flee wrote:trex8 wrote:As these are supposed to replace the A333 on regional routes, seems there would be no need for them to take the planes with the highest certified MTOW (254t). Looking at
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf. A 789 at 170 t OEW +payload (should be good for 300 pax /bags and 10 t cargo could go 5000nm+ with a 236t TOW. Their 230t A333s can just stretch to 4000nm now. More than enough for Australia/Nz/Hawaii but pushing it for US west coast/Europe. Even at 227t they would still be more capable than the A333s. Anything longer they can use the A359s.
CI does not strictly use their aircraft according to their capabilities, especially the range!
I was looking at the aircraft they were deploying today and on their TPE-KUL route (about 4 hrs) there are A21N, A333 and B77W. A359s are also in use on this route. It would appear that CI is looking more at load carrying capability for this route rather than range. It could also be that they want to maximise aircraft utilization and do not like having aircraft on the ground. I guess they prefer flexibility as they can use the aircraft for max payload or/and range.
So true for numerous east asian carriers, send those long range planes on short regional flights rather than have them sit on the ground half a day.
Which makes the 787 purchase even more interesting as buying more A359s would work just as well if they just need a 300 seat 6000nm plane, except for that little issue at TSA and their gates which dont fit A350s, 777Ws or A330neos.
If they wont use the highest MTOW certifiable on the 787 for most of the fleet the vast majority of the time, why pay Boeing for it or the landing fees, and likely engine power by the hour rates too? Having a 5000nm mile 787 is more than adequate as I've said for Australia/NZ/ Hawaii. They have 22 A333s to replace presently, was 24 just 2 years ago. Only ordered 16. I doubt having "spare" 6000milers to run TPE-ONT or TPE-JFK to beef up their A359/77W fleet is the main reason they got the 787. 787 may do a better job than the A339 on most regional flights and can fly into TSA which is an important business hub for them. Otherwise they would just use TPE for all their Haneda, Honqiao and Gimpo flights. They could run the new A321neos with lie flat seat but JL/NH and the Chinese carriers will be running 767/787s into TSA. And BR have 789s to compete!
Is the 787-10 too long for the taxiways at TSA, I seem to remember they did something to them when most flights moved to TPE so 747s cant operate anymore to TSA also due to length, theres a turn at the end of one runway or something which would be a problem. (which puts the 77W out on two strikes, length and wingspan!).