https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ax-crashes

Ignore the usual nonsense Deal and Hyslop are talking about and let’s circle back to the 787-10 MTOW bump.

Stan Deal confirms that Boeing is bringing that to market to better compete with the 350-900

“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.“

Let’s see what’s to come of this. But we remember it was 260T MTOW and fuel management software update. Could it possibly me more?

Let’s see

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Opus99 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

The variant was issued 2 years ago to ANZ, it has taken a back burner obviously as they focus on getting the line back in shape as they’ve said in the interview. But it doesn’t mean work can’t go on in the background. Jheez

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

That's the old Walk and chew gum at the same time.



Let's use the full sentence from the linked article, shall we?


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.

It's plenty CASM-competitive already.

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

How will the designers assist the production workers to get the shim issues and other production issues resolved, is there some claim that the production issues are actually design issues?
Design and production are usually done by a different set of employee's in companies as large as Boeing as they are separate skill sets, now if for "political" reasons we do not want Boeing doing more than one thing at a time, I can accept that, I may not agree with it but.....

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

That's the old Walk and chew gum at the same time.

par13del wrote:

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

How will the designers assist the production workers to get the shim issues and other production issues resolved, is there some claim that the production issues are actually design issues?
Design and production are usually done by a different set of employee's in companies as large as Boeing as they are separate skill sets, now if for "political" reasons we do not want Boeing doing more than one thing at a time, I can accept that, I may not agree with it but.....

And even within those groups engineers are often focused on specific areas. I’m not sure how someone whose main focus might have been on designing 787 MLG, for example, would be useful in solving production fuselage shim issue. Might be useful to have on a HGW design study though.

OEMs work on multiple projects, including problems, at once.

Anyway back to the focus on the -10 IGW as many on this forum were doubtful that it will happen as Boeing never confirmed it. Now that they have I think it’s a great idea especially coming up to the 300ER replacement cycle.

I see KLM, UA and BA finding this variant very very useful as they push 200ERs

And in some cases for some other airlines 300ERs. Where they don’t necessarily need the range or size of the 300ER. This is a very profitable aircraft.

Airbus has a complete product line-up but I expect them to work on the pricing of the 35K because that’s what’s hurting them on the 300ER replacement side of things.

Will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Tech Ops knowledge suggests the A359 has very competitive fuel burn on the longest sectors (likely beyond the range of the 787-10IGW) compared with the 789, can't see the 78X doing better as it'll be heavier, but within its range it adds good capability or taking the max payload further, and I believe that capability/flexibility is important to more airlines than sheer efficiency, hence the A359 and 789 have quite handily outsold the 78X.

MrHMSH wrote:

Will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Tech Ops knowledge suggests the A359 has very competitive fuel burn on the longest sectors (likely beyond the range of the 787-10IGW) compared with the 789, can't see the 78X doing better as it'll be heavier, but within its range it adds good capability or taking the max payload further, and I believe that capability/flexibility is important to more airlines than sheer efficiency, hence the A359 and 789 have quite handily outsold the 78X.

359 will always be better at the longer ranges but I think it’s still a good idea for Boeing to do it. I believe the CASM on the -10 is lower is it not? For the ranges it can do it will be very good and I think it’s intention for Boeing is scoop up some good business like KLM, BA. It managed to draw ANZ out of the 359. Bear in mind if Boeing didn’t do that that business might very well have gone to the 359. As lightsaber has said before improving payload/range only makes it more marketable. Does this mean it will do what the 359 can? Absolutely not but it will definitely make it more competitive

Perhaps this also means that there won´t be a 777-8 since Boeing is improving the biggest 787.

Opus99 wrote:

Let’s see

Article also says "Both (Deal) and Hyslop confirmed Boeing will launch a freighter version of the giant 777X, built in Everett.".

So, on the plate they have:

• Sort out the 787 manufacturing issues then apply fixes to aircraft already built and reboot the 787 production line
• Hope/pray China finally approves the MAX fixes and starts taking delivery of pre-built and new aircraft
• Get MAX7 certification done (seems to be waiting on FAA) and MAX10 (status unknown)
• Get 779 certification done (already kicked the can down the road to late 2022)
• Get 787 MTOW increase designed and through FAA certification (can't be till 2023, right?)
• Design 77XF and get it certified (can't be till 2025 or later, right?)
• Do the "digital transformation" they want to do before doing an all new airplane
• Do the all new airplane (can't be even started till after 77XF is done, right?)
• More???

So much seems to depend on the FAA's throughput which we all know is a bad place for them to be.

Opus99 wrote:

Anyway back to the focus on the -10 IGW as many on this forum were doubtful that it will happen as Boeing never confirmed it. Now that they have I think it’s a great idea especially coming up to the 300ER replacement cycle.

I see KLM, UA and BA finding this variant very very useful as they push 200ERs

And in some cases for some other airlines 300ERs. Where they don’t necessarily need the range or size of the 300ER. This is a very profitable aircraft.

Airbus has a complete product line-up but I expect them to work on the pricing of the 35K because that’s what’s hurting them on the 300ER replacement side of things.

How much additional range are we talking about?

RalXWB wrote:

Perhaps this also means that there won´t be a 777-8 since Boeing is improving the biggest 787.

Clearly 77XF has moved ahead of it in terms of priority. Not too different than the "classic" 777s where 77F came out before 77L.

Wikipedia numbers say 78J has 330 seats in 2-class, 778 has 384, so 16% more seats in a comparable layout. Seems to me they don't really overlap in terms of seat count or range. The real question is if it makes sense for a customer to buy 778 instead of 779 if the cost of running 779 isn't that much greater. Seems the results for 77L vs 77W suggest 778 will be at best something to do to close a small amount of additional business especially if it is the same size as 77XF.

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

TFA suggests they are, but they don't give details because they suggest they don't want to put pressure on the FAA, yet in doing so they are putting pressure on the FAA. Seems they can't help themselves but point fingers elsewhere.

RalXWB wrote:

Perhaps this also means that there won´t be a 777-8 since Boeing is improving the biggest 787.

Perhaps, that might be for the best though. Although if they push for the freighter version, I cannot see a 777-9 freighter as the only option.

Without new products in an early step coming to the market from Boeing it would seem the normal thing to find a new product for these folks to start working on, otherwise what would they do? Or you otherwise lose these valuable employees which will hamper the start of the next project.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Let’s see

Article also says "Both (Deal) and Hyslop confirmed Boeing will launch a freighter version of the giant 777X, built in Everett.".

So, on the plate they have:

• Sort out the 787 manufacturing issues then apply fixes to aircraft already built and reboot the 787 production line
• Hope/pray China finally approves the MAX fixes and starts taking delivery of pre-built and new aircraft
• Get MAX7 certification done (seems to be waiting on FAA) and MAX10 (status unknown)
• Get 779 certification done (already kicked the can down the road to late 2022)
• Get 787 MTOW increase designed and through FAA certification (can't be till 2023, right?)
• Design 77XF and get it certified (can't be till 2025 or later, right?)
• Do the "digital transformation" they want to do before doing an all new airplane
• Do the all new airplane (can't be even started till after 77XF is done, right?)
• More???

So much seems to depend on the FAA's throughput which we all know is a bad place for them to be.

Opus99 wrote:

Anyway back to the focus on the -10 IGW as many on this forum were doubtful that it will happen as Boeing never confirmed it. Now that they have I think it’s a great idea especially coming up to the 300ER replacement cycle.

I see KLM, UA and BA finding this variant very very useful as they push 200ERs

And in some cases for some other airlines 300ERs. Where they don’t necessarily need the range or size of the 300ER. This is a very profitable aircraft.

Airbus has a complete product line-up but I expect them to work on the pricing of the 35K because that’s what’s hurting them on the 300ER replacement side of things.

How much additional range are we talking about?

RalXWB wrote:

Perhaps this also means that there won´t be a 777-8 since Boeing is improving the biggest 787.

Clearly 77XF has moved ahead of it in terms of priority. Not too different than the "classic" 777s where 77F came out before 77L.

Wikipedia numbers say 78J has 330 seats in 2-class, 778 has 384, so 16% more seats in a comparable layout. Seems to me they don't really overlap in terms of seat count or range. The real question is if it makes sense for a customer to buy 778 instead of 779 if the cost of running 779 isn't that much greater. Seems the results for 77L vs 77W suggest 778 will be at best something to do to close a small amount of additional business especially if it is the same size as 77XF.

SEU wrote:

Shouldn't they be focusing on the manufacturing defects of the production of the 787s first.....

TFA suggests they are, but they don't give details because they suggest they don't want to put pressure on the FAA, yet in doing so they are putting pressure on the FAA. Seems they can't help themselves but point fingers elsewhere.

Boeing is busy for sure. A lot of what you list are going on simultaneously. Deal seems to elude that Max 7 and Max 10 are on the cards for certification sometime this year.

Is MTOW increase certification complicated?

Well According to Jon Ostrower: it should allow ANZ go LAX to Auckland with a full passenger load and healthy cargo load and that’s 10,600KM.

Interesting questions to me:

- How much will MTOW be raised?
- Will it be on the current wing, the original wing intended for the 9 or an new wing(box) altogether? A larger wing would seem desirable to further increase payload range and to make it more efficient (also against the A350) at that end of it's capability.
- What will this mean for any potential re-engining plans? The 787 entered service in 2011, got some engine updates some time ago. If they are "designing a new high gross weight version”, and that has an EIS of say 2025-2026, when will it get new (GTF) engines? The 787 has the perfect starting point (MTOW) to become even more competitive with more efficient engines. When will this potential be fulfilled?

Taxi645 wrote:

Interesting questions to me:

- How much will MTOW be raised?
- Will it be on the current wing, the original wing intended for the 9 or an new wing(box) altogether? A larger wing would seem desirable to further increase payload range and to make it more efficient (also against the A350) at that end of it's capability.
- What will this mean for any potential re-engining plans? The 787 entered service in 2011, got some engine updates some time ago. If they are "designing a new high gross weight version”, and that has an EIS of say 2025-2026, when will it get new (GTF) engines? The 787 has the perfect starting point (MTOW) to become even more competitive with more efficient engines. When will this potential be fulfilled?

From what Jon said back in 2019. 6 tonnes to take it to 260 tonnes.

The IGW is the step needed for the new re-engine. Now I don’t know if the MTOW bump is going to be more or not

Also no changes except the MTOW bump and fuel management modification. Changing the wing etc will cause certification stress. Boeing does not need that

I agree. How much MTOW increase? Does the center gear get added?
How much does the MLW go up? I feel this IGW version could lead to a 787F, if it’s a significant upgrade.

Boeing needs a 764FNG or 787F by 2028 if they want to keep that market.

——
Edit: From the post above it sounds like a simple MTOW bump - no major updates.

If this is simply harvesting margins from "over-engineering", not much new work would be required. Airbus have squeezed improvements from all their offerings in this way.

That might explain the vagueness around what may or may not have been offered to ANZ

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing is busy for sure. A lot of what you list are going on simultaneously. Deal seems to elude that Max 7 and Max 10 are on the cards for certification sometime this year.

Is MTOW increase certification complicated?

Well According to Jon Ostrower: it should allow ANZ go LAX to Auckland with a full passenger load and healthy cargo load and that’s 10,600KM.

We all know Boeing was saying MAX 7 was going to be delivered by end 2021 and that did not happen, so I would not put much faith in any time line they publish.

Boeing may be staffed to work many projects in parallel, but it seems FAA is not.

Even Boeing's staffing is probably an issue. TFA says they laid off 15,000 workers. We know many senior techies were offered nice retirement packages and took them. Some are now double-dipping at various tech start ups.

Pretty much everything Boeing does needs FAA certification, yet FAA staffing is not something under Boeing's control. We can see why Boeing wanted to do more certification in-house, yet they could not help themselves and they took too much advantage of the liberties they were given, and now they are paying the price big time.

Things are nice-nice between Boeing and FAA right now because Boeing screwed the pooch so badly, but I wonder if there isn't a lot of strife under the covers and wonder if will we not some day see it break out into open warfare. BCA's destiny is now in the hands of the FAA more so than ever, and sooner or later the economic pressure that creates might find a gap and lead to that pressure being vented.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing is busy for sure. A lot of what you list are going on simultaneously. Deal seems to elude that Max 7 and Max 10 are on the cards for certification sometime this year.

Is MTOW increase certification complicated?

Well According to Jon Ostrower: it should allow ANZ go LAX to Auckland with a full passenger load and healthy cargo load and that’s 10,600KM.

We all know Boeing was saying MAX 7 was going to be delivered by end 2021 and that did not happen, so I would not put much faith in any time line they publish.

Boeing may be staffed to work many projects in parallel, but it seems FAA is not.

Even Boeing's staffing is probably an issue. TFA says they laid off 15,000 workers. We know many senior techies were offered nice retirement packages and took them. Some are now double-dipping at various tech start ups.

Pretty much everything Boeing does needs FAA certification, yet FAA staffing is not something under Boeing's control. We can see why Boeing wanted to do more certification in-house, yet they could not help themselves and they took too much advantage of the liberties they were given, and now they are paying the price big time.

Things are nice-nice between Boeing and FAA right now because Boeing screwed the pooch so badly, but I wonder if there isn't a lot of strife under the covers and wonder if will we not some day see it break out into open warfare. BCA's destiny is now in the hands of the FAA more so than ever, and sooner or later the economic pressure that creates might find a gap and lead to that pressure being vented.

Boeing and the FAAs relationship is a different issue entirely you’re right. Do you think the MTOW is not something they should be doing?

“No matter how great the talent or efforts, some things just take time. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant.”

I think Boeing has about 50K engineers, all of them cannot work on the 787 problem and fix it faster.

I think the 787-10 is an outstanding aircraft for what it does. If Jon Ostrower is correct and the increase in MTOW amounts to 6 tons that, along with fuel software changes should increase range by approximately and hour or roughly 400-500 nmi.

Back of packet calculations suggest that could push the 787-10 out to 5500-6000 nmi with full pax and bags with some cargo. My guess is operators like KLM or BA are probably more interested in the increased payload capacity for cargo than range.

UA is already using the 787-10 on flights like LAX or SFO to ICN or TYO would obviously be able to carry more cargo and make the 787-10 a better trans-pacific aircraft. I certainly hope this comes to pass as it provides airlines with another good option for mid to long range routes.

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing and the FAAs relationship is a different issue entirely you’re right. Do you think the MTOW is not something they should be doing?

I don't have all the info so answering questions with questions is about the best I can do.

Will a MTOW bump that adds a few hundred NM to the 787-10's range change its competitive position much if at all? My guess is no. Maybe it gets a check mark for ANZ's TPAC use case, but how many more use cases or potential wins are in the queue?

If it is a pre-cursor to an engine PIP or half-generation "leap", why not do both at the same time and avoid tying up FAA resources till you have something that can really change the competitive balance?

Could the engineering or regulatory resources be applied to anything that could improve the MAX's competitive position? A MAX-10ER would move the needle more than a 787-10ER, IMO.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

That's the old Walk and chew gum at the same time.



Let's use the full sentence from the linked article, shall we?


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.

It's plenty CASM-competitive already.

Boeing were surprised, and not in a good way, in respect to the A35F, and it's impact already in the market place.

Presumably the 787 announcements are payback, intended to disrupt / delay A359 and A35X new and top up negotiations.

While the 789 changes are clearly feasible, surely 78X gear / pavement loadings remain an issue for that model?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If this is simply harvesting margins from "over-engineering", not much new work would be required. Airbus have squeezed improvements from all their offerings in this way.

That might explain the vagueness around what may or may not have been offered to ANZ

If it is a simple pushing the margins I wonder why it was not done earlier. It might needs a bit more here and there but in the long run it will be beneficial. I wonder how it will be brought in for the other family members. What always made the 787 production so efficient was the commonality and the fact that the line in Everett only had to make -9 and was very efficient. Now with all theee models in one line and MTOW changes to the -10 it seems to become a bit of a downgrade to the efficiency.

FluidFlow wrote:

If it is a simple pushing the margins I wonder why it was not done earlier. It might needs a bit more here and there but in the long run it will be beneficial. I wonder how it will be brought in for the other family members. What always made the 787 production so efficient was the commonality and the fact that the line in Everett only had to make -9 and was very efficient. Now with all theee models in one line and MTOW changes to the -10 it seems to become a bit of a downgrade to the efficiency.

That's a good point. Boeing had three fairly distinct engineering efforts for -8, -9 and -10. One can even argue the -8 had a few rounds of optimization where they gained MTOW in the early tranches. It's hard to suggest there will be much low hanging fruit to harvest. Then we get into the pavement loading issues mentioned by smartplane. Something has to give, such as more use of more expensive lighter materials. It very well may be a spoiler move just to give their sales force a bit more ammo.

I only see this as a good thing for the -10. It makes it more marketable and I think customers are asking for it. Let’s see what Boeing goes but even the 6T upgrade is good. 5500NM to 6000NM with full load is good and covers most routes. It becomes a question of asking customers do you need the extra capabilities of the 350? But matching the 350-900 in capabilities is not worth the money if you can do just enough to reduce its USP. I agree with revelation they should throw in a PIP though. But depends on the engine manufacturers

par13del wrote:

SEU wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I'd have thought the focus would be getting the planes ready for delivery first, then look into this

How will the designers assist the production workers to get the shim issues and other production issues resolved, is there some claim that the production issues are actually design issues?
Design and production are usually done by a different set of employee's in companies as large as Boeing as they are separate skill sets, now if for "political" reasons we do not want Boeing doing more than one thing at a time, I can accept that, I may not agree with it but.....

Apologies for a fairly robust response here, but imagining that somehow designers/engineers don't have skin in the production process and the issues it faces?
I'm not sure I know where to begin with that as a principle....

For context, I am an Executive grade Manufacturing Engineer in a complex manufacturing environment.
I hope that I can assure you that the designers will be absolutely fundamental to the resolution of the shim issues .....
Just sayin'.

If you know better I'm happy to listen ....

Rgds

Opus99 wrote:

I only see this as a good thing for the -10. It makes it more marketable and I think customers are asking for it. Let’s see what Boeing goes but even the 6T upgrade is good. 5500NM to 6000NM with full load is good and covers most routes. It becomes a question of asking customers do you need the extra capabilities of the 350? But matching the 350-900 in capabilities is not worth the money if you can do just enough to reduce its USP. I agree with revelation they should throw in a PIP though. But depends on the engine manufacturers

It's a bad thing if it provokes Airbus into putting UltraFan onto A350 any sooner than they had planned. I don't think that's likely since the airlines are still hurting, especially the ones that buy long haul jets, but still one never knows. Sure that may lead to UF on 787 sooner than planned, but IMO RR will put UF on A350 first, it's a natural application and they have the exclusive position locked in.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I only see this as a good thing for the -10. It makes it more marketable and I think customers are asking for it. Let’s see what Boeing goes but even the 6T upgrade is good. 5500NM to 6000NM with full load is good and covers most routes. It becomes a question of asking customers do you need the extra capabilities of the 350? But matching the 350-900 in capabilities is not worth the money if you can do just enough to reduce its USP. I agree with revelation they should throw in a PIP though. But depends on the engine manufacturers

It's a bad thing if it provokes Airbus into putting UltraFan onto A350 any sooner than they had planned. I don't think that's likely since the airlines are still hurting, especially the ones that buy long haul jets, but still one never knows. Sure that may lead to UF on 787 sooner than planned, but IMO RR will put UF on A350 first, it's a natural application and they have the exclusive position locked in.

I don’t see that launch happening till the later part of the decade. John says the increase in MTOW is required for the re-engine of the 87. So it will move airbus in that direction. And I think RR can apply variations of UF on both aircraft. They’d want it on the 87 too because it’s clearly the most popular widebody but also on the 350 of course.

That might also be another angle. Why invest in a PIP when a whole new engine is coming up? RR would want to repair its fortune on the 87 and I think the UF is their means to doing that. RRs current stance is that UF is not sole source and I don’t think they would want it to be.

Also what will GE do to match? That’s another angle

The exclusive position is locked in till 2030. I think that’s when we might see UF. Also airbus might not want only RR on the re-engine. I can see them going to dual engine source here. Will a variation of the GE9X be able to match the UF?

And wasn’t RR going to use a stepped down variation of UF for NMA?

Also I believe a re-engine of the 350/787 helps the 787-10 the most. It will give it a significant Range boost. Whilst still keeping its unique CASM and cargo fabulistes compared to the 359

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t see that launch happening till the later part of the decade. John says the increase in MTOW is required for the re-engine of the 87. So it will move airbus in that direction. And I think RR can apply variations of UF on both aircraft. They’d want it on the 87 too because it’s clearly the most popular widebody but also on the 350 of course.

That might also be another angle. Why invest in a PIP when a whole new engine is coming up? RR would want to repair its fortune on the 87 and I think the UF is their means to doing that. RRs current stance is that UF is not sole source and I don’t think they would want it to be.

Also what will GE do to match? That’s another angle

The exclusive position is locked in till 2030. I think that’s when we might see UF. Also airbus might not want only RR on the re-engine. I can see them going to dual engine source here. Will a variation of the GE9X be able to match the UF?

And wasn’t RR going to use a stepped down variation of UF for NMA?

Also I believe a re-engine of the 350/787 helps the 787-10 the most. It will give it a significant Range boost. Whilst still keeping its unique CASM and cargo fabulistes compared to the 359

Yes, so many if/then/elses to factor in. I think it's true UF on 787-10 would give the biggest boost, but I also think commercial relationships suggest it'll be on the A350 first.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t see that launch happening till the later part of the decade. John says the increase in MTOW is required for the re-engine of the 87. So it will move airbus in that direction. And I think RR can apply variations of UF on both aircraft. They’d want it on the 87 too because it’s clearly the most popular widebody but also on the 350 of course.

That might also be another angle. Why invest in a PIP when a whole new engine is coming up? RR would want to repair its fortune on the 87 and I think the UF is their means to doing that. RRs current stance is that UF is not sole source and I don’t think they would want it to be.

Also what will GE do to match? That’s another angle

The exclusive position is locked in till 2030. I think that’s when we might see UF. Also airbus might not want only RR on the re-engine. I can see them going to dual engine source here. Will a variation of the GE9X be able to match the UF?

And wasn’t RR going to use a stepped down variation of UF for NMA?

Also I believe a re-engine of the 350/787 helps the 787-10 the most. It will give it a significant Range boost. Whilst still keeping its unique CASM and cargo fabulistes compared to the 359

Yes, so many if/then/elses to factor in. I think it's true UF on 787-10 would give the biggest boost, but I also think commercial relationships suggest it'll be on the A350 first.

Yes it appears that 350 is the primary application. But I think there’s commercial merit in the MTOW bump. If it will secure KLM, BA and maybe UA? (Even half) That’s about a 100 frames. It’s higher volumetric cargo over the 359 is also attractive very close to the 300ER. I think it will get some of that business too, it’s higher MTOW will be more useful from a payload perspective in the APAC region. So I can see top ups from there as well.

Opus99 wrote:

From what Jon said back in 2019. 6 tonnes to take it to 260 tonnes.

The IGW is the step needed for the new re-engine. Now I don’t know if the MTOW bump is going to be more or not

Also no changes except the MTOW bump and fuel management modification. Changing the wing etc will cause certification stress. Boeing does not need that

Would the new variant need slightly more powerful engines?

inkjet7 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

From what Jon said back in 2019. 6 tonnes to take it to 260 tonnes.

The IGW is the step needed for the new re-engine. Now I don’t know if the MTOW bump is going to be more or not

Also no changes except the MTOW bump and fuel management modification. Changing the wing etc will cause certification stress. Boeing does not need that

Would the new variant need slightly more powerful engines?

Could be, but it seems more significant that new significantly more efficient engines will presumably need a MTOW bump due to their additional weight. We are now in the diminishing returns phase of the tube with podded engines below the wing era. It's been a great run from the B-47 to the Dash-8 till now.

I find it very intesting that after the earlier hugely successful US made narrowbody GTF engine there is absolutely zero talk about any US WB GTF. All this when the 787 is moving into it's re-engining window and is ideally positioned to optimize it's payload range capability. Furthermore the 787 and US commercial aviation industry could use a shot in the arm and in general future fuel cost and environmental pressure would seriously help the business case.

Bit puzzling to be honest.

Taxi645 wrote:

I find it very intesting that after the earlier hugely successful US made narrowbody GTF engine there is absolutely zero talk about any US WB GTF. All this when the 787 is moving into it's re-engining window and is ideally position to optimize it's payload range capability. Furthermore the 787 and US commercial aviation industry could use a shot in the arm and in general future fuel cost and environmental pressure would seriously help the business case.

Bit puzzling to be honest.

COVID has kicked the WB buyers right in the naughty bits, they have more WBs than they can use and years of debts to pay off before they consider new ones This explains a lot, no?

Revelation wrote:

inkjet7 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

From what Jon said back in 2019. 6 tonnes to take it to 260 tonnes.

The IGW is the step needed for the new re-engine. Now I don’t know if the MTOW bump is going to be more or not

Also no changes except the MTOW bump and fuel management modification. Changing the wing etc will cause certification stress. Boeing does not need that

Would the new variant need slightly more powerful engines?

Could be, but it seems more significant that new significantly more efficient engines will presumably need a MTOW bump due to their additional weight. We are now in the diminishing returns phase of the tube with podded engines below the wing era. It's been a great run from the B-47 to the Dash-8 till now.

Yup I can see a thrust bump being required. Let’s see.

Also let’s not forget Emirates not taking up the -10 because of its inability to operate well in the heat. This MTOW bump should improve that? By how much? I don’t know. But If it’s good enough it will see the 777-9 orders cut even further

It has been mentioned here before that 787 gear has been maxxed out already so it seems any new higher weight variant will need new wheels.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I find it very intesting that after the earlier hugely successful US made narrowbody GTF engine there is absolutely zero talk about any US WB GTF. All this when the 787 is moving into it's re-engining window and is ideally position to optimize it's payload range capability. Furthermore the 787 and US commercial aviation industry could use a shot in the arm and in general future fuel cost and environmental pressure would seriously help the business case.

Bit puzzling to be honest.

COVID has kicked the WB buyers right in the naughty bits, they have more WBs than they can use and years of debts to pay off before they consider new ones This explains a lot, no?

Sure, but absolutely nothing? Nothing put on ice, no we keep working on the project on a steady but lower pace. Absolute silence..They don't need to sell/buy it yet, but you would get the impression nothing is even in the works. If they launch a IGW next year a re-engine announcement one would then expect 2026 at the earliest. That would mean a re-engine about 20 years after EIS. That's a hell of a long time when, as said, SAF costs and environmental concerns are becoming ever more urgent.

Strato2 wrote:

It has been mentioned here before that 787 gear has been maxxed out already so it seems any new higher weight variant will need new wheels.

According to who?

RalXWB wrote:

Perhaps this also means that there won´t be a 777-8 since Boeing is improving the biggest 787.

IMO, a beefed up 787-10 won't have any bearing on whether a 778 pax version comes to be or not. There is simply no way to get the 781 to match the 778's range and the 778 is also a larger capacity plane to boot. If it doesn't launch it would be due to other determining factors, not because of am improved 781. Just my

Revelation wrote:

Will a MTOW bump that adds a few hundred NM to the 787-10's range change its competitive position much if at all? My guess is no.

It will make a huge difference in my opinion.

For example. An aircraft that has a 1% advantage over a similar competitor might outsell it 2 to 1. An aircraft that has a 2% advantage over a competitor might outsell it 10 to 1. Airlines extrapolate the 1% saving over a long period.

This MTOW improvement might bring the 787-10 into overall parity with the 254t MTOW 787-9.

How a market advantage is calculated would be to look at average stage length and average payload. The A350-900 definitely gain a bigger advantage on flights longer than average but it needs to then be put on these long routes to make use of it.

Previously it would have been best to out 787-10 on the short routes and A350-900 on the long routes. The crossover point might have been 2,000nm for the 254t 787-10. If an airline had an average widebody stage length of 4,000nm then if an airline only wanted to pick just one aircraft the A350-900 wins. However this MTOW bump for the 787-10 might move the crossover point to say 3,000nm. Now if an airline had an average widebody stage length of 3,000nm all of the sudden the 787-10 is at parity with the A350-900.

The 787-10 will then win many extra orders.

I also think the 787-9 will get the same 260t MTOW so it should maintain its sales advantage over the 787-10. The 787-9 with a higher MTOW would also close the gap of the advantage the A350-900 has on ultra long haul flights.

Revelation wrote:

Clearly 77XF has moved ahead of it in terms of priority. Not too different than the "classic" 777s where 77F came out before 77L.

Eh? How are we measuring that? The 77L entered service at least two years prior to the 77F.

All of the below are IMHO, based on very vague and general statements from the Boeing representative. Clearly nothing concrete was announced here and some of us may have to eat humble pie later when firmer plans come to the fore.

Despite the praise that the 787-10 has enjoyed on these boards, it has not been a runaway success in terms of sales.

What puzzles me is that the general wisdom here is that the majority of long-haul routes are within the stated capabilites of this bird and we are also meant to accept that it has a CASM advantage over the A359. My question then is why the lacklustre sales charts?

I believe SQ (or its sister airlines) has reduced its order of the 787-10 in favour of other Boeing products. Air New Zealand also seemed to back away slightly from its bullish position towards the 10 variant.

If Boeing's response is to improve the range, it has to come at a cost. If ever there was a CASM advantage over the A359, such advantage will deminish (best case scenario for Boeing).

Boeing will need to do something to help the 78X. With only 184 total orders, or 18 more than the very disappointing A35K, they need a shot in the arm to help the "CASM King" sell in the market.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Clearly 77XF has moved ahead of it in terms of priority. Not too different than the "classic" 777s where 77F came out before 77L.

Eh? How are we measuring that? The 77L entered service at least two years prior to the 77F.

Oops, you are right. Thanks for the correction!

majano wrote:

All of the below are IMHO, based on very vague and general statements from the Boeing representative. Clearly nothing concrete was announced here and some of us may have to eat humble pie later when firmer plans come to the fore.

Despite the praise that the 787-10 has enjoyed on these boards, it has not been a runaway success in terms of sales.

What puzzles me is that the general wisdom here is that the majority of long-haul routes are within the stated capabilites of this bird and we are also meant to accept that it has a CASM advantage over the A359. My question then is why the lacklustre sales charts?

I believe SQ (or its sister airlines) has reduced its order of the 787-10 in favour of other Boeing products. Air New Zealand also seemed to back away slightly from its bullish position towards the 10 variant.

If Boeing's response is to improve the range, it has to come at a cost. If ever there was a CASM advantage over the A359, such advantage will deminish (best case scenario for Boeing).

How many widebodies have been sold lately at all? Since 2020, only 57 orders —of all types by both OEMs— have been placed for twin aisle PAX airplanes.