Quoting zeke (Reply 9): Quoting bobdino (Reply 4): UA flying LAX-MEL on a 787-9 They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

Quoting cschleic (Reply 16): Anyway, it wouldn't have had the range for LAX - MEL. Weren't they mostly used domestically?

UA never flew overseas until after deregulation. Their 720s were gone by 1972. They flew routes like SFO-SEA and SFO-DEN. UA neither flew to MEL during that time, nor did the 720s fly overseas.

I think you might have been mistaking that for AA, which flew to Australia around then.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 49): I guess 787's "game changing" comes in 2 forms

But those are still not changing the game, it's still the same game of flying a tube with wings between 2 big airports with big runways and taxiways, in the same crowded flight levels at the same Mach numbers, with the same ATC procedures, etc...
The lower costs extend the game a bit, but if that defines a game changer, then MAX, NEO, C-Series, A380, 777...actually any new airliner, can be called a game changer. But if everyone is a game changer, then the denomination has no real meaning !

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34): The 787 had a very different way of thinking in that it is the first aircraft to be made primarily out of CFRP. The first with an electric architecture. And the first to use forego bleed air to allow the engines to hopefully be more efficient. Couple that with the technology in the cockpit which is more evolutionary but very important stuff and I would say on a whole its a significant change that is very rare in an otherwise conservative business. Use whatever term you like. I personally don't see the A350 technology as being that much advanced than the 787 because in many ways they didn't push the envelope (electric architecture, CFRP tube vs panels, etc) which may end up being a very good idea

Composites had been used for decades, and in increasingly large parts ; energy distribution had been increasingly becoming more electric for decades ; bleed was removed, but simply by using a dedicated compressor to replace the engine fan for the air conditioning, and resistances in the slats for anti ice, and I am not convinced by the benefits, so it's hardly a revolution IMO.
On the other hand I'm also interested by the distributed electrical architecture with RPDUs, the use of fiber optics for trunk data routes, the cabinet implementation of integrated modular avionics etc...

But these represent only a "normal" step forward in technology that can be expected from any other new plane, so I don't see the game changing at the technology level any more than I saw it at the operational level. Nor do I see an obviously "different" way of thinking about airliner design.
For comparison, I put below a list of some of the new stuff implemented on the A380 - and such a list could be established for any new airliner
Again, it's not to be negative about the 787, it's a great machine. My beef is rather with the over-the-top PR crap  

------------
ON THE AIRCRAFT

Electric : solid-state circuit breakers, remote CB control, Aluminum wiring

Hydraulics : EBHA (actuators), LHEGS (ldg gear/brakes), 5000psi, 2H/2E architecture

Cockpit layout : more & larger screens, better info display, KCCU (keyboard and mouse), new FMS interface

Flight controls : Fully electric flight control system (without mechanical back up), actually inherited from the A340NG program but enhanced with new lateral control laws with better handling of yaw, involving sideslip vanes

Aircraft networking : Integrated Modular Avionics, AFDX network, NSS and seperated avionics/open world architecture, data loading, on-board information system (performance calulations, paperless cockpit), on-board maintenance system (easier access to data for predictive maintenance, to BITE, integrated AMM/TSM documentation)

Other systems : LED lights (Nav, strobe...), new air data sensor architecture, lower cabin altitude and more humid cabin air in series production, brake to vacate, BUSS

Structures : GLARE, handling of huge composite parts

Aerodynamics : flaps/slats/spoiler design, design methods

Acoustics : just listen to it, inside or outside

OFF AIRCRAFT :
Design & test methods, including the introduction of lots of simulation tools (model based engineering methods, digital mock-up management....)
Build methods : lots of stuff to do with composite materials, welding, drilling methods like putting the wings horizontal
And project management failu..umm, sorry, methods  

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 22): But what's so unique or game-changing about it ? It's a great plane, and I am very interested by some of the engineering choices, but it's simply the next step in efficiency which can reasonably be expected from any new generation of airliner.

.. which means one can now economically fly routes that could not be consistently be flown with good economics => the game has changed!

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 22): ...but I've never really understood all the hype

There is something to be hyped, but yes, the magnitude of the hype is a bit high, but also the tolerance of the hype also seems to be a function of the individual...

Quoting tim73 (Reply 24): Yes, 787 is a game changer....it has potential to turn Boeing into a crisis company. Boeing management is trying to squeeze the subcontractors, getting rid of experienced workers and fighting needlessly with trade unions while at the same time try to ramp up the production with cheap but very inexperienced workforce.

Certainly, the 787 has shown that Boeing has been making a lot of wrong decisions about workflow and workforce. We are now seeing in KCHS that management has had to admit they made a major mistake by dumping experienced subcontractors at the exact wrong time, just as they were introducing the 789 and as they were trying to increase rate on 788.

It seems either by intention or by divine intervention or underhanded dealings or whatever the 777X is being run in a more rational form and a very large percentage of the work will be in the Puget Sound area, including wing design and fabrication.

Hopefully Boeing has really learned the lessons of the 787, but the jury is still out on that one.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 30): What about the A 350? Then that would make it 2 "game changing" aircraft. In which case neither A 350 nor B 787 would be game changers ; j

Or both would be. The A350 certainly will make it economically viable to fly routes that have not been consistently economically viable before. The main issue is that it has similar CASM but at a higher seat count, and typically it's hard to open and sustain new routes at a higher seat count. Just to keep the pot stirred, I will say that it'll be less of a game changer!  

Quoting penguins (Reply 33): Quoting Revelation (Reply 18): LAX-PVG

No big deal, but that was not my quote..

Quoting zeke (Reply 43): There are advantages and disadvantages to barrel vs panel design, panel design is better when it come to stretching.

I will dispute you on this. As a machine design engineer I can see no structural advantages to the panel design; the weakest and most critical parts of any structure are the joints, and in a pressure vessel the hoop stresses are much greater than the longitudinal ones. That means that with the panel design there are very long joints with the highest stress, which the barrel design avoids completely. There are, however, significant manufacturing advantages to the panel design, and any design is a compromise between what is ideal and what can be made at a cost that will sell at a profit. And you, being also an engineer, know this. So stop throwing the dust about "the panel design has its advantages." Yes, it has the advantage of being easier to make, period. But the advantage of the barrels is small, and the end result will be dependent on which team did the better job of optimizing all of the other design elements. I suspect that if you built the exact same fuselage with barrels and with panels, the difference in weight would be less than 5%. And this detriment with the panel design can easily be overcome with better design in other areas.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): .. which means one can now economically fly routes that could not be consistently be flown with good economics => the game has changed!

With this definition, most, if not all, new airplanes are game changers. Otherwise, why would new planes be designed? If, for instance, the A320-NEO ends up being more efficient than the A320-OEO, then I'm sure there will be some routes that are not economically viable now but will become viable then. But the question, for the A320-NEO as for the B787, is: how many? 2? 20? 200? 2000? If the answer is 2, well, that's not a game-changer plane. If it's 2000, on the other hand...

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53):

Sorry I do not agree, it has been some time since I looked at this in detail, I looked at around 20 different load cases for a fuselage, and the impact they had at different regions of the fuselage, forward, mid, aft and top, side, bottom etc. the only place I remember pressurisation load to be the driver was in tension in the forward side wall.

When I looked at the shear loads in the skin, the top an bottom were driven by lateral gust loads, and the sides either the 2.5g manoeuvre loads in the front/middle, to a combined load case with manoeuvre load and control surface deflection in the rear. The hoop stresses are basically uniform as a function on the fuselage radius, pressure, and wall thinkness.

I was able to apply the same mythology to the tension and compression loads as well, different areas of the fuselage were driven by different load cases. I ended up with a matrix with the forward, middle, and aft fuselage, and the top, bottom, and side components knowing what load case was driving each area. By doing this analysis I was able to see how the panel approach can be optimised to the driving load factor in each area.

The other conclusion I was able to make was the composite skin was actually thinker and heavier than a comparable aluminium construction, however there were significant saving with composite stringers.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): I was able to apply the same mythology to the tension and compression loads as well

Ah - that's what I like to see - engineers discussing mythology!  

Quoting cbrboy (Reply 56):

iThingy autocorrect......sorry

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 29):

Quoting zeke (Reply 32): You need to be careful with Boeing numbers, particular with respect to payload. On another thread a member was "sucker in" with the Boeing ACAPS number of 63,957 kg as being the payload available on the 77L. This is the reality Have a look at the 77L numbers in this http://www.theairlinepilots.com/foru...e/b777/b777piaweightandbalance.pdf MZFW = 209106 kg EW = 140993 kg MZFW-EW = 68113 kg Minus Cabin furniture = 13504 kg Catering = 3686 kg Crew & baggage (4/14) = 1774 kg Flight pack = 459 kg That is back to 48.6t Almost 20t of the payload was not available for revenue, most of that was the cabin furniture. You will need to down grade the numbers by some margin to get what the aircraft will actually carry, I would suggest the 789 would be more like 30t.

Thanks for the info on cargo.... took me a while to digest some of this stuff, as well as looking up some other stuff to see if I can make sense of this......

I seemed to get an idea and worked it out on spreadsheet that I'll share what I have. I put down and compared the pax and cargo numbers of the current DEN long-hauls (since both BA and LH have good cargo traffic here) for the last two month using UA's 787 DEN-NRT, BA's 777 DEN-LHR and LH's 744 DEN-FRA. I included roundtrips, and my goal was to see how much cargo, in pounds, that each of these flights average. Here's the numbers below and in order are month, carrier, frequencies for the month, total miles flown, number of seats, number of pax, load factor, total pounds cargo carried, total mail carried, and below those numbers my math with totals of frequencies and totals of freight in pounds, with the average cargo per flight in pounds:

06 UA... 20... 115,740... 4,380... 3,932... 90%... 30,805..... 0
07 UA... 31... 179,397... 6,789... 5,538... 82%... 71,064..... 0
06 UA... 20... 115,740... 4,380... 3,895... 89%... 115,647.... 0
07 UA... 31... 179,397... 6,789... 6,181... 91%... 192,022... 529

total freqs.. 102... total pounds freight 409,538.. mail ...529
Total average pounds of freight per flight.....4020


06 BA... 30... 140,100... 8,250... 8,074... 98%... 365,398... 0
07 BA... 31... 144,770... 7,790... 6,635... 85%... 291,843... 0
06 BA... 30... 140,100... 7,564... 7,366... 98%... 459,259... 0
07 BA... 30... 140,100... 8,250... 8,096... 97%... 388,150... 0

total freqs.. 121... total pounds freight 1,504,650.. mail ...0
Total average pounds of freight per flight.....12435

06 LH... 29... 156,240... 10,704... 9,201... 97%... 479,178... 0
07 LH... 31... 146,160... 10,024... 9,771... 86%... 463,980... 0
06 LH... 30... 151,200... 10,376... 9,673... 93%... 632,190... 0
07 LH... 31... 156,240... 10,704... 10,395... 97%... 568,971... 0

total freqs.. 121... total pounds freight 2,144,319.. mail ...0
Total average pounds of freight per flight.....17722

Here is the source for all of the numbers above,

http://www.aviationdb.com/Aviation/F4SDetailQuery.shtm#SUBMIT

and I think that I did all of the math correctly.

Now, the question here, is that based on all of this, does anyone know what dollar amount the carriers receive for the freight here (is it per pound/kilo), and how much the carriers here receive from this per flight on average?

And also, both BA and LH have been in service here for a long time, and their freight business in pretty well developed at this point, as where we can see with UA barely a couple of months here is still developing this aspect. Now, the most the UA has carried is 192,022 for the month. Is this at a maximum? And obviously, with the three plane types here, the UA 787, the BA 777 and LH 744, can we assume that we are seeing some maximums here with freight, since the load factors for the pax are included? All things being equal (of course, they're probably not in that mileage is different, etc.) can we assume in general that the 787 carries about 1/3 the amount of cargo that a 777 does, and about a bit less than 1/4 the amount that a 747 does?

Thanks in advance if anyone can answer any of these.

 

[Edited 2014-02-26 02:39:29]

Quoting point2point (Reply 58): can we assume in general that the 787 carries about 1/3 the amount of cargo that a 777 does, and about a bit less than 1/4 the amount that a 747 does?

If you take the passenger seat space and calculate the LD3 containers needed for the baggage and then take the balance of the space and allocate it to PMC pallets first then the balance left in LD3's , add in the bulk space at about 80% usage , calculate the cubic capacity and multiply this by the typical belly cargo density you will get the maximum cargo load. For a BA 788 this is about 15t. A 300 seat 777 will be about 17t and a 374 seat 744 about 14t. Use a multiplier of 2204.66 to get pounds.

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):

I think before you do the analysis, find out exactly what On-Flight Market Freight Enplaned means under the federal regulations as reported in form 41. I thought it was total cargo, which includes pax baggage, freight, and mail, and the weight of the LD3 or pallets to carry it.

Going by IATA 2014 figures, global freight revenue is going to be 60 billion for 54 million tonnes of freight, so about $1.10 a kg.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54): If, for instance, the A320-NEO ends up being more efficient than the A320-OEO, then I'm sure there will be some routes that are not economically viable now but will become viable then. But the question, for the A320-NEO as for the B787, is: how many? 2? 20? 200? 2000? If the answer is 2, well, that's not a game-changer plane. If it's 2000, on the other hand...

Indeed correct, it is a subjective thing. Personally I think the amount of routes added by going from A320ceo to A320neo is small compared to the ones added by going from 763ER to 787 so it's not that hard a call for me.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 22): But what's so unique or game-changing about it ? It's a great plane, and I am very interested by some of the engineering choices, but it's simply the next step in efficiency which can reasonably be expected from any new generation of airliner. The A350 will bring similar gains to the table compared to the 777. Actually I find the 777 to have been more of a revolution in its day, as a large long-range twin with excellent performances. To the extent that it quickly marginalized its quad competitors.

Totally agree. And I have also posted many times here it is just the next logical step in the evolution of civilian airliners. With some interesting features for sure, but not game changing. Passengers will hardly notice any change compared to previously build similar airliners, or they will not notice it at all.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 22): Sorry to spoil the party !    ...but I've never really understood all the hype

  .

Me neither.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34): I personally don't see the A350 technology as being that much advanced than the 787 because in many ways they didn't push the envelope (electric architecture, CFRP tube vs panels, etc) which may end up being a very good idea. Time will tell.

Well, the A350 did not go the same way when it comes to make principal technical choices. But the systems designed and implemented on that airplane are/will be by definition more advanced since they are more then 5 years newer than the counterparts on the B787. Just normal evolution, in every way, nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): But those are still not changing the game, it's still the same game of flying a tube with wings between 2 big airports with big runways and taxiways, in the same crowded flight levels at the same Mach numbers, with the same ATC procedures, etc...

Indeed, nothing revolutionary there as well. The whole "game changing stuff" is all the result of very powerful marketing. But the aircraft itself is just a next step in evolution of developing and building airliners. Which can be done in more than one way as well.  .

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): But these represent only a "normal" step forward in technology that can be expected from any other new plane, so I don't see the game changing at the technology level any more than I saw it at the operational level. Nor do I see an obviously "different" way of thinking about airliner design.

  .

Agreed again.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): For comparison, I put below a list of some of the new stuff implemented on the A380 - and such a list could be established for any new airliner

Also the A380 was a next big step in the evolution of civilian airliners. Lots of new things, just as on the B787, and even equipped with things the newer B787 does not have. But also the A380 was and is not revolutionising civilian aviation. No matter how good the airplane turned out to be. The same will be applicable for the B787 or the upcoming A350.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): .. which means one can now economically fly routes that could not be consistently be flown with good economics => the game has changed!

Which changes constantly with every new and more efficient and more capable airplane that enters into service. So in that respect the phrase "game changer" is applicable to every new airliner out there. Or even applicable to newer versions of the same airliner. Say for example B737 to B737-classic to B737-NG to B737-MAX. And many more examples could be listed here.

[Edited 2014-02-26 06:57:00]

Quoting zeke (Reply 43): This is something Boeing put together, according to them the 787-9 cannot do 6800 nm with 334 pax and no cargo, it falls short by 300 nm. That seems to make my comment of around 30t more plausible.

With that OEW which is 3 to 4 t higher than we have been led to believe , assume 300nm diversion , UA will not make LAX-MEL with a full 255 seat version. For a 16hr sector the payload is only about 24.5t

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 63): Passengers will hardly notice any change compared to previously build similar airliners, or they will not notice it at all.

Given reply 17, these passengers should notice that they can get to a whole lot of places they might not have gotten to before or a lot faster (ie direct routing vs 1/N hops).

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 63): Also the A380 was a next big step in the evolution of civilian airliners.

Yet almost exclusively used to fly pre-existing trunk routes.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 63): Say for example B737 to B737-classic to B737-NG to B737-MAX.

I think DC-9 is more of a game changer than B737 classic was, and 727 was more of a game changer than A320 or B737NG, although one could make a very good argument for A320. As above, all of this is subjective, which is what a discussion forum thrives on.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 63): Me neither.

What I don't understand is why so many are bothered by the hype. On one hand you say the a/c are following an evolutionary path, but don't seem to allow for the fact that hype has its own evolutionary path too.

I'm not a big fan of the A380 because I think it arose from an shoddy evaluation of the market, but I can honestly say that the marketing hype surrounding it doesn't bother me one bit. In fact I thought some of the visits it made on its world tour prior to EIS were quite well done, only undermined by the fact that the a/c is just plane ugly.

I see no real game changer - the A343 had better economics with fuel at 40$ than the 787 has with fuel at 100$ - it is a technological advance to partly counter the loss of value of US$ and Euro versus many raw materials, which one normally would call inflation....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): Given reply 17, these passengers should notice that they can get to a whole lot of places they might not have gotten to before or a lot faster (ie direct routing vs 1/N hops).

Maybe they should, but in my experience they usually don't notice such things.

Just an example: on one of my A380 flights the passengers beside me, a very nice couple from the UK, did not even know they were on the A380. On a full double decker airplane. During a small break we went upstairs and their mouth fell open from the astonishing fact that there were so many passengers more on the airplane. Needless to say they did not notice the other amenities the airplane offers. Like higher humidity and air pressurisation among other things.  .

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): Yet almost exclusively used to fly pre-existing trunk routes.

But doing it in significantly better comfort and roominess compared to any other airliner before. But also that is not revolutionary in my book, but evolutionary.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): As above, all of this is subjective, which is what a discussion forum thrives on.

It is, and that is why we come here so often.   .

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): What I don't understand is why so many are bothered by the hype.

I am not really bothered by the hype itself, but maybe by some who still believe in the hype. A good friend of mine, also a life-long enthusiast for everything which involves aviation and especially when it concernes Boeing, was literally disappointed ager his first B787 flights and prefers the B777 to cross the atlantic for his frequent US-trips.

Now he knows the qualities of the B787 quite well, way beter than average, but he had a very hard time discovering them. And overall felt disappointed (maybe because of the hype) and has booked his next flights on airlines which will fly the B777 (or the A330) to cross the atlantic.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60): Going by IATA 2014 figures, global freight revenue is going to be 60 billion for 54 million tonnes of freight, so about $1.10 a kg.

Thanks.... this is probably about the best source and average that could be applied here. With that, from my above numbers, UA having 4020 lbs would earn it $2010 on average per flight, BA having 12435 lbs would earn it $6217 on average per flight, and LH having 17722 lbs would earn it $8862 on average per flight?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 59): For a BA 788 this is about 15t. A 300 seat 777 will be about 17t and a 374 seat 744 about 14t.

With this, and I don't know if I am understanding this correctly, but assuming all other conditions equal, does this mean that a 787 can actually carry MORE cargo than a 744, and just about 9% less that a 777? If it is, then can we deduce that even though the DEN-NRT flight is about 35% longer than the DEN-LHR flight, and 30% longer than the DEN-FRA flight, and assuming that the two latter flights are somewhat at maximum since they've been in service much longer, is there more room for more cargo with the DEN-NRT flight? Would it also mean that the BA flight is nowhere near capacity either when compared to the LH flight?

 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 61): Personally I think the amount of routes added by going from A320ceo to A320neo is small compared to the ones added by going from 763ER to 787 so it's not that hard a call for me.

Probably. But shouldn't you compare the 787 to the A330, and not to the 767? Otherwise, you should compare the A320neo to, say, the 737 classic. Once you perform a fair comparison, the answer may no longer be so obvious...

Quoting point2point (Reply 67): does this mean that a 787 can actually carry MORE cargo than a 744, and just about 9% less that a 777? If it is, then can we deduce that even though the DEN-NRT flight is about 35% longer than the DEN-LHR flight, and 30% longer than the DEN-FRA flight, and assuming that the two latter flights are somewhat at maximum since they've been in service much longer, is there more room for more cargo with the DEN-NRT flight? Would it also mean that the BA flight is nowhere near capacity either when compared to the LH flight?

A UA 788 is payload limited ( no more seats and no more belly space) at about 36t DEN-NRT on a 12hr 15min day. The freight component of this is limited to 15t. BA DEN-LHR is also payload limited ( no more seats no more belly space) at 43t with cargo limited to ~17t. LH DEN-FRA is limited similarly to 47t with cargo limited to 14t. The 747 MLG takes up a lot of belly space!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 69): A UA 788 is payload limited ( no more seats and no more belly space) at about 36t DEN-NRT on a 12hr 15min day. The freight component of this is limited to 15t. BA DEN-LHR is also payload limited ( no more seats no more belly space) at 43t with cargo limited to ~17t. LH DEN-FRA is limited similarly to 47t with cargo limited to 14t. The 747 MLG takes up a lot of belly space!

Many thanks for your answer here. I had to make this in some terms that I can understand. Some of these sites where I attempted to get info on this made me feel as if I needed a BA in Aeronautics or such to make hay of what is offered out there.

Now, if I may ask... assuming that we have a pretty uneventful day to fly (no hot & high, no strong headwinds, etc.), from the info that you are providing here... let's assume that we have about a 90% load factor with the flights that I've presented above in post 58 here. Is it safe to say that from that info that the LH flight is going out quite full, whereas the UA and BA flight still have some capacity to have more cargo? Looking at the 15t, and the 17t, and the 14t numbers, the ratios would be off in the examples that I provided, and it would seem that more cargo could be transported in the UA and BA flights. Or stated another way, if the flights that I cited had 90% load factors, and the flights were not facing any adversary conditions to limit weight, what would be the maximum weights of cargo allowed with these flights, either in tons or in pounds?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I'm not being to dense with this........

Thanks again

 

Zeke, you said about 77L payload...

Quoting zeke (Reply 32): That is back to 48.6t

...yet AA recently carried almost that much in cargo alone on a 77W LAX-LHR, with a reasonable passenger load to boot. And the 77W should have greater OEW than the 77L, more than making up for its 4 t greater MTOW.

Just as some of the boosters choose every parameter for the greatest optimism, I suspect you are choosing them for the greatest pessimism. That is supported by the fact that higher-density 787-9s will be carrying more than 30 t in pax and bags alone.

The thing is not a "game changer" in the sense that it changes the nature of air travel, but it's entirely reasonable to think that it will make certain city pairs profitable that were not profitable with the lower payload/range of the 767 or range of the A330.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71): ...yet AA recently carried almost that much in cargo alone on a 77W LAX-LHR, with a reasonable passenger load to boot. And the 77W should have greater OEW than the 77L, more than making up for its 4 t greater MTOW.

Unfortunately the site that hosted the document is no longer valid, so I cannot direct you to see that I did not selectively take data from the report. The numbers presented are those recorded for a real aircraft, namely AP-BGY.

The report also includes other types, including the 777-300ER, I will do the same calculation for AP-BHV below in kg

Empty weight - 150456
Cabin furniture - 17570
Catering - 4021
Flight pack - 459
Crew plus baggage - 1774
OEW - 174280

MZFW - 237682
OEW - 174280

Max payload 772ER 51.6t, 77L 48.6 t, 77W 63.4t

LAX-LHR is much shorter than LAX-MEL, possibly 5 hrs shorter flight time depending on the winds, Virgin Australia have on a number of occasions made technical stops with the 77W for fuel as the aircraft did not have the range required with the payload carried. This is consistent with the Boeing range rings above.

The important limitation to remember on the 77L is that the MZFW is 209106 kg vs 237682 kg on the 77W (28.5t difference in MZFW with a 13.8 t difference in OEW).

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71): Just as some of the boosters choose every parameter for the greatest optimism, I suspect you are choosing them for the greatest pessimism. That is supported by the fact that higher-density 787-9s will be carrying more than 30 t in pax and bags alone.

I do not disagree that some 787-9s will be able to carry more, however not of 15 hr sectors such as LAX-MEL. Boeing in their range rings above clearly show the aircraft does not have the range required with just full passenger payload, let alone any cargo.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71): The thing is not a "game changer" in the sense that it changes the nature of air travel, but it's entirely reasonable to think that it will make certain city pairs profitable that were not profitable with the lower payload/range of the 767 or range of the A330.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71): The thing is not a "game changer" in the sense that it changes the nature of air travel, but it's entirely reasonable to think that it will make certain city pairs profitable that were not profitable with the lower payload/range of the 767 or range of the A330.

I agree it is not a "game changer", it is a business tool. What the latest aircraft bring to the market is competitive advantage with better economics, until someone else has the same. Part of the economics that is not touched on much is that they are cheaper to acquire than other ULH aircraft, removing a barrier to entry into ULH markets previously not possible due to the high capital costs.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 30): What about the A 350? Then that would make it 2 "game changing" aircraft. In which case neither A 350 nor B 787 would be game changers ; just a natural evolution of the product line of each manufacturer perhaps

Every new aircraft is a game changer. Otherwise they would never get built. By definition.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53): I suspect that if you built the exact same fuselage with barrels and with panels, the difference in weight would be less than 5%. And this detriment with the panel design can easily be overcome with better design in other areas.

5% ?
If the difference in weight between an A350 built using barrels and one using panels is even close to 500kg I'll eat my hat.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54): With this definition, most, if not all, new airplanes are game changers. Otherwise, why would new planes be designed?

Absolutely

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): Yet almost exclusively used to fly pre-existing trunk routes

But the ability to fly passengers at 20% lower cost per seat isn't a game change?

As I said before, every new aircraft by definition changes the game

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): but also the tolerance of the hype also seems to be a function of the individual...

Perhaps.
But in this individuals case tolerance of the hype is dependent upon a seeming insistence that the only game changing characteristics that matter are the ones that the 787 brings to the party - other aircraft's game-changing capabilities being dismissed in one way or other
And the shame of that is that the 787 in no way needs that sort of linebacking. It's very easily stands scrutiny
That was a compliment, for the avoidance of doubt

Rgds

In order to show that technology goes by evolution and rarely by leaps :

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): Electric : solid-state circuit breakers, remote CB control, Aluminum wiring

The remote controlled cb tech was already on the L-1011 forty years ago.
and...

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): Hydraulics : EBHA (actuators), LHEGS (ldg gear/brakes), 5000psi, 2H/2E architecture

EHA /EBHA were - in a more primitive form - the architecture of the VC-10 flight controls developped in the late fifties, some FIFTY-FIVE years ago !

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 51): Aircraft networking : Integrated Modular Avionics,

again, we have to remember that the l-1011 was built around a concept called MONA - for *modular navigation* forty years ago.
The progress is about digital vs analogic solution.

IMHO " game changer" is just an advertiser's formula that has nothing to do with technological reality.
If one really needs to discover what it is about, I suggest we peer into the aerodynamics of a modern wing : simpler and far more efficient single slotted flaps with advanced leading edge devices, cruise adaptability... etc..

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): When I looked at the shear loads in the skin, the top an bottom were driven by lateral gust loads, and the sides either the 2.5g manoeuvre loads in the front/middle, to a combined load case with manoeuvre load and control surface deflection in the rear. The hoop stresses are basically uniform as a function on the fuselage radius, pressure, and wall thickness.

In other words, the manufacturer can tailor the thickness of the panels to suit the different load stresses the aircraft is built for, instead of building barrels with the thickness needed by the most important load... the structure is thus lighter, contrarily to the common A.net *wisdom*.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): In other words, the manufacturer can tailor the thickness of the panels to suit the different load stresses the aircraft is built for, instead of building barrels with the thickness needed by the most important load... the structure is thus lighter, contrarily to the common A.net *wisdom*.

A-net "wisdom" is therefore not an exact science.  . But your conclusion from Zeke's post seems highly plausible to me.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): Every new aircraft is a game changer. Otherwise they would never get built. By definition.

Spot on, in my view, astuteman. Guess the thread is 'bogged down' on just that phrase?

Perhaps if we use the terms 'innovative,' or even 'revolutionary,' the debate might move on a bit?

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 76): Spot on, in my view, astuteman. Guess the thread is 'bogged down' on just that phrase?

That's what usually happens my friend.

An observation I'd make (and one to hopefully show that hold no antipathy towards the 787) is that we have spent what little time hasn't been about discussing "game-changing" talking about the half-dozen to a dozen routes that look like they are made more viable by the 787.
I guess that's understandable as it has a granularity we can see.
"route X wasn't flown before the 787 came"

but SURELY most of the 787's "game changing" is actually going to be applied on that vast bulk of mainstream routes that are the backbone of airline's network.
e.g
"we can replace a 180 seat 763 with a 230 seat 788, reduce the ticket price, gain market share, and increase our profit margin"
or
"We can replace our 772 (A340) with a 778/779, accept a slight reduction in capacity, increase yield, dramatically increase our margin and make our airline a lot healthier.

I accept this isn't quite so visible.

But I'd venture to offer it is where 90%-95% of the "game-changing" is being done..

Rgds

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): By doing this analysis I was able to see how the panel approach can be optimised to the driving load factor in each area.

Be careful when you try to drive the macro analysis of barrel and fuselage loads down to the micro analysis of splice joints and the efficiency there of. Sometimes they do not translate cleanly.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): In other words, the manufacturer can tailor the thickness of the panels to suit the different load stresses the aircraft is built for, instead of building barrels with the thickness needed by the most important load... the structure is thus lighter, contrarily to the common A.net *wisdom*.

But the barrel design using fiber placement technology can adjust the skin thickness as you go along. Unlike filament winding, fiber placement can drop and add strips of fibers (.25 inch wide and I believe a minimum of about 10 inches in length) along the path of the barrel in any direction. So, for any single barrel the skin an be thicker where you need it and thinner where do do not. This ability to drop and add these .25 inch strips is what allows fiber placement plies to wrap around complex contours that is otherwise impossible with winding.

For the panel design, I would not be surprise that Airbus would fiber place the panel themselves as opposed to hand lay-up. It would take too long to hand lay up such a large panel without running into the working time limit of the material.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): The other conclusion I was able to make was the composite skin was actually thinker and heavier than a comparable aluminium construction, however there were significant saving with composite stringers.

I can see how aluminum can be more efficient in compression application, but to say that composite skin is thicker and heavier for the same load would require some explanations of assumptions you use in your analysis.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): If the difference in weight between an A350 built using barrels and one using panels is even close to 500kg I'll eat my hat.

While I do not necessarily disagree, I would suggest you keep this in your back pocket in case you need it.

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/edible-dough-hat.html

bt

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): But the ability to fly passengers at 20% lower cost per seat isn't a game change?

Yes, one can definitely make a case for A380 being a game changer. My comment was in the context of this thread's focus on new routes.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): But in this individuals case tolerance of the hype is dependent upon a seeming insistence that the only game changing characteristics that matter are the ones that the 787 brings to the party

The party is open to more than just the 787:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): I think DC-9 is more of a game changer than B737 classic was, and 727 was more of a game changer than A320 or B737NG, although one could make a very good argument for A320. As above, all of this is subjective, which is what a discussion forum thrives on.

Re: SCL-MAD

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23): Its over 6,600 miles. Not easy for a similar sized twin to accomplish.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37): True, the A343 does have more range. I should have added 'twin' to the mix or maybe just added 'efficient aircraft'. Its outside of the realistic range of the A330 and the 767. A 787 taking over for an A340 will provide some excellent economics for the operator.

LAN Airlines flew this route btween the A343 and B788 with their trusted B763ER. Scheduled flying time westbound was 14 hours and 15 minutes and 13 hours and 20 minutes eastbound. In August 2013 I flew this return flight with LAN's B763ER, and compared with the 787 I much more prefer 2-3-2 seating in the 763 than 3-3-3 in the 788. Game changer? Yes, but for the passengers it's not always to the better.

Quoting zeke (Reply 72): namely BGY

That is a real aircraft, but it is also the 777-200LR prototype. It is known to have a higher empty weight than later production frames. Their 777-300ER is a regular production aircraft and that helps explain the unexpectedly small difference in OEW. I think your analysis would be different with, say, one of the Emirates 777-200LRs, which are more often pushed to their limits. Using a 777 prototype to analogize to production 787-9s will bring odd results.

Boeing has said that the 787-9 prototype is about 0.5 t under spec weight. We will see the results when NZ starts flying it. Theirs is configured with 302 seats, including some heavy J seats, and they will be using it on 14-hour sectors. If they can carry any significant amount of cargo with a full passenger load then we will know you were a bit too pessimistic.

[Edited 2014-02-28 07:58:50]

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 81):

AP-BGZ is only 167 kg lighter according to the report.

[uote=LN-KGL,reply=80]LAN Airlines flew this route btween the A343 and B788 with their trusted B763ER. Scheduled flying time westbound was 14 hours and 15 minutes a[/quote]

This has to be a record for a 767-300ER !

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): In other words, the manufacturer can tailor the thickness of the panels to suit the different load stresses the aircraft is built for, instead of building barrels with the thickness needed by the most important load... the structure is thus lighter, contrarily to the common A.net *wisdom*.

Actually this is incorrect. Boeing can tailor the barrels however they want as bikerthai noted above. This idea that barrels can't be fully optimized is an anet myth. Really the discussion is about the joints. How many, where they are, how long they are, what their configuration is and what loads/stresses they are designed for.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): Sorry I do not agree, it has been some time since I looked at this in detail, I looked at around 20 different load cases for a fuselage, and the impact they had at different regions of the fuselage, forward, mid, aft and top, side, bottom etc. the only place I remember pressurisation load to be the driver was in tension in the forward side wall. When I looked at the shear loads in the skin, the top an bottom were driven by lateral gust loads, and the sides either the 2.5g manoeuvre loads in the front/middle, to a combined load case with manoeuvre load and control surface deflection in the rear. The hoop stresses are basically uniform as a function on the fuselage radius, pressure, and wall thinkness. I was able to apply the same mythology to the tension and compression loads as well, different areas of the fuselage were driven by different load cases. I ended up with a matrix with the forward, middle, and aft fuselage, and the top, bottom, and side components knowing what load case was driving each area. By doing this analysis I was able to see how the panel approach can be optimised to the driving load factor in each area. The other conclusion I was able to make was the composite skin was actually thinker and heavier than a comparable aluminium construction, however there were significant saving with composite stringers.

I doubt you looked at it in detail. Just to get started looking at it in detail one would need to have 10-15 yrs experience as a stress analyst plus have access to the loads (static and fatigue), the fatigue spectrum for elements of the fuselage, a detailed FE model of the joints, have an in depth knowledge of how to design composites for fatigue loads after experiencing barely visible impact damage, material properties for composites of varied ply orientations, yata, yata, yata. What you described above doesn't even scratch the surface of fuselage stress analysis/design, especially when composites are involved, and you shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77): "we can replace a 180 seat 763 with a 230 seat 788, reduce the ticket price, gain market share, and increase our profit margin" or "We can replace our 772 (A340) with a 778/779, accept a slight reduction in capacity, increase yield, dramatically increase our margin and make our airline a lot healthier.

I think you've put your finger on it, astuteman. Most of us, for years, mostly just flew in twin-engine A320s/737s shorthaul, and four-engine jumbos long-haul, as a matter of course. Thanks in large part to the revision of ETOPS, the B777, plus the A330 and the B787, have 'filled the gap.'

More 'evolution,' based on increased engine power, than 'revolution,' seems to me? Just a matter of airlines having more options?

[Edited 2014-02-28 22:26:34]

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77): "we can replace a 180 seat 763 with a 230 seat 788, reduce the ticket price, gain market share, and increase our profit margin" or "We can replace our 772 (A340) with a 778/779, accept a slight reduction in capacity, increase yield, dramatically increase our margin and make our airline a lot healthier.

Of course you are right but I have to admit to being surprised that a significant amount of the 787 routes, at least to this point, are new routes. It seems like whenever a new operator gets the aircraft they do something new with it. There are two active threads right now about AC and UA routes and 787s are a central theme to the new routes.

I am also surprised that 787s are being used to downsize 777 roues more so than being used to swap out 767s at least to this point. Even ANA which has like 27 787s have retired very few 767s.

Inevitably there is going to be comparisons to the A350 (as you alluded to as well) and I think it will be different. I think the A350 will largely be used to make an existing route substantially more profitable more than it will be used to open new routes. At least for me, I envision only the largest intercontinental airlines like SQ, CX, EK, etc that will be using an aircraft of that size to open a new route for them.

So, in general, I agree with you but I think the aircraft are going to be impactful in different ways.

tortugamon

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 84): Really the discussion is about the joints. How many, where they are, how long they are, what their configuration is and what loads/stresses they are designed for.

Not really, the discussion is how the 787 is supposedly a "game changer", so far to date I have not seen any "game change" on the manufacturing or design side.

Most of the discussions I have seen on here regarding the barrel design does not acknowledge all the various load cases that are seen by a fuselage, and looking at all those design cases, what is easier to optimize when it comes to changing the length of the fuselage. This is what is being done in real life.

Most people only refer to pressurization loads, when in most cases that is not the limiting load case, it is almost always combined load cases.

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 84): I doubt you looked at it in detail. Just to get started looking at it in detail one would need to have 10-15 yrs experience as a stress analyst plus have access to the loads (static and fatigue), the fatigue spectrum for elements of the fuselage, a detailed FE model of the joints, have an in depth knowledge of how to design composites for fatigue loads after experiencing barely visible impact damage, material properties for composites of varied ply orientations, yata, yata, yata. What you described above doesn't even scratch the surface of fuselage stress analysis/design, especially when composites are involved, and you shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I didnt just pick some configuration out of thin air, I did it for an aircraft that is in service. I was able to compare my results to what was actually used by the OEM. Have you done the same ?

To be clear, what I did was to calculate the composite skin thickness required to carry the primary loads, and look at the distribution across the fuselage. From my analysis, it was easy to identify how these area could be grouped on the top, side and bottom. NASA also published reports years ago on 4 panel composite fuselage design for similar reasons.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 65): I see no real game changer - the A343 had better economics with fuel at 40$ than the 787 has with fuel at 100$ - it is a technological advance to partly counter the loss of value of US$ and Euro versus many raw materials, which one normally would call inflation....

Having read all the 87 posts until now, IMHO Burkhard is the only one, who hinted at the biggest game-changer in all of aviation: The massively risen costs for fuel.

To define, which plane could be called a real "game-changer" it would possibly be wise, to broaden the scope and ask: "Which plane (or which technology-jump) has historically been a real game changer?"
For me as an absolute layman, only two things come immediately to mind:
1. the change from motor-driven to jet-engine driven planes (shortening the flight-times massively)
2. the B747, which opened up totally new ranges (distances) for mass transport and making flights massively cheaper;
thus opening up flights for a massively broader customer base, which really changed the game in aviation.

I don't see this happening through the B787 or the A380 or the A350s, because the rising oil-prices are just enough to (over-)compensate all the evolutionary advantages of these great new planes.

Just my 2 cents...

Tangomaniac

Quoting Tangomaniac (Reply 88): I don't see this happening through the B787 or the A380 or the A350s

Tend to agree, Tangomaniac.

But I do wonder whether the 779X will turn out to be the next 'great leap forward'? Carrying nearly as many passengers as far as the A380s/B744s can, while only needing two engines? HAS to be a very attractive proposition for the airlines?

Quoting Tangomaniac (Reply 88): because the rising oil-prices are just enough to (over-)compensate all the evolutionary advantages of these great new planes

Jet fuel prices are not rising. They have been essentially flat to easing over the past three years. February appears to be the highest month of the year , to illustrate Feb 2011 was $118 , 2012, $139 2013 ,$142 and 2014 $ 126 .per barrel. I suspect exchange rate changes have hit the carriers of some countries greater than others and have had a more detrimental effect on fuel costs than any price movements in crude. Against the $US which is the bench mark currency for crude , over the most recent one year period the British pound is up 11.5% , the Euro up ~ 5% and the Australian dollar down 15% . No wonder QF are saying that their fuel costs are really hurting them.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 90): Jet fuel prices are not rising. They have been essentially flat to easing over the past three years. February appears to be the highest month of the year , to illustrate Feb 2011 was $118 , 2012, $139 2013 ,$142 and 2014 $ 126 .per barrel.

Great data! - But let*s compare the jet fuel prices for a longer period! - Have you got the February jet fuel prices starting, say, in 2000?
I bet we see quite a jump in the fuel prices by a factor of 2.5 or 3 more or less during a single year.
And this really changed the conditions for all aviation.
What do you thin is the reason for order books of the NEO and the MAX in the thousands only two years after first offering and about 2 years prior to first flight?
(Ok, the record low interest rates are a part of this story, but I think, only an auxiliary, helpful part, since nobody knows, how high the interest rates will be in 3, 4 or 5 years.)

Tangomaniac

Quoting zeke (Reply 43): Can you honestly say that is true for the 787, you cannot think of other aircraft where this has been done before ?

I cannot think of a commercial airliner where that has been done before no.

The 787 flies further, faster, with more cargo, with a better view and a lower cabin pressure, with lower maintenance costs, while burning substantially less fuel than an aircraft its size. That sounds like a very big step in aircraft evolution to me.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): an aircraft its size

You need to qualify that at the start

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): further

Other airliners go further

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): faster

Other airliners go faster

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): more cargo

Other airliners carry more cargo

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): better view

Need to explain that one to me, for the passenger in the middle of the aircraft ? pilots ? or the passengers that are in row that are not lined up with the windows ?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): lower cabin pressure

Same cabin pressure as the A330/A340, yes lower than other Boeing products

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): lower maintenance costs

Same maintenance periods as the A330/A340, yes lower than other Boeing products

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): That sounds like a very big step in aircraft evolution to me.

Big step in terms of cost, it is still a tube with wings. The "game" airlines are in is transporting people from A to B, the 787 has not changed that, it is yet another business tool that carries people form A to B. No fundamental change to the way airlines operate as a result of the 787. No "game" has changed, unless airlines can sell the seats, an empty 787 is uneconomical.

They still market seats, sell them, check passengers and luggage in, provide lounges, board passengers, seat them, feed them. entertain them, arrive, disembark, collect luggage. Same as any other aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 86): I am also surprised that 787s are being used to downsize 777 roues more so than being used to swap out 767s at least to this point. Even ANA which has like 27 787s have retired very few 767s.

Well that will be changing, at least at UA, starting later this year. One of the 763s is being retired this year and at least 4 or 5 next year all will be replaced by the 787...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): I cannot think of a commercial airliner where that has been done before no. The 787 flies further, faster, with more cargo, with a better view and a lower cabin pressure, with lower maintenance costs, while burning substantially less fuel than an aircraft its size. That sounds like a very big step in aircraft evolution to me.

With the exception of faster (it is still slower than a convair 990, 727, DC10, MD11, 747 and many others), almost all new aircraft did this in the past. Otherwise there would be no point in building them.

If the 787 had fulfilled all original hype, especially in regards to manufacturing cost, it might have been a game changer. Not only has 6 years passed (the 787 was supposed to be flying in China for the Beijing 2008 summer olympics, and replace the 767 for Qantas in 2008), the hype was not met. It is significantly better than competition, but not by a landslide, and it is not cheaper to build and to make the business case work it has gone from 8 abreast standard to 9 abreast standard (forgotten about the CO 8-abreast IAH-AKL which was supposed to start years ago? The game changer could not change the game...).
For me the change the 787 is introducing is less than what the 777 did.

The only real game changers in the last couple of decades I can think of are ETOPS and LCCs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): You need to qualify that at the start

Well I don't see 788s replacing 747s in an airline's fleet any time soon. Isn't that self-evident? Big aircraft capability in a small aircraft; isn't that what we are talking about?

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): Need to explain that one to me, for the passenger in the middle of the aircraft ? pilots ? or the passengers that are in row that are not lined up with the windows ?

Windows are larger and higher than other aircraft in the back of the airplane and in the front.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): Same cabin pressure as the A330/A340, yes lower than other Boeing products

I have the A330 cabin pressure as 7,500 feet and the 787 at 6,000.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): Same maintenance periods as the A330/A340, yes lower than other Boeing products

A predominately CFRP aircraft should have less fuse inspections than a traditional Al frame like the A330.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): The "game" airlines are in is transporting people from A to B, the 787 has not changed that

I hate the term game changing for this reason. I don't know what it means. By your logic an airplane isn't a game changer vs a train because they both get people from A to B.

Quoting United1 (Reply 94): Well that will be changing, at least at UA, starting later this year.

I think we are going to see a very significant number of 787-9s being used on traditional 77E routes.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 95): For me the change the 787 is introducing is less than what the 777 did.

A tough but lofty comparison.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 96): Quoting United1 (Reply 94): Well that will be changing, at least at UA, starting later this year. I think we are going to see a very significant number of 787-9s being used on traditional 77E routes.

Possibly but there are still a certain number of 787 that will simply have to be used as back fill for the retiring 767s. UA doesn't have any plans to retire the 77Es at this point so they will have to use them somewhere  

They did announce that the 20 787-10s will be used to start replacing the 772 fleet but that is not until 2018.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55): Sorry I do not agree, it has been some time since I looked at this in detail, I looked at around 20 different load cases for a fuselage, and the impact they had at different regions of the fuselage, forward, mid, aft and top, side, bottom etc. the only place I remember pressurisation load to be the driver was in tension in the forward side wall.

Since they can vary the skin thickness at will on the barrel design I still say you are better off with the barrels. The joints are still going to be the areas of most problems, and the sheer length of joint required for the panels is much greater than for the barrels. I have not designed aircraft, so I will defer to you on the question of loads, but since they can tailor the thickness of the walls however they want it does away with the advantage you claim for the panels. And reducing the length of joints is still a huge advantage.


Quoting tortugamon (Reply 96):

Well I don't see 788s replacing 747s in an airline's fleet any time soon

BA is talking about doing precisely that.

[Edited 2014-03-02 02:27:41 by SA7700]

Quoting zeke (Reply 93): Same cabin pressure as the A330/A340, yes lower than other Boeing products

Oh come on, this is untrue. You fly the Airbus, next time you're above 40,000ft...have a look at the cabin altitude and tell me if you see any number below 6000ft. Even the airlines that have additional systems on their 330/340 to lower cabin humidity have their cabin altitudes certified to either 7000ft @ 41000ft (or 7500ft, I can't remember which). As cabin altitude climbs with aircraft altitude increases, at similar altitudes the 787 has lower cabin altitudes than either or 330/340 or 777 and I think 380.

I beieve someone posted a picture of the 787 above 40,000ft with the cabin altitude lower than 6000ft, it is certified to have a cabin altitude of 6000ft @ 43,000ft. A cabin altitude I believe only the Concorde surpasses as I think that was 6000ft cabin altitude @ it's cruise altitude. I will try to find the picture again.