tealnz wrote:After the original announcement that it had ordered eight -10s it is striking that NZ has
- chosen to take initial frames under that order as -9s
- announced that it is looking at returning to service the owned 77Ws it had earlier said it would retire.
Gotta wonder whether the numbers Boeing is prepared to commit to for the IGW version are still not where NZ needs them to be for key US routes - or that COVID and the airfreight boom have changed the math on pax vs cargo enough to make even a 260t -10 less viable as a solution for cargo-heavy routes westbound ex USA.
My thoughts on this is that it's all about fleet interchangeability risks of payload sacrifice they might have to make. If the 787-10 order is taken as -10s, the airline is faced with:
• 787-10s that can't carry a full cargo load from LAX/SFO and can't do IAH or ORD.
• 787-9 Config2s which are excellent for LAX/SFO/IAH/YVR but have to take substantial payload hits to ORD and even more so for EWR which the airline is surprisingly enthusiastic to launch.
• 787-9 Config1s which aren't appropriate for the US West Coast, YVR or IAH.
All of this leads to a huge amount of inflexibility with the fleet. Just imagine a 787-9 Config2 scheduled for ORD breaks...can't replace it with a 787-10 (not enough range) can't replace it with a Config1 (not enough premium seats) unless the load factor is especially low.....it can only be replaced with another Config2. I remember a few years ago during the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 troubles, my godfather was flying to AKL via IAH (and ORD incidentally, but this was before that route launched). The Config2 aircraft that was supposed to operate the outbound flight to IAH went tech in Australia and the outbound flight therefore had to be operated by the only spare 787 available, ZK-NZH which is a Config1 aircraft. Lots of unhappy customers in IAH who weren't going to get to Auckland in the class they paid for....
By taking the first part of the 787-10 order as -9s [or all of it], the airline can create the long rumoured Config3 (something similar in terms of layout to what Qantas has for their -9s). Essentially a ULH optimized setup that will allow flights to ORD and EWR without payload hits. This:
• Frees up Config2s for IAH/YVR/SFO/LAX where they can carry full payload (unlike a -10).
• Increase premium space and revenue for ORD (and EWR when it launches) as well as cargo potential.
• Means that Config1 aircraft can be focused on Asia + HNL, less risk of having to sub one onto a North American flight.
As for the 787-10 HGW version in general it's in Boeing's interest to keep kicking that can down the road to protect 777X sales. Every bit of extra capability that the 787-10 has undermines the 777X (in the same way that the 251T A330-900 undermines the A350, hence Airbus being slow to develop it). Unless you're doing lots of ULH flying [EK + QR] or really need the real estate up front [LH + BA], why pay lots more for a 777-9? Going forwards with international travel demand dampened, filling all those extra seats isn't as easy as it once might have been. 787-10 gives you a lighter, cheaper, more efficient airplane that's far more optimized for most airline's [note: not Air New Zealand's] long haul ops. Going to be much easier to finance also.