No "emiratisation" it seems:

http://news.airwise.com/story/boeing...-not-make-787-changes-for-emirates

Do they think they will win the order without changing the spec for better hot and high performance, or have they given up on it?

One would hope that this an indicator that B has a lot of interest from many carriers for the 781 in its current proposed form, enough to outweigh a potential order from Emirates.

I feel like Emirates is studying the A359 and B789, dismissed the B7810

Quoting holzmann (Reply 1): One would hope that this an indicator that B has a lot of interest from many carriers for the 781 in its current proposed form, enough to outweigh a potential order from Emirates.

Exactly my sentiments. Over-"emiratisation" can end up driving lots of potential customers to the competitor. EK sure is a large customer, but the "Non-ME3" section of the pie is still far larger.

Many airlines simply want a low-CASM frame for their 8-10 hour missions, not DXB-LAX max payload on a 40C day.

Roughly speaking A and B have or will optimize the 380* and 777 for Emirates. The 787 and 350 are not.

*no one knew how well the 380 was optimized for emirates. Except maybe EK

Or Randy is playing this down because they have a good chance of winning this bid. After the win they are claiming how superior the 781 is over the 359, even without any special changes for Emirates.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3): Many airlines simply want a low-CASM frame for their 8-10 hour missions, not DXB-LAX max payload on a 40C day.

In this case Emirates is not looking for this kind of frame for DXB-LAX. They want a plane for up to around 10 hours with full payload on a 40C day out of DXB.

Emirates may end up with both (7810 and 359 split order). They say only one, but that could change. As their model matures and competitors start working in (TK, etc.), they'll need to optimize some more. With the new engines, a 7810 should be substantially more efficient than a 359 on shorter routes. A split order is a good balance between efficiency of ops (crews, maint, etc.) and right sizing aircraft.

Boeing might not, but I bet RR is looking into providing more thrust with a durable enough engine to satisfy EK. What EK wasnted was more wing area (ideally with more wing span) to improve range. But we're running into the landing gear MTOW limit. It simply isn't in the business case at this time to change the landing gear, so that makes any wing change 'less than optimal.'

This will continue to be a hot topic on a.net even after the order is decided.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3): Many airlines simply want a low-CASM frame for their 8-10 hour missions, not DXB-LAX max payload on a 40C day.

I'm confussed. Who said LAX-DXB? These are regional airframes. EK is looking for an airframe that is capable of mid-day takeoffs to Europe with high payloads. The reality is the 78K is a combi. An excellent combi with poor hot takeoff performance (and poor high takeoff performance). EK has a business model that is cargo heavy. But if the plane is unable to fly with teh weight, EK is unable to sell the cargo volume. It is natural for EK to demand more cargo volume.

This will not impact the TATL 78K operators as they are taking off from relatively cool low altitude airports. BA will do extreamly well with 78Ks TATL and I fully expect them to become a significant portion of their fleet. But the reality is that the 78Ks niche, a smaller 77W combi, is going to be with shorter range. For EK, due to poor hot takeoff performance, it will be further truncaed range that will impose payload restrictions on hot days to much of Europe. Naturally EK will model this and decide the airframe they think will make the most moeny.

This is not about flying to the Americas. This order is for planes without crew rests. EK just wants to make the most moneypossible per flight. This is like flights out of JNB. The high altitude initially drove sales of the A346 to ensure high payloads. When the 77W proved adept at the mission, it shifted the flights in/out of that airport.

Any airline flying in/out of higher altitude African airports with the A35K will want better high altitude field performance, so this isn't just EK. But it is a business case. Boeing cannot afford to delay EIS for existing customers, so that means minimum modifications.

Boeing intended the 78K for TATL like markets. While the ME3 to Europe are about at the same range, the poor hot field performance might crimp sales. Cest la vie. This is an order for an estimated 70 frames... No long ago that would have been the largest widebody order ever!    So we'll keep discussing.

Lightsaber

I agree with the above, I don't see why Boeing should change the plane to suit EK if they think it would make the plane less suitable for other customers. The 78X will be excellent at its job, and that job is hardly a niche role. But EK are asking for a little bit extra that by the sound of it can't or won't be added.

That said, I think it's still the frontrunner in the competition, I just think that since the performance issues are on a minority of planned routes, they'll probably just take the slight penalty.

I know EK won't split the order, but I wonder if it would be the best solution for them, they could even use the A350 for some much thinner longhaul routes. The A359 has excellent hot/high performance which suits DXB and a lot of possible destinations.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7): Boeing intended the 78K for TATL like markets. While the ME3 to Europe are about at the same range, the poor hot field performance might crimp sales. Cest la vie. This is an order for an estimated 70 frames... No long ago that would have been the largest widebody order ever!    So we'll keep discussing.

That's the thing ... Boeing also has to figure out how many existing or potential 78J customers might get fed up with the over-emiritisation and jump over to 339/35K. 70 is a yummy order, but if you end up with 100 lost sales, is it actually worth it. There's always 2 sides of every coin.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7): Boeing might not, but I bet RR is looking into providing more thrust with a durable enough engine to satisfy EK.

Hard to see why RR would spend money to do more to the Trent TEN just to win this order especially when they win the engine deal for either aircraft. Wouldn't they prefer just to provide a standard A359 then spend more money? (For those that don't know, EK has already said that will chose RR if they chose the 78X).

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter): Do they think they will win the order without changing the spec for better hot and high performance, or have they given up on it?

Changing of the spec won't come from Boeing. Its the engine that would need changes, not the frame.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 1): One would hope that this an indicator that B has a lot of interest from many carriers for the 781 in its current proposed form, enough to outweigh a potential order from Emirates.

One does not preclude the other. The lower thrust engine options will be available regardless of whether or not EK gets what it wants.

Quoting Dubaiamman243 (Reply 2): I feel like Emirates is studying the A359 and B789, dismissed the B7810

EK has stated as recently as last month that they are only interested in the 78X and the A359, not the 789. Its too small for them they say.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3): Over-"emiratisation" can end up driving lots of potential customers to the competitor. EK sure is a large customer, but the "Non-ME3" section of the pie is still far larger.

Its not like they are going to increase the MTOW and change the gear to win this order. This is an engine thrust issue in my opinion.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 6): Emirates may end up with both (7810 and 359 split order).

EK stated last week that it will be winner takes all. Not a split order.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 6): A split order is a good balance between efficiency of ops (crews, maint, etc.) and right sizing aircraft.

They don't have any A350s on order so splitting the order would mean training a whole new set of pilots. 777 pilots can be trained on the 78X in less than a week and they share a common operating cert.

Now an A380neo with XWB engines could make the A359 more appealing but apparently those come with RR pay as you go so maybe that won't reduce costs either.

tortugamon

I think what Boeing have already achieved with the 781 is already beyond belief,they are super engineers.I fully expected the BA order to go to the 359,that (to me) shows how darn good it is,They will sell plenty!But the rules of science are there as Lighsabre points out it is fully maxed.
But why make this released statement now?
Perhaps because the deal is done.Perhaps the engine switch to RR on the 380 was part of it.Perhaps (359) is the second part.The third part being a 380NEO?
Perhaps both orders will be released together early next year when the dots and crosses of the contract are all firmed up.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): They don't have any A350s on order so splitting the order would mean training a whole new set of pilots.

But they still have a lot of A330 pilots who can be trained on the A350 in as little time as the 777 folks going to a 787.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 1): One would hope that this an indicator that B has a lot of interest from many carriers for the 781 in its current proposed form, enough to outweigh a potential order from Emirates.

   Instead of 'emiratizating' the 78X (adding range = making it heavier) to win a potential big order, Boeing can leave the airframe as it is and sell it by the hundreds to other carriers that don't need the additional range.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): Changing of the spec won't come from Boeing. Its the engine that would need changes, not the frame.

Though a heavier engine may require additional airframe strengthening.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 6): They say only one

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): EK stated last week that it will be winner takes all. Not a split order.

Lufthansa CEO said exactly the same before placing their latest wide body order.

They ended up ordering both 777X and A350.

Just one of many examples.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): They don't have any A350s on order so splitting the order would mean training a whole new set of pilots.

They have the money for it and many other airline split orders as well. Not uncommon in the aviation world.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): 777 pilots can be trained on the 78X in less than a week and they share a common operating cert.

And A380 pilots can be trained easily on the A350.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): They don't have any A350s on order so splitting the order would mean training a whole new set of pilots. 777 pilots can be trained on the 78X in less than a week and they share a common operating cert.

Surely the A380 and A350 cockpits are also similar? I thought all Airbus cockpits from the A318 through to the A380 were essentially identical, only taking a few days to cross train?

So what exactly is EK wanting Boeing to change on the 7810?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): The lower thrust engine options will be available regardless of whether or not EK gets what it wants.

Lower thrust is mainly a software setting, the weight remains the same. So the more thrust EK wants to heavier the engine might become. Therefore the weight penalty affects the lower thrust variants as well.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15): So what exactly is EK wanting Boeing to change on the 7810?

They want an 84,000 lbf engine.

[Edited 2015-11-06 08:11:31]

Quoting parapente (Reply 11): But why make this released statement now? Perhaps because the deal is done.

DXB airshow, hence EK related questions to Boeing marketing groups. I do think the A350/78X decision is tied to the A380neo.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 12): But they still have a lot of A330 pilots who can be trained on the A350 in as little time as the 777 folks going to a 787.

By the time this order is delivered I doubt they will have any active A330s or A340s.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13): Instead of 'emiratizating' the 78X (adding range = making it heavier) to win a potential big order, Boeing can leave the airframe as it is and sell it by the hundreds to other carriers that don't need the additional range.

I don't think it is an either/or. They have already sold ~150 of these frames, presumably they have commitments on fuel burn to these customers. They will have to deliver on that. Wining this EK order and any necessary changes (which I, again, think will really only come from the engine OEM) isn't going to put the simple stretch in jeopardy. They are producing that aircraft.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13): Lufthansa CEO said exactly the same before placing their latest wide body order. They ended up ordering both 777X and A350. Just one of many examples.

I don't remember them being that adamant about it being winner take all. EK and Sir Tim Clark have been very clear and they rarely waffle.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13): And A380 pilots can be trained easily on the A350.

I thought A380 pilots made more than most A330 pilots and I thought EK was having trouble with gaining/training enough A380 pilots. Comparably there are a ton more 777 pilots. I would think the costs would be much better with the latter.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 14): I thought all Airbus cockpits from the A318 through to the A380 were essentially identical, only taking a few days to cross train?

A380 to A350 (and vice versa) is short, about 5 days to train. But A320 to A380 is about 3 weeks, cosiderably larger. They are not identical. http://www.airbus.com/support/traini...ht/commonality-in-flight-training/

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15): So what exactly is EK wanting Boeing to change on the 7810?

Better field performance which essentially means more thrust!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 16): Lower thrust is mainly a software setting, the weight remains the same. So the more thrust EK wants to heavier the engine might become. Therefore the weight penalty affects the lower thrust variants as well

I don't see them changing the spec for one client. If there is a minimal change I can see them making the change for that client if they can, not unlike the 744ER for QF. But I don't see it impacting the 78X spec just like it didn't impact the 744 spec.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): A380 to A350 (and vice versa) is short, about 5 days to train. But A320 to A380 is about 3 weeks, cosiderably larger.

OK point taken, it's not a cut and paste job, but I still don't see why they'd have to train a whole new set of pilots if it only takes 5 days: about the same time as the 777X and 787.

This may be Boeings way of saying we have probably lost the order and the only reason why is because we didn't change the aircraft to meet Emirates demands

The engine OEMs don't have the ability to bump up the thrust on their 787-10 engines to 84k do they?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 18): OK point taken, it's not a cut and paste job, but I still don't see why they'd have to train a whole new set of pilots if it only takes 5 days: about the same time as the 777X and 787.

Generally A380 pilots make the most so convincing them to fly A350s could be expensive as they won't want the pay cut, at least this is my assumption. If I were EK it would make more sense to hire A350 pilots outright, or hire A330/A320 pilots and pay to have them train on the A350. I would think that would be cheaper and there certainly are tens of thousands more pilots out there if they do that. However, training them would take twice as long as it does to train a 777 pilot to fly a 787 and by the time they receive their 787s (hypothetically - I think this order is a toss up and the longer it takes the better chance the A350 has), there will be ~950 787s in service so there will be a decent amount of 787 pilots to chose from (more so than A350). So larger pool and cheaper to train benefits the 787. Not a deal breaker though.

tortugamon

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 19): This may be Boeings way of saying we have probably lost the order and the only reason why is because we didn't change the aircraft to meet Emirates demands

This kind of statement from Boeing is IMHO highly indicative of a decision one way or the other. Is Boeing sending a 787 to the show?

[Edited 2015-11-06 08:45:00]

Quoting ap305 (Reply 22): Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 19): This may be Boeings way of saying we have probably lost the order and the only reason why is because we didn't change the aircraft to meet Emirates demands This kind of statement from Boeing is IMHO highly indicative of a decision one way or the other. Is Boeing sending a 787 to the show? [Edited 2015-11-06 08:45:00]

QR will have their recently delivered 25th 788 at the show

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21): Generally A380 pilots make the most so convincing them to fly A350s could be expensive as they won't want the pay cut, at least this is my assumption.

As far as I am aware, EK have a common jet salary, 777 and A380 pilots get paid the same.

They should send a 787 regardless, they have airplanes that do nothing else anyway.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21): Generally A380 pilots make the most so convincing them to fly A350s could be expensive as they won't want the pay cut, at least this is my assumption. If I were EK it would make more sense to hire A350 pilots outright, or hire A330/A320 pilots and pay to have them train on the A350. I would think that would be cheaper and there certainly are tens of thousands more pilots out there if they do that. However, training them would take twice as long as it does to train a 777 pilot to fly a 787 and by the time they receive their 787s (hypothetically - I think this order is a toss up and the longer it takes the better chance the A350 has), there will be ~950 787s in service so there will be a decent amount of 787 pilots to chose from (more so than A350). So larger pool and cheaper to train benefits the 787. Not a deal breaker though. tortugamon

By your own argument 777 pilots won't want to fly the smaller 787.

Quoting zeke (Reply 24): As far as I am aware, EK have a common jet salary, 777 and A380 pilots get paid the same.

Interesting. Was not aware. I would think that was relatively uncommon. It would change the dynamic slightly if that was the case.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25): By your own argument 777 pilots won't want to fly the smaller 787.

78X is larger than the 77E, I guess it depends on the model. But my point is that there are a lot of 777 pilots out there.

tortugamon

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 4): no one knew how well the 380 was optimized for emirates. Except maybe EK

Quoting a380787 (Reply 9): Boeing also has to figure out how many existing or potential 78J customers might get fed up with the over-emiritisation and jump over to 339/35K. 70 is a yummy order, but if you end up with 100 lost sales, is it actually worth it. There's always 2 sides of every coin.

Boeing is not going to change the gear or the wing to get this order, so it's at most going to be a different engine, with the 'non-emiratized' engines still on offer.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 20): The engine OEMs don't have the ability to bump up the thrust on their 787-10 engines to 84k do they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000#Variants suggests that it will be quite a bump.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21): Generally A380 pilots make the most so convincing them to fly A350s could be expensive as they won't want the pay cut, at least this is my assumption.

That is what American airlines do. In Europe not so cut and dried. Pilots are paid a salary, not by the hour. Long haul earn more with allowances, short haul get home more often.
I service A320 and regularly meet pilots who used to fly B747 and have changed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27): Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 20): The engine OEMs don't have the ability to bump up the thrust on their 787-10 engines to 84k do they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000#Variants suggests that it will be quite a bump.

78k appears to be the max on the Rolls Trent engine. That is a fair bit lower than EK 's stated desire for 84k.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): I thought A380 pilots made more than most A330 pilots and I thought EK was having trouble with gaining/training enough A380 pilots. Comparably there are a ton more 777 pilots.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21): Generally A380 pilots make the most so convincing them to fly A350s could be expensive as they won't want the pay cut, at least this is my assumption. If I were EK it would make more sense to hire A350 pilots outright, or hire A330/A320 pilots and pay to have them train on the A350. I would think that would be cheaper and there certainly are tens of thousands more pilots out there if they do that. However, training them would take twice as long as it does to train a 777 pilot to fly a 787 and by the time they receive their 787s (hypothetically - I think this order is a toss up and the longer it takes the better chance the A350 has), there will be ~950 787s in service so there will be a decent amount of 787 pilots to chose from (more so than A350). So larger pool and cheaper to train benefits the 787. Not a deal breaker though.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26): I would think that was relatively uncommon.

As has been pointed out, the different pay scales for fleets is (thankfully) largely confined to North America and a few places in the ME.

Also, pilots and airline training departments are not as rigid as you perceive and that includes those at EK. There is a lot of flow between Airbus and Boeing fleets.

Just looking at my experience in the last 5 years, I've gone from the A320 to A330 where I spent less than 12 weeks before switching to the 777.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 30): Just looking at my experience in the last 5 years, I've gone from the A320 to A330 where I spent less than 12 weeks before switching to the 777.

The fact you spent less than 12 weeks on the 330 before being able to switch to the 777 means your airline wasted tons of cash in the update training for the 330 only to have to provide a full training course on the 777. Its great for you in that you have that much flexibility to move between fleets though.

Most U.S. carriers have "seat lock" provisions of a couple of years with certain exceptions to not run up training costs.

Smart move by Boeing, IMO.

The 787-10 is relying on a very small, but real, weight/seat advantage over the 359 for its competitiveness on regional missions, which is where it will make the vast majority of its sales. The one thing B cannot do is make it heavier to satisfy one customer. Let RR figure out how to wring a couple extra thousand pounds of thrust out of the engine without making it wear too fast, but don't add airframe weight.

I think Emirates' hot/high concerns are likely a bit overstated in any case. The thing should have no issue flying 8 hours from DXB after a hot afternoon takeoff. That ought to be more than enough. But if there's one thing we know about Tim Clark, it's that he wants as much flexibility as he can possibly get, so he'll keep banging the drum for what he wants. I doubt, though, that in the end the 359 will actually be more attractive for the missions he wants these frames for. If he wanted a smaller plane to fly to Boston or Melbourne, it would be a different story.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 31): The fact you spent less than 12 weeks on the 330 before being able to switch to the 777 means your airline wasted tons of cash in the update training for the 330 only to have to provide a full training course on the 777.

Suffice it to say, the benefit of taking me over to the 777 fleet greatly outweighs the cost.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 31): Most U.S. carriers have "seat lock" provisions of a couple of years with certain exceptions to not run up training costs.

I'm not sure how that is relevant as US practices are generally far removed from those in the ME which is the context of this thread.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): Hard to see why RR would spend money to do more to the Trent TEN just to win this order especially when they win the engine deal for either aircraft. Wouldn't they prefer just to provide a standard A359 then spend more money? (For those that don't know, EK has already said that will chose RR if they chose the 78X).

RR don't have the incentive to thrust-bump the engine, especially if they get the deal either way. On the frame side, the 350 has more wing area, so for the same thrust it can lift more. This is a simple case of "best tool for the job."

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10): Changing of the spec won't come from Boeing. Its the engine that would need changes, not the frame.

Well, a bigger wing would help, but it's too expensive for 70 frames. In RR's opinion, ditto for the engines.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15): So what exactly is EK wanting Boeing to change on the 7810?

Takeoff performance. Boeing won't do the wings, and RR is unlikely to do the engines. $20 says this goes A359.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): DXB airshow, hence EK related questions to Boeing marketing groups. I do think the A350/78X decision is tied to the A380neo.

Could be. Maybe it's a "we'll buy both if you give us the neo" type deal.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 20): The engine OEMs don't have the ability to bump up the thrust on their 787-10 engines to 84k do they?

They do, but not without losing engine longevity, which TC doesn't want. It won't happen on the cheap.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26): Quoting zeke (Reply 24): As far as I am aware, EK have a common jet salary, 777 and A380 pilots get paid the same. Interesting. Was not aware. I would think that was relatively uncommon. It would change the dynamic slightly if that was the case.

I think the MTOW=salary thing is more common in the US. Carriers in other geos often have pay scales that are short haul/long haul, tenure, and rank contingent, less to do with the plane.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 8): I know EK won't split the order, but I wonder if it would be the best solution for them, they could even use the A350 for some much thinner longhaul routes. The A359 has excellent hot/high performance which suits DXB and a lot of possible destinations.

Emirates already has the 777x on order. The 777-8x is only 30-50 seats larger than the 787-10. I think the 787-9, 787-10, 777-8, 777-9 and A380 would be a good line up. The 787-9, 777-8 and A380 work well for flights over 10 hours whereas the 787-10 and 777-9 can focus on some of the shorter routes. I don't know if the A350 is really needed. It does fit in between the 787 and 777x, but the capacity gap isn't that big.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29): 78k appears to be the max on the Rolls Trent engine. That is a fair bit lower than EK 's stated desire for 84k.

Not sure why you think that will be the max? It is the max currently certified (back in 2007) but they haven't needed more thrust than that and the Trent TEN which will appear on the 78X won't be certified until next year. Especially considering: "GE is now studying an even more powerful version of the GEnx, which would raise maximum thrust at sea level to 80,000lb. Although Boeing has not publicly discussed a requirement for such an engine -– perhaps to power a high-gross-weight version of the 787-10 – GE is preparing “in case the airplane needs increased thrust”, How says."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-genx-misses-fuel-burn-spec-on-787-but-on-upgrade-403937/

I agree 84k seems high but I don't think 78k will be the max at the end of the day.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 30): Just looking at my experience in the last 5 years, I've gone from the A320 to A330 where I spent less than 12 weeks before switching to the 777.

Thanks for the first hand feedback. I understand that it is more of a rarity to jump around like that but I don't know EK's training philosophy.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32): The thing should have no issue flying 8 hours from DXB after a hot afternoon takeoff

STC said that 85% of their flights are under 10 hours. There are very few flights that leave during the middle of the day, in the hottest months, with max payload where the 78X won't do the job.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32): The 787-10 is relying on a very small, but real, weight/seat advantage over the 359 for its competitiveness on regional missions, which is where it will make the vast majority of its sales.

Not sure how small it is but its not just about casm but also more revenue from the additional seats and more revenue from the cargo. So lower fuel burn, lower landing fees, higher seat revenue and higher cargo revenue. Certainly there is an advantage if you don't need 10+ hour range.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 34): RR don't have the incentive to thrust-bump the engine, especially if they get the deal either way.

Isn't that what I said?  

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 34): On the frame side, the 350 has more wing area, so for the same thrust it can lift more. This is a simple case of "best tool for the job."

Which means what? The one that will make you the most money, cost you the least, and potentially cheaper to train pilots? Or the one that will do more missions and is more flexible - that is certainly the A350. I think it might be hard to say which is the best tool for the job without knowing the exact missions EK is considering and what their payload expectations are.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36): Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29): 78k appears to be the max on the Rolls Trent engine. That is a fair bit lower than EK 's stated desire for 84k. Not sure why you think that will be the max? It is the max currently certified (back in 2007) but they haven't needed more thrust than that and the Trent TEN which will appear on the 78X won't be certified until next year. Especially considering: "GE is now studying an even more powerful version of the GEnx, which would raise maximum thrust at sea level to 80,000lb. Although Boeing has not publicly discussed a requirement for such an engine -– perhaps to power a high-gross-weight version of the 787-10 – GE is preparing “in case the airplane needs increased thrust”, How says." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-genx-misses-fuel-burn-spec-on-787-but-on-upgrade-403937/ I agree 84k seems high but I don't think 78k will be the max at the end of the day.

Sorry, I should've been more clear to state 78k is the current max. The don't have anything certified over that level and I believe its due to the hit the engine will take on wear and tear as has been mentioned.

Unless the ME3 team up with a big enough potential order, I don't see a thrust bump anytime soon.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 37): Sorry, I should've been more clear to state 78k is the current max. The don't have anything certified over that level and I believe its due to the hit the engine will take on wear and tear as has been mentioned.

The Trent TEN gets certified next year and it is 75% new and based on the higher thrust XWB and is ~3% more efficient than the Trent 1000 package C and it was created with the 78X in mind where both RR and Boeing have stated that they would need more thrust than the 789. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have built in more thrust since 2007 before the 78X really wasn't even in the picture. I have a hard time believing that 78k is the best they can do. I see 80k as being likely, 82k a max and 84k nearly impossible personally. Also don't think 84k should be needed for an aircraft that has the same MTOW as the 789.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): I don't remember them being that adamant about it being winner take all. EK and Sir Tim Clark have been very clear and they rarely waffle.

I can see they want to standardize for all the standard reasons. It is optimal operationally. Technically, the benefits of a split fleet might be better if the fleet is big enough, since the 7810 is a better short range plane. I see split A359/7810 as most likely. Second would be 7810/778 split. I don't see how going with the 359 for the relatively few moderate range missions where it is superior benefits compromising on the majority. Splitting it down the middle probably the best compromise technically. If the fleet is big enough...........they might adjust.......

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13): Instead of 'emiratizating' the 78X (adding range = making it heavier) to win a potential big order, Boeing can leave the airframe as it is and sell it by the hundreds to other carriers that don't need the additional range.

That is a trade-off Boeing needs to make. Personally I think your assumption might be the most realistic but what tortugamon later has stated also hold some merit imho.

But win or lose the Emirates order will not be a make or brake for the B787-10, nor will it be for the A350-900.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36): Isn't that what I said?

Oops, I clicked the wrong quote, I was trying to respond to a different person, my bad. In short, we agree.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36): Which means what? The one that will make you the most money, cost you the least, and potentially cheaper to train pilots? Or the one that will do more missions and is more flexible - that is certainly the A350. I think it might be hard to say which is the best tool for the job without knowing the exact missions EK is considering and what their payload expectations are.

My point is that the 350 has both the thrust and the wing advantage, at a very small weight disadvantage. The mission is 8-10 hours pax+cargo out of DXB. There was a thread here or an article laying out the takeoff limitations. TL;DR version was the 359 burns a few % more fuel but takes a bunch more payload, thus comes out ahead.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 39): I see split A359/7810 as most likely. Second would be 7810/778 split.

I have personally given up on expecting airlines CEOs to outright lie: STC said one month ago: ""It will be in 2016 – but when, I don't know – and it will be one or the other [78X vs A359]," he adds."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...n-a350-900-and-787-10-next-417326/

And he has said that this is meant to be a regional flyer so no need for more 778s for this RFP:
"We wouldn't put it on New York or Sydney, but as a workhorse up to 8.5h without a kink in the payload, it looks like a good aeroplane," he says."

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 41): Oops, I clicked the wrong quote

I figured it was something like that, no biggy, great minds think alike, I hope  

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 41): The mission is 8-10 hours pax+cargo out of DXB.

I don't think that can really be the target mission when EK has virtually zero routes that are that length. Here is the gcmap out of dxb and I count PER, CPT, and Japanese flights are that length. I think that is 6 out of 135 destinations. This will be a mainland Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa Machine which is over 85% of their routes:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dxb-nrt...%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=.85&SU=mach

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 41): version was the 359 burns a few % more fuel but takes a bunch more payload, thus comes out ahead.

I read Bjorn's article on the subject and if you look at his assumptions he is taking a 45C takeoff temp (+30 ISA) which for 7 out of 12 months of the year has never happened, ever at any time of day. And on those 5 months where it has happened the actual average high temperature is at least 4C lower than that and that is just during the very hottest part of the day which I am not convinced is even EK's busiest time. And I believe he assumed weather delays which may or may not be relevant. And only then would their be a payload hit and I am not sure how many of EK's regional flights go out at MZFW anyway where the 12% more cargo volume on the 78X vs the A359 could be more advantageous on these rare circumstances, where the A359 could lift more payload. On top of that it would only be in one direction as going back to DXB won't be as hard as lifting off from DXB. And again, the A359 would have fewer seats and would carry those fewer seats the other 7 months of the year when temperature wouldn't be the concern. Even STC, quoted above, says that the 78X won't have a payload kink up to 8.5 hours.

tortugamon

I can see the merits of both the 787-10 and the A350-900, but what I don’t get, is why on earth did EK cancelled their A350 it had on order (with great pricing) if they were not convinced at the time of the cancellation that the 787-10 was/is a better regional plane for them.

Quoting paparrucho (Reply 43): I can see the merits of both the 787-10 and the A350-900, but what I don’t get, is why on earth did EK cancelled their A350 it had on order (with great pricing) if they were not convinced at the time of the cancellation that the 787-10 was/is a better regional plane for them.

It is my personal belief that they did it because they did not immediately need the A350 (evidenced by their late delivery dates) and the cash used for that order went to the A380 which they needed more imminently and they wanted to make two large dividend payments to Dubai, which they did, to help pay for the airport infrastructure that has been advanced. Placing an order in 2016 gives them 3 years without having to fork over that cash making their shareholder happy.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 44): It is my personal belief that they did it because they did not immediately need the A350 (evidenced by their late delivery dates) and the cash used for that order went to the A380 which they needed more imminently and they wanted to make two large dividend payments to Dubai, which they did, to help pay for the airport infrastructure that has been advanced. Placing an order in 2016 gives them 3 years without having to fork over that cash making their shareholder happy.

Makes sense. tks

Quoting paparrucho (Reply 45): Makes sense. tks

Or they really were not considering the A350 for this regional order once the 78X was launched and they only bring up the A350 to get a better price on the 78X... but now that they want the A380neo the A350 order is truly back on the table so they can incentivize Airbus to launch that program.

-Or- another possible scenario that someone can come up as well. I guess the answer is, who knows?!  

tortugamon

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 34): $20 says this goes A359.

Quoting paparrucho (Reply 43): I can see the merits of both the 787-10 and the A350-900, but what I don’t get, is why on earth did EK cancelled their A350 it had on order (with great pricing) if they were not convinced at the time of the cancellation that the 787-10 was/is a better regional plane for them.

That is my thought. It's not like the 787-10's specs were a complete mystery in November 2013 when EK cancelled their A350 order.

If I had to put $20 down, I'd put it down on the 787-10. Emirates loses nothing asking for a more-capable 787-10 and if they get it, so much the better. But I believe they decided two years ago that for the missions they plan to employ the planes on, the 787-10 pencils out the best.

Quoting paparrucho (Reply 43): I can see the merits of both the 787-10 and the A350-900, but what I don’t get, is why on earth did EK cancelled their A350 it had on order (with great pricing) if they were not convinced at the time of the cancellation that the 787-10 was/is a better regional plane for them.

I think part of the answer lies in negotiating with Boeing with the Airbus order in-hand. To me, they chose the 78X and are just haggling on the final details.

Another factor could also be that deposits and or some sort of commitment was needed by Airbus per the contract and EK pulled it rather than commit.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 35): Emirates already has the 777x on order. The 777-8x is only 30-50 seats larger than the 787-10. I think the 787-9, 787-10, 777-8, 777-9 and A380 would be a good line up. The 787-9, 777-8 and A380 work well for flights over 10 hours whereas the 787-10 and 777-9 can focus on some of the shorter routes. I don't know if the A350 is really needed. It does fit in between the 787 and 777x, but the capacity gap isn't that big.

The 789 won't make an appearance, it's a little too small for EK. This competition is purely for the short/medium haul fleet, and that's what the A359 is being considered as. While they could use the A359 as a long hauler, I don't expect to see it happen.