Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:30 am

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 98):
Assuming the B787-10 will be 20 feet longer than the B787-9

indeed, the B787-10 will be about 20 ft. longer than the 787-9

"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:24 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 93):
Again, I have a significant issue with that. On the CO 772ERs, which have as crunched a Y section as you can get at 31", they run at 283 seats in a true 2 class configuration (no premium economy). True 3 class seating can't stretch to 280 if the 772ER and 787-10 are seen as roughly the same size.

CO is a fine example. The 772ER is rated at 301 seats, and they fit 283. So if CO were to do 9Y in a 787-10, for example, they would likely fit 312 or so, just as has been suggested, because the 787-10 at 9Y has a three class "baseline" at 330 or so.

Look at NZ. They fit over 310 in the 772ER with 32" Y, 2 rows of Y+ and J suites. One would assume they could fit 330 seats in a 787-10. And 375 seats in a 773ER.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 100):
indeed, the B787-10 will be about 20 ft. longer than the 787-9

Flights numbers are old for the pax count.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:17 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 101):

Flights numbers are old for the pax count.

 checkmark .. I stand corrected

"Concerning the 787-10, Bair revealed that the model will have a range of 7,500 nm., which "meets Emirates' requirements." The carrier is expected to announce an order for 50 dash 10s at the Farnborough Air Show in July. Bair told ATWOnline that the dash 10 will be a simple payload-for-range trade with an MTOW of 540,000 lb. He said the range may change slightly as the airframer and key airlines finalize the exact stretch. It may be "40, 50 or 60 seats bigger" than the dash 9, he said.

He also had a warning for Airbus, saying the dash 10's seat-mile costs are "almost unbelievable." Yesterday this website revealed that the version will have lower cash operating costs and significantly lower fuel burn per seat than the A380."

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4522
"Up the Irons!"
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:03 pm

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 98):
B787-9: 257.4 sq meters
A350-900: 262.9 sq meters
A340-500: 275.7 sq meters
B777-200: 279.0 sq meters
B787-10: 291.0 sq meters
A340-600: 314.2 sq meters
B777-300: 330.4 sq meters

Thank you.

I see from above where the 787-10 can easily kill off the 777-200 and ER version. The non-ER version has not been very successful, however. But there is too much diff. between the 787-10 and the 773ER for the former to kill the latter.
 
hz747300
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:10 pm

Instead of just turning heads, I wish someone would order the 747-8I already!

Is Boeing investigating different variants:
- A shorter HGW version with enough range to circle the globe at the equator against the wind fully loaded
- A longer version to pack to the hilt with businessmen going between Hong Kong and Singapore

?????

[Edited 2006-04-19 08:10:50]
Keep on truckin'...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:13 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 103):
between the 787-10 and the 773ER for the former to kill the latter.

Not necessarily. The 773ER and the 772LR are both superior to the 772ER because for either longer range missions (2LR) or average range missions (3ER), they have lower CASM than the 772ER.

Now enter the 787-10.

It will have likely greater cargo volume and better CASM by a great deal than the 773ER on the missions the 773ER is best for. Since airlines often go larger due to the better cost benefit, they may not NEED a 773ER to achieve incredible yields.

Again, why fly around the cheapest 35 pax on a 773ER (or empty seats, since to fill those final seats you'd need a load factor of 90%+), when the 787-10 would carry just as much cargo and a much lower cost.

In other words, for airlines that don't need those 35 seats capacity, the 787-10 would most certainly be a better choice than the 773ER. It's exactly the same logic airlines are using NOW to buy the 773ER to replace the 744. Why fly around those 50 cheap pax when you can fly a much more economical jet with superior cargo ability?

Which might be why Boeing was so reluctant to introduce it, and is still waiting. They want to sell more 773ERs if possible.

It's interesting that EK wants both. But they are all about capacity, and with 10Y in the 773ER, they are one of the few airlines for which the 787-10 and 773ER are truly different classes of jets.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:22 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 105):

Again, why fly around the cheapest 35 pax on a 773ER (or empty seats, since to fill those final seats you'd need a load factor of 90%+), when the 787-10 would carry just as much cargo and a much lower cost.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 105):
NOW to buy the 773ER to replace the 744. Why fly around those 50 cheap pax when you can fly a much more economical jet with superior cargo ability?



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 105):
It's interesting that EK wants both. But they are all about capacity, and with 10Y in the 773ER, they are one of the few airlines for which the 787-10 and 773ER are truly different classes of jets.

you answered one question on the "broad" end....on the "narrower" end, carriers such as BA,SQ, and CX need those additional 35-40 pax as they aren't the "yield creepers" (as I like to put them) like many have mentioned...those 35-40 pax would generate a significant amount of revenue for the aformentioned carriers.

Even though carriers have switched from the older 747's to the newer 773's, carriers eventually need an increase in capacity...and that's something where the 777-300ER would beat the 787-10 hands down on..

regarding the cargo....I don't have all the numbers, so I can't say....
"Up the Irons!"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:28 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 106):
carriers eventually need an increase in capacity...

For the last 20 years, that increase in capacity has been through flying larger numbers of smaller aircraft. Will that trend continue? Boeing are betting it will. Airbus are betting it won't. We'll see.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:51 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 107):
For the last 20 years, that increase in capacity has been through flying larger numbers of smaller aircraft. Will that trend continue? Boeing are betting it will. Airbus are betting it won't. We'll see.

ahh..but that doesn't necessarily go against what I'm saying, as both Boeing and Airbus have stated there will be a fairly sizable mid-to-large sized twin/quad (i.e.-773/A346) market, its the VLA number where Boeing and Airbus differ substantially...

...my numbers really don't deviate from Boeings whatsoever.....
"Up the Irons!"
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:55 pm

Aerospace Notebook: United dreaming big, as in Boeing 787

By JAMES WALLACE
P-I REPORTER

ZURICH, Switzerland -- Fresh out of bankruptcy, United Airlines, the world's second-largest airline, is not going to buy new jets from The Boeing Co. or Airbus any time soon.

But when it does, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner would be a good addition to United's fleet, as might Boeing's bigger jumbo jet, the 747-8, said Glenn Tilton, United's chief executive.

...Tilton said the bigger and more efficient 747-8 could eventually turn up in United's fleet, too.


more...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/267152_air19.html

[Edited 2006-04-19 09:03:06]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:18 pm

I"ve been saying all along, I highly doubt UA will go with an Airbus widebody fleet...doesn't make sense for them to purchase Airbus widebody planes, not because they are bad, but they just do not fit into the route structure for UA...

the A319/A320's will do just fine for UA.......

""I have not been able to see it," Tilton said when asked if the A380 has a future with United."

"But when it does, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner would be a good addition to United's fleet, as might Boeing's bigger jumbo jet, the 747-8, said Glenn Tilton, United's chief executive.

"We are really interested in how the 787 technology would play in the United fleet," Tilton said in an interview with the Seattle P-I. "


""We are delighted with the combination of 777s and 747s that we have," Tilton said."

UA going Boeing widebody, Airbus single-isle...
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:24 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 106):
Even though carriers have switched from the older 747's to the newer 773's, carriers eventually need an increase in capacity...and that's something where the 777-300ER would beat the 787-10 hands down on..

regarding the cargo....I don't have all the numbers, so I can't say....

As has been repeated ad naseum, you don't need or necessarily WANT to increase capacity by buying bigger planes. You just want to carry the most pax you can as cheaply as you can, but also as flexibly. If new generation of mid/large jets (787 and 350 sort of straddle a line) makes large and VLA jets less cost effective, why would they be the natural progression.

Two 787-10s would eat one A389 for lunch by carrying 160% more cargo, the same number of pax, cost the same amount to acquire, have better CASM, have the same number of engines to maintain, and be more flexible to use on more routes seasonally. They would take more pilots and more gate space, but could be staggered in arrival to decrease ground crew, etc. Ultimately, that's all factored into the equations.

Outside of slot restricted airports, planes like the 787-10 and a possible 350-1000 would theoretically make VLAs truly niche aircraft, as either giant hub shuttles (like EK will use them), or long range kangaroo aircraft (seems everyone is flying theirs to SYD already...)

Do SOME carriers need the full capacity of the 773ER? Yes, probably. Just like some need the 744/8 and 380. But they may not need as many as they first thought as the economic case for them in 2006 is not as strong as it was in 2000.

And again, unless those 773ERs are going 95% full every day, the 787-10 (in 9Y configuration) can fly the same routes with the same number of pax and the same or better cargo volume (not necessarily weight, but volume).

I can really see why Boeing has been stalling on the 787-10, and are initially only offering it at 540k MTOW. Once a likely 600k MTOW 789/10 are introduced in the future, the 777 is dead beyond the 777F and follow-ons for the 773ER in existing fleets.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
intothinair
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:42 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 111):
I can really see why Boeing has been stalling on the 787-10, and are initially only offering it at 540k MTOW. Once a likely 600k MTOW 789/10 are introduced in the future, the 777 is dead beyond the 777F and follow-ons for the 773ER in existing fleets.

100% perfectaly sumed up!
The 787-10 will be the ultimate 777 killer. Whilst the 787-9 would kill the already half dead 777-200ER, the 787-10 would kill the still well alive 773ER!
For almost every airline(Except those using 10Y, eg. EK) would the 787-10 make so much more sense than the 773ER, what a shame in my opinion to see such a new plane as the 773ER get killed so early in its life against an even newer plane but thats how life goes, no wonder Boeing at first were only willing to bring a 540,000MTOW 787 out, anything bigger would eat 777 sales big time!
If the 787-10 does go through, i'd say we can see the B777 reach just about 1000 orders(About another 150) in the coming years, these being (As Ikramerica mentioned) follow on orders of the 773ER, a few 772LRs and 777F(which have no competitor right now). If the 787-10 does not get built, I wouldn't be surprised to see the B777 reach 1500 orders!

cheers, Konstantin G.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:40 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 111):
Do SOME carriers need the full capacity of the 773ER? Yes, probably. Just like some need the 744/8 and 380. But they may not need as many as they first thought as the economic case for them in 2006 is not as strong as it was in 2000.

What I don't understand is this...

If an airline didn't think they needed the available seats in the 777-3ER, then why would they purchase the airplane in the first place. It certainly isn't cheaper to fly around a 777-3ER vs a 777-2ER with the same passenger load.

Cheers
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:50 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 113):
If an airline didn't think they needed the available seats in the 777-3ER, then why would they purchase the airplane in the first place. It certainly isn't cheaper to fly around a 777-3ER vs a 777-2ER with the same passenger load.

Demand is in the form of a curve. For any given route, there is not a fixed number of passengers who want to fly it. It all depends on price. Graph the number of passengers willing to pay each price from $1 to $100,000 to fly the route (given a schedule, aircraft configuration, service levels, FF program, etc.) Now you have a demand curve. Which aircraft (or combination of aircraft) makes the most sense depends on both the magnitude and the shape of the curve. Remember that the curve will be different for different days of the week, seasons, holidays, etc.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:28 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 114):
Demand is in the form of a curve. For any given route, there is not a fixed number of passengers who want to fly it. It all depends on price. Graph the number of passengers willing to pay each price from $1 to $100,000 to fly the route (given a schedule, aircraft configuration, service levels, FF program, etc.) Now you have a demand curve. Which aircraft (or combination of aircraft) makes the most sense depends on both the magnitude and the shape of the curve. Remember that the curve will be different for different days of the week, seasons, holidays, etc.

My point was, at a certain average load factor an airline must decide to add seats to a route, and the next step above a 787-10 is the 777-3ER. You can't simply add a frequency if the load doesn't supprt two widebody flights.

In addition, an airline shouldn't be flying a route with 777-3ERs if their load factor is low enough that an airplane with 15 percent less space is available, therefore the idea that the 787 fits all markets doesn't make a lot of sense to me (to me).

I think the 787-10 and 777-3ER will compliment each other, and the trip costs of operating a 777-3ER isn't too much more expensive then a 787-10, after taking into account the extra floor space available on the 777.

Cheers
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:45 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 113):
It certainly isn't cheaper to fly around a 777-3ER vs a 777-2ER with the same passenger load.

No, but it is more profitable to fly the 773ER than the 744, which is what you are seeing going on. The 744 holds more pax, but the 773ER is more efficient, so they will leave pax "behind" to fly it.

Airlines aren't generally buying 773ERs to replace 772ERs.

But the point is, the 787-10 looks to be even more economical than the 773ER, so you could see a second downgrade in capacity on former 744 routes to 787-10. It will all depend on the curves.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:27 pm

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 98):
You say this??
i'm confused, your second statement is absolutely correct and thus your first isn't. As i will proove below the 787-10 only has around 35 seats less than the 773ER

I believe you have confused the capacities of 787-10... 300-310 using eight abreast economy and 330-340 using nine abreast economy which I clearly specified...

35 fewer seats than 777-300ER is possible as the 787-10 would be capable of up to 340 using nine abreast, but that is with nine abreast. It is not the same comfort level as 777 nine abreast. For a comparison of greater than or equal to passenger space relative to the 777-300, 787-10 with 300-310 passengers at eight abreast economy has to be used or the 777-300ER with 10 abreast...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 116):
But the point is, the 787-10 looks to be even more economical than the 773ER, so you could see a second downgrade in capacity on former 744 routes to 787-10. It will all depend on the curves.

I would agree with that to the extent of operating cost/unit payload, but the 787-10 version that is on the table now does not have the same high payload carrying ability relative to passenger load that the 777-300ER does. In fact it won't even have the same long range payload capability as the 777-200ER. To find the same balance the 787-10 will prove itself effective on shorter segments than the 777-300ER/-200ER is currently operating. This is my main sticking point preventing my advocacy of introducing a less capable 787-10. I don't think Boeing should do it unless they can get someone to build 84Klbt engines for it and utilize the full potential of the airframe. To my thinking Boeing has to decide weather or not to completely replace 777-200ER with a proper 787-10. Adding a model to the commercial airplane lineup with the same passenger capacity as 777-200ER but is less operationally capable is simply the wrong thing to do IMO.




-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:49 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 116):
No, but it is more profitable to fly the 773ER than the 744, which is what you are seeing going on. The 744 holds more pax, but the 773ER is more efficient, so they will leave pax "behind" to fly it.

I believe the 744 cost per seat mile is lower then the 777-3ER, but not significantly lower.

I believe your original point was that a 787-10 would basically kill the 777-3ER. I think it may take away some orders, but feel they actually compliment each other. I think the cost of operating either one are similiar enough that an airline wouldn't think about downsizing a route and leaving passengers behind (load factors being even) especially with the 777 generating more revenue/profit per flight.

cheers
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:50 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 115):

My point was, at a certain average load factor an airline must decide to add seats to a route, and the next step above a 787-10 is the 777-3ER. You can't simply add a frequency if the load doesn't supprt two widebody flights.

In addition, an airline shouldn't be flying a route with 777-3ERs if their load factor is low enough that an airplane with 15 percent less space is available, therefore the idea that the 787 fits all markets doesn't make a lot of sense to me (to me).

That's a static analysis. You're treating the load factor as a given, which it's not. Go back to the demand curve.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 115):

I think ... the trip costs of operating a 777-3ER isn't too much more expensive then a 787-10, after taking into account the extra floor space available on the 777.

25-30% higher trip costs for 13% more floor area will be too much more expensive for some airlines.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:57 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 119):
25-30% higher trip costs for 13% more floor area will be too much more expensive for some airlines.


I believe that Boeing said the cost per seat mile would only be about 10 percent less then the A330-200 (787-9). Not sure how a 787-10 would beat the 777-3 by more then a few percentage points.

Cheers

[Edited 2006-04-19 14:15:41]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:29 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 118):
I believe your original point was that a 787-10 would basically kill the 777-3ER. I think it may take away some orders....

While others may have said that, I only think that the B787-10 will take away some potential B777-300ER orders, not all of them.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 120):
I believe that Boeing said the cost per seat mile would only be about 10 percent less then the A330-200 (787-9). Not sure how a 787-10 would beat the 777-3 by more then a few percentage points.

CASM should rank like this: B787-10 < B747-8 < A380-800 < B747-400 < B777-300ER with the biggest gap between the A380-800 and the B747-400. I'm expecting CASM of the B787-10 to be about 10-12% lower than that of the B777-300ER.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:39 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 120):
25-30% higher trip costs for 13% more floor area will be too much more expensive for some airlines.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 121):
CASM should rank like this: B787-10 < B747-8 < A380-800 < B747-400 < B777-300ER with the biggest gap between the A380-800 and the B747-400. I'm expecting CASM of the B787-10 to be about 10-12% lower than that of the B777-300ER.

Your CASM/Trip cost curve is backwards. If your CASM decreases, then your trip cost must increase. A 787-9 operator would be ecstatic with a trip cost 30 percent less then a 777-3ER.

Cheers
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:51 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):

Your CASM/Trip cost curve is backwards.

I haven't provided one.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):
If your CASM decreases, then your trip cost must increase.

False.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):
A 787-9 operator would be ecstatic with a trip cost 30 percent less then a 777-3ER.

That's one of the reasons why the B787 is greatly outselling the B777 despite much better slot availability for the B777.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:12 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 123):
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):
If your CASM decreases, then your trip cost must increase.

False.

So what you are saying is this.... if a 787-10 has a lower CASM then the 787-9, it can also have a lower trip cost. hmmmmmm.... highly doubtful rather impossible with the same engine. I wasn't comparing apples and oranges.

Cheers

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 123):
Your CASM/Trip cost curve is backwards.

I haven't provided one.

If you thnk that the 787-10 trip cost will be lower then 787-9 (or even equal) when compared to the 777-3er, and the CASM is lower, then you provided a curve.

I guess I'll just spit it out instead of beating around the bush. Your numbers for the 787-10 vs 777-3ER aren't correct.

Cheers
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:03 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 111):
I can really see why Boeing has been stalling on the 787-10, and are initially only offering it at 540k MTOW. Once a likely 600k MTOW 789/10 are introduced in the future, the 777 is dead beyond the 777F and follow-ons for the 773ER in existing fleets.

its almost an "obvious" as to why Boeing was stalling on this for such a long time, even though EK has been harping on Boeing for the 787-10 since 2004...

its only been recent with the A359, SQ, QF, CX, BA, as well as the EK comments that Boeing is going to grudgingly develop the 787-10....but the business case is there, and if it means the end of the 777-200ER, its not as big of a deal, as the potential profit is there, and the potential loss against the A359 is even greater.....

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 115):
My point was, at a certain average load factor an airline must decide to add seats to a route, and the next step above a 787-10 is the 777-3ER. You can't simply add a frequency if the load doesn't supprt two widebody flights.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 116):

But the point is, the 787-10 looks to be even more economical than the 773ER, so you could see a second downgrade in capacity on former 744 routes to 787-10. It will all depend on the curves.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 119):
Go back to the demand curve.

I think the comments above satisfy the demand curve conditons.......I've listed enough carriers where the 777-300ER will be beneficial over the 787-10

I think all of us agree that the 777-300ER will lose some orders..we differ to which degree it will happen....and that...no one, not even Boeing knows the answer to...

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 117):
This is my main sticking point preventing my advocacy of introducing a less capable 787-10. I don't think Boeing should do it unless they can get someone to build 84Klbt engines for it and utilize the full potential of the airframe.

I think this is part of the conumdrum Boeing is in...but as mentioned, they really don't have too much of a choice at this present moment..

One can assume that there will be improvements done on the engines by the time the 787-10 goes EIS....hopefully enough to address your comments mentioned...

a fully optimised 787-10 will kill the CASM for many planes...777-300ER, 747-8, A380, etc.....
"Up the Irons!"
 
steeler83
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:31 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 116):
No, but it is more profitable to fly the 773ER than the 744, which is what you are seeing going on. The 744 holds more pax, but the 773ER is more efficient, so they will leave pax "behind" to fly it.

Airlines aren't generally buying 773ERs to replace 772ERs.

But the point is, the 787-10 looks to be even more economical than the 773ER, so you could see a second downgrade in capacity on former 744 routes to 787-10. It will all depend on the curves.

I thought that boeing's project regarding the 747-8 was to try and make it more efficient, perhaps at least as efficient as its 787s will be, as well as to hold more pax. I guess regarding some of these posts and links, my assumption here was wrong... I know that the 748 can hold a maximum, or is supposed to hold a max of 450 pax, compared to the 300 or so of the 787-10. Aren't both supposed to have similar ranges of some 9,000 miles or so? I suppose regarding the considerably lighter pax loads on the 787 would make this bird much more efficient than the 748... This is probably going to be a duplication of another post or two on here, so pardon that if it is...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 124):
So what you are saying is this.... if a 787-10 has a lower CASM then the 787-9, it can also have a lower trip cost.

I have written nothing of the sort. Let's go back to your assertion.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):
If your CASM decreases, then your trip cost must increase.

Consider the B777-300ER and B747-100. Will you agree that the CASM of the B777-300ER is lower than the CASM of the B747-100? Will you agree that the trip cost of the B777-300ER is lower than the trip cost of the B747-100?

Consider the A320 and B707. Will you agree that the CASM of the A320 is lower than the CASM of the B707? Will you agree that the trip cost of the A320 is lower than the trip cost of the B707?
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:19 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 127):
Consider the B777-300ER and B747-100. Will you agree that the CASM of the B777-300ER is lower than the CASM of the B747-100? Will you agree that the trip cost of the B777-300ER is lower than the trip cost of the B747-100?

I was talking about the same model being stretched. The 787. There wasn't any other model in the discussion.

Any how, at the end of the day it doesn't matter. The 787-10 doesn't have a 30 percent lower trip cost and doesn't have a 12 percent casm advantage over the 777-3ER.

Cheers
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):

I was talking about the same model being stretched.

I had no idea.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
There wasn't any other model in the discussion.

Really? Hmmm. Wherever did I get the idea that you were comparing the B787 to the B777?

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 122):
If your CASM decreases, then your trip cost must increase. A 787-9 operator would be ecstatic with a trip cost 30 percent less then a 777-3ER.



Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
The 787-10 doesn't have a 30 percent lower trip cost and doesn't have a 12 percent casm advantage over the 777-3ER.

Exact numbers aren't known yet, but I think the estimates I gave are in the ballpark. Time will tell.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:00 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 117):
To my thinking Boeing has to decide weather or not to completely replace 777-200ER with a proper 787-10. Adding a model to the commercial airplane lineup with the same passenger capacity as 777-200ER but is less operationally capable is simply the wrong thing to do IMO.

True. Right now, the 787-10 looks like it slots in between the 777A and 777ER class planes in optimal range. But that's not a bad spot to be. It won't be the transpac jet of choice, but for USA west coast to Europe, or flights to Japan from anywhere, or EK flights to Asia and Europe and Africa, it might be the best choice.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 121):
While others may have said that, I only think that the B787-10 will take away some potential B777-300ER orders, not all of them.

I also said it would take orders away, and a HGW 787 would be the plane that kills the 777. A 789HGW would have 772LR range and beyond. The 787-10HGW would have 773ER payload capacity.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 130):
The 787-10HGW would have 773ER payload capacity.

Maybe.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 130):
True. Right now, the 787-10 looks like it slots in between the 777A and 777ER class planes in optimal range. But that's not a bad spot to be. It won't be the transpac jet of choice, but for USA west coast to Europe, or flights to Japan from anywhere, or EK flights to Asia and Europe and Africa, it might be the best choice.

Maybe so, but just imagine what the 787-10 could be with the following:

-Lengthened and strengthened fuselage, 10 frames longer than 787-9

-Three 1850USG body fuel tanks, one forward plus two aft

-Upgraded MLG with additional two wheel center bogie

-88,000lbt Trent 1XXX derivative engines 118 inch diameter fan

-600,000lb MTOW

And voila:

787-10ER Specification

787-10 Elevation

787-10 Plan View

787-10 Interior Arrangement

A dream, firmly rooted in reality...




-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:31 pm

Widebodyphotog,

Why the 37,000 foot ceiling?

Is it certain the B787-10 will have 10 doors?

Is it clear that upgrading main gear would take the form of an additional two-wheel center bogey rather than changing to six-wheel bogies?

If Boeing do add a two-wheel center bogey to the B787, would it be located somewhat aft of the existing main gear to obviate tailstrikes with the longer models?

Can you describe the payload/range performance of a B787-8ER with the same MTOW and fuel capacity?
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:36 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 132):

Thanks for sharing! A couple of observations:

(a) I noticed the A340/MD-11-style middle wheel bogey on the plan view. This doesn't appear on the -3/-8/-9 on Boeing's (preliminary) brochure:

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/787brochure.pdf

(b) Interesting to see the inclusion of overhead crew rests in the interior arrangement. I had missed that when reading the brochure... Good to see Boeing including them in the B787 too. Clearly, they have been a big hit with B777 customers.

(c) On the plan view, those "shark fin" wing tips make the plane super sexy!

Safe flying,

Tony

[Edited 2006-04-20 05:37:32]
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:39 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
Is it clear that upgrading main gear would take the form of an additional two-wheel center bogey rather than changing to six-wheel bogies?



Quoting SNATH (Reply 134):
(a) I noticed the A340/MD-11-style middle wheel bogey on the plan view. This doesn't appear on the -3/-8/-9 on Boeing's (preliminary) brochure:

Zvezda,

You're clearly eagle-eyed too!

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:17 pm

I can see why he might say a center bogey is better than redesigning both main gear when you only need 2 more wheels. But I wonder if it just isn't easier to use the articulated 6 wheel bogies of the 777 design adapted to the 787.

I wonder what center body fuel tanks do to cargo ability. Is there anywhere else in the body where fuel can be stored that isn't being used now?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:39 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 136):
I wonder if it just isn't easier to use the articulated 6 wheel bogies of the 777 design adapted to the 787.

It's possible that 6-wheel bogies might not fit in the current B787 wing.

Another option that Boeing might explore someday would be a new wing for the heavier members of the B787 family, with B777-300ER wingspan, 700K lbs lift, greater fuel capacity, and space for 6-wheel bogies. With such a wing, a B787-11X is easy and a B787-12X might be possible (though the latter would have taxiway problems).

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 136):
Is there anywhere else in the body where fuel can be stored that isn't being used now?

The tail surfaces could be used to store fuel, but the pumps and plumbing might weigh more than the extra fuel is worth.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:12 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
Why the 37,000 foot ceiling?

Not a ceiling, but initial long range cruise altitude. The 787 is faster than 777 but it won't be a better climber...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
Is it certain the B787-10 will have 10 doors?

No, not certain, none of this is certain, but given the length of the cabin, and higher maximum seating relative to 777-200 it makes sense to add two type I exits over the wing...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
Is it clear that upgrading main gear would take the form of an additional two-wheel center bogey rather than changing to six-wheel bogies?

Again, not clear, but in order to allow higher MTOW without very high pavement loading an additional two-wheel bogie is the way to go for two reasons. First, there would be no need for serious structural modification such as moving the aft undercarriage pressure bulkhead. And second, there is not a need for four more wheels as adding just two allows MTOW to increase up to the theoretical max practical wing loading for 787. Somewhere around 640,000lbs...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
If Boeing do add a two-wheel center bogey to the B787, would it be located somewhat aft of the existing main gear to obviate tailstrikes with the longer models?

The centerline of the center bogey would be offset 25-30 inches aft of the MLG strut centerline. That is about as far back as you can move it without moving the bulkhead. There is no need to move it further back than that. Tailstrike protection comes in the form of a structural skid and an electronic avoidance system....

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 133):
Can you describe the payload/range performance of a B787-8ER with the same MTOW and fuel capacity?

Long, long...long range...higher, higher CASM...reduced optimal operating envelope...lower hold becomes basically useless...did I mention long, long range? Seriously though, the 787-8 is almost the perfect airliner from a technical point of view with it's very wide operating envelope, light wing loading, high speed, long range, and wonderful balance. Why mess with it?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 136):
I wonder what center body fuel tanks do to cargo ability. Is there anywhere else in the body where fuel can be stored that isn't being used now?

787 wing is relatively thin and full of fuel already. Boeing has been reluctant to do tail fuel tanks except for the 747-400/800, which can benefit from it without big swings in CG within normal operational conditions. It's an interesting idea for 787 but I would not bet on it. It's much easier to pop in non-structural fuel tanks as they require fewer compromises.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 137):
Another option that Boeing might explore someday would be a new wing for the heavier members of the B787 family, with B777-300ER wingspan, 700K lbs lift, greater fuel capacity, and space for 6-wheel bogies. With such a wing, a B787-11X is easy and a B787-12X might be possible (though the latter would have taxiway problems).

Increasing the fuselage aspect ratio much beyond the -10 is very dicey. For one thing Boeing has never done so with a twin isle aircraft, and lengthening beyond another eight frames makes the wheelbase longer than a 777-300ER! Not good for maneuvering on the ground...and the structure becomes much heavier per length beyond 12:1 even with composites...That's quite a long list of changes you have there though, making the plane as different from a 787 as the A350 is from the A330...maybe that one should be a 797...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:48 pm

@Widebodyfotog

A very intersting quote and a nice summary.Congrats!!!

A small correction with reference to the EIS of the B777-200ER.
1995 was EIS of the B777-200 only (A-Market)
1997 was EIS if the -200ER ! ( with BA when i remember correctly...)

I will put you on my respected user list !

P.S. The B787-10 seems to involve into the airplane of choice instead of the -9.Probably we will see lots of combined -8 and -10 sales in the future!!!
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:14 pm

*musing*

Interesting how this thread turned into a 787 thread instead of the 747-8 thread originally mentioned...

Will the initial range of the 787-10 be enough? I'm also a little confused as to whether the 787-10 is intended to replace (entirely) the 772 and 772ER -- isn't the payload of the latter far greater than that of the 787-10?
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:14 am

With UA just out of bankruptcy and still not prepared to order new planes, and fuel soaring past $70, it's unlikely we'll see a U.S. order for the 747-8, at least for the next two years....
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14425
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:46 am

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 140):
Interesting how this thread turned into a 787 thread instead of the 747-8 thread originally mentioned...

Yes. On the 747-8i, are any enhancement considered to boost sales?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
steeler83
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:05 am

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 140):
Interesting how this thread turned into a 787 thread instead of the 747-8 thread originally mentioned...

I actually made a post that stated such about... ooooohhhh... 50 posts ago  Wink

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 94):
Damn, this thread was supposed to be about the 747-8. Look where we ended up I don't mind; both birds are rather exciting and thrilling to me
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 140):
Interesting how this thread turned into a 787 thread instead of the 747-8 thread originally mentioned...

Will the initial range of the 787-10 be enough? I'm also a little confused as to whether the 787-10 is intended to replace (entirely) the 772 and 772ER -- isn't the payload of the latter far greater than that of the 787-10?



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 143):
I actually made a post that stated such about... ooooohhhh... 50 posts ago

actually, I added the 787 and 777-200LR in the thread also as I didn't think the thread would generate too much discussion........ Smile

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):

.....The two airlines also are considering Boeing's 787, although the chief executive of Lufthansa said he is most interested in the 787-10, a stretch version that Boeing only recently said it will develop.

.....The airline (SQ) has been evaluating Boeing's 787 for nearly two years, but delayed a decision on ordering the plane until it had time to study the proposed A350 from Airbus.



Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):

...."It is in the running," Chew said of the 777-200LR
"Up the Irons!"
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:08 pm

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 143):
I actually made a post that stated such about... ooooohhhh... 50 posts ago Wink

Haha, I scrolled down... and missed it, clearly. Big grin

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 144):

actually, I added the 787 and 777-200LR in the thread also as I didn't think the thread would generate too much discussion........ Smile

I would add a comment about the business case for the ULA market (as a blame JOKE!), but that might go into the next favorite topic of brand bashing. *smirk*

But as far as the 748-I does go, I'd like to see it garner some orders -- the swan song of the 747 line, if you will. Or maybe I'm just waxing too romantic.  sarcastic 
 
steeler83
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:57 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 144):
actually, I added the 787 and 777-200LR in the thread also as I didn't think the thread would generate too much discussion........

Oh yeah? Well you thought WRONG runt! Big grin

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 145):
Haha, I scrolled down... and missed it, clearly.

Heck, sometimes I make duplicate posts myself because of scrolling thru the thread to get to the bottom. I find that better to avoid making a post that is potentially way out of context... Given where this thread ended up, I guess anything regarding the 748, for which this thread was intended, would be WAY out of context. How ironic!! eh?! Big grin
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:59 pm

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 145):
But as far as the 748-I does go, I'd like to see it garner some orders -- the swan song of the 747 line, if you will. Or maybe I'm just waxing too romantic.

I think we'll see some orders by the end of this year......there are too many possible carriers who still fly (and need) a 747-type plane
"Up the Irons!"
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:44 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 111):
Two 787-10s would eat one A389 for lunch by carrying 160% more cargo, the same number of pax, cost the same amount to acquire, have better CASM, have the same number of engines to maintain, and be more flexible to use on more routes seasonally. They would take more pilots and more gate space, but could be staggered in arrival to decrease ground crew, etc. Ultimately, that's all factored into the equations.

Good point. Utilizing ground resources throughout the workday rather than at a few peak times is more efficient. Smart airlines, like Southwest, spread their traffic out.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 117):
Adding a model to the commercial airplane lineup with the same passenger capacity as 777-200ER but is less operationally capable is simply the wrong thing to do IMO.

But there is clearly demand for sub 772ER aircraft, as witnessed by the success of the A333. If the price is right, and the range is better, I would expect the 540K lbs 787-10 would find a place in the market.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 132):

787-10 Interior Arrangement

A dream, firmly rooted in reality...

I think you should be careful about making your figures look so similar to Boeing's 787 seating diagrams in the AC brochure. It looks way too official; only seeing your copyright notice indicated to me that it wasn't from Boeing.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 138):
Long, long...long range...higher, higher CASM...reduced optimal operating envelope...lower hold becomes basically useless...did I mention long, long range? Seriously though, the 787-8 is almost the perfect airliner from a technical point of view with it's very wide operating envelope, light wing loading, high speed, long range, and wonderful balance. Why mess with it?

Range/payload performance. Granted, putting a larger wing on the smallest of the B787 is an extreme idea. But, if Boeing were to someday develop a larger B787 wing for the heavier members of the B787 family, would it not make sense to combine that wing with a -8 size fuselage for a B787F?

For a passenger B787-8ER, it would probably be better to keep the current wing, bump the MTOW, and perhaps add some belly tanks. How would a B787-8ER with 540,000 lbs MTOW and 3 belly tanks do on SYD-LHR nonstop?

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 138):
That's quite a long list of changes you have there though, making the plane as different from a 787 as the A350 is from the A330.

No change in materials, cockpit, empenage. I don't think I proposed as big a change as that from A330 to A350.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos