tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

787 Improvements

Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:40 pm

Launch of an extended range 789 and 78J has been a favourite a.net fantasy for some years, especially as Airbus keep announcing higher weight versions of the 359 and 35K. But there has been no evidence that Boeing themselves are talking to airlines about a higher weight/longer range version. And what we know of the development of the current 789/78J suggests it would require major engineering (and investment) to narrow the capability gap to the 359.

Air NZ plan to make a decision early 2019 on a replacement for their 77Es. It had seemed that the competition was between the 77X and the A359/35K. But in a recent interview https://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?o_id=5&objectid=12176487&ref=rss NZ CEO Chris Luxon seems to suggest the 787 could also be in the running (the airline already operates two versions of the 789). Luxon notes the continuing improvement in the 787 as a platform and says Boeing had been talking about getting more range from the plane. The New Zealand thread is now awash in speculation about NZ buying a new longer range 787 to replace the 77Es.

There are a few possibilities here. One is that Boeing, with 77X orders stalled and A350 capabilities continuing to improve, has been quietly looking at options for engineering a more capable 787 and has been talking to airlines about it. Problem with that scenario is that we haven’t heard a whisper about it from other airlines. And given that the 787 seems to be up against a hard limit for both MTOW and fuel we can assume this would require some serious engineering effort and investment - and long lead time. A further complication is Boeing’s wider interest in not having the 787 undercut the 77X (the obvious risk from a 78J with trans-Pacific range).

The simpler explanation is that Luxon is just looking at a 789 with a higher premium configuration, like the QF 789s, for routes such as ORD and NYC, perhaps helped by some further marginal airframe improvements from Boeing. Luxon refers in the interview to a possible “code 3” 787 with 30 fewer pax (implying ~245).

First question flowing from this is whether Boeing have been talking to NZ (the 789 launch customer, remember) about an improved version available for order from Q2 next year. If the answer to that question is yes, what sort of technical improvements are we talking about?

Just to spice it up, smartplane viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1409631&p=20964811#p20964811 suggests the Boeing board has already considered and rejected proposals for “step capability improvements” to the 8 and 9.

Anyone able to shed some light on these questions? Or is it a case of “Nothing here, move on...” ?
Last edited by SQ22 on Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Title updated
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:23 pm

There is no hint of a longer range model.

If we look at both range and seating area the 787-9 is actually closer to the 777-200ER than the A350-900.

The 787-9 can fly a 30T payload the exact same distance as a 777-200ER and 777-300ER. The 787 burns 30% less fuel while doing it. The 787-9 is probably the closest match aircraft in terms of payload range. The 777-200ER has only 7% more cabin area than the 787-9.

The A350-900 is the exact size of the 777-200ER but its range is 20% greater and is more of a direct replacement of the 777-200LR which NZ doesn't operate.

The 787-9 is nearly a perfect 777-200ER replacement.

New Zealand operates the 777-300ER's to both Los Angeles and San Francisco, they usually take off well below MTOW. The 787-10 could fly these routes easily with the exact same payloads. It is nearly a perfect replacement.

Downgauging is the current trend we are seeing and airlines simply increase frequency to compensate. So the 787-9 could easily replace the 777-300ER with 20% less passengers. It is a commom problem on this forums that users expect an airliner to replace an aircraft with something the exact size.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:30 pm

It's an interesting article.I think the most likely answer is his comment regarding new 'code3' ie a third type of internal layout to accommodate these new destinations.
Love NZ but Boeing aren't going to make major structural revisions just for them.
As above Boeing have been phenomenal at extracting everything possible out of the current 787 but they can't break the laws of physics and Airbus aren't dumb people that can't build aircaft efficiently.There is a reason the 350 can do what it does.As stated the 787 is hard up on mtow,engine power and indeed wing lift.Perfect for what it does but to go further would require major changes.Not going to happen imho.
But a third interior layout is more than possible.
Imagine order will go to Boeing as they are both the historical and present partner even if the 350 might ( might) be slightly better in this particular case.Cant see that it matters much if they are a few pax less in Y.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm

This is very interesting and I hope we here more about it.


Why don’t we just give Boeing the benefit of the doubt on this matter? Boeing have some of the best engineering teams on the planet so until they say the 787 is at its ‘hard limit’, I will take a wait and see approach, believing that improvements can be made.

If you state otherwise on here, you are being misleading because you don’t know more than Boeing does.
Whatever
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
New Zealand operates the 777-300ER's to both Los Angeles and San Francisco, they usually take off well below MTOW. The 787-10 could fly these routes easily with the exact same payloads. It is nearly a perfect replacement.

Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate. Talking about future fleet options at investor day this year NZ talked about the -9 ("fantastic") and then mentioned the 787-10:

    So the -10 is just a stretched version. And by maintaining that parts commonality, they've created a very efficient, extremely efficient, aircraft. The trade-off though, because there's always a trade-off, is that the range of that aircraft is less than you get with a 787-9 and less than you get with any of the other options. However, in the context of our network the range it offers would work well to Asia. So to put it in context, to give you - to bring it to life a little bit, the 767s we used to fly to Asia. So we used to fly them to Tokyo, to Shanghai, Hong Kong. The 787- 10 has got about the same range as that, so it suits that part of the network. It has obviously got dramatically better, like two generations between, cost economics than a 787 - sorry - than a 767.

Of course it's possible they completely misunderstand the capabilities of the -10. But this year they've been through an RFI for the 77E replacement. And given their experience flying the -9 long-haul I'd be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:22 pm

To me, one obvious candidate for range extension is the 788. It already has the same wing as the 789, already has the same fuel capacity as the 789. It is lighter than the 789 and burns less fuel.

If Boeing gave it the same MTOW as the 789 it would be a real long range monster!
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
Tn55337
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:36 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 pm

Could there be an engine pip in the works? Less fuel burn and the same fuel capacity = more range.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:06 pm

NZ already have several 789s with the Trent TEN. I haven't seen numbers for what they gained by way of additional range. Might be a little while before RR can focus on a further PIP...
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:23 pm

As much as I would love to see a 789/J(ER), I dont think it will happen (although a 787-10ER has some chance IMO).

ANZ is in a unique position geographically. They can serve almost anywhere on the globe with the current generation of aircraft where QF needs *that much more* range to satisfy their ambitions. If NZ wanted to make it easy they'd go for the 777X instead of trying to tweak the 787.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:44 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
If Boeing gave it the same MTOW as the 789 it would be a real long range monster!


No, most of the extra beef on the 789 went into structure to allow the higher MTOW.
A 789 shrink will just lose the fuselage extensions. Not much.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:54 pm

WIederling wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
If Boeing gave it the same MTOW as the 789 it would be a real long range monster!


No, most of the extra beef on the 789 went into structure to allow the higher MTOW.
A 789 shrink will just lose the fuselage extensions. Not much.

Surely a lot of the beef went in to MZFW increase. If the max payload for the 788 remained the same then the MZFW would only need to increase to the same extent as the empty weight increase. If I remember correctly the 788 with a 254t MTOW would have about 9000nm+ range.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:01 am

tealnz wrote:
Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate.

Not ambitious at all.

Three quarters of the 777-300ER's routes used by Air New Zealand the 787-10 can comfortably fly with the same passenger load. So on three quarters of the routes they will have a massive per seat efficiency gain.

On the remaining quarter longest routes used by the 777-300ER, these can simply be downgauged slightly to 787-9's.

Air New Zealand has most of their routes in the 787-10 sweet spot.

If Air New Zealand went with A350's they would have to fill them to the brim with extra cargo on these 4500nm-5500nm routes to utilize their excellent payload range. Otherwise they would be taking off well below MTOW and offer no advnantage over the 787-10.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:04 am

WIederling wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
If Boeing gave it the same MTOW as the 789 it would be a real long range monster!


No, most of the extra beef on the 789 went into structure to allow the higher MTOW.
A 789 shrink will just lose the fuselage extensions. Not much.

It will still be a range monster though.

Just the reduction in drag from the shorter fuselage would significantly boost range. You require less thrust to push it through the air, close to 10% less.

The lift to drag ratio will be better and that allows a higher. Fuel burn per hour will now easily be 10% less. Range is now up to 8400nm and this is before we even take into account the weight reduction over the 787-9.

No one is saying the 787-8ER wouldn't put on a lot of weight over the current 787-8 but it will still be much lighter than the 787-9.

787-8 empty weight 120T
787-9 empty weight 129T
787-10 empty wright 135.5T

I would estimate that a 787-8ER would weigh between 124-125T empty. This allows 1 hour of extra fuel extending range up to 18,900nm. This clearly fits the definition of a range monster.

The 787 frame has a very big fuel capacity. With a typical payload even the 787-9 can't be filled to the full capacity. Only low density cabins like Perth to London allow Qantas to fill the tanks right up.

The 787-8ER would allow the tanks filled right up to full capacity with a medium to high density cabin. 125T empty weight plus 101T fuel plus 28T payload hits the 254T mtow.

In terms of Sydney to London the 787-8ER could most likely do the route if fitted with a 10T fuselage fuel tank. This would still allow 18T payload or 150 passengers in standard Qantas 3 class. It would be interesting to see how this would compare to the per seat fuel cost of the 777-8. The 777-8 would carry 40% more passengers but also require 40% more fuel for the trip.

I actually think the 777X will stop selling in 10 years due to the massive trend of downgauging. When the 787NEO gets launched the 787-8 will become a simple shrink and turn into ultra long range monster to replace the 777-8.

The largest 797 model will then take over the shorter routes flown by the current 787-8.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:25 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate.

Not ambitious at all.

Three quarters of the 777-300ER's routes used by Air New Zealand the 787-10 can comfortably fly with the same passenger load. So on three quarters of the routes they will have a massive per seat efficiency gain.

On the remaining quarter longest routes used by the 777-300ER, these can simply be downgauged slightly to 787-9's.

Air New Zealand has most of their routes in the 787-10 sweet spot.

If Air New Zealand went with A350's they would have to fill them to the brim with extra cargo on these 4500nm-5500nm routes to utilize their excellent payload range. Otherwise they would be taking off well below MTOW and offer no advnantage over the 787-10.



While the A350 is certainly a remarkable aircraft, per another thread, DL isn’t thrilled with thr payload capabilities.

So who knows what the actual reality is.
Whatever
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:40 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate.

Not ambitious at all.
Three quarters of the 777-300ER's routes used by Air New Zealand the 787-10 can comfortably fly with the same passenger load. So on three quarters of the routes they will have a massive per seat efficiency gain.

So the -10 is the natural choice for US routes...? Then it's a mystery why NZ planners are doing the numbers for the 77X and A350s. Obviously they haven't read the brochure...

Problem is that in the real world there are heavier J seats, cabin, galleys, catering and lots of cargo. Not to mention winds, airframe and engine degradation, extra allowance for airways, diversions etc. NZ have never talked of the -10 as an option for North America. What are we missing here?

RJMAZ wrote:
Air New Zealand has most of their routes in the 787-10 sweet spot.

That's a different proposition. NZ seem to understand this very well. Which is why they have talked up the -10 as an option for Asia. It would also be great for Hawaii, Australia and the Pacific. No argument here.

RJMAZ wrote:
If Air New Zealand went with A350's they would have to fill them to the brim with extra cargo on these 4500nm-5500nm routes to utilize their excellent payload range. Otherwise they would be taking off well below MTOW and offer no advantage over the 787-10

Can't see the issue here. Some -10s would be great for Asia and the Tasman. But NZ have been clear they need more payload/range as they go deeper into North America (6500nm still air for IAH, 7100nm for ORD, 7700nm for NYC, not to mention westbound out of LAX/SFO with a full hold). It's the obvious sweet spot for the A350. Or even the 77X. I guess there's also now the "Code 3" 789 on the table – but can NZ really make those routes work with high J/W and no cargo? It would be a big change to their business model.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:17 am

tealnz wrote:
So the -10 is the natural choice for US routes...? Then it's a mystery why NZ planners are doing the numbers for the 77X and A350s. Obviously they haven't read the brochure....

I not once said the -10 is natural choice for US routes. You are putting words in my mouth.

I said the 787-10 can comfortably fly SFO and LAX (5600nm) and comfortably fly three quarters of the current 777-300ER routes with the same number of passengers.

I did not once say the 787-10 can fly IAH, ORD or NYC. All three are over the 787-10's published range.

I did state that for the longest quarter of 777-300ER routes they could use the 787-9. The 787-9 can carry equal payload equal distance of the 777-300ER. The 787-9 can carry lots of extra cargo on the current routes.

Auckland to New York is actually the same distance as Perth to London. So the 787-9 can even do that route with sub 250 seats and not with cargo.
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:01 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

Auckland to New York is actually the same distance as Perth to London. So the 787-9 can even do that route with sub 250 seats and not with cargo.


But does Air NZ have the ability to fill the necessary number of premium seats?

Not to mention, I'm not sure how good the 787-10 would be for NZ in realistic conditions. I could see it getting to Tokyo and Hong Kong easily, and possibly SFO and LAX without much difficulty (but presuming little to no cargo) as well as all of Australia. Beyond that however? We'd be in 787-9 and A350 territory.

As for NZ to EWR/JFK, that seems to me more of an A350-900 route. PER-LHR is 200km shorter than AKL-JFK, and Qantas need a special high-premium LOPA to make the route work.

Given NZ have 777-200ERs/777-300ERs and will probably want to fly to New York City (most likely Newark for Star Alliance reasons), I think they're a natural A350 customer.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:02 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

Auckland to New York is actually the same distance as Perth to London. So the 787-9 can even do that route with sub 250 seats and not with cargo.


But does Air NZ have the ability to fill the necessary number of premium seats?

Not to mention, I'm not sure how good the 787-10 would be for NZ in realistic conditions. I could see it getting to Tokyo and Hong Kong easily, and possibly SFO and LAX without much difficulty (but presuming little to no cargo) as well as all of Australia. Beyond that however? We'd be in 787-9 and A350 territory.

As for NZ to EWR/JFK, that seems to me more of an A350-900 route. PER-LHR is 200km shorter than AKL-JFK, and Qantas need a special high-premium LOPA to make the route work.

Given NZ have 777-200ERs/777-300ERs and will probably want to fly to New York City (most likely Newark for Star Alliance reasons), I think they're a natural A350 customer.


For North American routes I think that's true. NZ have been extremely happy with their 789s (apart from the Trent problems). With the lower density Code 2 layout and the 1000-TENs they have even been able to use them on AKL-IAH and ORD, though I think someone told us they are blocking ~20 seats westbound ORD-AKL. But when they launched the 77E replacement exercise they were clear that the 789 wasn't the answer, and that the -10 wasn't in the frame at all. What is new is that last year they mentioned the -10 as a possibility for Asian routes, which makes sense. In terms of range they characterised the -10 as having similar effective range to their old 767s.

Some of our a.net friends are keen to see the -10 in the mix for North America. Even though NZ has just completed an RFI for the 77E project they don't seem to believe that the airline knows the capabilities of the -10.

There is still a tantalising question - the origin of this thread - to which we lack answers. In an interview late last year NZ's CEO said Boeing was looking at ways of increasing the 787's range. What he was referring to remains a mystery. If Boeing were looking at doing some significant engineering work on the 789 to give it more range it is almost certain that we would have heard of it from other airline sources. There has been nothing. So until/unless we get something solid I think we have to assume that Luxon was referring to a further variant of the 789 with lower density configuration (more like the QF 789s).

That still doesn't mean that NZ will go with a 789/78J combo for the 77E/77W replacement: that would require a very different business model with much lower density configurations and minimal cargo, and there's been no hint the airline is getting the level of premium traffic that would make that viable or that they would be prepared to radically reduce their North American cargo capacity.

So yeah, technically the A359/35K still look a more natural fit for a long-term 77E/77W replacement programme. Assuming Airbus are prepared to offer the right price.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:39 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate.

Not ambitious at all.

Three quarters of the 777-300ER's routes used by Air New Zealand the 787-10 can comfortably fly with the same passenger load. So on three quarters of the routes they will have a massive per seat efficiency gain.

On the remaining quarter longest routes used by the 777-300ER, these can simply be downgauged slightly to 787-9's.

Air New Zealand has most of their routes in the 787-10 sweet spot.

If Air New Zealand went with A350's they would have to fill them to the brim with extra cargo on these 4500nm-5500nm routes to utilize their excellent payload range. Otherwise they would be taking off well below MTOW and offer no advnantage over the 787-10.



While the A350 is certainly a remarkable aircraft, per another thread, DL isn’t thrilled with thr payload capabilities.

So who knows what the actual reality is.


That´s is how Anet-myths are born. DL opted for the lowest MTOW version of the A350 and perhaps now realizes that they shoul´ve opted for a higher MTOW version for some routes. Has nothing to to with the payload capabilities of the plane. Of course, if the DL-rumor (which is nothing more) gets repeated often enough it will become Anet reality... #justsaying
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:29 am

Has there been any chat lately about resuscitating the extended wing originally planned for the 789? From memory it was to be 63m rather than the 60m of the 788. Problem was that it required engineering effort at a time when that was in extreme demand to fix the original engineering and manufacturing problems of the 787. And I think it meant ~1.8t of additional airframe weight. Boeing said at the time that the efficiency of the wing design allowed them to deliver the required performance without the extended wingtips. I don't know if they released any of the numbers about the weight/fuel consumption trade-off. Any chance they're taking another look at this? Might it be what Luxon was referring to?
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:28 pm

On the same theme, can anyone point me to a technical discussion of the original 60m vs 63m trade-off? There must have been some a.net discussion on it but I can't immediately find anything, here or on other sites.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18107
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:15 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Whew. 77W replacement? I think you're being a bit ambitious mate.

Not ambitious at all.

Three quarters of the 777-300ER's routes used by Air New Zealand the 787-10 can comfortably fly with the same passenger load. So on three quarters of the routes they will have a massive per seat efficiency gain.

On the remaining quarter longest routes used by the 777-300ER, these can simply be downgauged slightly to 787-9's.

Air New Zealand has most of their routes in the 787-10 sweet spot.

If Air New Zealand went with A350's they would have to fill them to the brim with extra cargo on these 4500nm-5500nm routes to utilize their excellent payload range. Otherwise they would be taking off well below MTOW and offer no advnantage over the 787-10.

I'm late to this thread.

I'd like to see a MTOW boost to the 789/787-10. Will it happen? Unlikely. ANZ could simplify their fleet with 787-10s and a few downgaugings to 789s.

I think the 777x will sell, but not as well as the 77W. It could very well be a one decade plane for commercial sales. I believe there will be a 778F.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:15 pm

This thread has been overtaken by a thread in civil aviation http://tinyurl.com/y6d9o94g based on a Blue Swan Daily story reporting a rumour of a 2.5t MTOW increase. A poster in that thread suggests that a MTOW increase may have been enabled by reinforcement of the wing-body join for the heavier fuselage for the 78J.

The civil aviation thread threatens to degenerate into a 787-can-do-anything vs 359-is-rubbish debate. But the Blue Swan report raises some interesting technical questions:
- Does it sound plausible that the 78J wing-body join reinforcement has enabled a MTOW increase of this order (~1%)?
- Could it be as high as 25t/10% ? (The articke uses both 10% and 2.5t. Can’t both be true).
- At ULH ranges (eg NZ routes to ORD or NYC) how much additional payload or range would you gain from 2.5t MTOW increase: as much as half an hour flight time? A tonne of payload/10 pax?
- If the MTOW increase on the 789 is made possible by strengthening of the wing/body join for the 78J presumably the weight increase is not available for the 78J itself?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:15 pm

When the 737/320 were first offered no one realized that the bones of these two planes (with modern wings) and updated engines would become about as capable as an updated 707/720. They were overbuilt as regarding the original short leg/short bodies first offered.

Neither the 787 nor the 350 were comparably overbuilt. Even there both 8 models were marginal - Airbus dropping the 8, and Boeing apparently finding a niche for the moderately improved 8 model. Improvement will be made, but nothing comparable to what happened to the two narrow bodies. New engines after 2025 will make both planes awesome, perhaps so much that the 777X becomes redundant.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1240
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:59 pm

Over the years, I've often read that the 787 family MTOW is actually landing gear limited, and that both 789 and 78J were right up against that limit. I've no idea how true that is, but if it's true, it would seem that any real improvements would come from lowering empty weight rather than raising MTOW - unless Boeing found some margin in the gear.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26375
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:28 am

I've been told the gear limit was 255,000kg but better modeling and/or in-service data might mean they can get more out of it than they thought.

As for the wing, Boeing originally planned both the 787-8 and 787-9 share a common 60.1m wing, however the higher wing-loading from the 787-9's higher MTOW pushed Boeing to extend it first to 61.9m and later 63.4m Once Boeing performed the Ultimate Load test on the 787-8 wing they found the wing-loading could handle the 787-9's (then planned) 247,000kg MTOW. And going with the 60m span saved 1800kg compared to the 63.4m span. This weight savings extended the range of the 787-9 almost as much as the loss in aerodynamic efficiency took away.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:12 am

If that’s the case then I guess a fresh look at the 63m wing is not what Luxon was referring to.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Wed May 22, 2019 12:06 pm

Reuters is now reporting NZ will go with Boeing for its 77E replacement and the chat suggests that the deal will be based on a further tranche of 787s with a bit more range. No detail on the mix – Will there be some 78Js for Asian routes? Any additional 77Ws for cheap capacity on freight-heavy routs? Will the additional 789s just be an interim buy to cover ULH?

The big question is what Boeing has been able to do to give NZ the range to do NYC. AKL-NYC is a bit shorter than PER-LHR so the airframe can already do a sector of that length so long as it has a low-density configuration (235 for the QF aircraft). There have been previous reports (above) on a 1% MTOW increase, taking advantage of the stronger wing-body join engineered for the 78J. I've seen a reference to a 1t empty weight reduction on the current airframe. A further improvement in fuel consumption of the same order (for the Trents? Or for the GEnX?) And Luxon is on the record as being open to a lighter configuration.

So is this the limit of what we're talking about? – a QF-type fit-out and minor improvement on weights to allow NZ to launch NYC non-stop and improve the economics of ORD?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon May 27, 2019 5:01 am

As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.

The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.

I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.

The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.

I think the 2T MTOW bump is not for the 787-10. It may have been misreported. The stronger 787-10 wing joint on the 787-9 has created room for a small bump. So this rumour is for a 787-9ER not a 787-10ER.
 
wangjm777
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 4:37 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon May 27, 2019 7:11 am

RJMAZ wrote:
As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.

The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.

I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.

The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.

I think the 2T MTOW bump is not for the 787-10. It may have been misreported. The stronger 787-10 wing joint on the 787-9 has created room for a small bump. So this rumour is for a 787-9ER not a 787-10ER.


Interesting. Even if the MTOW is only 2t and limited to 787-9, it still makes the 787 much more attractive, especially on ULH routes. 2t MTOW bump would allow:

- More cargo on QF PER-LHR
- UA to resume LAX-SIN without blocking seats
- Maybe AA’s MIA-HKG

I expect more airlines will be interested in getting the higher MTOW 787-9.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Mon May 27, 2019 12:27 pm

wangjm777 wrote:
Interesting. Even if the MTOW is only 2t and limited to 787-9, it still makes the 787 much more attractive, especially on ULH routes. 2t MTOW bump would allow:

- More cargo on QF PER-LHR
- UA to resume LAX-SIN without blocking seats
- Maybe AA’s MIA-HKG

I expect more airlines will be interested in getting the higher MTOW 787-9.

Exactly.

The main selling point to the A350-900 is slightly superior payload range. This will allow the 787-9 to close the gap. The point where the A350 becomes the better option has become smaller.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Tue May 28, 2019 12:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.

The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.

I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.

The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.

I think the 2T MTOW bump is not for the 787-10. It may have been misreported. The stronger 787-10 wing joint on the 787-9 has created room for a small bump. So this rumour is for a 787-9ER not a 787-10ER.


Doesn't sound as if Luxon sees the 787 as the 77W replacement:

“Our intention at this point is that the 777-300ERs come up for replacement around the mid- to late-2020s, and that would be the logical time when we would probably want to go off and look at a larger aircraft, so the A350s and Boeing 777-Xs come into that frame at that point in time,” he says.

Here's the link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-air-nz-opts-for-flexibility-with-787-10s-458479/

Meanwhile there's still an unanswered question about the spec for the 78Js. There is a cryptic comment in the announcement: "... 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". Sounds to me as if Boeing have been able to find some more range in the -10. But journos haven't asked the question. And I don't think we've seen any informed comment from aviation sources. Any theories? Anything more than a bit of weight reduction and a GEnX PIP?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Tue May 28, 2019 12:37 pm

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.

The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.

I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.

The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.

I think the 2T MTOW bump is not for the 787-10. It may have been misreported. The stronger 787-10 wing joint on the 787-9 has created room for a small bump. So this rumour is for a 787-9ER not a 787-10ER.


Doesn't sound as if Luxon sees the 787 as the 77W replacement:

“Our intention at this point is that the 777-300ERs come up for replacement around the mid- to late-2020s, and that would be the logical time when we would probably want to go off and look at a larger aircraft, so the A350s and Boeing 777-Xs come into that frame at that point in time,” he says.

Here's the link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-air-nz-opts-for-flexibility-with-787-10s-458479/

Meanwhile there's still an unanswered question about the spec for the 78Js. There is a cryptic comment in the announcement: "... 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". Sounds to me as if Boeing have been able to find some more range in the -10. But journos haven't asked the question. And I don't think we've seen any informed comment from aviation sources. Any theories? Anything more than a bit of weight reduction and a GEnX PIP?

Seems that he 787-10 is really living up to be a great aircraft. I think it was said somewhere that the 787-10 is surpassing all expectations at UA. Seeing how the 777-200er has a nominal range of ~7100nm and the 787-10 has 6500nm for a few more pax I would think that some good pips and a bit on lightening would see it almost match performance.

Fred
Image
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Tue May 28, 2019 12:57 pm

:biggrin: I guess configuration will also be part of it. Luxon has said that the airline is shifting to a more premium configuration and there have been the recent announcements on expanded legroom Y+ seats in the economy cabin.

The decision to go with the 78Js makes the future hard product choice even more critical: the current 1-1-1 J layout feels unnatural and cheap in the 789 and certainly not up to the standard of the 1-2-1 QF layout. Maybe on this, as with using the 789 for ULH, NZ will follow Qantas
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6970
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Wed May 29, 2019 8:41 am

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
As I said previously the 787 will also replace the 777-300ER's based on the options.

The 787-10 can easily do 75% of the 777-300ER routes. The longest routes and the new ultra long haul routes will go to the 787-9.

I hear it time and time that a certain aircraft won't get purchased because it will be a downgrade or upgrade in size. That plays a very small part to the decision.

The only time you want to keep a large aircraft is if you have limited landing slots at a mega hub. New Zealand will be opening up new North American routes so there is less priority on the Los Angeles flight being as big as possible.

I think the 2T MTOW bump is not for the 787-10. It may have been misreported. The stronger 787-10 wing joint on the 787-9 has created room for a small bump. So this rumour is for a 787-9ER not a 787-10ER.


Doesn't sound as if Luxon sees the 787 as the 77W replacement:

“Our intention at this point is that the 777-300ERs come up for replacement around the mid- to late-2020s, and that would be the logical time when we would probably want to go off and look at a larger aircraft, so the A350s and Boeing 777-Xs come into that frame at that point in time,” he says.

Here's the link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-air-nz-opts-for-flexibility-with-787-10s-458479/

Meanwhile there's still an unanswered question about the spec for the 78Js. There is a cryptic comment in the announcement: "... 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". Sounds to me as if Boeing have been able to find some more range in the -10. But journos haven't asked the question. And I don't think we've seen any informed comment from aviation sources. Any theories? Anything more than a bit of weight reduction and a GEnX PIP?



That article could be contradicting depending on how you read it or who you are. It mentions the 787-10 being used for similar missions to the 772 including the US west coast which I agree with but I haven’t seen Luxon say that himself, then Luxon says the 77W replacement is a seperate decision which again I agree with but I’m not sure if he said we willlook at a larger aircraft did he? That’s just what the article says. Now of course in reality they will again look at the 77X/A350 but it seems hard to go past more 78Js if indeed they can operate AKL-LAX/SFO and by 2025> I’d be surprised if it couldn’t.
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Wed May 29, 2019 10:10 am

There’s a big difference between a LAX-AKL pax service in a premium-heavy 78J and carrying full pax plus a hold full of freight, as NZ can do at the moment with the 77W. Obviously Boeing could re-engineer the 78J to give it greater payload/range. A re-engined late 2020s 787 would offer some serious improvements if the Ultrafan or a GE version is available. But right now the idea of using the 78J to replace the 77W is a bit of a stretch.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Wed May 29, 2019 12:09 pm

tealnz wrote:
There’s a big difference between a LAX-AKL pax service in a premium-heavy 78J and carrying full pax plus a hold full of freight, as NZ can do at the moment with the 77W. Obviously Boeing could re-engineer the 78J to give it greater payload/range. A re-engined late 2020s 787 would offer some serious improvements if the Ultrafan or a GE version is available. But right now the idea of using the 78J to replace the 77W is a bit of a stretch.


The way I had thought they would replace the 77W was via additional frequencies.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 9:35 am

The 78J announcement came as a surprise for those of us who didn’t think it had the payload/range to replace the 77E. Apart from the fact it had been conceived as a minimum-change stretch of the 789 there was the fact that NZ management had talked of the -10 as having range similar to the 767 and therefore suited more to Asian routes. And in spite of a few fanboi fantasies there had been no serious evidence that Boeing were working on higher weights and payload/range. But then there was that cryptic comment in the NZ announcement: “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.” Range increase? Luxon didn’t volunteer any detail and journos and analysts didn’t have the wit to ask him.

Now there’s a clue in the civil aviation thread:

ITSTours wrote:
https://twitter.com/graysonottaway/status/1134203310632603648
Apparently 260T MTOW for 787-9 and 787-10.

And Ostrower seems to be onto the story:

Promised performance boosts to the 787 for Air New Zealand were a major factor in the carrier’s decision this week to purchase eight 787-10 aircraft from Boeing, according to those familiar with the deal.

Detail is behind the paywall unfortunately. Do his sources corroborate the 6t increase?

If so, where does this leave us?

- Sounds as if a higher premium 254t 789 could already do NYC-AKL - range is less than PER-LHR - tho freight capacity would be minimal and the 789 desperately needs a change from the current 1-1–1 J seating.

- As for a 260t 787-10, I guess we’re now looking at genuine LAX/SFO-AKL capability.

We’ll have to wait for the technical detail to emerge. Meantime:

- We were right to be sceptical about the -10 in its current spec – by NZ’s account it needed the “game changer” from Boeing to become competitive for the 77E replacement

- I guess we were all blindsided on the MTOW increase: there has been a lot of a.net wishful thinking on it but never any solid information, least of all on the fact that Boeing were working on it specifically with NZ (also the lead customer for the 789).

- We now wait a few years to see whether further development of the -10 can make it genuinely competitive for the late-2020s 77W replacement, particularly for freight capacity westbound from LAX/SFO.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 2:18 pm

6T MTOW boost would be great for 789/10 performance. However, it would also benefit from tank capacity increase. At current 101 Tons, at the edge of the envelope it will max out on fuel while still before hitting the MTOW.
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 3:13 pm

I’d wondered about that. At a guess NZ will want to carry 320+ pax in the 78J. And significant freight westbound from LAX/SFO. Presumably MTOW rather than fuel will be the limiting factor on those sectors.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 3:51 pm

Yes, I can confirm Ostrower also suggests 6t MTOW boost.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 4:05 pm

One of the flight global articles seemed to suggest to me the range increase came from a fuel burn improvement on the GEnx, one of the reasons they selected the engine.

“One major change, however, is that the General Electric GEnx-1B engine will power its future 787s, compared to the 13 Rolls-Royce Trent 1000-powered 787-9s already in its fleet. One more R-R-powered 787 will be delivered later this year.

Luxon appeared to link part of that change to the efficiency of the GEnx. “At this point, all our 787-9s and -10s going forward being powered by GEnx engines, which I think is for us, and looking at the fuel efficiency, is going to be perfect for the mix we’ve got coming forward.””

From https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ht-458475/

The only route I thought the 78J wouldn’t be able to do was AKL-IAD-AKL. However I was thinking they may just be using the 77E on that route as they have nothing smaller with the range.

They should be able to operate to YVR/SFO/LAX

“"The 787-10 we will receive is not only a natural candidate for our destinations across Asia, but it will also be a great link for New Zealand linking it to the east coast of America as well."”

From https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 00-458473/
Last edited by zeke on Fri May 31, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 4:15 pm

It all comes down to the weight, right? And I just can’t see NZ operating a pax-only configuration 78J from LAX/SFO to AKL. They need freight capacity to get the yield.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Fri May 31, 2019 4:20 pm

Look at their announcement, they are keeping some 77E around for some time yet. I don’t know if much freight goes westbound.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Eyad89
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:57 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
6T MTOW boost would be great for 789/10 performance. However, it would also benefit from tank capacity increase. At current 101 Tons, at the edge of the envelope it will max out on fuel while still before hitting the MTOW.


I am wondering if they have to increase the thrust for that.

Is it declared how they managed to get such a boast?
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:00 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
I am wondering if they have to increase the thrust for that.

Is it declared how they managed to get such a boast?


I think current thrust should be just enough, at least for airports close to Sea Level and long runways.

Funny enough, current 789 FCOM performance data is already published for weights up to 260T. Initial optimum cruise level would be around FL320, maximum FL340 and runway required around 3200-3400m.

Climb limit could be an issue, as it maxes out at 254 tons, but I only have data for flaps 15. Perhaps using flaps 10 or 5 and improved climb speeds would yield higher weights up to 260T (At the expense of runway required)

If not, bumping the thrust to the 787-10 thrust rating
(76K lbF) should do the trick...
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:27 am

What is the range of 260t 789 and 781? I think 6t (plus potential weight reduction on the new version) should give a little over 1 hour of flight time. So 781 should be ~7000 nmi and 789 should be 8200 nmi?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:37 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
Perhaps using flaps 10 or 5 and improved climb speeds would yield higher weights up to 260T (At the expense of runway required)


V2 over speed would need even more runway. What about ISA+15-20 ?

Would have thought that much weight increase would have a bigger impact of initial cruise altitude.

BBJ777X wrote:
What is the range of 260t 789 and 781? I think 6t (plus potential weight reduction on the new version) should give a little over 1 hour of flight time. So 781 should be ~7000 nmi and 789 should be 8200 nmi?


If you take off with 6t more fuel, you don’t have 6t more fuel at the end of the flight, it would probably cost in the region of 2 tonnes to carry the extra 6 tonnes, leaving an extra 4 tonnes at the end of the flight.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:09 pm

So... we should assume a 260t 78J will be a 13 hour aircraft rather than a 12 hour aircraft? Scheduled time for NZ LAX-AKL is 12:50...
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

Re: NZ CEO hints longer range 787

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:09 pm

zeke wrote:
If you take off with 6t more fuel, you don’t have 6t more fuel at the end of the flight, it would probably cost in the region of 2 tonnes to carry the extra 6 tonnes, leaving an extra 4 tonnes at the end of the flight.


But as a previous poster mentioned, there can be weight reduction on both 781 and 789, making them with less OEW and load more fuel. Maybe an extra 5-6t of more fuel can be expected?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AAirbusCA, dfwjim1, Leeloo, navymidn and 30 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