Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:39 am

In my opinion, Boeing has heavily underrated the potential of the 787-10 project.
Boeing has been too hurry (or at least too lazy) when making the 78X as a literal stretch version of the -9, with same MTOW, same landing gears....

Despite the fact that this "instant" strategy made the 78X entered service soon, however the 78X is not comparable with its main coompetitor A359 in many fields, especially in long-haul games.

Furthermore, the 778 project is being risked, so Boeing needs something to fill in that market gap.

I am suggesting about a ER/increased MTOW version of the 78X, with 6-wheel landing gear trucks, alongside with 357.6kN take-off thrust.
How do you think about that?
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:52 am

I expect Boeing to simply hold off for the 787NEO to group together multiple weight, engine and aero improvements.

Rumours last year pointed towards a 260t MTOW. It was never made clear if that increase was for the 787-9 or the 787-10. It makes sense it was for the 787-9 due to Boeing fitting the stronger 787-10 parts to the 787-9. A 6t MTOW increase does not make it an ER but it does give a nice range boost.

The original 787-9 was meant to get longer wingtips for better long range fuel burn. But on medium range flights they didn't make any difference as the extra weight offset the fuel saved. The higher the MTOW increases the more valuable these longer wingtips become.

I expect Boeing to launch a "787NEO" in 5 years time which will give a 10% range improvement. This puts the 787-10 above 7000nm. Now I expect the engine to be more of a large PIP than a NEO. Remember the 787 has already had a brand new engine in the form of the TrentTen but because it was placed in the original nacelle it was sold as a PIP over the original Trent 1000. I expect GE to get sole source engine in exchange for funding this big PIP. Using a smaller and hotter core the bypass ratio will go up towards 11:1 while still using the same nacelle.

Boeing could group this new engine with the longer wingtips and the 260t MTOW.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Iceman7
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:59 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:00 am

Who would be the likely engine supplier for the "787NEO", will Boeing go down the single manufacturer route with GE after the fiasco of Trent 1000?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:04 am

It's been discussed before, the problem is that the A359 is pretty damn efficient over longer range because of its slightly newer engine and its larger wing. The 78X gets its efficiency advantage on shorter routes, but making the plane a bit heavier will mean it loses that advantage slightly, I'm not sure it would be as attractive as the A350 on the longer routes. Seems to me that if airlines want the range, they'll just go for the 789 or A359.

As above, a simple 787-10NEO would be quite compelling.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:08 am

Antaras wrote:
In my opinion, Boeing has heavily underrated the potential of the 787-10 project.
Boeing has been too hurry (or at least too lazy) when making the 78X as a literal stretch version of the -9, with same MTOW, same landing gears....

Despite the fact that this "instant" strategy made the 78X entered service soon, however the 78X is not comparable with its main coompetitor A359 in many fields, especially in long-haul games.

Furthermore, the 778 project is being risked, so Boeing needs something to fill in that market gap.

I am suggesting about a ER/increased MTOW version of the 78X, with 6-wheel landing gear trucks, alongside with 357.6kN take-off thrust.
How do you think about that?


Triple bogey landing gear will add lots of unwanted weight and I believe the pavement loading is close to being maxed out currently. As RJMAZ said it's likely Boeing waits until the 787NG later this decade. The 787NG could get the 777X folding wingtip treatment along with some other aero tweaks to get the range/payload higher.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:13 am

GE will get solesource. With the 777W GE promised world beating fuel burn in exchange for sole source, they delivered as promised.

The timeline depends on what GE could deliver. The longer Boeing waits the more advanced the GE offer becomes. Right now GE has mature tech that could be added to the 787 if they had incentive. Maybe a 2% PIP with added CMC's is available now.

Rolls Royce does have its ultrafan engine proposal that could be scaled down for the 787. Rolls Royce currently has bad reputation and it may never recover from this. If the A350 got ultrafan in 5 years time it could potentially outperform a GE powered 787 even with the added CMC parts.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:00 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Rolls Royce currently has bad reputation and it may never recover from this.

The '70s show otherwise....
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1458
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeing to simply hold off for the 787NEO to group together multiple weight, engine and aero improvements.

I think it should be called 787Max. ;)
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:46 am

Antaras wrote:
In my opinion, Boeing has heavily underrated the potential of the 787-10 project.
Boeing has been too hurry (or at least too lazy) when making the 78X as a literal stretch version of the -9, with same MTOW, same landing gears....

Despite the fact that this "instant" strategy made the 78X entered service soon, however the 78X is not comparable with its main coompetitor A359 in many fields, especially in long-haul games.

Furthermore, the 778 project is being risked, so Boeing needs something to fill in that market gap.

I am suggesting about a ER/increased MTOW version of the 78X, with 6-wheel landing gear trucks, alongside with 357.6kN take-off thrust.
How do you think about that?

Boeing will not consider a new engine unless it can give more than 10% fuel burn improvement - with oil prices expected to remain low as world economies try to recover from the recession, any new engine project that is not launched is expected to be delayed to preserve cashflow.

From an airline's point of view, any new engine must give very compelling economic benefits because the cost savings from lower fuel bills may not be sufficient to cover the additional Capex or lease payments.

I believe the B787-10 is MTOW limited rather than fuel limited. If Boeing can use this time to make the B787-10 airframe stronger and more aerodynamic to increase MTOW, the B787-10 can either carry more fuel or more payload. That will give it ER or make it a better load carrier, i.e. more capable.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2217
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:26 am

Two years ago it may have been considered, but a bit toward the out years. The Max and COVID wiped out that plan. Spending 1 to 2 Billion for an ER 781 would take 200 to 300 units to break even on the mod, not to mention if it has broken even in the block.

The 787-10 is a pure stretch, so it has more payload, high efficiency, but less range than the 789. It is out away from other models in capability with a lot of opportunity.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:59 am

Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?

B787-10 have range of 6,430 nmi while B777-200ER have 7,065 nmi. So in order for Boeing to use B787-10 to potentially replace the popular B777-200ER would be to increase the range by just 10%.

For larger range similar to B787-9 or A350-900, there would be a more complex modifications that need to be done to achieve it.

Anyway, this would kill B777X though.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:28 am

ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1029
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:56 am

ewt340 wrote:
B787-10 have range of 6,430 nmi while B777-200ER have 7,065 nmi. So in order for Boeing to use B787-10 to potentially replace the popular B777-200ER would be to increase the range by just 10%.


Real question is how many B772 do use that additional range? It may be way more efficient to lose a few seats and use a 787-9 instead. IMHO the current B787-10 is attractive because it's a simple strech of the 787-9. It's relatively light and very versatile.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:04 am

flee wrote:
Boeing will not consider a new engine unless it can give more than 10% fuel burn improvement - with oil prices expected to remain low as world economies try to recover from the recession, any new engine project that is not launched is expected to be delayed to preserve cashflow.

That is not true at all.

The 787 has already had new engines fitted for only a 3% fuel burn improvement. Yes an entirely new engine. All costs were funded by Rolls Royce as they had big final incentives.

The 777W also got new engines with all funding provided by GE. The incentive was to secure sole source as that meant more engines sold. The improvement here was only 6% over the smaller diameter engine. GE also provided an additional 3.6% improvement over the 15 years since launch in 2000 at no cost to Boeing. This was all to secure big orders against the proposed A350 where GE had no engines.

Engine upgrades no longer come in large hits every 20 years, they are now incremental. In a few years time Boeing would accept a 5% fuel burn improvement in a heart beat. That number would easily get GE sole source and GE would fund the entire development as the 787 will be in production for decades.
 
StTim
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:10 am

The real question is when will Boeing have sufficient cash to invest in any major modifications to any frame. I cannot see a 787-10ER in the next 5 years plus. The 2020’s will be a lost decade for Boeing.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:11 am

VSMUT wrote:
Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.

Yes, they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes but they also have a few long haul routes that really needed a plane with longer legs. But they probably don't want to maintain a small subfleet of say, A350-900/1000, as it would be too costly. So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity. This is a smarter way to control costs and increase aircraft utilisation.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:14 am

Is there a “general average” for the major global airlines (despite the fact that some large global airlines have significantly more UHL flights than others)
In short, (I am presuming) every large global airline has a larger percentage of Medium to LH routes than UHL route system.

To start, from my top of mind (forgive if I left any airline off the list)

Emirates
Qatar
Turkish
Lufthansa
British Airways
Air France
United
Delta
American Airlines
Japan Airlines
ANA
Singapore
Cathay
Korean
Qantas

When it comes down to it, the largest amount of routes can be served by the current 777-300, 787-8,9,X, A330, A359. (Clearly there are anomaly’s like a semi-Long Haul route where large people movers are needed, A380, and the 26 747-8i’s)

Therefore am I correct in saying that economically viable ULH (SIN/EWR as one example) for the most part, airlines do not require “many choices?” - given the current line up of: A359UHL, 77X-8 and perhaps the 787-9. Does that 20ish hour UHL nonstop have a missing aircraft option?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:17 am

flee wrote:
So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity.

But.. why not the 789. I mean, the reduced-capacity 78X will come very close with the high-density 789.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:20 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flee wrote:
Boeing will not consider a new engine unless it can give more than 10% fuel burn improvement - with oil prices expected to remain low as world economies try to recover from the recession, any new engine project that is not launched is expected to be delayed to preserve cashflow.

That is not true at all.

The 787 has already had new engines fitted for only a 3% fuel burn improvement. Yes an entirely new engine. All costs were funded by Rolls Royce as they had big final incentives.

The 777W also got new engines with all funding provided by GE. The incentive was to secure sole source as that meant more engines sold. The improvement here was only 6% over the smaller diameter engine. GE also provided an additional 3.6% improvement over the 15 years since launch in 2000 at no cost to Boeing. This was all to secure big orders against the proposed A350 where GE had no engines.

Engine upgrades no longer come in large hits every 20 years, they are now incremental. In a few years time Boeing would accept a 5% fuel burn improvement in a heart beat. That number would easily get GE sole source and GE would fund the entire development as the 787 will be in production for decades.

The operative word I used was "new" and not a PIP. Of course, the other big factor is who is paying for it and what kind of ROI does it give to the interested parties. Customers are always checking their spreadsheets!
 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:21 am

VC10er wrote:
Does that 20ish hour UHL nonstop have a missing aircraft option?

VN is rumored that it might carry 300 people nonstop from IAD back to Vietnam (VCA or VDO) using the standard A359 in the next few days. Those routes are very close to EWR-SIN and of course they are significantly longer than the A359ULR-operated SIN-SFO.

Just a rumor, you know. VN will likely perform those repatriation flights with a fuel stop.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:23 am

Antaras wrote:
flee wrote:
So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity.

But.. why not the 789. I mean, the reduced-capacity 78X will come very close with the high-density 789.

As I have said in my post - "they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes".
 
ihmcallister
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:24 am

I don't think there will be any new developments of current, or even new, aircraft at Boeing in the foreseeable future.
The company would need to to prove it can get current projects fixed and out of trouble first (MAX, KC-46)
Order books will start to shrink away dramatically in the coming months, whatever happens worldwide going forward.
I would also speculate that 777-9 orders will disappear and it will be deferred. The airline business as a whole is now bankrupt.
Airlines and routes won't get back to normal for years to come, and new equipment will be impossible to finance.
There will be plenty of cheap, used capacity to choose from as the business tries to recover.
Boeing may not even survive in its present form.
Last edited by ihmcallister on Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:26 am

flee wrote:
Antaras wrote:
flee wrote:
So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity.

But.. why not the 789. I mean, the reduced-capacity 78X will come very close with the high-density 789.

As I have said in my post - "they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes".

And yes ANZ will use 789 on long-haul routes and 78X on thick Asia-Pac routes.
No reason for ANZ to operate a cutted-capacity 78X when the 789 can do that route with the same capacity.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:37 am

RJMAZ wrote:
GE will get solesource. With the 777W GE promised world beating fuel burn in exchange for sole source, they delivered as promised.

The timeline depends on what GE could deliver. The longer Boeing waits the more advanced the GE offer becomes. Right now GE has mature tech that could be added to the 787 if they had incentive. Maybe a 2% PIP with added CMC's is available now.

Rolls Royce does have its ultrafan engine proposal that could be scaled down for the 787. Rolls Royce currently has bad reputation and it may never recover from this. If the A350 got ultrafan in 5 years time it could potentially outperform a GE powered 787 even with the added CMC parts.


Keep in mind though GE just furloughed half of their engine manufacturing staff and they are rapidly downscaling their aviation unit.
They are still making some groundbreaking technology and innovations but they still suffer from being joined at the hip with the rest of GE who are beholden to shareholders who may not want
to risk expensive R&D in this economic climate and try to focus more on existing product lines.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:39 am

Antaras wrote:
flee wrote:
Antaras wrote:
But.. why not the 789. I mean, the reduced-capacity 78X will come very close with the high-density 789.

As I have said in my post - "they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes".

And yes ANZ will use 789 on long-haul routes and 78X on thick Asia-Pac routes.
No reason for ANZ to operate a cutted-capacity 78X when the 789 can do that route with the same capacity.

The problem with ANZ's 789 is that they are RR powered. The 78Xs will have slightly more efficient GE engines that can do the long flights to the US. That may be one of the reasons why ANZ switched engine suppliers.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:39 am

flee wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.

Yes, they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes but they also have a few long haul routes that really needed a plane with longer legs. But they probably don't want to maintain a small subfleet of say, A350-900/1000, as it would be too costly. So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity. This is a smarter way to control costs and increase aircraft utilisation.


Operating a 787-10 at reduced capacity is a bit nonsensical when you already have 14 787-9s. The 787-9 is pretty much a reduced-capacity 787-10 already, with lower costs on top.

But it is correct that the A350 didn't make sense. They only needed 8 planes after all, too little to justify the added costs of a new type.


flee wrote:
The problem with ANZ's 789 is that they are RR powered. The 78Xs will have slightly more efficient GE engines that can do the long flights to the US. That may be one of the reasons why ANZ switched engine suppliers.


It was reliability issues that forced the change, not efficiency.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:15 am

VSMUT wrote:
flee wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.

Yes, they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes but they also have a few long haul routes that really needed a plane with longer legs. But they probably don't want to maintain a small subfleet of say, A350-900/1000, as it would be too costly. So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity. This is a smarter way to control costs and increase aircraft utilisation.


Operating a 787-10 at reduced capacity is a bit nonsensical when you already have 14 787-9s. The 787-9 is pretty much a reduced-capacity 787-10 already, with lower costs on top.

But it is correct that the A350 didn't make sense. They only needed 8 planes after all, too little to justify the added costs of a new type.


flee wrote:
The problem with ANZ's 789 is that they are RR powered. The 78Xs will have slightly more efficient GE engines that can do the long flights to the US. That may be one of the reasons why ANZ switched engine suppliers.


It was reliability issues that forced the change, not efficiency.


NZ are on record as saying that the A350 is in contention for their 77W replacement, don't rule it out.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:16 am

ihmcallister wrote:
I don't think there will be any new developments of current, or even new, aircraft at Boeing in the foreseeable future.
The company would need to to prove it can get current projects fixed and out of trouble first (MAX, KC-46)
Order books will start to shrink away dramatically in the coming months, whatever happens worldwide going forward.
I would also speculate that 777-9 orders will disappear and it will be deferred. The airline business as a whole is now bankrupt.
Airlines and routes won't get back to normal for years to come, and new equipment will be impossible to finance.
There will be plenty of cheap, used capacity to choose from as the business tries to recover.


This ^

The world of commercial aviation is not what it was a few months ago. No one could have seen this coming.

Boeing was suffering quite badly before COVID-19 with the MAX issues and also the subsequent scrutiny on 787 build quality.

The 747-8 is on life support.

The 767 cannot be relied upon for big sales.

The 777X is stuck in the mud and looking more and more like a decision Boeing may regret.

A 787-10ER is not something Boeing can look into at this point. Too much is changing too quickly to make a reasonable decision. It is, however, possibly an aircraft that Boeing should have considered building instead of the 777X (although, the simple stretch 787-10 should have remained a part of the family regardless).

By the time Boeing is in a healthy financial position again, the industry will most likely look quite different. In my opinion, a more capable 787-10 will always be a good idea. It is a great sized aircraft.


ihmcallister wrote:
Boeing may not even survive in its present form.


I agree that, beyond the next few months and years, Boeing may look different than it looks today, but the commercial aircraft division of Boeing is too important to the US economy and as a political tool as well. The US government will not allow it to fail. It's a bitter sweet kind of thing but us avgeeks can find some solace in that.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:29 am

VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Actually reading from the quote, it suggested that they might do some minor modifications on AZs B787-10 for it to be able to operate flights that's been previously operated by B777-200ER. So, probably some enhancement on range and payload capability rather than a major range extension. Here is the exact quote:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”

Also, I don't think B787-10 would be able to do New York non-stop. That's just a bit out of reach isn't it?
Last edited by ewt340 on Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:30 am

VSMUT wrote:
flee wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.

Yes, they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes but they also have a few long haul routes that really needed a plane with longer legs. But they probably don't want to maintain a small subfleet of say, A350-900/1000, as it would be too costly. So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity. This is a smarter way to control costs and increase aircraft utilisation.


Operating a 787-10 at reduced capacity is a bit nonsensical when you already have 14 787-9s. The 787-9 is pretty much a reduced-capacity 787-10 already, with lower costs on top.

But it is correct that the A350 didn't make sense. They only needed 8 planes after all, too little to justify the added costs of a new type.


flee wrote:
The problem with ANZ's 789 is that they are RR powered. The 78Xs will have slightly more efficient GE engines that can do the long flights to the US. That may be one of the reasons why ANZ switched engine suppliers.


It was reliability issues that forced the change, not efficiency.


Pretty sure it was efficiency that was the reason given, I can’t remember where I read that.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:33 am

MrHMSH wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
flee wrote:
Yes, they need the capacity of the -10 most of the time for their Asia Pacific routes but they also have a few long haul routes that really needed a plane with longer legs. But they probably don't want to maintain a small subfleet of say, A350-900/1000, as it would be too costly. So they will use their mainstream fleet of -10s and operate them at reduced capacity. This is a smarter way to control costs and increase aircraft utilisation.


Operating a 787-10 at reduced capacity is a bit nonsensical when you already have 14 787-9s. The 787-9 is pretty much a reduced-capacity 787-10 already, with lower costs on top.

But it is correct that the A350 didn't make sense. They only needed 8 planes after all, too little to justify the added costs of a new type.


flee wrote:
The problem with ANZ's 789 is that they are RR powered. The 78Xs will have slightly more efficient GE engines that can do the long flights to the US. That may be one of the reasons why ANZ switched engine suppliers.


It was reliability issues that forced the change, not efficiency.


NZ are on record as saying that the A350 is in contention for their 77W replacement, don't rule it out.


All I recall NZ saying is that the 781 order want code to replace the 77W necessarily, and that they would look at more capable or larger aircraft. They did take 12 options however on future 787s, NZ have 7 77Ws.

I doubt they will get A350s.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7500
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:36 am

ewt340 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Actually reading from the quote, it suggested that they might do some minor modifications on AZs B787-10 for it to be able to operate flights that's been previously operated by B777-200ER. So, probably some enhancement on range and payload capability rather than a major range extension. Here is the exact quote:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”

Also, I don't think B787-10 would be able to do New York non-stop. That's just a bit out of reach isn't it?


The key word is ‘similar’ which is not the same as. UA use the 781 SFO-AKL in NW, NZ will likely do the same from LAX/SFO, YVR at a push but IAH, ORD, EWR is 789 territory.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:47 am

ewt340 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Actually reading from the quote, it suggested that they might do some minor modifications on AZs B787-10 for it to be able to operate flights that's been previously operated by B777-200ER. So, probably some enhancement on range and payload capability rather than a major range extension. Here is the exact quote:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”


The exact quote is just corporate speak for "We looked at the numbers and planned minor updates and it fits".

Think about it for a moment, Boeing was absolutely obsessed with stock value. Why wouldn't they release information about such a game-changing modification? Probably because there isn't one.

Engine improvements are likely, the engine manufacturers come out with updates every few years. But those typically only provide one or two percent in savings, nowhere near enough to make the 787-10 a reliable long haul plane.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:03 am

VSMUT wrote:
The exact quote is just corporate speak for "We looked at the numbers and planned minor updates and it fits".

Think about it for a moment, Boeing was absolutely obsessed with stock value. Why wouldn't they release information about such a game-changing modification? Probably because there isn't one.

Engine improvements are likely, the engine manufacturers come out with updates every few years. But those typically only provide one or two percent in savings, nowhere near enough to make the 787-10 a reliable long haul plane.

Yes, there may be another GE engine PIP in the pipeline and the ANZ cabin fittings/seating may have saved some weight too. That made it possible to put out those claims.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:07 am

MoKa777 wrote:
It is, however, possibly an aircraft that Boeing should have considered building . . . (although, the simple stretch 787-10 should have remained a part of the family regardless).

History proves that that almost never happens.
Whenever a more capable version of an extant airliner's frame enters service, the less capable version of that derivative quickly becomes a market afterthought:

772A, 773A, 739; vs. 77E, 77W, 739ER, etc.

About the only exception we see to this is a double-modification (e.g. 77L).
A321LR vs A321XLR on the other hand, seems set to carry on the tradition.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1654
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:15 am

LAX772LR wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
It is, however, possibly an aircraft that Boeing should have considered building . . . (although, the simple stretch 787-10 should have remained a part of the family regardless).

History proves that that almost never happens.
Whenever a more capable version of an extant airliner's frame enters service, the less capable version of that derivative quickly becomes a market afterthought:

772A, 773A, 739; vs. 77E, 77W, 739ER, etc.

About the only exception we see to this is a double-modification (e.g. 77L).
A321LR vs A321XLR on the other hand, seems set to carry on the tradition.


The same happened with the 767-300 vs the 767-300ER

And Boeing also did the "simple stretch" first with the 767-400ER, but this was never followed up by the more capable 767-400ERX
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:24 am

flee wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
The exact quote is just corporate speak for "We looked at the numbers and planned minor updates and it fits".

Think about it for a moment, Boeing was absolutely obsessed with stock value. Why wouldn't they release information about such a game-changing modification? Probably because there isn't one.

Engine improvements are likely, the engine manufacturers come out with updates every few years. But those typically only provide one or two percent in savings, nowhere near enough to make the 787-10 a reliable long haul plane.

Yes, there may be another GE engine PIP in the pipeline and the ANZ cabin fittings/seating may have saved some weight too. That made it possible to put out those claims.


But that's the thing, they never claimed anything specific. It is a vague business-speak statement where they sort of make a claim but not really. It doesn't address any caveats. Technically a 787-10 can fly every route in the Air New Zealand network.


LAX772LR wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
It is, however, possibly an aircraft that Boeing should have considered building . . . (although, the simple stretch 787-10 should have remained a part of the family regardless).

History proves that that almost never happens.
Whenever a more capable version of an extant airliner's frame enters service, the less capable version of that derivative quickly becomes a market afterthought:

772A, 773A, 739; vs. 77E, 77W, 739ER, etc.

About the only exception we see to this is a double-modification (e.g. 77L).
A321LR vs A321XLR on the other hand, seems set to carry on the tradition.


Airbus managed it pretty well with lower MTOM offerings on the A330 and A350 families.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:27 pm

VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Here is the quote

https://www.airnewzealand.com/press-rel ... reamliners

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we've ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.

“This is a hugely important decision for our airline. With the 787-10 offering almost 15 percent more space for customers and cargo than the 787-9, this investment creates the platform for our future strategic direction and opens up new opportunities to grow,” says Mr Luxon.


The 777-200ER was flying YVR-AKL at the time that quote was made. I think the average reader would think Air New Zealand implies that they could use the 787-10 on routes to North America. It is implied that Air New Zealand can operate the 787-10 on 6000 nm routes. Working closely with Boeing implies that there may be an efficiency improve to in work
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:37 pm

ANZ has a fairly young (less than 10 years old) fleet of B77Ws - they have discontinued LHR services. Perhaps there will be spare aircraft to take over long haul routes that the B787-10 can't manage. However, with Covid-19 looking stubborn, they have decided to suspend operations of their biggest aircraft. See: https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/air-nz- ... unded-year

Will 2021 see a major revision of their business plans? Will the airline survive without downsizing? Will it cut out some long haul flying and utilise alliance partners? What does that mean for their B787-10 orders?

Will airlines really need a B787-10ER?
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:36 pm

afterburner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeing to simply hold off for the 787NEO to group together multiple weight, engine and aero improvements.

I think it should be called 787Max. ;)


No more MAX's
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:43 pm

flee wrote:
Antaras wrote:
In my opinion, Boeing has heavily underrated the potential of the 787-10 project.
Boeing has been too hurry (or at least too lazy) when making the 78X as a literal stretch version of the -9, with same MTOW, same landing gears....

Despite the fact that this "instant" strategy made the 78X entered service soon, however the 78X is not comparable with its main coompetitor A359 in many fields, especially in long-haul games.

Furthermore, the 778 project is being risked, so Boeing needs something to fill in that market gap.

I am suggesting about a ER/increased MTOW version of the 78X, with 6-wheel landing gear trucks, alongside with 357.6kN take-off thrust.
How do you think about that?

Boeing will not consider a new engine unless it can give more than 10% fuel burn improvement - with oil prices expected to remain low as world economies try to recover from the recession, any new engine project that is not launched is expected to be delayed to preserve cashflow.

From an airline's point of view, any new engine must give very compelling economic benefits because the cost savings from lower fuel bills may not be sufficient to cover the additional Capex or lease payments.

I believe the B787-10 is MTOW limited rather than fuel limited. If Boeing can use this time to make the B787-10 airframe stronger and more aerodynamic to increase MTOW, the B787-10 can either carry more fuel or more payload. That will give it ER or make it a better load carrier, i.e. more capable.


Making it stronger and more Aerodynamic will not really boost the rang that much. The 6 wheel landing gear would allow greater T-O weight. Thats the limiting factor. Unless they can give it a 5-6 tonne weight reduction. Good luck with that one.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:48 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?

B787-10 have range of 6,430 nmi while B777-200ER have 7,065 nmi. So in order for Boeing to use B787-10 to potentially replace the popular B777-200ER would be to increase the range by just 10%.

For larger range similar to B787-9 or A350-900, there would be a more complex modifications that need to be done to achieve it.

Anyway, this would kill B777X though.



The 781 can already cover most of the current 777-200ER route anyway. most of the routes do not need the extra 635nm range.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:56 pm

VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


The 777-200ER is not a ULR airframe either. The URL frame was the 777-200LR. Big difference in wing & engine types.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:59 pm

Antaras wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Does that 20ish hour UHL nonstop have a missing aircraft option?

VN is rumored that it might carry 300 people nonstop from IAD back to Vietnam (VCA or VDO) using the standard A359 in the next few days. Those routes are very close to EWR-SIN and of course they are significantly longer than the A359ULR-operated SIN-SFO.

Just a rumor, you know. VN will likely perform those repatriation flights with a fuel stop.

Why are they using an A350 when the 787 has almost 2.5 hours more range than it? Only kidding of course.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:01 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Actually reading from the quote, it suggested that they might do some minor modifications on AZs B787-10 for it to be able to operate flights that's been previously operated by B777-200ER. So, probably some enhancement on range and payload capability rather than a major range extension. Here is the exact quote:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”

Also, I don't think B787-10 would be able to do New York non-stop. That's just a bit out of reach isn't it?


The key word is ‘similar’ which is not the same as. UA use the 781 SFO-AKL in NW, NZ will likely do the same from LAX/SFO, YVR at a push but IAH, ORD, EWR is 789 territory.

UA can barely take any cargo on SFO-AKL. It was around 1-2 tons IIRC, quite a few seats were empty as well and it was around 1-1.5t away from MTOW or less.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:10 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Actually reading from the quote, it suggested that they might do some minor modifications on AZs B787-10 for it to be able to operate flights that's been previously operated by B777-200ER. So, probably some enhancement on range and payload capability rather than a major range extension. Here is the exact quote:

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we’ve ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.”

Also, I don't think B787-10 would be able to do New York non-stop. That's just a bit out of reach isn't it?


The key word is ‘similar’ which is not the same as. UA use the 781 SFO-AKL in NW, NZ will likely do the same from LAX/SFO, YVR at a push but IAH, ORD, EWR is 789 territory.


IAH/ORD/EWR is tad out-of-range for the current 781, but not by far. With a slightly less dense configuration (around 300 seats), 781 certainly can do these routes. Cargo capability would be quite limited though. The rumored 260t 781ER would help tremendously on these routes.
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:11 pm

Yes, the travelling world will change post Covid-19, but it's not reasonable to assume it'll just fold up and die altogether. Demand will grow in the next few years as people return to travelling and natural population growth increases the pool of potential travellers. Not going to happen overnight, but airlines don't make decisions for tomorrow, they make them for years and decades down the road.

The 781 is already capable of flying the vast majority of ANZ's network, and the routes it can't fly probably don't justify a frame that large just yet anyhow. If they do, the 77W still exists and will soldier on for a while longer. In short, the 772s can be considered effectively replaced. That just leaves the 77W fleet replacement which should happen in roughly ten years, give or take. By then, the world will be a very different place, the 781 will likely have seen a couple PiPs that give it enough performance to operate AKL-NA west coast fully loaded with pax and cargo. That will just leave IAH, ORD and NYC plus whatever else they might see fit to serve that require more range - 789 is the perfect fit. Given this, I genuinely don't see a need for anything else for them, but of course, this is based on the assumption of gradual performance increases like we have seen on other types.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:23 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Didn't Air New Zealand already order a modified version of B787-10 to replace their B777-200ER?


They ordered some bog standard 787-10s, albeit with GE rather than RR engines. The confusion came when some om this forum interpreted the CEOs statement that it would replace the 777-200ER and could do similar flights, as if the 787-10 was an ULR capable aircraft that would be doing the New York flight nonstop with full payload...
The 787-10 can indeed do long flights, but has to sacrifice payload for fuel in doing so.

Air New Zealand has plenty of routes within relatively short to medium range where demand is great enough for a widebody, like Australia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Asia. The 787-10 is perfect for that job. IMO, that is where the ANZ 787-10 fleet will spend the majority of their lives.


Here is the quote

https://www.airnewzealand.com/press-rel ... reamliners

“The 787-10 is longer and even more fuel efficient. However, the game changer for us has been that by working closely with Boeing, we've ensured the 787-10 will meet our network needs, including the ability to fly missions similar to our current 777-200 fleet.

“This is a hugely important decision for our airline. With the 787-10 offering almost 15 percent more space for customers and cargo than the 787-9, this investment creates the platform for our future strategic direction and opens up new opportunities to grow,” says Mr Luxon.


The 777-200ER was flying YVR-AKL at the time that quote was made. I think the average reader would think Air New Zealand implies that they could use the 787-10 on routes to North America. It is implied that Air New Zealand can operate the 787-10 on 6000 nm routes. Working closely with Boeing implies that there may be an efficiency improve to in work


Yes, I have read that quote a million times. Read closely, it says similar, not identical. You are focusing solely on the few long routes and ignoring all the much shorter routes the 777-200ER flew at the time.
Singapore Airlines, Etihad, KLM, Saudia, Eva and ANA all use their combined fleet of 43 787-10s exclusively on short to medium range flights (with Etihad substituting the 787-10 in on longer flights from time to time). For some reason that point goes amiss in favour of a single airline that vaguely suggested that it would do "similar" routes as the 777-200ER and United Airlines that manages to push it all the way to Auckland on a single route. If the 787-10 really was a capable as its small fanbase on this site suggest, don't you think we would see all those operators schedule it on a bit longer flights? Emirates even said outright that the 787-10 lacks the performance out of Dubai, so went with the 787-9. They will be receiving their 787s a year after Air New Zealand, so whatever performance improvements Air New Zealand has been promised were either not offered to Emirates (doubtful) or are really small. British Airways will put it on routes up to just under 10 hours, but with a really premium-heavy configuration seating only 256 passengers.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:29 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
It's been discussed before, the problem is that the A359 is pretty damn efficient over longer range because of its slightly newer engine and its larger wing. The 78X gets its efficiency advantage on shorter routes, but making the plane a bit heavier will mean it loses that advantage slightly, I'm not sure it would be as attractive as the A350 on the longer routes. Seems to me that if airlines want the range, they'll just go for the 789 or A359.

As above, a simple 787-10NEO would be quite compelling.

question? Want city pairs would one need to fly to that you can't already get to with the 787-9 , 777, or A350 presently in service? Because you can build it bigger?
Does that mean that you need to? Or? IS this an academic posting?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:48 pm

rbavfan wrote:
afterburner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeing to simply hold off for the 787NEO to group together multiple weight, engine and aero improvements.

I think it should be called 787Max. ;)


No more MAX's

the MAX implies that this is all there is or the best you can get.
with the 737? That very well may be true But? I would not use it loosely unless the 797 will not be all there is at Boeing. and the 777X is about as big as a twin Engine airliner can get and still use an existing airport's gates.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Devilfish and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos