No need to rush them into service.