Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Not really as parts previously made/stuffed in Charleston no longer have to be transported to 2 a second assembly line & efficiencies of not having to sets of final assembly workers will more than make up for the commonality issue.
Noshow wrote:Not really as parts previously made/stuffed in Charleston no longer have to be transported to 2 a second assembly line & efficiencies of not having to sets of final assembly workers will more than make up for the commonality issue.
Are the production problems solved? Is the existing fleet repaired? As long as deliveries are paused any talk about efficiencies feels premature.
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
rbavfan 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 also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Opus99 wrote:rbavfan 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 also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:rbavfan wrote:
It also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
I understand that BA and UA have strong 777-200ER fleets but KLM ? Even AF has more of them in fleet and I remember Ben Smith saying : At AF in the future the A350 will be the biggest aircraft ! Let`s not forget the last order he made for the group and how he think about ........ ?
Rifitto wrote:The -10 has 214 order not 123 ,and that's pretty good for a simple derivative that share +90% with it's smaller siblings ,
it entered services 3 years ago ,
61 frames delivered is not bad considering the pandemic and the production issues
Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
I understand that BA and UA have strong 777-200ER fleets but KLM ? Even AF has more of them in fleet and I remember Ben Smith saying : At AF in the future the A350 will be the biggest aircraft ! Let`s not forget the last order he made for the group and how he think about ........ ?
The 350-1000 is still bigger than the 787-10.
KLM already operates 5 787-10 with another 10 on order
oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:
I understand that BA and UA have strong 777-200ER fleets but KLM ? Even AF has more of them in fleet and I remember Ben Smith saying : At AF in the future the A350 will be the biggest aircraft ! Let`s not forget the last order he made for the group and how he think about ........ ?
The 350-1000 is still bigger than the 787-10.
KLM already operates 5 787-10 with another 10 on order
Why you mention the A350-1000 ? AF/KLM group does not have any A350-1000 on order to start with.
Max Q wrote:If this new 787 variant can match the A359 performance that will be the end of the latter’s prospects at UA
Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:The 350-1000 is still bigger than the 787-10.
KLM already operates 5 787-10 with another 10 on order
Why you mention the A350-1000 ? AF/KLM group does not have any A350-1000 on order to start with.
I’m just saying when Ben says A350. He could also mean the 350-1000 as well.
If he means only the 350-900 then he’s wrong because KLM operates 5 787-10 with 10 on order for a total of 15 by 2025
oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:
Why you mention the A350-1000 ? AF/KLM group does not have any A350-1000 on order to start with.
I’m just saying when Ben says A350. He could also mean the 350-1000 as well.
If he means only the 350-900 then he’s wrong because KLM operates 5 787-10 with 10 on order for a total of 15 by 2025
Why he is wrong ? He told at AF the biggest aircraft will be the A350 !!! I`ve heard of insiders of the group that they are not really happy with the actual situation how Boeing is handling it.
By the way AF is replacing 777-200ER`s with A350-900`s for a reason
Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:I’m just saying when Ben says A350. He could also mean the 350-1000 as well.
If he means only the 350-900 then he’s wrong because KLM operates 5 787-10 with 10 on order for a total of 15 by 2025
Why he is wrong ? He told at AF the biggest aircraft will be the A350 !!! I`ve heard of insiders of the group that they are not really happy with the actual situation how Boeing is handling it.
By the way AF is replacing 777-200ER`s with A350-900`s for a reason
You don’t need insiders to tell you that. It’s been reported. And of course they are not. Boeing keeps delaying their Remaining 787s. BTW. The same ben smith recently eluded to ordering more 787s from Boeing to replace the a330-200s at Air France. They love it.
Now. That’s at AF. At KLM the biggest aircraft is obviously the 787-10 and the 787-10 is bigger than the 350-900. I think you misunderstand me. As a whole group. The 787-10 will still be the biggest aircraft if they retire the 300ER and do not order the 350-1000
oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:
Why he is wrong ? He told at AF the biggest aircraft will be the A350 !!! I`ve heard of insiders of the group that they are not really happy with the actual situation how Boeing is handling it.
By the way AF is replacing 777-200ER`s with A350-900`s for a reason
You don’t need insiders to tell you that. It’s been reported. And of course they are not. Boeing keeps delaying their Remaining 787s. BTW. The same ben smith recently eluded to ordering more 787s from Boeing to replace the a330-200s at Air France. They love it.
Now. That’s at AF. At KLM the biggest aircraft is obviously the 787-10 and the 787-10 is bigger than the 350-900. I think you misunderstand me. As a whole group. The 787-10 will still be the biggest aircraft if they retire the 300ER and do not order the 350-1000
And what tells you they don`t order the -1000 ? It only makes the 787-10 more attractive in your opnion ?
Opus99 wrote:oldJoe wrote:Opus99 wrote:You don’t need insiders to tell you that. It’s been reported. And of course they are not. Boeing keeps delaying their Remaining 787s. BTW. The same ben smith recently eluded to ordering more 787s from Boeing to replace the a330-200s at Air France. They love it.
Now. That’s at AF. At KLM the biggest aircraft is obviously the 787-10 and the 787-10 is bigger than the 350-900. I think you misunderstand me. As a whole group. The 787-10 will still be the biggest aircraft if they retire the 300ER and do not order the 350-1000
And what tells you they don`t order the -1000 ? It only makes the 787-10 more attractive in your opnion ?
I’m not saying they won’t. I am saying that Bens statement on the A350 being the biggest aircraft in the fleet will depend on if they order the 1000
rbavfan wrote:Opus99 wrote:Revelation wrote: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.
I have a feeling no more can be gotten out of the MAX in general.
Customers may be asking for the bump. It could very well be coming with an engine PIP. We don’t know. That would be for engine manufacturers to let us know. There is definitely a PIP in-line for the GENx it may be part of the reason ANZ chose GE over RR. But it only improves the competitive landscape. How many more business? Well it’s better than no business.
On thé other hand, a pip also depends on the engine manufacturers appetite to put more money into a widebody engine at the moment.
ANZ changed engines during the RR engine issues. It had zero to do with a pip. IIRC ANZ noted that was reason for the change & ANZ was not the only one that did that.
Opus99 wrote:Boeing is saying that the -10 will match the range of the a330-900
And the -9 will have 1000 nautical miles higher than the 330-900
Opus99 wrote:“Here’s what Boeing is sharing today:
787-9 and -10 additional capabilities with Increased Gross Weight
More range and payload for both 787-9 and 787-10
Complete operational commonality with existing 787 fleet and family, with no additional empty weight or thrust changes
787-10 comparisons with increased capabilities:
777-200ER replacement with the same range, up to 42 extra seats, and more than 25% better fuel per seat
Even larger payload advantage over A350-900, along with 19 more seats, 2% lower trip, and 8% lower per-seat cost
60 more seats, more than 20% more cargo, and the same range as the A330-900, with 17% lower operating cost per seat”
Boeing is saying that the -10 will match the range of the a330-900
And the -9 will have 1000 nautical miles higher than the 330-900
“Here’s what Boeing released to LNA:
787-9 comparisons with increased capabilities
20 more seats and 1,000nm more range than A330-900, with a 12% lower operating cost per seat
8% lower trip cost vs. the A350-900, with 400 miles more range”
tealnz wrote:It will be interesting to see how Boeing gets to “400 miles more range” for 789 in comparison to A359. My recollection is that integral fuel volume for the 359 in ULR version is a lot higher than B789. And 359 has MTOW headroom to take advantage of it (especially after today’s of an MYOW increase to 283 tonnes). Any guesses as to the assumptions behind Boeing’s claim?
tealnz wrote:My recollection is that integral fuel volume for the 359 in ULR version is a lot higher than B789.
LAX772LR wrote:tealnz wrote:My recollection is that integral fuel volume for the 359 in ULR version is a lot higher than B789.
There's only seven -ULRs in commercial service (all with SQ) and a few government VIP versions (e.g. Germany) as well.
It's not a popular offering, as it requires the forward cargo bay to be sealed and therefore unusable. But there's so little reason for any other airline to buy one, as it's made largely redundant by this increase (and the previous) MTOW increases in the standard A359.
Heck, SQ has flown LAX-SIN now with the updated standard A359, longer than it did with the A359ULR.
Opus99 wrote:On thé topic of pavement loading. The 787-9 or -10 according to Leeham can go up by about 15 tonnes and will have lower pavement loading than the 300ER
“Can the 787-10 landing gear take the extra load? The gear itself with wheels can be beefed up, it’s not a problem. It’s rather the pavement loading from a heavier aircraft which is problematic. Boeing documents show there is some margin for the 787-10 pavement loading before it reaches the values for 777-300ER and the new 777X. But it will mean the apron and taxiway restrictions for the 777-300ER will also apply for a 787-10ER.“
tealnz wrote:It will be interesting to see how Boeing gets to “400 miles more range” for 789 in comparison to A359. My recollection is that integral fuel volume for the 359 in ULR version is a lot higher than B789. And 359 has MTOW headroom to take advantage of it (especially after today’s of an MYOW increase to 283 tonnes). Any guesses as to the assumptions behind Boeing’s claim?
tealnz wrote:My point is that I can’t see how the 789 can end up with a range advantage over the 359 under any reasonable assumptions. The 359 has a bigger and highly efficient wing, a lot more tank capacity and MTOW to let it take full advantage of the fuel volume. So let’s wait to see what assumptions sit behind the Boeing claim…
Taxi645 wrote:https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr-boeing-works-on-hgw-787-10-and-the-787-9/#more-38199
According to LNA:
- 787-9HGW as well
- no increase in empty weight or thrust.
Seems MTOW increase will be limited but welcome none the less.
It’s known that Boeing committed in 2019 to adding some gross weight and range to the 787-10 to win an order from Air New Zealand. ANZ needs the boost for its US services and demand for cargo. ANZ is replacing its aging 777 fleet.
“As part of the Air New Zealand commitment to purchase eight Boeing 787-10s, Boeing and General Electric are increasing the maximum takeoff weight to add more range,” LNA reported in August 2019. It’s unclear whether the HGW version Deal told The Times about is this model or an even higher HGW. A Boeing spokeswoman said the company doesn’t discuss customer specifications, adding that the company isn’t ready to reveal technical details.
In 2019, LNA predicted Boeing would develop a 787-10ER (Extended Range) version, which is another way of saying High Gross Weight. In a three-part series, LNA’s analysis concluded Boeing could add 1,000nm to the advertised range of 6,430nm.
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:I asked you for their ATO announcement. Since that’s what you asked me for. Not whether they exist.
Airbus had formally published the new figures, the link to the Airbus document was given in the OP of the thread three years ago.Opus99 wrote:Boeing did not mention any figures.
We have had multiple threads on this topic over the past 3 years with conspicuously little corroboration of the sort you would expect if Boeing was talking to airlines generally about this.
Nothing has been published by Boeing, yet I can point to where Airbus has published specifications for their yet to be certified weight variants.
Last year we discussed on this site the NZ results and the fleet plan contained therein. There was a very real possibility in that document that 787-10s may never enter the NZ fleet. We also had a thread discussing the possibility of NZ replacing their 77Ws with 787-9s.
XT6Wagon wrote:Economics on the engines is why you aren't hearing about it. I expect they are still paying off the costs in designing and certifying the engines for the 787. Certainly not looking to dump a billion or more into capturing the market they already have.
That said, continuous improvements that can be put into packages to sell to existing customers for engine rebuilds and new engine sales will remain popular with engineers and bean counters alike. So 2025 787 will be better engine side than 2015 787 left the factory with.
Opus99 wrote:rbavfan 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 also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
FluidFlow wrote:Opus99 wrote:rbavfan wrote:
It also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
Hot performance and high performance have nothing to do with MTOW. It is limited by lift and thrust. You need more thrust to reach take off speed (assuming you have the same runway lenghts) or you need a bigger wing to be able to take off with less speed as you thrust is lower due to the conditions.
So if the -10 can not take off at MTOW due to hot/high, increasing MTOW will not help at all. So if the -10 does not perform well in hot/high, the 10ER will be even worse if you look at the ratio of possible take off weight vs MTOW in hot/high.
FluidFlow wrote:Opus99 wrote:rbavfan wrote:
It also pushes the 787-10 closer to the 777-200ER range that BA & UA are both interested in. BA has to be interested in the -10 . It will be able to cover all their current 777-200ER routes they have in operation at lower cost. With the A350-1000 being able to replace the older 777-300ER it could remove a airframe type & improve crew ops.
Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
So if the -10 can not take off at MTOW due to hot/high, increasing MTOW will not help at all. So if the -10 does not perform well in hot/high, the 10ER will be even worse if you look at the ratio of possible take off weight vs MTOW in hot/high.
tommy1808 wrote:FluidFlow wrote:Opus99 wrote:Exactly. I see it making a strong case at BA, UA and KLM. All of which have strong 200ER fleets. Maybe even AA?
Also the MTOW increase should help is hot conditions performance. So I would expect Saudia to acquire more as they are in talks for more widebodies
So if the -10 can not take off at MTOW due to hot/high, increasing MTOW will not help at all. So if the -10 does not perform well in hot/high, the 10ER will be even worse if you look at the ratio of possible take off weight vs MTOW in hot/high.
essentially not being able to take off at MTOW from anything but a runway at sea level if it got even mildly hot didn´t stop the 77W from selling like fresh bread though. Not even to airlines with hubs where it tends to be hot.
best regards
Thomas
ILikeTrains wrote:I’m curious what more will need to be done to get the 787 up to 260T and beyond. I imagine thrust increases, and possibly increasing wing dimensions to keep T/O performance from getting out of hand.
morrisond wrote:I think I recall that the wing is good for 280T - I think that came from Lightsaber?
LAX772LR wrote:tealnz wrote:My recollection is that integral fuel volume for the 359 in ULR version is a lot higher than B789.
There's only seven -ULRs in commercial service (all with SQ) and a few government VIP versions (e.g. Germany) as well.
It's not a popular offering, as it requires the forward cargo bay to be sealed and therefore unusable. But there's so little reason for any other airline to buy one, as it's made largely redundant by this increase (and the previous) MTOW increases in the standard A359.
Heck, SQ has flown LAX-SIN now with the updated standard A359, longer than it did with the A359ULR.
Revelation wrote:ILikeTrains wrote:I’m curious what more will need to be done to get the 787 up to 260T and beyond. I imagine thrust increases, and possibly increasing wing dimensions to keep T/O performance from getting out of hand.
I think an increase in wing dimensions would help, but of course it's very costly. It's interesting to me to see how 767 and A321 gained so much thrust over their life spans yet did not change the wing dimensions much if at all. It seems A321 re-designed the high lift devices a few times from -100 to XLR. I don't know if such an option would exist or be helpful for 787. One does also wonder if the original designers put any time into studying what they could do to help enable future HGW options.
meh130 wrote:The 787-10 has more underfloor cargo volume than a 747-8i. An increase in MTOW could benefit the air cargo side of passenger airlines.
JohanTally wrote:meh130 wrote:The 787-10 has more underfloor cargo volume than a 747-8i. An increase in MTOW could benefit the air cargo side of passenger airlines.
It's wild to think that the 26 foot shorter aircraft would have a larger cargo hold, the 747 must really taper and not utilize the full length of the aircraft. I wonder if the limited operators of the 748i ever have cargo capacity constraints during normal non-pandemic operations?
