Boeings latest statement on the 787 MTOW increase:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/08/unite ... n-4-years/

“We are developing an increased maximum takeoff weight plan for the 787-9 and 787-10 that will add additional value for our customers with even greater efficiency, flexibility and capability,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We are currently working to incorporate this offering into production and are communicating with our customers on timing.”

Opus99 wrote:

Boeings latest statement on the 787 MTOW increase:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/08/unite ... n-4-years/

“We are developing an increased maximum takeoff weight plan for the 787-9 and 787-10 that will add additional value for our customers with even greater efficiency, flexibility and capability,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We are currently working to incorporate this offering into production and are communicating with our customers on timing.”

Great, so they are still working on it, they have talked about this for years now. How much longer do they plan on "working" on this before they will release specifications on what this is going to be? So far, to me this is still just hot air

Heavierthanair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Boeings latest statement on the 787 MTOW increase:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/08/unite ... n-4-years/

“We are developing an increased maximum takeoff weight plan for the 787-9 and 787-10 that will add additional value for our customers with even greater efficiency, flexibility and capability,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We are currently working to incorporate this offering into production and are communicating with our customers on timing.”

Great, so they are still working on it, they have talked about this for years now. How much longer do they plan on "working" on this before they will release specifications on what this is going to be? So far, to me this is still just hot air

Boeing has not been talking about it for years. They only literally confirmed it this year btw. Yes it’s been the in pipeline since 2019. I think the design has been completed. As you can see it’s now a matter of incorporating into production and not specification.

Then covid came and the delivery delays. So it’s understandable that it might have been on ice for a short time

Why are they so shy to talk about it? If they offer it airlines must know about it? What happened to Boeing? Keeping quiet about performance improvements?
The 787 will need many more sales to be profitable but it finally looks very promising. Boeing should go more all new.

Noshow wrote:

Why are they so shy to talk about it? If they offer it airlines must know about it? What happened to Boeing? Keeping quiet about performance improvements?
The 787 will need many more sales to be profitable but it finally looks very promising. Boeing should go more all new.

Who says airlines don’t know about it?

The appropriate time to be publicly shouting left and right about product a enhancement is not when an aircraft is unable to be delivered as the 787 has been for most of the last year, and when wide body orders are incredibly weak (due to Covid) meaning you have little to back up your bolstering.

Now that 787 deliveries have started up again the marketing machine will slowly begin to do their thing as wide body orders start to recover.

OEM make MTOW bumps all the time without publicly commenting on it at first. Some of the A350 improvements we literally learned because of ACAP updates with new weight variants.

What will be interesting to see, is if all 787s will get the enhanced MTOW going forward. There are a lot of outstanding orders who paid for the normal variant. If new orders have to pay more "relatively speaking" it will be a tougher sell. Now if Boeing is incorporating the enhancements into the production line as we speak, it is best to keep everything simple and produce all the aircraft according to the new standard.

Airbus is "known" for increasing capability over time, the 787 stayed the same for a long time now. So it will be interesting to follow how it will be handled. The fact that production has to change aso indicates, that a retrofit might be costly/impossible.

FluidFlow wrote:

What will be interesting to see, is if all 787s will get the enhanced MTOW going forward. There are a lot of outstanding orders who paid for the normal variant. If new orders have to pay more "relatively speaking" it will be a tougher sell. Now if Boeing is incorporating the enhancements into the production line as we speak, it is best to keep everything simple and produce all the aircraft according to the new standard.

Airbus is "known" for increasing capability over time, the 787 stayed the same for a long time now. So it will be interesting to follow how it will be handled. The fact that production has to change aso indicates, that a retrofit might be costly/impossible.

Retrofits for MTOW updates are rare, I would not expect one for this.

All current 787 orders will remain for the current MTOW, Boeing doesn’t give MTOW updates for free (ditto Airbus). They might be built to the new MTOW standard, but would be paper restricted to 254t. Now, because of the 787 delivery delays airlines may end up getting the MTOW boost free of charge but that would be considered part of the compensation package and in lieu of additional compensation money or purchase credit.

Maybe they keep quiet about it to clear out the stored "old standard" aircraft inventory first?

Heavierthanair wrote:

Great, so they are still working on it, they have talked about this for years now. How much longer do they plan on "working" on this before they will release specifications on what this is going to be? So far, to me this is still just hot air

That Boeing is confident they can raise the MTOW by some 5000kg is based on years of feeding fleet performance data and the static test frame data back into their models to see just how strong the airframe structure is and how much more they can safely push it within the existing certification envelope so that it has taken some time for it to all come together is not surprising, at least to me.

Please note that the potential United widebody order is not subject of discussion, this has been discussed here:

Potential United Widebody Order: 787, A350 being considered

Asides from the demise of quad jets, it seems like the trend has been towards aircraft size increasing in general? The popularity of A321neo over smaller narrow bodies, 777-9 being the 300ER successor and now an improved 787-10 as a proper 200ER successor

Aseem747 wrote:

Asides from the demise of quad jets, it seems like the trend has been towards aircraft size increasing in general? The popularity of A321neo over smaller narrow bodies, 777-9 being the 300ER successor and now an improved 787-10 as a proper 200ER successor

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

jbs2886 wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Asides from the demise of quad jets, it seems like the trend has been towards aircraft size increasing in general? The popularity of A321neo over smaller narrow bodies, 777-9 being the 300ER successor and now an improved 787-10 as a proper 200ER successor

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

Is more accurate to say the largest aircraft of the family is generally the most popular. Trip costs only increase a little but revenue potential increase a lot . The downside is usually the larger aircraft has less range. But MTOW upgrades (a la A330ceo, 77W, or 787) and PIP/new engines (a la A320 family) can overcome that.

The A350 is a bit of a special case though. I’ve heard that because of the changes made to the A35J (higher thrust and MTOW) trip costs increase enough that A350J CASM is similar to A359.

Assuming NZ will be the first to get the higher MTOW airframes it looks as if they’re more than two years away:

https://tinyurl.com/2zexddf5

I am really not surprised that it is some two years away.

There will not just be a paper exercise. There will be changes in the build to support the change. These as hinted to in the linked article need to be able to be incorporated into the production process such that the costs are minimised.

After the changes there will then be some sort of certification effort - for instance there should be an RTO performed at the new higher MTOW - plus to certify changes in autoland etc at the higher weight.

I seem to remember there was a gap of well over a year between the MTOW increases on the A330 being announced and the test campaign finishing.

tealnz wrote:

Assuming NZ will be the first to get the higher MTOW airframes it looks as if they’re more than two years away:

https://tinyurl.com/2zexddf5

Interesting. Thanks for the link. I agree the MTOW rollout appears to be two years away. Boeing has likely done the engineering work, what remains is integration into new 787 production models. Once the backlog is cleared out and things are fully back on track I expect we will start to see the new 789 and 787-10ER. If the speculation is true, the 787-10 can get up to a 1000nm increase in range or 12 tons in increased payload.

Heavierthanair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Boeings latest statement on the 787 MTOW increase:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/08/unite ... n-4-years/

“We are developing an increased maximum takeoff weight plan for the 787-9 and 787-10 that will add additional value for our customers with even greater efficiency, flexibility and capability,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We are currently working to incorporate this offering into production and are communicating with our customers on timing.”

Great, so they are still working on it, they have talked about this for years now. How much longer do they plan on "working" on this before they will release specifications on what this is going to be? So far, to me this is still just hot air

When one of your aircraft families is unable to be delivered for nearly two years due to construction errors it's best to not shine a spotlight on the program. Two weeks after deliveries resumed and now the Boeing PR team is divulging info which seems proper. Boeing is very quiet about their 777X program which is likely a byproduct of it's development shortfalls and enhanced FAA scrutiny.

JohanTally wrote:

Two weeks after deliveries resumed and now the Boeing PR team is divulging info which seems proper. Boeing is very quiet about their 777X program which is likely a byproduct of it's development shortfalls and enhanced FAA scrutiny.

Yes, the era of Boeing complaining and challenging the FAA on delays is over, or making broadly speculative or overly ambitious announcements. Now it's keep quiet, toe the line, and work to satisfy the regulators, whatever that takes.

Most of the announcements recently have come at the quarterly results meetings, which is more or less required by law. That has become routine over the past few years, and it somewhat creates the appearance of no design or improvement activity.

This marks a return perhaps to more normal communications, and affirms that those activities never really stopped.

Opus99 wrote:

Heavierthanair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Boeings latest statement on the 787 MTOW increase:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/08/unite ... n-4-years/

“We are developing an increased maximum takeoff weight plan for the 787-9 and 787-10 that will add additional value for our customers with even greater efficiency, flexibility and capability,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We are currently working to incorporate this offering into production and are communicating with our customers on timing.”

Great, so they are still working on it, they have talked about this for years now. How much longer do they plan on "working" on this before they will release specifications on what this is going to be? So far, to me this is still just hot air

Boeing has not been talking about it for years. They only literally confirmed it this year btw. Yes it’s been the in pipeline since 2019. I think the design has been completed. As you can see it’s now a matter of incorporating into production and not specification.

Then covid came and the delivery delays. So it’s understandable that it might have been on ice for a short time

I'm sure the fiasco with the FAA didn't help speed things along either.

Polot wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Asides from the demise of quad jets, it seems like the trend has been towards aircraft size increasing in general? The popularity of A321neo over smaller narrow bodies, 777-9 being the 300ER successor and now an improved 787-10 as a proper 200ER successor

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

Is more accurate to say the largest aircraft of the family is generally the most popular.

I don't think that rule applies as generally as you want it to. 738s outsold 739s about nine to 1. 763s outsold 764s 15:1. 787-10s seem unlikely to outsell 797-9s. You can't just declare A350s an outlier.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Polot wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

Is more accurate to say the largest aircraft of the family is generally the most popular.

I don't think that rule applies as generally as you want it to. 738s outsold 739s about nine to 1. 763s outsold 764s 15:1. 787-10s seem unlikely to outsell 797-9s. You can't just declare A350s an outlier.

Hence why I mentioned the downside of less range. I guess I needed to spell out the aircraft needs commercially acceptable range for some people here.

Is there a MTOW limit based on the current landing gear config? If so are they going to get close to it with this increase?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Polot wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

Is more accurate to say the largest aircraft of the family is generally the most popular.

I don't think that rule applies as generally as you want it to. 738s outsold 739s about nine to 1. 763s outsold 764s 15:1. 787-10s seem unlikely to outsell 797-9s. You can't just declare A350s an outlier.

I actually almost brought up the 738 as I think it hit a sweet spot even not being the largest model in the NG family (I think the A320ceo outsold the A321ceo although that may have changed more towards the end of their production?). Right now I think the 789 does as well, but that could change. But, you're right, its not that unusual to have a not-largest model be the bigger seller.

Good morning,

If this belongs in Tech/Ops, feel free to move it.

I do not have a written source because it involves an actual conversation I had last week while traveling, but it's fascinating nevertheless.

While flying from CHS-DFW, I sat next to a Senior Boeing 787 Test Pilot and while I wanted to ask him a million questions, I didn't want to annoy him, so we had a chat about a couple of things and I thought I'd share. Again, the source is a directly from a 787 Test Pilot.

I asked him specifically about the 'rumored' 787 MTOW increase that has been floated on here for a while and here is what he had to say (I'm paraphrasing our conversation into some bullet points):

1. The MTOW is indeed coming and he said it's likely to be ready at the end of 2023. While I wasn't able to get a specific amount out of him, he didn't correct me when I mentioned 6 tons.

2. He said (as we all know) that there are a few airlines that could really use the bump on some of their routes.

3. My understanding from talking to him is that it will be on the 787-9 and 787-10. I did not confirm (nor did I really care) if it would be coming to the 787-8.

4. He said that after this bump, that is all that can be done with the frame from a MTOW increase perspective. That's it. There won't be any more MTOW increases after that. When conversing, he told me that it isn't one single thing, but that basically the entire plane will be 'maxed out' -- i.e. wing, tire loading, current engines, etc.
*Now, we didn't talk about it, but my guess that future efficiencies would come from weight reductions, aerodynamic tweaks, new engines, etc.

5. Off-topic, but he mentioned that the airlines want their 787s NOW. He mentioned they are delivering as quickly as they can, but the airlines certainly want to take delivery as soon as possible.

I thought everyone might find all of this fascinating, just as I did. He was a nice fella and it was a pleasure speaking with him. I have no reason at all to believe he'd straight up lie to me when he is one of the Senior Test Pilots and mentioned he's one of the last ones to sign off on a plane before it's 'good to go'.

Cheers,

Yeah that sounds about right from what we know so far. There have been reports of 6 tons as well, alongside fuel management software modifications.

Can someone tell us what 6 tons can do?

Opus99 wrote:

Yeah that sounds about right from what we know so far. There have been reports of 6 tons as well, alongside fuel management software modifications.

Can someone tell us what 6 tons can do?

While I didn't discuss that specifically with him, others on here have alluded that it would buy about an extra hour of endurance (or 12,000 lbs of payload). I could be off a little bit, but I believe that is the overall consensus.

I wonder if that’s why QF are holding onto placing any top up orders for this to be confirmed! I’m sure they would like this to be a feature of some additional 789, would certainly help some of their routes, even if these new 789 aren’t dedicated to the ULH.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Yeah that sounds about right from what we know so far. There have been reports of 6 tons as well, alongside fuel management software modifications.

Can someone tell us what 6 tons can do?

While I didn't discuss that specifically with him, others on here have alluded that it would buy about an extra hour of endurance (or 12,000 lbs of payload). I could be off a little bit, but I believe that is the overall consensus.

Thanks for sharing, at least we have an expected service date (end of 2023)

If the 6 ton weight increase is used for fuel the additional range would be in the 300 - 350 nm area, so right, about an hours flying time

Heavierthanair wrote:

If the 6 ton weight increase is used for fuel the additional range would be in the 300 - 350 nm area, so right, about an hours flying time

I think a lot of this is for carriers to use the MTOW bump mostly for more cargo underneath on the -10 vs. a range increase. That is more revenue $$, objectively speaking, and the -10 has a huge container capacity.

Any hints to possibility for retrofit to current frames

LDRA wrote:

Any hints to possibility for retrofit to current frames

Doubt it

LDRA wrote:

Any hints to possibility for retrofit to current frames

Unfortunately, that is not something I asked him.

Boeing clearly expected the 777X to cover everything above. I hope this works out as intended and on time. Boeing should have done all three Yellowstones in all sizes new.

Opus99 wrote:

Can someone tell us what 6 tons can do?

4 LD3s or one P6P/AMP loaded to maximum weight with juicy revenue generating cargo. At the cost of a slightly reduced max range, but that’s inconsequential for most of the services. Except for a few ULH ventures with the -9, using the 6 tons to carry fuel for another hour may not be the most common use of the bump.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Good morning,

If this belongs in Tech/Ops, feel free to move it.

I do not have a written source because it involves an actual conversation I had last week while traveling, but it's fascinating nevertheless.

While flying from CHS-DFW, I sat next to a Senior Boeing 787 Test Pilot and while I wanted to ask him a million questions, I didn't want to annoy him, so we had a chat about a couple of things and I thought I'd share. Again, the source is a directly from a 787 Test Pilot.

I asked him specifically about the 'rumored' 787 MTOW increase that has been floated on here for a while and here is what he had to say (I'm paraphrasing our conversation into some bullet points):

1. The MTOW is indeed coming and he said it's likely to be ready at the end of 2023. While I wasn't able to get a specific amount out of him, he didn't correct me when I mentioned 6 tons.

2. He said (as we all know) that there are a few airlines that could really use the bump on some of their routes.

3. My understanding from talking to him is that it will be on the 787-9 and 787-10. I did not confirm (nor did I really care) if it would be coming to the 787-8.

4. He said that after this bump, that is all that can be done with the frame from a MTOW increase perspective. That's it. There won't be any more MTOW increases after that. When conversing, he told me that it isn't one single thing, but that basically the entire plane will be 'maxed out' -- i.e. wing, tire loading, current engines, etc.
*Now, we didn't talk about it, but my guess that future efficiencies would come from weight reductions, aerodynamic tweaks, new engines, etc.

5. Off-topic, but he mentioned that the airlines want their 787s NOW. He mentioned they are delivering as quickly as they can, but the airlines certainly want to take delivery as soon as possible.

I thought everyone might find all of this fascinating, just as I did. He was a nice fella and it was a pleasure speaking with him. I have no reason at all to believe he'd straight up lie to me when he is one of the Senior Test Pilots and mentioned he's one of the last ones to sign off on a plane before it's 'good to go'.

Cheers,

Thanks. This confirms everything that has been discussed in the aviation press. I think this bump up in MTOW particularly helps the 787-10 as it puts it close to the 77E in terms of payload/ range.

B777LRF wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Can someone tell us what 6 tons can do?

4 LD3s or one P6P/AMP loaded to maximum weight with juicy revenue generating cargo. At the cost of a slightly reduced max range, but that’s inconsequential for most of the services. Except for a few ULH ventures with the -9, using the 6 tons to carry fuel for another hour may not be the most common use of the bump.

Really, you don't think it will be -10 operators maxing out range?

I can maybe see an operator trying to push the ULH capability of the 789, or to have the 78X carry larger passenger loads on 789 type missions. But as has been said earlier, I see carriers trying to add a pallet of cargo on current flights with the MTOW boost instead.

ILikeTrains wrote:

I can maybe see an operator trying to push the ULH capability of the 789, or to have the 78X carry larger passenger loads on 789 type missions. But as has been said earlier, I see carriers trying to add a pallet of cargo on current flights with the MTOW boost instead.

It will vary. In APAC your theory is most likely correct as that’s their priority.

An airline like united will want the range, BA will probably use the pallet space as 99% of their 777 routes can be done with a standard-10

KLM will want the range. They stretch their -10s

Opus99 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

I can maybe see an operator trying to push the ULH capability of the 789, or to have the 78X carry larger passenger loads on 789 type missions. But as has been said earlier, I see carriers trying to add a pallet of cargo on current flights with the MTOW boost instead.

KLM will want the range. They stretch their -10s

AMS - CPT being a good example. Good thing both airports are at sea level.

9252fly wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

I can maybe see an operator trying to push the ULH capability of the 789, or to have the 78X carry larger passenger loads on 789 type missions. But as has been said earlier, I see carriers trying to add a pallet of cargo on current flights with the MTOW boost instead.

KLM will want the range. They stretch their -10s

AMS - CPT being a good example. Good thing both airports are at sea level.

Not to mention Asia...Cant recall KL flew their 787-10's to that part of the world (BKK, ICN, etc)

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what Boeing will do to the 787 to increase MTOW? I assume removing metal from the airframe but are there going to be changes to the wings or engines? Is there room for any larger or additional fuel tanks?

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

9252fly wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

KLM will want the range. They stretch their -10s

AMS - CPT being a good example. Good thing both airports are at sea level.

Not to mention Asia...Cant recall KL flew their 787-10's to that part of the world (BKK, ICN, etc)

No the 10s haven't been deployed on the far Asia routes but go away from home as far as LAX SFO.

VC10er wrote:

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what Boeing will do to the 787 to increase MTOW? I assume removing metal from the airframe but are there going to be changes to the wings or engines? Is there room for any larger or additional fuel tanks?

Why would you assume removing metal from the airframe to increase MTOW?

Nomadd wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what Boeing will do to the 787 to increase MTOW? I assume removing metal from the airframe but are there going to be changes to the wings or engines? Is there room for any larger or additional fuel tanks?

Why would you assume removing metal from the airframe to increase MTOW?

The tanks are more than large enough as is. I don't believe any changes to engines either - but one would to assume PIP's are always in the works.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Really, you don't think it will be -10 operators maxing out range?

Not really, no. The -10 already has the range to operate US West Coast to almost all of Europe with a full load of SLF. The current version won’t quite reach SE Asia with a full pax load from Western Europe, so rather than taking that option there’s more money to be made flying a bit shorter but carrying 6 more tons of payload. If you want to fly for more than 12 hours with a full load, there’s always the -9 or A350 to chose from.

As an example, KLM would probably rather load 6 tons more of yummy cargo on an AMS-LAX than fill up the cabin on an AMS-BKK.

But let’s not forget that one doesn’t exclude the other; KLM might well use a -10 for Bangers on Fridays and Saturdays, and send it to Tinseltown all the other days of the week.

VC10er wrote:

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what Boeing will do to the 787 to increase MTOW? I assume removing metal from the airframe but are there going to be changes to the wings or engines? Is there room for any larger or additional fuel tanks?

787 is mostly composite... there is no metal to remove

MTOW increase just means Boeing will certify the frame to carry more weight. No doubt some of the margin will come from material upgrades (stronger/lighter parts) or minor design changes. But the majority of it will be just a paper upgrade because Boeing has now enough operating data and metrics from the airlines to know how much more weight it can carry without compromising performance, safety, and most importantly, durability/dispatch reliability.

Nomadd wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what Boeing will do to the 787 to increase MTOW? I assume removing metal from the airframe but are there going to be changes to the wings or engines? Is there room for any larger or additional fuel tanks?

Why would you assume removing metal from the airframe to increase MTOW?

Make way for more fuel? I’m a novice so I was just guessing!

How limited is the 787-10 by MLW? Is this upgrade also affecting MLW?

The reason I'm asking is that I am wondering if all of the rumored 6t MTOW increase could go into carrying more cargo or if the extra 6t have to be burnt by the time the plane touches down. The latter would really only increase range except on long flights that formerly had to trade fuel for payload.

Polot wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Asides from the demise of quad jets, it seems like the trend has been towards aircraft size increasing in general? The popularity of A321neo over smaller narrow bodies, 777-9 being the 300ER successor and now an improved 787-10 as a proper 200ER successor

I'd say in general, yes, but its really to do with efficiency. If there is a marginal cost increase but greater revenue potential, the efficiency improves. But, if there was a larger cost increase or perhaps significant capability penalty, that could blunt the larger aircraft.

Is more accurate to say the largest aircraft of the family is generally the most popular. Trip costs only increase a little but revenue potential increase a lot . The downside is usually the larger aircraft has less range. But MTOW upgrades (a la A330ceo, 77W, or 787) and PIP/new engines (a la A320 family) can overcome that.

The A350 is a bit of a special case though. I’ve heard that because of the changes made to the A35J (higher thrust and MTOW) trip costs increase enough that A350J CASM is similar to A359.

The other down side is depends on your needs. If it adds 20 seats, but you are regularly only selling 3 or 4 & don't make use of cargo capacity. Then the added weight and harder time filling those seats can bite you from the other side. Most times it's worth it though.