Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:47 pm

moyangmm wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

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.


Indeed, AKL-EWR (7655nm) is just a tad out of range for an aircraft whose current longest route is EWR-TLV (4946nm), which has a brochure range of 6430nm.

This rumoured 260T has been brought up by you quite a lot, yet there is zero indication it exists or is planned to exist at present.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:04 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

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.


Indeed, AKL-EWR (7655nm) is just a tad out of range for an aircraft whose current longest route is EWR-TLV (4946nm), which has a brochure range of 6430nm.

This rumoured 260T has been brought up by you quite a lot, yet there is zero indication it exists or is planned to exist at present.


You didn't factor in the seat count and the cargo carried on the United EWR-TLV flight. As I said, in order for 781 (the current 254t version) to do AKL-NYC, the following is required: (1) a less dense seat map with less than 300 seats; (2) very limited or no cargo.

Isn't the topic of this thread the potential of 787-10ER? I am not asserting ER version already exists.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:14 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Airbus managed it pretty well with lower MTOM offerings on the A330 and A350 families.

Not really the same though, that's a paper adjustment. Almost every aircraft derivative gets additional weight/efficiency allotments through the entirety of its production run.

One could make a case for the A333 (tanked HGWs versus others), though that came so close to the end of its offering that it'd be rather anecdotal to compare.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:21 pm

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

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.


Indeed, AKL-EWR (7655nm) is just a tad out of range for an aircraft whose current longest route is EWR-TLV (4946nm), which has a brochure range of 6430nm.

This rumoured 260T has been brought up by you quite a lot, yet there is zero indication it exists or is planned to exist at present.


You didn't factor in the seat count and the cargo carried on the United EWR-TLV flight. As I said, in order for 781 (the current 254t version) to do AKL-NYC, the following is required: (1) a less dense seat map with less than 300 seats; (2) very limited or no cargo.

Isn't the topic of this thread the potential of 787-10ER? I am not asserting ER version already exists.


UA's 787-10s carry up to 318 people, so it's only slightly more dense than a potential NZ 787-10. How much cargo does it carry? Really if you're going to fly that far then the 78X really doesn't sense at all. If you're going to lower the density, just use the 789. You'd also be wasting the 78X's efficiency on shorter routes by not having a more dense configuration, and remember that NZ will use the 78X mostly on relatively short routes (to Asia).

You - as ever - dramatically overestimate the capabilities of the 78X, if can fly fairly far, but you consider it capable of routes with viable payloads even when evidence isn't on your side. UA had to stop LAX-SIN (7621nm) in part because of restrictions on payload, and that was with a fairly low-density 789, an aircraft with a significant range advantage over the larger sister. Suggesting that merely lowering the density slightly and not taking much cargo would make the 78X capable of AKL-EWR is pure fantasy.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:41 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Really if you're going to fly that far then the 78X really doesn't sense at all. If you're going to lower the density, just use the 789.


The benefit of 781 is its larger cabin area which can accommodate a lot of F and J seats. By your logic why ANA configures its most premium-heavy 77W with only 212 seats? Certainly it can use a 787-8 right?

MrHMSH wrote:
You'd also be wasting the 78X's efficiency on shorter routes by not having a more dense configuration, and remember that NZ will use the 78X mostly on relatively short routes (to Asia).


I agree that most airlines today using 781 on many shorter routes. IMO this is a great strength of 781: the 781 is arguably one of the most flexible aircrafts that is efficient on short routes while is quite capable of doing long-haul (take UA's IAD-PEK for example).

MrHMSH wrote:
UA had to stop LAX-SIN (7621nm) in part because of restrictions on payload, and that was with a fairly low-density 789, an aircraft with a significant range advantage over the larger sister.


This is pure speculation on a.net. UA has never publicly given the reason it stopped its LAX-SIN routes.
 
tomcat
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:00 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


If we look at the weight characteristics of the 787 family, we can see that even though the -10 has a heavier OEW than the -9, it can take a 5t higher payload than the latter (57.3t vs 52.5t). I think this is what ANZ is after when they talk about missions similar to the 772ER fleet. With that max payload and given its MLW (which by the way is higher than the -9 MLW, this is maybe where ANZ worked closely with Boeing), the -10 can fly a good 9 hours. This is really where the -10 rules. Alternatively, with a medium density seating and by trading its cargo payload for more fuel, it can then fly about 12 hours.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:11 pm

VSMUT 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.”


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.


Well it's probably a minor updates rather than a new version. My question would be, if Boeing would be able to increase the MTOW and increase the range (300nmi ~ 600nmi) It would be offered as an options for normal B787-10 rather than labelling it ER version isn't it?

They probably working on increasing the MTOW anyway, but it's probably a slow progress right now with a tiny updates rather than a full blown variant.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:13 pm

rbavfan wrote:
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.


They need those range for extra payload or reassurance that the plane would be able to operate the routes all year around.

635nm isn't a big difference, but at 6,430 nmi, B787-10 need all the range it needed for long haul operations.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:53 pm

tomcat wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 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.


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 dPirection 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


If we look at the weight characteristics of the 787 family, we can see that even though the -10 has a heavier OEW than the -9, it can take a 5t higher payload than the latter (57.3t vs 52.5t). I think this is what ANZ is after when they talk about missions similar to the 772ER fleet. With that max payload and given its MLW (which by the way is higher than the -9 MLW, this is maybe where ANZ worked closely with Boeing), the -10 can fly a good 9 hours. This is really where the -10 rules. Alternatively, with a medium density seating and by trading its cargo payload for more fuel, it can then fly about 12 hours.


Let’s not forget that the 787-10 has already been scheduled on routes from SFO to Europe. Westbound legs are 10-12 hours.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:58 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
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.

Why? A359 range is significantly longer than 789's range (8100 nmi > 7635 nmi).
In case that you are mentioning Prj Sunrise flights... well those are different things.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:04 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Really if you're going to fly that far then the 78X really doesn't sense at all. If you're going to lower the density, just use the 789.


The benefit of 781 is its larger cabin area which can accommodate a lot of F and J seats. By your logic why ANA configures its most premium-heavy 77W with only 212 seats? Certainly it can use a 787-8 right?

MrHMSH wrote:
You'd also be wasting the 78X's efficiency on shorter routes by not having a more dense configuration, and remember that NZ will use the 78X mostly on relatively short routes (to Asia).


I agree that most airlines today using 781 on many shorter routes. IMO this is a great strength of 781: the 781 is arguably one of the most flexible aircrafts that is efficient on short routes while is quite capable of doing long-haul (take UA's IAD-PEK for example).

MrHMSH wrote:
UA had to stop LAX-SIN (7621nm) in part because of restrictions on payload, and that was with a fairly low-density 789, an aircraft with a significant range advantage over the larger sister.


This is pure speculation on a.net. UA has never publicly given the reason it stopped its LAX-SIN routes.


IAD-PEK is well short of some of the routes you're suggesting the 78X could make, and we don't know how many passengers/how much cargo was carried on that route, as it was a swap from a 788 with 100 seats fewer.

Wasn't it said by a United worker? In any case, speculation is a fun part of a.net, such as speculating that an aircraft can't fly a route despite all evidence to the contrary from far more informed people.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:08 am

Antaras wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Antaras wrote:
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.

Why? A359 range is significantly longer than 789's range (8100 nmi > 7635 nmi).
In case that you are mentioning Prj Sunrise flights... well those are different things.

A.net tomfoolery, its a joke by a few users that the a350 is significantly underpreforming to the point that the 78X has more range than it by a ways.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:55 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
UA had to stop LAX-SIN (7621nm) in part because of restrictions on payload, and that was with a fairly low-density 789, an aircraft with a significant range advantage over the larger sister.


This is pure speculation on a.net. UA has never publicly given the reason it stopped its LAX-SIN routes.

Nobody is speculating. It is fact that that UA was "severely" restricted on weight.

viewtopic.php?t=1397827#p20521829
viewtopic.php?t=1397827#p20521889
viewtopic.php?t=1397827#p20522201
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1397827&start=50#p20522813
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:53 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. ;)


Anything but NEO. Airbus doesn't have a trademark on NEO but this enthusiast community certainly doesn't need to keep referring to it like that.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
VC10er
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:03 am

I’m curious about something. At what point in the “7E7 Dreamliner development was it decided that there would be a 787-8, 9 and 10? Was it planned from the onset or did the idea for the 787-10 come later somewhere in the process?

I realize that flying any of the 3 would feel the same, but I cannot help but like flying the 787-10 most, and I would not have an issue doing EWR/HKG on one should that ever be able to happen.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:46 pm

VC10er wrote:
I’m curious about something. At what point in the “7E7 Dreamliner development was it decided that there would be a 787-8, 9 and 10? Was it planned from the onset or did the idea for the 787-10 come later somewhere in the process?

I realize that flying any of the 3 would feel the same, but I cannot help but like flying the 787-10 most, and I would not have an issue doing EWR/HKG on one should that ever be able to happen.


From the onset it was planned to do the 787-3, 787-8 and 787-9.

The 787-3 is the unbuilt regional version with 737NG style blended wingtips. Initially they planned for more drastic modifications/weight reductions, but due to lack of interest it eventually morphed into just a 787-8 with shorter wing span, and then got cancelled.

The 787-10 came later on. They started studying it in late 2005, but didn't launch it until 2013.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Potential for an 787-10ER ?

Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:00 am

Thanks VSMUT!

And has the 787-10 outperformed (as my vibes pick up) as a big success, sales and performance?

I do love her way of silently (up front anyway) sliding up of the ground as if we didn’t exist!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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