Has there been any more information released about the upgrades that boeing teased about last year for the 787 line up?

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/bo ... er-family/

They’re both getting an ER version? I thought only the 10 was.

LAXPolaris wrote:

They’re both getting an ER version? I thought only the 10 was.

Both are since the 10 is just a simple stretch of the 9

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

I thought the increase was maximun 6T, but what you seem to be suggesting is much higher?? Would that be possible with current MLG & wing?

Al a A350-900, started at 268t, now offered at 283t??

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

Not happening. I spoke with a 787 Test Pilot. Once this increase goes into effect, he said the frame is ‘Maxed Out’.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

Not happening. I spoke with a 787 Test Pilot. Once this increase goes into effect, he said the frame is ‘Maxed Out’.

I think you're right. The 787 was designed with the thought that the 777X would be above it so there were always design growth limitations in the frame. There won't be a 787-11. Of course, there will eventually be a 787NEO which will definitely improve range, economic or both but I understand there are limitations in both fan-size and what weight can be added using the current MLG setup.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

Not happening. I spoke with a 787 Test Pilot. Once this increase goes into effect, he said the frame is ‘Maxed Out’.

Only until enough money is spent to develop it further

[*]

Ruscoe wrote:

Boeing can't satisfy demand with the current MTOW's so probably not feeling pushed.
Better to await an engine PIP, and then make minimal changes.
IMO the higher MTOW variants will not be pushed or labelled ER simply an IGW version.
I do think an ER version will come, probably only the 10ER, and will have increased tankage, along with a further increase in IGW

Ruscoe

ANZ need a more capable 9 NOW for flights to NY, that was the thing that started the whole HGW or IGW talk back in 2019. Any upgrades on the 10 can be easily shared with the 9 ( and vice versa) since they have much better commonality than the 8.

The HGW upgrade should also be the basis for the re-engined "9X" and "10X", which could see the 10 turn into a economical long haul champ and the 9 maybe a project sunrise worthy aircraft.

The HGW upgrades are prerequisites for the future engine PIP and more , so Boeing could worry about other stuff like adding the original 62M+ wingspan or accommodating the heavier newer engines without being concerned about the MTOW. Unlike Airbus, Boeing doesn't gradually increase the MTOW of an airframe over it's life, they prefer to do it only once or twice .

ANZ was reportedly the launch customer and they're supposed to get their 1st enhanced 787-10's starting in 2024.

With almost all airlines putting 17"-wide Y-seats in 787s nowadays, a flight over 12 hours long is almost too painful to deal with. Any further range capability on the ER will certainly be a moot point to me. Yes I know, your mileage might vary.

BR777 wrote:

With almost all airlines putting 17"-wide Y-seats in 787s nowadays, a flight over 12 hours long is almost too painful to deal with. Any further range capability on the ER will certainly be a moot point to me. Yes I know, your mileage might vary.

I noticed from the 777X and 787 acap document that both should have a 59.6" for 3 seats across, that's 17.2" with 2" armrests and 17.86" with 1.5" arm rests. The a350 uses 1.5" arm rests last I checked. I always wondered if B would standardise 18" in future 787 variants, since it looks like it is almost possible with the current fuselage width.

swapcv wrote:

ANZ was reportedly the launch customer and they're supposed to get their 1st enhanced 787-10's starting in 2024.

They have switched them all back to -9 for now. Albeit probably -9 with the MTOW bump. Will make NYC-AKL a bit easier.

Boeing should put its financial and engineering resources to getting its supply chain and production quality in order, then into designing a brand new replacement of the 737 line (I think we all know that there cannot be a 5th generation 737). 787-9ER and -10ER is only going to attract a marginal number of additional orders from existing 787 customers. They are not going to get the 787 line new customers, while a 737 replacement will be needed in the next 10-15 years, and 10 years are not really a lot of time for a clean sheet design. At the end of the day, the company has limited resources and they need to prioritize the deployment of resources wisely.

The 787 will still be state-of-the-art in its market segment in 10 years. The 737MAX will not be.

IMHO a 787-10ER won't compete with the 777-9X
I agree it overlaps the bottom end of the current 777.
A 10ER should have wide appeal. No need for a triple bogey, the 359 has a double with weights the 787 won't approach and has no need for.
If the Ultrafan is a success or GE increase the fan diameter on the present engines, rather than extend the wing tips, perhaps an inner wing plug may provide the extra tankage and allow a longer undercarriage to accommodate larger engines.
Any aircraft can have a MTOW increase if you are prepared to make the necessary changes. The airframe of the 787 is said to be good for a sizeable increase in MTOW with minor changes. (word of mouth only), and the undercarriage can be redesigned to take the weight and the wheels sized and spaced for tarmac load purposes. (Just compare 787 and 350 main undercarriage)
Currently, I think, if Boeing wanted to do something quickly, the limiting factor would be the need for more thrust.
Ruscoe

raylee67 wrote:

Boeing should put its financial and engineering resources to getting its supply chain and production quality in order, then into designing a brand new replacement of the 737 line (I think we all know that there cannot be a 5th generation 737). 787-9ER and -10ER is only going to attract a marginal number of additional orders from existing 787 customers. They are not going to get the 787 line new customers, while a 737 replacement will be needed in the next 10-15 years, and 10 years are not really a lot of time for a clean sheet design. At the end of the day, the company has limited resources and they need to prioritize the deployment of resources wisely.

The 787 will still be state-of-the-art in its market segment in 10 years. The 737MAX will not be.

Wow, you probably think it is as easy as that don't you? Airbus and Boeing are at the mercy of the supply chain, not the other way round.. Boeing's financial difficulties cannot be resolved over night and will take a couple of years and unlike the 737 replacement, the 787 "ERs" require very little investment.

If marginal you mean 50 to 200 orders ( which is what I see) between now and 2030, then I say it is totally worth it.. It might even be more since these upgrades will eventually become standard and all 787-10s will be "ERs" from a certain point.

Boeing can't create a 737 replacement until they try and clear the $20+ billion debt the MAX crises brought.

Anyway why rush to create a 737 replacement while the 737MAX is selling like crazy, just yesterday there where reports of a potential 150+ MAX order from Riyadh air and Turkish airlines is also looking into a 3 digit MAX order as well. It looks like this year alone the 737MAX will get over 1000 commitments, so chill.

Ruscoe wrote:

IMHO a 787-10ER won't compete with the 777-9X
I agree it overlaps the bottom end of the current 777.
A 10ER should have wide appeal. No need for a triple bogey, the 359 has a double with weights the 787 won't approach and has no need for.
If the Ultrafan is a success or GE increase the fan diameter on the present engines, rather than extend the wing tips, perhaps an inner wing plug may provide the extra tankage and allow a longer undercarriage to accommodate larger engines.
Any aircraft can have a MTOW increase if you are prepared to make the necessary changes. The airframe of the 787 is said to be good for a sizeable increase in MTOW with minor changes. (word of mouth only), and the undercarriage can be redesigned to take the weight and the wheels sized and spaced for tarmac load purposes. (Just compare 787 and 350 main undercarriage)
Currently, I think, if Boeing wanted to do something quickly, the limiting factor would be the need for more thrust.
Ruscoe

I think some here mentioned that the current MLG could be good for even up to 268T which adds almost a thousand nautical miles on the 10, (giving it a similar range as the 777-300ER). Strap on a 10% more efficient engine plus other improvements and it's range approaches 8000nmi

The poor optimisation on the 778 and the fact that we might not get a P variant leaves a huge gap in the line up between the 10 and 779. I have always thought a modest 3-4m stretch of a hypothetical 268T 787-10 (re-engined) could help partially solve that, it could have about 7300nmi of range with a typical 350-360 seat capacity . Just a slightly longer undercarriage will be needed for this, a triple bogey would not be required.

Ruscoe wrote:

IMHO a 787-10ER won't compete with the 777-9X
I agree it overlaps the bottom end of the current 777.
A 10ER should have wide appeal. No need for a triple bogey, the 359 has a double with weights the 787 won't approach and has no need for.
If the Ultrafan is a success or GE increase the fan diameter on the present engines, rather than extend the wing tips, perhaps an inner wing plug may provide the extra tankage and allow a longer undercarriage to accommodate larger engines.
Any aircraft can have a MTOW increase if you are prepared to make the necessary changes. The airframe of the 787 is said to be good for a sizeable increase in MTOW with minor changes. (word of mouth only), and the undercarriage can be redesigned to take the weight and the wheels sized and spaced for tarmac load purposes. (Just compare 787 and 350 main undercarriage)
Currently, I think, if Boeing wanted to do something quickly, the limiting factor would be the need for more thrust.
Ruscoe

Wing plug, new engines, extended landing gear.... this is starting to sound a mighty expensive update rather than a simple expansion of the 787 product range. You'd want to sell a lot which may not be easy given all you are creating is a direct A359 competitor.

Sermons wrote:

BR777 wrote:

With almost all airlines putting 17"-wide Y-seats in 787s nowadays, a flight over 12 hours long is almost too painful to deal with. Any further range capability on the ER will certainly be a moot point to me. Yes I know, your mileage might vary.

I noticed from the 777X and 787 acap document that both should have a 59.6" for 3 seats across, that's 17.2" with 2" armrests and 17.86" with 1.5" arm rests. The a350 uses 1.5" arm rests last I checked. I always wondered if B would standardise 18" in future 787 variants, since it looks like it is almost possible with the current fuselage width.

And what is the isle width with those seats?

Ha - the semiannual B 787 ER thread. For how may years do we have this thread coming up now? 4 years, 5 years? And for how many more years will it be continued?

Rant over

Heavierthanair wrote:

Ha - the semiannual B 787 ER thread. For how may years do we have this thread coming up now? 4 years, 5 years? And for how many more years will it be continued?

Rant over

We will know soon enough.

77west wrote:

swapcv wrote:

ANZ was reportedly the launch customer and they're supposed to get their 1st enhanced 787-10's starting in 2024.

They have switched them all back to -9 for now. Albeit probably -9 with the MTOW bump. Will make NYC-AKL a bit easier.

And are they staying with RR burners on the wings for fleet commonality and cost savings or changing to the new (main reason for changing due to blade corrosion) GE selection which spurred their decision to stay with Boeing and the 787 instead of A350 to make the NYC leg commercially viable.

Looks to me like Boeing may have let NZ down yet again. I wonder what discounts were involved with this new order.

Motorhussy wrote:

77west wrote:

swapcv wrote:

ANZ was reportedly the launch customer and they're supposed to get their 1st enhanced 787-10's starting in 2024.

They have switched them all back to -9 for now. Albeit probably -9 with the MTOW bump. Will make NYC-AKL a bit easier.

And are they staying with RR burners on the wings for fleet commonality and cost savings or changing to the new (main reason for changing due to blade corrosion) GE selection which spurred their decision to stay with Boeing and the 787 instead of A350 to make the NYC leg commercially viable.

Looks to me like Boeing may have let NZ down yet again. I wonder what discounts were involved with this new order.

They are still going to be GE powered. The 8 789s isn’t a brand new order, it’s a conversion of their existing -10 order.

I’m not sure how Boeing has “let NZ down.” The -10, even with higher MTOW, was never going to fly AKL-NYC and NZ knew that when they ordered the plane in 2023. The biggest change is NZ has dropped their 772 fleet and lost 1 77W (albeit now getting another one from somewhere). There has been nothing to suggest that the -10 does not and will not performed as advertised, NZ’s priorities have just shifted because of Covid.

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

That's rather a narrow view. There are lots of intercon flights that can use 787-10 seat count but don't need 77W/A359/787-9 payload range.

NZ certainly isn't big enough to drive the bus on a costly development.

flipdewaf wrote:

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

What purpose does the 777X serve in Boeing's lineup if they are looking to move the 787-10 into the 777W realm?

MIflyer12 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

That's rather a narrow view. There are lots of intercon flights that can use 787-10 seat count but don't need 77W/A359/787-9 payload range.

Indeed, but then the 787-10 CASM isnt that much better on those flights than a 787-9 and with the increased risks of higher trip costs and the fact that a -10 can sub for a -9 (in most cases) but a -9 cannot reasonably sub for a -10 (or what would be the point in using the -10) then you need a network that can support such dynamics. A 787-10 picks up a lot of risks in operating it for a modest improvement in CASM.

par13del wrote:

What purpose does the 777X serve in Boeing's lineup if they are looking to move the 787-10 into the 777W realm?

Good question, whilst it risks taking us off topic I'd say it plays the role of maximum capacity (Volume/Floor area) per movement.

Fred

par13del wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

What purpose does the 777X serve in Boeing's lineup if they are looking to move the 787-10 into the 777W realm?

777X is effectively a VLA and thus thoroughly beyond the 787's reach. Even if they max the 787 to its MLG limit of 280t, it'll never compete with the 777X in terms of sheer payload ability, more specifically the pax capacity nearing 747-400 and 747-8 levels.

With the 789 being pushed to its limits by UA (SFO/LAX-SIN, IAH-SYD), NZ (JFK-AKL), QF(PER-LHR) any sort of MTOW increase and/or efficiency gains would be very welcome...

With UA having +100 789/78X in the order books making the "ER", the new model base makes alot of sense IMO...similar to the 767-300ER became the only version of 767-300 available eventually...

The most likely is the 6 T MTOW increase, a small MLW increase, and a PIP on the engines, at least on the GEnX. This pertains to both -9 &-10. Anything more in this certification environment would be painful with little increase in sales. 2% better performance with little cost would be a good goal. That adds 150 miles to range + what 6T of fuel adds.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The most likely is the 6 T MTOW increase, a small MLW increase, and a PIP on the engines, at least on the GEnX. This pertains to both -9 &-10. Anything more in this certification environment would be painful with little increase in sales. 2% better performance with little cost would be a good goal. That adds 150 miles to range + what 6T of fuel adds.

It’s about 400nm so 550 with the engine pip.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be shocked if we don’t hear anything about this at Paris, it has allegedly been in the works and I’m sure some recent 787 orders have that extra performance in mind.

swapcv wrote:

par13del wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 787-10 isnt capable enough to be fully mainstream just yet, even with the 6T MTOW upgrade it has ~6800nm SAR and 4550nm at MZFW. To get to the useful levels of 77W it needs another 6-10t on top of that. The stretch (9-10) does give it good CASM but it isn't enough of an improvement over the 789 to make up for its lower raw performance. The 789 and A359 are "good enough" for a much wider band of payload ranges.

Fred

What purpose does the 777X serve in Boeing's lineup if they are looking to move the 787-10 into the 777W realm?

777X is effectively a VLA and thus thoroughly beyond the 787's reach. Even if they max the 787 to its MLG limit of 280t, it'll never compete with the 777X in terms of sheer payload ability, more specifically the pax capacity nearing 747-400 and 747-8 levels.

The 787-10 is nowhere near the 77W in terms of capability. This discussion is understating the gap between the aircraft.

The 77W can seat over 100 more passengers than the 787-10.

Even with the gross weight increase the 78X has a MTOW of 253,000kg. The 77W's is 351,533 kg. They're not even close.
The 777W is a cargo hauling beast that only the 747 can really surpass.

For pax airline's that lifting capability is cucial. It's different to integrators like Fedex who'll run out of volume long before they reach the weight limit.

I've seen 77Ws go out with 26 tons of freight in addition to a pretty full load of pax bags. A 78X just could not have done that job.

Furthemore the difference in cabin space is also siginificant.

The 777 has a cabin width of 586cm, 787 has 553cm.
In a world of lie flat seats, onboard bars and suites those 33cms really matter and the 777X is even wider than the 77W.

Now then 78X is a viable 777-200 replacement and it is proving that, but it is a long way from the 77W and even further from the 777-9.

Metchalus wrote:

swapcv wrote:

par13del wrote:

What purpose does the 777X serve in Boeing's lineup if they are looking to move the 787-10 into the 777W realm?

777X is effectively a VLA and thus thoroughly beyond the 787's reach. Even if they max the 787 to its MLG limit of 280t, it'll never compete with the 777X in terms of sheer payload ability, more specifically the pax capacity nearing 747-400 and 747-8 levels.

The 787-10 is nowhere near the 77W in terms of capability. This discussion is understating the gap between the aircraft.

The 77W can seat over 100 more passengers than the 787-10.

Even with the gross weight increase the 78X has a MTOW of 253,000kg. The 77W's is 351,533 kg. They're not even close.
The 777W is a cargo hauling beast that only the 747 can really surpass.

For pax airline's that lifting capability is cucial. It's different to integrators like Fedex who'll run out of volume long before they reach the weight limit.

I've seen 77Ws go out with 26 tons of freight in addition to a pretty full load of pax bags. A 78X just could not have done that job.

Furthemore the difference in cabin space is also siginificant.

The 777 has a cabin width of 586cm, 787 has 553cm.
In a world of lie flat seats, onboard bars and suites those 33cms really matter and the 777X is even wider than the 77W.

Now then 78X is a viable 777-200 replacement and it is proving that, but it is a long way from the 77W and even further from the 777-9.

With a 6t increase in MTOW the 787-10 becomes a viable 77E replacement. But I agree with you, the 77W is not within reach, even with the increase in MTOW. Better get an A350 or 779.

Polot wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

77west wrote:

They have switched them all back to -9 for now. Albeit probably -9 with the MTOW bump. Will make NYC-AKL a bit easier.

And are they staying with RR burners on the wings for fleet commonality and cost savings or changing to the new (main reason for changing due to blade corrosion) GE selection which spurred their decision to stay with Boeing and the 787 instead of A350 to make the NYC leg commercially viable.

Looks to me like Boeing may have let NZ down yet again. I wonder what discounts were involved with this new order.

They are still going to be GE powered. The 8 789s isn’t a brand new order, it’s a conversion of their existing -10 order.

I’m not sure how Boeing has “let NZ down.” The -10, even with higher MTOW, was never going to fly AKL-NYC and NZ knew that when they ordered the plane in 2023. The biggest change is NZ has dropped their 772 fleet and lost 1 77W (albeit now getting another one from somewhere). There has been nothing to suggest that the -10 does not and will not performed as advertised, NZ’s priorities have just shifted because of Covid.

That's exactly it, change in priorities. The -10 would work well on Asian and Tasman flights, but NZ's focus lately has been higher-yielding USA centric routes where the -9 range advantage is what they need. The -10 is by no means a dud, just not really what NZ needs right now. The -10 would not be a true 77W replacement in current form

Sermons wrote:

Wow, you probably think it is as easy as that don't you? Airbus and Boeing are at the mercy of the supply chain, not the other way round.. Boeing's financial difficulties cannot be resolved over night and will take a couple of years and unlike the 737 replacement, the 787 "ERs" require very little investment.

No, I think they need to put more effort on the supply chain issue precisely because I know it's not easy. I run operations for a medical company. Supply chain is tricky and you cannot just sit here and wait for you suppliers to solve their issues, and then say it's their responsibilities. It is no doubt their responsibilities, but their failure becomes your failure, so when push comes to shove, you step in. Obviously Boeing has a much more complex supply chain than what I manage so it's going to take a lot of effort to make it work. But ultimately, it's going to divert their attention and resources to get this right. The longer it drags on, the more complicated the issues become, because the previous issues continue to pile up and there are more mess for you to unwind even after you get the process and systems right.

Sermons wrote:

If marginal you mean 50 to 200 orders ( which is what I see) between now and 2030, then I say it is totally worth it.. It might even be more since these upgrades will eventually become standard and all 787-10s will be "ERs" from a certain point.

Boeing can't create a 737 replacement until they try and clear the $20+ billion debt the MAX crises brought.

Yep, I can see something around 50-100, a bit better than what happened with 767-400. And I am not saying it's not profitable. I think it would be profitable. My point is whether this is more profitable in the long run or 737 replacement is more profitable, assuming if Boeing only has the resources to embark on one of them, hence which one should be the priority if Boeing needs to choose.

USD 20 billion is not a lot of money actually for a company like Boeing. My previous job was in the operation field of a primarily debt-investing asset management company. While 20 billion is not a small amount, it's something we deal with all the time, not exactly outrageously large. There will be investors who line up to extend the funding if needed. Boeing doesn't need to pay off that in order to do something else. At the end of the day, it has the financial resources to do R&D besides paying this debt. It does need to maintain an optimal balance in its capital structure. My point is that with the limited R&D resources from both engineering and financial perspective, I think the priority should be 737 replacement. It's certainly a more strategic and long term investment. But Boeing has been targeting short term development in the last 15 years. Eventually, the lack of strategic investment will catch up if it continues to focus on just the short term.

Sermons wrote:

Anyway why rush to create a 737 replacement while the 737MAX is selling like crazy, just yesterday there where reports of a potential 150+ MAX order from Riyadh air and Turkish airlines is also looking into a 3 digit MAX order as well. It looks like this year alone the 737MAX will get over 1000 commitments, so chill.

It's not really a rush. I fully expect the program will not come into fruition for 10 to 15 years. So even if they start now for a clean sheet design, it could well be 2035 when the first plane comes online. That's the time horizon I am looking at. Obviously I am not an aviation engineering expert so the 10-15 years I put out there is just a guess based on how long it took for 787, 777X and A350, etc.

Boeing has confirmed the payload increase and new range of the 787-9 and 787-10

Quote below:


Hulst said that Boeing will enhance the capabilities of the 787 next year, with an increased Maximum Take-Off Weight for the 787-9 and -10. This adds 4.6 tons to the payload capability of the -9 and 6.4 tons to that of the -10. Alternatively, it extends the range by 310 nautical miles for the former or 430nm to that of the latter.

Link to article:

https://airinsight.com/boeing-single-ai ... tching-up/

The improvement in the 787-10 is pretty much spot on with what flipdewaf calculated I believe.


It will give a nice boost, it won't give it 77W capabilities but it will be enough to do most routes at very good economics with most importanty more passenger and cargo capacity than the -9 on most of those routes, which is really the point of the -10

It will be able to handle routes of most if not all 77Es still flying from United, KLM(including with Russian airspace being closed), BA and AA (if they choose).

So again, a nice boost but not 300 to 300ER kind of boost

So we have an answer why NZ has switched its order from -10s to -9s. The -10 is not a solution for trunk routes from west coast USA to AKL. Looks as if they are now left with a longer-term issue of how to replace the 77Ws on trunk routes.

tealnz wrote:

So we have an answer why NZ has switched its order from -10s to -9s. The -10 is not a solution for trunk routes from west coast USA to AKL. Looks as if they are now left with a longer-term issue of how to replace the 77Ws on trunk routes.

The -10 in its current format flies ORD-HND now with 318 passengers - (which is more prone to pacific winds and is on schedule to continue in the winter) which is about 12hrs and 30 minutes and does so with full passenger capacity. So for LAX to AKL I don't think this updated version would've struggled really. Eva Air's -10 flies over 12 hours with 344 passengers which is higher than the advertised capacity of the -10.

The question is how much cargo does it carry? I can't tell you that but this would've maybe allowed them to carry what? 6T of cargo if they were maybe not able to carry any at all? I don't know if that maths is correct but its what I'm guessing. So I think it could still be a good solution, again, I think again with the 77W coming back it makes sense for the -10 to be put on hold and allow the 77W to do that route whilst the 789 replaces the 77E and then use the 78X later on (of which they have 12 options I think)

Again its not 77W capabilities but it's more enough for a route like that. LAX to AKL as we know is well below the full capabilities of the 300ER. But its nearing the full capabilities (but still not quite) of this updated -10

And to add, moving from the -10 to the -9 had more to do with the need for more lucrative long haul routes like JFK. If you see the configuration ANZ is putting in their -9s we know the plan is not to use an aircraft like that on AKL-LAX its a tremendous waste of cabin space

loslhr wrote:

tealnz wrote:

So we have an answer why NZ has switched its order from -10s to -9s. The -10 is not a solution for trunk routes from west coast USA to AKL. Looks as if they are now left with a longer-term issue of how to replace the 77Ws on trunk routes.

The -10 in its current format flies ORD-HND now with 318 passengers - (which is more prone to pacific winds and is on schedule to continue in the winter) which is about 12hrs and 30 minutes and does so with full passenger capacity. So for LAX to AKL I don't think this updated version would've struggled really. Eva Air's -10 flies over 12 hours with 344 passengers which is higher than the advertised capacity of the -10.

The question is how much cargo does it carry? I can't tell you that but this would've maybe allowed them to carry what? 6T of cargo if they were maybe not able to carry any at all? I don't know if that maths is correct but its what I'm guessing. So I think it could still be a good solution, again, I think again with the 77W coming back it makes sense for the -10 to be put on hold and allow the 77W to do that route whilst the 789 replaces the 77E and then use the 78X later on (of which they have 12 options I think)

Again its not 77W capabilities but it's more enough for a route like that. LAX to AKL as we know is well below the full capabilities of the 300ER. But its nearing the full capabilities (but still not quite) of this updated -10

Interesting thanks. I’m still not convinced NZ won’t convert some back to 781, the thing is NZ have said they see a fleet of 23-24 widebodies down from 29, a couple of routes have been dropped though while most of the others are getting back to near previous frequency. Which means once these 8 787s are delivered by 2027, the plan is to phase out the 77W by then and with 14 789s now adding another 8 brings them to 22 so room for another 2-3 aircraft to be added

loslhr wrote:

And to add, moving from the -10 to the -9 had more to do with the need for more lucrative long haul routes like JFK. If you see the configuration ANZ is putting in their -9s we know the plan is not to use an aircraft like that on AKL-LAX it’s a tremendous waste of cabin space

.

Hard to know they are very premium, LAX is the single route for NZ where they could fill more seats in in classes, SFO/IAH are the other 77W routes. NZ existing 789s will all get a standard 272 seat configuration, currently a mix of 302 and 275 seats, the 77W has 342 seats.

How does the capacity of the 787-10 compare with the 772?

Ziyulu wrote:

How does the capacity of the 787-10 compare with the 772?

The -10 is a larger aircraft.

With the 10 already over performing, its probably putting boeing in a bind. Do you simply take an engine upgrade and settle for what it gives you, or do you spend millions designing an ER version.

I think we'll likely see a 10ER and maybe they'll squueze some more range from the --9 with the engine upgrades. We'll see!

BAorAB wrote:

With the 10 already over performing, its probably putting boeing in a bind. Do you simply take an engine upgrade and settle for what it gives you, or do you spend millions designing an ER version.

I think we'll likely see a 10ER and maybe they'll squueze some more range from the --9 with the engine upgrades. We'll see!

My guess is the MTOW bump will happen now as whatever happened to the -9 will apply to the -10. Down the road when it comes time for new engines, Boeing will have to make the decision on if a heavy redesign is worth the trouble.

Ziyulu wrote:

How does the capacity of the 787-10 compare with the 772?

almost identical pax capacity. a few more rows on the 787 but only 9 a breast, but airlines now squeeze 10 a breast on the 777 so its closer still. 787 has more cargo capacity. LD3 containers.

BAorAB wrote:

With the 10 already over performing,

Is it? All evidence I have seen show it performing as per spec.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NZ’s need for additional range both for the -9 and -10, also comes down to the requirements of crossing the Pacific Ocean.

You have to remember that AKL-North America, is massive amount of water with very little diversion ports. The South Pacific is very subject to weather, storms and strong winds at times.

NZ operates across the pacific at ETOPS 330 were possible, giving them flexibility with weather etc. This helps keep operational moving, when they are weather events in the pacific.

Routing across the pacific can change day to day, all subject to the best route and weather.

The additional range is required, on top of the published range to allow this to happen comfortably.

loslhr wrote:

Boeing has confirmed the payload increase and new range of the 787-9 and 787-10

Quote below:


Hulst said that Boeing will enhance the capabilities of the 787 next year, with an increased Maximum Take-Off Weight for the 787-9 and -10. This adds 4.6 tons to the payload capability of the -9 and 6.4 tons to that of the -10. Alternatively, it extends the range by 310 nautical miles for the former or 430nm to that of the latter.

Link to article:

https://airinsight.com/boeing-single-ai ... tching-up/

The improvement in the 787-10 is pretty much spot on with what flipdewaf calculated I believe.


It will give a nice boost, it won't give it 77W capabilities but it will be enough to do most routes at very good economics with most importanty more passenger and cargo capacity than the -9 on most of those routes, which is really the point of the -10

It will be able to handle routes of most if not all 77Es still flying from United, KLM(including with Russian airspace being closed), BA and AA (if they choose).

So again, a nice boost but not 300 to 300ER kind of boost

Exactly in line with what I've been saying since I spoke to the Chief Test Pilot on the 787 on my flight in September. I've been mentioning ~6 tons ever since I spoke to him. This is very close to that.

tealnz wrote:

So we have an answer why NZ has switched its order from -10s to -9s. The -10 is not a solution for trunk routes from west coast USA to AKL. Looks as if they are now left with a longer-term issue of how to replace the 77Ws on trunk routes.

The 787-10, in its current form can fly LAX-AKL with full passengers and bags. This will just be icing on the cake, where they may be able to take a few tons of cargo.