User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13711
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:38 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 98):
No airplane can fulfill ALL requirements.

But they are all 767/a330 operators.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 98):
The only question for Boeing is whether to stretch the 787 to match the A350, or to launch Y3. Personally, I think they'll do the latter.

I think so to. And it would probably also kill the 747-8i premature, but still seems the best option .

How do we think an Y3 will look in terms of seat counts, engines and OEW?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
Same goes for the 330/340s.

I think it is still a surprise to some a.netters that CX still has their A343s...some predicted these would be on their way out years ago. (Redundant with 772s and A333s arguement).
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):

The price difference between the two over the order was considerable, and could not be ignored. You are assuming the competition was won on performance or capability, it was won on cost, and I would assume it would be one of the lowest prices paid per 773ER airframe by any customer.

 redflag ....we've disagreed with this a few times before where you mention you have inside information (which you might), however, I also mentioned some of the numbers we've discussed have been off from inside info I had also (not to mention, public data available).......

..at the end of the day, while the A346 is a great aircraft, aircraft order history (as well as Airbus recent response) the past few years has shown otherwise....

regards....
"Up the Irons!"
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6140
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
would it not be better for CX to convert their existing 744s to BCFs and get another decade out of them, and purchase new 773ER/748/380s to replace them ?

Actually Zeke, I flew with one of our managers recently who said the BCFs were fairly cheap but were not all that great because they carried over 10t less payload than a regular 744 Freighter. He said CX were still thinking about whether to convert a whole bunch more BCFs or to just leave it beyond their current commitment (Which has 7 of our own 744s being converted from pax) and instead buy a new freighter version. They are apparently very interested in the 747-8F.

As for the 346 vs the 77W, and I can't remember exactly what he said but it was somewhere along the lines of 12t more payload and 17t less fuel burn on the JFK-HKG flight...thats with the drag/fuel flow factor of 4 for the 346s (which he said was crazy considering how new they were) vs zero for the 77W which is of course not that realistic either. Not sure those figures are true, but thats what I am told, in which case that is an absolutely huge difference.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26788
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:24 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 73):
Wake up, because you are dreaming if you believe the Trent that will go on the A350 is 25 percent more efficient then the GE90 on the 777NGs.

Hey, I'm just sharing the dream Airbus evidently has... Big grin

Seriously, Boeing admits it's the engines that are driving 2/3rds of the savings they're claiming for the 787 over the 767 and A330. The A350 is said by some to be roughly 70,000lbs lighter then the 77L/77W in MEW (about double the advantage of the 787 over the A330), but I can't see that giving Airbus a 10% boost, much less 20%. So a lot of it has to come from the Trent XWB vs. the GE90-11xB.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 74):
As a package, Airbus is claiming 25%, so why would you say "dreaming"?

 checkmark 

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

Because it is highly unlikely Airbus will be submitting A330 and A340 family members in RFPs against the 787 family.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
Cathay smallest WB fleet types are A330-300 configured 311 seat for regional medium haul operations and 251 seat for three class medium / long haul operations. Unless they want to downscale on the many 1 -2 flights a day operations the 787-8 and 787-9 are simply to small.

A 787-9 will hold 254 passengers in three classes when using 8-abreast in Y using Boeing's seating dimensions. CX's First Class and Business Class pitch is more generous then what Boeing uses, so in a CX config you're looking at around 230 or so - not a huge drop-off. You could also go 9-abreast and get all those seats back, but CX might find Economy fares would rise with wider seats then on the A333. I should think a 787-9 should be pretty close to matching an A333's capacity in CX's two-class config at eight-abreast, since F is only about 8 inches greater in pitch then what Boeing uses.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
Add to this the A350 will offer a much more realistic 9 abreast cabin then a Boeing 787 for a Premium carrier like Cathay Pacific, and it becomes clear to me Boeing has some homework to do to avoid Cathay going for the A350 XWB-900 and/or A350XWB-1000 in the future.

I am most confident that after 10-14 hours, a passenger in an A350 is not going to notice their seat was three tenths of an inch wider after flying the first half of that round-trip on a 787. And if CX is so concerned about making people comfortable, they should just fly the 787 or A350 in 8-abreast, as I indicated above, where both will have nearly identical seats with 19-19.5 inches width.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 98):
I am so tired of reading posts saying that Boeing will not build a larger 787 or Y3 because they want to protect the 777.

No doubt. Especially when many of these same people never brought up the same argument about how Airbus was protecting the A340-500 and A340-600 by deliberately basing it on the A330's dimensions.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:38 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
But the thread is about CX

The Reply below took the discussion beyond CX as it addressed the whole 777 market.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 39):
So it does! Still, are Boeing really willing on sacrificing all but the 777-300ER after just over 10 years of manufacture?



Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
and the lease was renewed again after the 773ER launch/EIS.....



Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
You are ignoring the fact is the performance was THAT good, CX would have gone to ILFC and said replace those 346 aircraft with 773ERs and bypassed the RFP

And you appear to be ignoring the fact that all the ILFC leases for the 773ER were spoken for at 773ER EIS. The CX RFP was launched within a year of 773ER EIS.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
The price difference between the two over the order was considerable, and could not be ignored. You are assuming the competition was won on performance or capability, it was won on cost, and I would assume it would be one of the lowest prices paid per 773ER airframe by any customer.

Contests are won on the basis of a total package. If the performance isn't there, cost alone will not carry the day. If the 773ER doesn't offer a superior overall package to the A346, how do you explain the current 2.5 to 1 (270 vs 108) sales advantage of the 773ER, considering the two year lead the A346 had in the market place?

[Edited 2007-07-27 17:47:46]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:38 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 100):
But they are all 767/a330 operators.

But what are they replacing the 767/A330's with? As mentioned before, they haven't been flocking to the A350, either. Seeing how the 787-9 is bigger and longer range than either makes me wonder what your point is.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 100):

How do we think an Y3 will look in terms of seat counts, engines and OEW?

My expectation is that if it is tube with wings it would start at about 350 seats and go up to about 450-500, and have range of at least 8500 NM on the smaller sizes. If it is a BWB I would expect it to be about 400-450 seats with similar range. I would expect either version to have 2 engines, probably in the 150,000 lb thrust range. But that is just my guess.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:28 am

Airbus is pushing the A388 for Cathay. Watch out for another visit soon and a special event.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
they should just fly the 787 or A350 in 8-abreast, as I indicated above, where both will have nearly identical seats with 19-19.5 inches width.

For the operators the have both A350 and 787, I would be amazed if they didn't have IDENTICAL seats. Hell of alot cheaper to stuff the 787 seats in the A350 than it is to have two completely different sets of seats.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Because it is highly unlikely Airbus will be submitting A330 and A340 family members in RFPs against the 787 family.

I believe they have done so in the past, and got sent home with the airlines boot print firmly bruised into their butt. Atleast on the A340 side. It appears that Airbus *might* be having some success with their recent A330 fire sale in keeping airlines on the hook and waiting for the A350. My *might* is based on the uncertainty of the A330 holding off the 787 orders, or the A350 possibilities selling A330's. No way to really tell from the outside on these.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
Cathay smallest WB fleet types are A330-300 configurated 311 seat for regional medium haul operations and 251 seat for three class medium / long haul operations.

Unless they want to downscale on the many 1 -2 flights a day operations the 787-8 and 787-9 are simply to small.

Seriously man, do you even look at the numbers before you post them? The 787-9 is TOO SMALL to replace a A333? WHAT? Man next you are going to tell me that the A320 is too small to replace the 734.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
A 787-9 will hold 254 passengers in three classes when using 8-abreast in Y using Boeing's seating dimensions. CX's First Class and Business Class pitch is more generous then what Boeing uses, so in a CX config you're looking at around 230 or so - not a huge drop-off. You could also go 9-abreast and get all those seats back, but CX might find Economy fares would rise with wider seats then on the A333. I should think a 787-9 should be pretty close to matching an A333's capacity in CX's two-class config at eight-abreast, since F is only about 8 inches greater in pitch then what Boeing uses.

Even worse, CX doesn't remotely need 100% of the A333 seats, given the reduction in fuel burn, MX, and crew costs compared to the A333. More over while I know CX is usually a more premium airline, we could possibly see the addition of Y+/Y split in the economy class. Certainly on the 787 it would highlight a reason to pay for the nicer 8Y arrangement. While certainly they don;t need to boost their image with their customers, sometimes it really helps if you can put the comfort difference in real terms for people.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 58):
Both Airbus and Boeing have admitted that the 787 and A350 are not quite direct competitors of each other as they are not the same sizes. The A350 was designed to be bigger from the beginning and hence may attract those airlines which in general are after bigger planes.

CX Flyboy,

I don't disagree with you (in theory), *but* and this is a big but... with a CFRP fuse stretches are MUCH less detremental to performance on a ft. by ft. basis compared to an AL stretch. The whole 787-10 is too much of a stretch is a red herring. Now I'm not saying what you were reporting (that some people inside CX may feel that way) is untrue. What I am saying is that those people are a) wrong and b) not making much sense and c) going to be really upset if the -10 ends up being what I think it will be  Smile

The one thing I will disagree with directly is: You and I have no idea how big the 787 was designed to grow. We weren't in the design meetings. So to say the 350 was designed to be bigger is risky at best.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
and 787-10 won't be availble before an A350-900, and there might be some other business taken into account.

Keesje if you're going to post speculation like the above please use words like 'likely'.. i.e. the 787-10 likely won't be available before the 350-900. Unless you have a crystal ball. I know everything now points to what you wrote eventually being accurate, but 2013 is a LONG time away and ALOT can change between now and then.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 106):
I would expect either version to have 2 engines, probably in the 150,000 lb thrust range. But that is just my

Way way way too much thrust. Assuming it's CFRP 120-130K is probably more than enough (at 2x). Additionally a BWB would like be a 3 engine design around 80-85K ea.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:00 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
Additionally a BWB would like be a 3 engine design around 80-85K ea.

Why put 3 engines on when you can do it with 2?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 110):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
Additionally a BWB would like be a 3 engine design around 80-85K ea.

Why put 3 engines on when you can do it with 2?

Because everything they have done so far has had 3 on it. Plus with 3 they can be phsyically smaller and I believe there's some benefit/reason to minimize the profile a tad more when dealing with a BWB.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):

I don't disagree with you (in theory), *but* and this is a big but... with a CFRP fuse stretches are MUCH less detremental to performance on a ft. by ft. basis compared to an AL stretch. The whole 787-10 is too much of a stretch is a red herring.

Stretching is far more than lengthening the fuselage tube - which is the easy part. When you stretch, weight goes up. There is a point where you have to start modifying other things - gears, wings, flight controls, engines etc. These are essential to keep up with the added weight and shift in cg and handling characteristics.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
The one thing I will disagree with directly is: You and I have no idea how big the 787 was designed to grow. We weren't in the design meetings. So to say the 350 was designed to be bigger is risky at best.

Neither were you in there so let's just stop arguing about things no one here knows anything about.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 112):
Neither were you in there so let's just stop arguing about things no one here knows anything about.

???? I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. Actually I explicity INCLUDED myself.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
You and I have no idea how big the 787 was designed to grow. We weren't in the design meetings. So to say the 350 was designed to be bigger is risky at best.

Secondly, you were weren't involved in the 'arguement' (which was anything but). Just because you don't like the content of what's being said doesn't mean we need to stop.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 112):
Stretching is far more than lengthening the fuselage tube - which is the easy part. When you stretch, weight goes up. There is a point where you have to start modifying other things - gears, wings, flight controls, engines etc. These are essential to keep up with the added weight and shift in cg and handling characteristics.

WOW... You've TOTALLY missed (or misrepresented) what I said:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
with a CFRP fuse stretches are MUCH less detremental to performance on a ft. by ft. basis compared to an AL stretch

CFRP (in particular Boeing's approach on the 787 of using barrels) are much more conducive to effective stretches than traditional AL construction. The fact that weight goes up is a given. The fact that other things have to be updated/changed as a result is given. It was a statement of RELATIVE impact.

Your entire response to my post actually didn't address anything I *actually* said. Please don't try to derail a discussion and then attempt to 'end' it there, having the last word.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14780
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102):
we've disagreed with this a few times before where you mention you have inside information (which you might), however, I also mentioned some of the numbers we've discussed have been off from inside info I had also (not to mention, public data available).......

I don't recall ever saying I had inside information on any thread....

So where is the quote in any press release, quarterly reports, annual report from CX or Swire to justify not buying the cheapest option, because the 777 won on performance alone not price ?

CX is not a bottomless money pit..it needs to make the best financial decisions for its share holders... if it was they would have purchased all the 777s outright, but they leased some of them...even a small 5% difference in price means that if they go with one manufacturer the opportunity to basically get an extra aircraft free for every 20 or so.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102):
..at the end of the day, while the A346 is a great aircraft, aircraft order history (as well as Airbus recent response) the past few years has shown otherwise....

Likewise, if the 773ER is so much better, why is there not a single one of them on the US register ? Are foreign airlines and a.net members the only ones who see the true virtues in the aircraft ?

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 103):

Actually Zeke, I flew with one of our managers recently who said the BCFs were fairly cheap but were not all that great because they carried over 10t less payload than a regular 744 Freighter. He said CX were still thinking about whether to convert a whole bunch more BCFs or to just leave it beyond their current commitment (Which has 7 of our own 744s being converted from pax) and instead buy a new freighter version. They are apparently very interested in the 747-8F.

And how many times a year is the extra 10t used, and is it without limitation ? What is the cost of the extra 10t capability on your books ? What is the resale value of the 744 without conversion ?

FYI

744F : Maximum Payload: 248,300 lbs (112,630 kg)
Optional 273,300 lbs (123,970 kg) available with maximum takeoff-weight limitation

744ERF : Maximum Payload: 248,600 lbs (112,760 kg)
Optional 272,600 lbs (123,650 kg) available with maximum take-off-weight limitation

744BCF : Estimated Structural Payload: 250,200 lbs (113,489 kg)

All data from Boeing....

And as for the 748F, look at the Friday afternoon reports, where are the yields better ?

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 103):

As for the 346 vs the 77W, and I can't remember exactly what he said but it was somewhere along the lines of 12t more payload and 17t less fuel burn on the JFK-HKG flight...thats with the drag/fuel flow factor of 4 for the 346s (which he said was crazy considering how new they were) vs zero for the 77W which is of course not that realistic either. Not sure those figures are true, but thats what I am told, in which case that is an absolutely huge difference.

346 will lift more payload over that route, particularly the 346HGW which was what was offered, the difference in fuel looks about right, in the region of 1t/hr, if they fly the same route at the same levels, but I am not convinced yet that they will not have to fly a little longer for ETOPS. The new seats have also added a few more spanners into the works.

All the routes I have seen to north america, west and east coast, the 346 lifts more payload (about 6t-12t), but burns more fuel, about 1t/hr, at this weeks prices it is about US$15,000 a sector extra fuel bill to JFK, then they would need to get US$2.52/kg for payload/cargo to break even, problem being, you don't get that much freight coming out of the USA.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Seriously, Boeing admits it's the engines that are driving 2/3rds of the savings they're claiming for the 787 over the 767 and A330.

From a Scotts Column article, http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn070307.pdf

The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 105):
And you appear to be ignoring the fact that all the ILFC leases for the 773ER were spoken for at 773ER EIS. The CX RFP was launched within a year of 773ER EIS.

What makes you think ILFC was not in discussion with CX for some of those aircraft ?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 105):
Contests are won on the basis of a total package. If the performance isn't there, cost alone will not carry the day. If the 773ER doesn't offer a superior overall package to the A346, how do you explain the current 2.5 to 1 (270 vs 108) sales advantage of the 773ER, considering the two year lead the A346 had in the market place?

Yes total cost of ownership is a way to justify buying a more expensive asset if long term the total cost was lower, however this needs to have the assumptions like price of fuel, resale values, market growth, inflation etc built in, which makes it more of a guess than a science. The initial purchase price and a short term outlook is more likely to be looked at than a total cost of ownership.

The market penetration in terms of number of operators is not that different between the two, the 773/773ER has some larger airlines on the books, they have larger fleets. I don't know if some of the 773ER operators seriously considered, e.g. Singapore Airlines, All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines all had well established large 777 fleets.

The 380 delays also has lead to some airlines ordering 773ERs to provide interim lift, Emirates I think partially cancelled their orders for 346 in protest over the 380 program delays. In short, I think the 380 delays has cost airbus sales, as they have lost some credibility in the marketplace, and boeing did the right thing by its shareholders and took advantage of it.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 108):
Even worse, CX doesn't remotely need 100% of the A333 seats, given the reduction in fuel burn, MX, and crew costs compared to the A333. More over while I know CX is usually a more premium airline, we could possibly see the addition of Y+/Y split in the economy class. Certainly on the 787 it would highlight a reason to pay for the nicer 8Y arrangement. While certainly they don;t need to boost their image with their customers, sometimes it really helps if you can put the comfort difference in real terms for people.

You should look at the CX load factors on the 333 before saying "CX doesn't remotely need 100% of the A333 seats", a lot of times its not big enough already.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
What I am saying is that those people are a) wrong and b) not making much sense and c) going to be really upset if the -10 ends up being what I think it will be

How can those people be wrong and not making much sense when Boeing does not discuss the aircraft with customers in any sort of real detail.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Likewise, if the 773ER is so much better, why is there not a single one of them on the US register ? Are foreign airlines and a.net members the only ones who see the true virtues in the aircraft ?

The 777 must be doing something right for Airbus to offer to match cost out of its pocket to any airline willing to buy new 346's.

Hmmm...
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 111):
Plus with 3 they can be phsyically smaller and I believe there's some benefit/reason to minimize the profile a tad more when dealing with a BWB.

This is the only reason I can see; experience seems to indicate that 2 larger engines are almost always more efficient than 3 or 4 smaller ones. I still think they could make the BWB as a twin.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
How can those people be wrong and not making much sense when Boeing does not discuss the aircraft with customers in any sort of real detail.

Zeke,

You know better than that. You know MUCH better than that. Boeing has been talking with customers regarding the 787-10 for quite a while now. Customers including CX. They along with other customers are being polled to help shape what will become the 787-10.

Furthermore, the comment I made said nothing about the 787-10 itself (with the exception of c, which was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else), but rather was discussing the view that the 787-10 will be inferior because it's a stretch. The fact that it's a stratch does not in any way, shape or form GUARANTEE it's inferior, which is what people are implying.

People are (supposedly) looking at a 787 stretch with same logic that has been applied to AL stretches all these years. And while there are some similarities, there are substantial differences as well. Forgetting how and what the 787 is made/made of is a mistake I think. And from what was said on this thread, there are people at CX making that mistake.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 116):
This is the only reason I can see; experience seems to indicate that 2 larger engines are almost always more efficient than 3 or 4 smaller ones. I still think they could make the BWB as a twin.

It's entirely possible.. just that everything I've seen Boeing toy with lately on the BWB front is always three engines... so they must have some reason for that.. maybe a tech-ops thread would be in order as we are straying a tad off topic now  Wink
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:00 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 118):
I've seen Boeing toy with lately on the BWB front is always three engines... so they must have some reason for that.

BWB has its roots in the Douglas side of the Boeing house. Douglas has always been partial to trijets.

Tom.
 
ual747-600
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Likewise, if the 773ER is so much better, why is there not a single one of them on the US register ? Are foreign airlines and a.net members the only ones who see the true virtues in the aircraft ?

Not a very compelling arguement considering they are no A340-600's registered either. I think the fact that the 777-300ER won at AF, CX, AC where that had the A340-600 (or other A340 variants) speaks volumes. Add in TAM and I think you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The 777 series killed the A340.

UAL
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:41 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
The market penetration in terms of number of operators is not that different between the two,

The market penetration is almost exactly in line with total sales. The 773ER has 19 customer airlines vs 9 for the A346 (Air Canada and Aerolineas Argentinas are unlikely to take delivery of the A346). At least twice as many airlines will operate the 773ER. In addition, both GECAS and ILFC are 773ER customers with 21 and 28 orders respectively. Only ILFC has ordered 13 A346's, less than half their 773ER commitment.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
I don't know if some of the 773ER operators seriously considered, e.g. Singapore Airlines, All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines all had well established large 777 fleets.

And Lufthansa, Iberia, and Virgin were all established A340 operators. The same comment can be made about their A346 orders. The Iberia order has a very interesting history that I'm sure you are aware of.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
All the routes I have seen to north america, west and east coast, the 346 lifts more payload (about 6t-12t), but burns more fuel, about 1t/hr, at this weeks prices it is about US$15,000 a sector extra fuel bill to JFK, then they would need to get US$2.52/kg for payload/cargo to break even, problem being, you don't get that much freight coming out of the USA.

At best, the 773ER and the A346HGW carry equal payloads from JFK to HGK, but lower fuel burn gives the 773ER a decided advantage. By your own numbers above, each 773ER will spend about US$ 4M less per year on fuel assuming 180 HKG-JFK round trips per year. In addition, the 773ER can carry about 30 more passengers than the A346 in the CX seating configuration since it has about 10% more floor area. This is a big advantage on JFK-HGK since as you say above, cargo loads can be a bit light.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
but I am not convinced yet that they will not have to fly a little longer for ETOPS.

They won't. Even with 180/207 min ETOPS, optimum routings should be no issue on the HKG-JFK routes.

To summarize for HKG-JFK:

Acquisition Cost: Advantage to the 773ER, by your own words
Fuel Costs: Advantage to the 773ER of about US$4M per year (360 one way trips per year)
Revenue: Advantage to the 773ER of about US$6.5M per year based on 30 more Y passengers (360 one way trips per year)

With the advantages shown in Fuel Costs and Revenue, I can't imagine that the low price you're talking about for the 773ER could have been that low.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14780
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 121):
The market penetration is almost exactly in line with total sales. The 773ER has 19 customer airlines vs 9 for the A346 (Air Canada and Aerolineas Argentinas are unlikely to take delivery of the A346).

What are the 19 ? I only know of 9 airlines operating the 773ER at the moment, which is about the same as the 346 (Air Canada, Air France, All Nippon Airways, Emirates, Etihad, EVA, JAL, Jet, Pakistan, Singapore ), or are you looking at future deliveries ?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 121):
And Lufthansa, Iberia, and Virgin were all established A340 operators. The same comment can be made about their A346 orders.

Can it, when did they order their 346s, was the 773ER available ?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 121):

At best, the 773ER and the A346HGW carry equal payloads from JFK to HGK, but lower fuel burn gives the 773ER a decided advantage. By your own numbers above, each 773ER will spend about US$ 4M less per year on fuel assuming 180 HKG-JFK round trips per year. In addition, the 773ER can carry about 30 more passengers than the A346 in the CX seating configuration since it has about 10% more floor area. This is a big advantage on JFK-HGK since as you say above, cargo loads can be a bit light.

If you are going to use my numbers, use both sides of it, the 773ER would leave behind about 4300 t of payload a year on a daily service.

Please tell us what the CX seating config(s) is(are) for the 773ER with the new product and what was it going to be for the 346HGW ?

Lots of guessing, no facts, all speculation.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 121):
They won't. Even with 180/207 min ETOPS, optimum routings should be no issue on the HKG-JFK routes.

What ETOPS approval does CX hold for the 773ER ? Again guessing, no facts, all speculation.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 121):
I can't imagine that the low price you're talking about for the 773ER could have been that low.

Does not matter if it was $0.01 or $500 million, lower is still lower.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):

Likewise, if the 773ER is so much better, why is there not a single one of them on the US register ? Are foreign airlines and a.net members the only ones who see the true virtues in the aircraft ?

I can't recall the last time a US-registered carrier purchased the A345/A346 either.... scratchchin 

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 117):
You know better than that. You know MUCH better than that. Boeing has been talking with customers regarding the 787-10 for quite a while now. Customers including CX. They along with other customers are being polled to help shape what will become the 787-10.

 checkmark 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
So where is the quote in any press release, quarterly reports, annual report from CX or Swire to justify not buying the cheapest option, because the 777 won on performance alone not price ?

..its there, but since happened a while ago I wont' even bother finding it......

..again, the facts of recent sales the past few years speak volumes..especially when it came time for "mono-versus-mono" decions...i.e.-EK's A346 versus B773ER decision...same for Virgin Pacific, etc...

..now you don't have to believe me, but you can certainly check the stats of sales the past few years.....its certainly available in the public domain.. yes 
"Up the Irons!"
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:42 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
What are the 19 ? I only know of 9 airlines operating the 773ER at the moment, which is about the same as the 346 (Air Canada, Air France, All Nippon Airways, Emirates, Etihad, EVA, JAL, Jet, Pakistan, Singapore ), or are you looking at future deliveries ?

All customers for 777-300ER

Air Canada
Air France
Air India
All Nippon Airways
Arik Air
Cathay Pacific Airways
Emirates
Etihad Airways
EVA Air
GE Capital Corporation
ILFC
JAL International
Jet Airways
KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines
Korean Air
Pakistan Int'l Airlines
Philippine Airlines
Qatar Airways
Singapore Airlines
TAM
Unidentified Customer
Virgin Blue International
 
klkla
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 77):
Nothing is written between the lines and the reader - therefore - can indeed read all of his or hers empty speculations in there...

Because you don't agree with them doesn't make them empty. Your response was, however as it did not address any particular issue.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 100):
I think so to. And it would probably also kill the 747-8i premature, but still seems the best option .

How do we think an Y3 will look in terms of seat counts, engines and OEW?

Wouldn't you expect Y3 to replace 772 & 773? That's what I have always assumed. The 747-8 would still have a place in the line up as a niche passenger product and freighter.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13711
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting Klkla (Reply 125):
Wouldn't you expect Y3 to replace 772 & 773? That's what I have always assumed. The 747-8 would still have a place in the line up as a niche passenger product and freighter.

I think the projected Boeing 787-10 would come pretty close to the 772. Some people even suggest a 787-11, which would probably be payload range restricted.

So probably an Y3 would start with 350 passengers. Add 1 or 2 stretches..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:22 am

Quoting Klkla (Reply 125):

Wouldn't you expect Y3 to replace 772 & 773? That's what I have always assumed. The 747-8 would still have a place in the line up as a niche passenger product and freighter.

I think the 787-10 will replace the 772; Y3 will replace the 773.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 126):
So probably an Y3 would start with 350 passengers. Add 1 or 2 stretches..

 checkmark 
That is unless it's a BWB, which doesn't stretch very well. In that case I'd expect it to be at least 400 passengers, which would leave room for a 787-11. I agree with you that Y3 will probably kill off the 748, at least the passenger version. Whether or not Y3 is built as a freighter will determine whether the 748F survives; ultimately I do expect to see a large CFRP freighter replace it; the advantages are just too overwhelming for it not to happen. But enough freighters will be sold between now and then to make it nicely profitable for Boeing.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 73):
Wake up, because you are dreaming if you believe the Trent that will go on the A350 is 25 percent more efficient then the GE90 on the 777NGs.

Hey, I'm just sharing the dream Airbus evidently has... Big grin

Seriously, Boeing admits it's the engines that are driving 2/3rds of the savings they're claiming for the 787 over the 767 and A330. The A350 is said by some to be roughly 70,000lbs lighter then the 77L/77W in MEW (about double the advantage of the 787 over the A330), but I can't see that giving Airbus a 10% boost, much less 20%. So a lot of it has to come from the Trent XWB vs. the GE90-11xB.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 74):
As a package, Airbus is claiming 25%, so why would you say "dreaming"?



Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
From a Scotts Column article, http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn070307.pdf

The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items

I wouldn't have stated "dreaming" if someone said Airbus says the A350 -1000 will be 25 percent more efficient then the 777-300ER.

My logic...

If the engines on the 787 will provide an 8 percent gain over the 767 which has --

CF6-
PW40XX
RB211-

engines, how could I believe that the Trent on the A350 would be 25 percent more efficient then an Engine that a generation newer then those on the 767.

In addition, one has to wonder what the margins would be on the Trent installed on the 350-1000 if the same engine is on the -800, meaning you might lose that airplane performance pretty quick if you need to de-rate.

Cheers
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:28 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 127):
That is unless it's a BWB, which doesn't stretch very well. In that case I'd expect it to be at least 400 passengers, which would leave room for a 787-11. I agree with you that Y3 will probably kill off the 748, at least the passenger version. Whether or not Y3 is built as a freighter will determine whether the 748F survives; ultimately I do expect to see a large CFRP freighter replace it; the advantages are just too overwhelming for it not to happen. But enough freighters will be sold between now and then to make it nicely profitable for Boeing.

BWB stretches East and West, not North and South.....  Smile

Cheers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26788
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:44 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
From a Scotts Column article, http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Scotts...7.pdf

Point noted. Please see below.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
If the engines on the 787 will provide an 8 percent gain over the 767 which has (earlier generation engines) , how could I believe that the Trent on the A350 would be 25 percent more efficient then an Engine that a generation newer then those on the 767.

Which means Airbus might be...optimistic...in their claims of 25-30% greater efficiency and fuel burn over the 777...  Wink

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
In addition, one has to wonder what the margins would be on the Trent installed on the 350-1000 if the same engine is on the -800, meaning you might lose that airplane performance pretty quick if you need to de-rate.

Airbus has evidently convinced RR to cap the price of the engines (and I am guessing spares and maintenance contracts) in order to offset them being a sole-supplier (at the moment) and to encourage A350 sales.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
In addition, one has to wonder what the margins would be on the Trent installed on the 350-1000 if the same engine is on the -800, meaning you might lose that airplane performance pretty quick if you need to de-rate.

Airbus has evidently convinced RR to cap the price of the engines (and I am guessing spares and maintenance contracts) in order to offset them being a sole-supplier (at the moment) and to encourage A350 sales.

OOPS.. Sorry, I was talking about Engine Margins, such as EGT, not Financial. The lower the margin, the less time it will spend on wing. { Derating increases the margin.}

Regarding Airbus convincing RR to cap the price, I don't think that it would really be necessary as long as an Airline have a RFP for both the 787 and A350. In other words, if RR want a chance to power the 787 if the airline chooses it, they better be offering just as good a price for the engines on the A350.

Cheers

[Edited 2007-07-28 04:51:48]
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:33 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
I only know of 9 airlines operating the 773ER at the moment, which is about the same as the 346 (Air Canada, Air France, All Nippon Airways, Emirates, Etihad, EVA, JAL, Jet, Pakistan, Singapore ), or are you looking at future deliveries ?



Quoting Azhobo (Reply 124):
Air Canada
Air France
Air India
All Nippon Airways
Arik Air
Cathay Pacific Airways
Emirates
Etihad Airways
EVA Air
GE Capital Corporation
ILFC
JAL International
Jet Airways
KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines
Korean Air
Pakistan Int'l Airlines
Philippine Airlines
Qatar Airways
Singapore Airlines
TAM
Unidentified Customer
Virgin Blue International

I only counted the direct buys, not lease operators for the 7773ER. I also counted all A346 buyers (except for Air Canada and Aerolineas Argentinas) including lease holders like CX. The count for both airplanes included current and future operators.

See this link and do a custom report on the 773ER.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
Can it, when did they order their 346s, was the 773ER available ?

What's your point? Your argument was that ANA, JAL, and Singapore bought 773ER's because they were 777 operators. The same argument could be applied to Lufthansa, Iberia and Virgin because they were operating large fleets of A340's when they bought the A346. The ironic thing about the Singapore order is that they were operating the A345 at the time they bought 773ER's. If they had been impressed with the A345, wouldn't an A346 order have been logical?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
If you are going to use my numbers, use both sides of it, the 773ER would leave behind about 4300 t of payload a year on a daily service.

Your numbers agree with mine for fuel flow, but not for payload range. I can use mine for fuel flow, but the answer will be the same as yours. The A346 will still burn about 1t more fuel per hour in cruise than the 773ER. And the 773ER will not be leaving payload behind. The cargo load of the 773ER would be less than the A346HGW because at full passenger load, the 773ER is carrying about 3.2t more passengers and bags than the A346HGW. I think you're getting mixed up about this shift in payload from cargo to passengers.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
Please tell us what the CX seating config(s) is(are) for the 773ER with the new product and what was it going to be for the 346HGW ?

Lots of guessing, no facts, all speculation.

I was asked to evaluate seating configurations for the 773ER that averaged 308 pax and for the A346 with an average of 275 pax. Note that the difference is more than 30 pax. Both airplanes were evaluated with the new CX seats. In the configuration comparison, both airplanes had equal numbers of First and Business seats. The study varied the Business seat count equally for both airplanes and the difference between the airplanes was the number of Economy seats carried. The 773ER always carried about 30 more than the A346.

Since this was a scoping study, I have no idea what configuration CX picked for the 773ER's they will start receiving this Fall.

The only thing speculative is your assertion that the 773ER was priced substantially lower than the A346IGW. My analysis did not include the business offer for either Airbus or Boeing. It was confined to the performance differences and in that area, it is not speculative.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 122):
What ETOPS approval does CX hold for the 773ER ? Again guessing, no facts, all speculation.

Are you implying that CX will not be able to obtain a 180 min ETOPS approval for the 773ER from the HKGCAA so that the 773ER can be operated on the same optimum routings for JFK to HKG round trips as other operators? I would have thought you had more respect for the competency of your employer than that.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:37 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 128):
I wouldn't have stated "dreaming" if someone said Airbus says the A350 -1000 will be 25 percent more efficient then the 777-300ER.

The numbers do work out.  yes 

(By the way, please note, the Airbus sales pitch quotes +25% block fuel per seat for the 77W, which means the A350-1000 is only claimed to be 20% more fuel efficient, not ever 25%.)

If you assume that from the 777-300ER to the A350-1000,
(a) cruise SFC goes from 0.55 to 0.505 lbm/hr/lb (9% improvement)
(b) OEW/seat (at similar seats/m2) goes from 458 kg to 421 kg (8% improvement)
(c) cruise L/D ratio goes from ~17 to ~17.5 (3% improvement)

Then, the Breguet range equation (and not a simple sum of the percentages!) will tell you the following:

Over a 6000 nm sector, the fuel burn per seat for an A350-1000 with 340 seats would be 2.60 L/pax/100km, and that of a 777-300ER with 365 seats would be 3.25 L/pax/100km. (the seat count on the A350 was reduced by ten to match the seating density of the 773)

Bang on 20% better fuel burn.  checkmark 

(a) is based on an engine with 2% better SFC than the GEnx, as often discussed in the press
(b) is based on a move from Al to CFRP airframe.
(c) is based on a similar wing area, smaller fuselage cross section, and 15 years of CFD progress.

These are my assumptions only-- the details may vary (i.e. better L/D but not quite so good OEW) and the parameters are not commonly known to better than a couple of percent. Nevertheless, the end result will not budge all that much if you believe the 8000 nm range figure from Airbus.

It would be a grave mistake to be complacent about the A350. For all the ridicule it has received throughout its repeated redesign process, it has become quite a competent airplane.
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:47 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):

Likewise, if the 773ER is so much better, why is there not a single one of them on the US register ?

Dumb and completely specious argument. No A346 on the US register either.

For that matter, how many A340's of ANY variant are on the US register?

Eh. Zero?

I can think of at least 140 772s (A/ER) that are on the US register. And DL has ordered the LR.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14780
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:00 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 132):
I was asked to evaluate seating configurations for the 773ER that averaged 308 pax and for the A346 with an average of 275 pax.

I do not know who ask you to do that evaluation, the numbers you are presenting in this thread are not correct for payload or seat counts that were used for our study (which I might add was more than one), and by your own admission "this was a scoping study, I have no idea what configuration CX picked for the 773ER's", which makes me think you did not have all the relevant data available.

To me, based on what you have said on this thread, it was more like comparison between the present aircraft to the 773ER, which is not what was offered, the 346HGW has a lower MEW/OEW, hence higher payload, and increased fuel capacity over the existing aircraft.

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 134):
No A346 on the US register either.

Some talk of the 773ER like the second coming of the messiah, I was mealy pointing out if the 773ER was SO good, US flagged operators would have added them. US Airways is supposed to adding the 340 to their inventory, that does no mean anything either.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:42 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
Airbus swears the A350 will be (at least) 25% more efficient then the 777, and I can only imagine a large portion of that will come from the Trent XWB.

Other people have responded, Stitch, but there are synergies in the completeness of these new designs that go way beyond engine efficiency. And for me, the CFRP wings, properly applied (i.e. to maximum advantage, NOT as on the OLD A350) will give you as much benefit as anything else on the aircraft.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
what it takes to stretch an aircraft, the barrel section is not what is key, it is the wing, wing box, engines and landing gear to get the correct geometry and performance for take-off and landing

 checkmark . The 787 is NOT just an empty CFRP tube.........  Smile
Those wings are a fabulous piece of engineering (IMO)
Just as the A350's will be (again IMO)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
The majority of the composites in the 787 is not in the fuselage, its in the wing, it has to carry the fuselage, engines, fuel, landing gear, the fuselage has much lower loads.

Edit copy, edit paste......
What was I saying again?  biggrin 

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 86):
because to a certain extent they are...i.e. such as the A358 and B789....

A quick look at the specs for the 789 and 358 (as they stand) shows the target range/payload curves to be near enough identical as makes no odds.  Smile
What gets delivered is.................

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 133):
The numbers do work out.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 133):
It would be a grave mistake to be complacent about the A350. For all the ridicule it has received throughout its repeated redesign process, it has become quite a competent airplane.

Spot-on post all round, WingedMigrator  thumbsup 
The same conclusion can be reached by other analyses.
And supports the fact that the gains come from far more than just engine efficiency, but the interraction of all the improvements.
A 777 with just engine upgrades (even with the TrentXWB), and a few aero tweaks, will NEVER match the A350-1000, any more than the original A330NG could match the 787.
Waste of money (again IMO)

Regards
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:10 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 135):
I do not know who ask you to do that evaluation, the numbers you are presenting in this thread are not correct for payload or seat counts that were used for our study (which I might add was more than one), and by your own admission "this was a scoping study, I have no idea what configuration CX picked for the 773ER's", which makes me think you did not have all the relevant data available.

Please enlighten us. What is the final seat count picked by CX for their 773ER? It still won't change the geometric differences between the A346 and the 773ER that results in the 773ER having a 30 seat advantage.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 135):
To me, based on what you have said on this thread, it was more like comparison between the present aircraft to the 773ER, which is not what was offered, the 346HGW has a lower MEW/OEW, hence higher payload, and increased fuel capacity over the existing aircraft.

The CX A346's are early production airplanes with wings that were heavier than later examples of the type. When Airbus increased the A346 MTOW from 368t to 380t, MEW/OEW went up by 4.1t. I doubt that even CX's heavy A346's match the high MEW/OEW of the A346IGW.

Here's the Airbus data confirming the MEW/OEW increase:

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-600/specifications.html


An MEW/OEW increase of 4.1t for an MTOW 12 t increase is a poor trade by the way. Normally, a 12t MTOW change show only push up MEW/OEW by 1.2t. And while MZFW increased by 6t going to the A346IGW, the net change in payload was only 1.9t (6.0t - 4.1t).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 135):
Some talk of the 773ER like the second coming of the messiah, I was mealy pointing out if the 773ER was SO good, US flagged operators would have added them.

While the 773ER is hardly the messiah, it is good enough to dry up sales for the A346 and force Airbus to launch the A350-1000.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:21 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 135):
Some talk of the 773ER like the second coming of the messiah, I was mealy pointing out if the 773ER was SO good, US flagged operators would have added them. US Airways is supposed to adding the 340 to their inventory, that does no mean anything either.

Most US airlines do not need the extra capacity of the 773ER. United and maybe Northwest do need the capacity but neither of those airlines have the money to buy new planes at this point in time. US airways is considering the A345, not the A346 so they wouldn't consider the 773ER either. They might quickly find the A340 unnecessary if they lose the China bid.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6140
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 109):
You and I have no idea how big the 787 was designed to grow. We weren't in the design meetings. So to say the 350 was designed to be bigger is risky at best.

The guy I was speaking to has been directly involved in contacts with Boeing and Airbus and gets regular insider updates about their products both launched and unlaunched with the figures direct from the manufacturers. Based on what information CX has been given, he has formed his opinion about the A350 and 787-10 on what those planes LOOK LIKE they will be.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
346 will lift more payload over that route, particularly the 346HGW which was what was offered

The manager I was speaking to was comparing to our current A346s, not the HGWs...also how about that 4% fuel/drag factor?

I must say I am very impressed as to the degree of research you must be doing to answer each of these posts on here...and there I was thinking the Airbus fleet was really busy at the moment!!

BTW if you have time, I would love to see the payload figures from the FCOMs and past CFPs for the BCFs and 744Fs!

[Edited 2007-07-28 16:44:31]
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 117):
Boeing has been talking with customers regarding the 787-10 for quite a while now. Customers including CX. They along with other customers are being polled to help shape what will become the 787-10.

Yet it still seems that Boeing is quite reluctant on increasing the 787-10 MTOW to get more range.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 117):
People are (supposedly) looking at a 787 stretch with same logic that has been applied to AL stretches all these years. And while there are some similarities, there are substantial differences as well. Forgetting how and what the 787 is made/made of is a mistake I think. And from what was said on this thread, there are people at CX making that mistake.

Actually, CFRP is more efficient than Al, but it's not as amazing you think it is. It will still require strengthening and what will require even more strengthening will be the barrel joints in order to take the extra moment caused by the longer fuselage.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
Which means Airbus might be...optimistic...in their claims of 25-30% greater efficiency and fuel burn over the 777...

Maybe optimistic, but probably not too far off. The Trent XWB is 1.5 generations ahead of the GE90 and the 50t less weight at MTOW also helps a bit.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 132):
If they had been impressed with the A345, wouldn't an A346 order have been logical?

Had they not been impressed with the A345 wouldn't a 77L order have been logical?
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26788
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 136):
Other people have responded, Stitch, but there are synergies in the completeness of these new designs that go way beyond engine efficiency. And for me, the CFRP wings, properly applied (i.e. to maximum advantage, NOT as on the OLD A350) will give you as much benefit as anything else on the aircraft.

Which makes me wonder if Boeing isn't looking hard at a new wing to go with the new wingbox. The 787 can reasonably match the A350 family length for length so capacities should be very close at nine-abreast and the 787 has more cargo positions then the A350 on a per-model basis.

We could see a repeat of the 757/767. Two separate models with significant commonality optimized for two different missions.

The 787-8/787-9/787-10 would be one model with ranges up to 8000nm and then you would have the 787-8IGW/787-9IGW/787-10IGW/787-11 with ranges from 8000-11000nm.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26788
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:16 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 140):
Yet it still seems that Boeing is quite reluctant on increasing the 787-10 MTOW to get more range.

Because it will involve significant re-work and re-design to the plane. At minimum, they need new undercarriage and a new wingbox. They'll probably also need a new wing and perhaps new mounting pylons for larger diameter engines.

Not something Boeing can just whip out on a CATIA station in an afternoon.  Wink
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
Because it will involve significant re-work and re-design to the plane. At minimum, they need new undercarriage and a new wingbox. They'll probably also need a new wing and perhaps new mounting pylons for larger diameter engines.

Not something Boeing can just whip out on a CATIA station in an afternoon.


Exactly, which makes the argument that Boeing had thoroughly thought about stretch versions when they launched the 7E7, invalid. And it is exactly what CX are talking about, for them, and some other airlines, the 787 is indeed a bit small and short ranged.

Also, every few months there are reports surfacing about Boeing is pouring more and more money on the 787 project which leads me to believe that their hands are already full with the existing variants, so a 787-10ER will not available any time soon. And again, this is probably what CX are talking about.

[Edited 2007-07-28 17:34:12]
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:49 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
Because it will involve significant re-work and re-design to the plane. At minimum, they need new undercarriage and a new wingbox. They'll probably also need a new wing and perhaps new mounting pylons for larger diameter engines.

I suspect that they are looking to increase the MTOW of the 10 model but once that decision was made they needed to stop and look at just where they want to take the family. The expense of a new wing, undercarriage and wing box is more acceptable if it is spread across a few different models.

They have to stop and study the effects of the new wing across the potential family. Could it support another stretch? How about a stretch out to 80 m? Do we want it to be able to do so? What kind of range could we get out of the 787-9 with the new wing? Is that something we want to do? Where do they want the optimum point for the wing to be?

Once a decision is made to up the MTOW a whole bunch of decisions come into play and have to be examined. That takes time.

Boeing pitched the 787-10 without the increased weight and that is not really what some European and Middle East carriers are looking for. I think it is very much assured they will up the MTOW at this point. Decisions are probably in the process of being made and you should see something more firm by the time the A350 reaches firm configuration.

Why people continue to harp about the fact that the 787-10 is not yet around while the A350 is not a firm configuration I don't quite get. Until the numbers firm up for the A350 Boeing has no reason to really reveal what it is going to do next with the 787 family. They have time to get some of them up in the air and plan accordingly.

My expectation would be that you will see Boeing firm up plans for the new model 787's shortly before the A350 is scheduled to reach firm configuration. They should have good targets by then and good flight information from the early 787's.

There is not a huge rush at this point but everyone here seems to want decisions yesterday on this issue.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 143):
Also, every few months there are reports surfacing about Boeing is pouring more and more money on the 787 project which leads me to believe that their hands are already full with the existing variants, so a 787-10ER will not available any time soon. And again, this is probably what CX are talking about.

....there are no rumours/reports/etc.. no ...Boeing themselves have publicly stated they need to spend some extra  dollarsign  and right now their hands are full with the -8/-9 variants...

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 143):
Exactly, which makes the argument that Boeing had thoroughly thought about stretch versions when they launched the 7E7, invalid. And it is exactly what CX are talking about, for them, and some other airlines, the 787 is indeed a bit small and short ranged.

..non sequitur.....just because Boeing hasn't decided to finalise a version of -10 at this present moment doesn't mean they haven't thought about a "7E7" stretch.....Boeing had no idea whatsoever that the B787 would be such a success...even then, they have stated there will be a -10 version..just a matter of what the final design/payload/range/etc. will bee...
"Up the Irons!"
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:13 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 144):
Why people continue to harp about the fact that the 787-10 is not yet around while the A350 is not a firm configuration I don't quite get. Until the numbers firm up for the A350 Boeing has no reason to really reveal what it is going to do next with the 787 family. They have time to get some of them up in the air and plan accordingly.

 checkmark 

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 143):
787-10ER will not available any time soon.

Neither will the A350, any variant.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
Which makes me wonder if Boeing isn't looking hard at a new wing to go with the new wingbox. The 787 can reasonably match the A350 family length for length so capacities should be very close at nine-abreast and the 787 has more cargo positions then the A350 on a per-model basis

 checkmark 
If they intend to raise MTOW any, so as to challenge the A350-1000, a new/revised wing is just about inevitable, (IMO  Smile )
I'd expect them to max out at the ICAO cat E limit (as Airbus are doing with the A350), if they want to maximise competitiveness.

Regards
 
astuteman
Posts: 7093
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 144):
Why people continue to harp about the fact that the 787-10 is not yet around while the A350 is not a firm configuration I don't quite get. Until the numbers firm up for the A350 Boeing has no reason to really reveal what it is going to do next with the 787 family. They have time to get some of them up in the air and plan accordingly.

Missed this earlier.
Can only agree  checkmark 
Time to relax, sit back, grab a G + T, and watch the story unfold......  Smile

Regards
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 143):
so a 787-10ER will not available any time soon.

No problem; neither will the A350 (any version).
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...

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