BAorAB
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 10:11 pm

787-10 In service Performance

Sun May 05, 2019 10:32 pm

We've heard so many mixed views about the actual performance and capability of the 78X. One of my friends at United Fleet Operations stated the aircraft performance, capability and economics have far exceed the expectations of everyone at the airline and they continue to look for ways to push the aircraft's limit. I thought i'd check into his comments and found some interesting history below. Many state it's a 8hr aircarft, some say 10hr, some even say 7hr. He stated he'd heard Scott Kirby said in a meeting that "this is possibly the best all around aircraft ever built"

Looks like United have one deployed TLV-EWR and you'll see from the link below it's up to 11:5hr flight, regularly 11+ hrs. They've also sent to LAX to NRT. My friend confirmed there's been no seats blocked or cargo restrictions on UA 84/85, and at least 3 of the flights since May 1 have flown with 100% load factor.

So 787-10 flies 11.5hrs with 100% passenger load and a sufficient amount of cargo.....thoughts?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua85
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sun May 05, 2019 11:35 pm

The 787-10 is effectively a slightly longer, slightly heavier 787-9 and the 787-9 is an extremely long-legged aircraft. So it is not surprising it too can handle long missions.

Also, I think people often do not realize how capable the 787 and A350 families are. For example, UA807 IAD-PEK was blocked at almost 14 hours flight time and it took off over 30,000kg below it's maximum ZFW and 16,000kg below it's MTOW at 71% passenger load (which I believe is around average) with 3800kg of cargo and 3900kg of passenger bags. So it still had payload and fuel weight to spare.

And both the 787-9 and A350-900 are doing over 17 hours with 25,000kg-plus payloads.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 12:17 am

BAorAB wrote:
We've heard so many mixed views about the actual performance and capability of the 78X. One of my friends at United Fleet Operations stated the aircraft performance, capability and economics have far exceed the expectations of everyone at the airline and they continue to look for ways to push the aircraft's limit. I thought i'd check into his comments and found some interesting history below. Many state it's a 8hr aircarft, some say 10hr, some even say 7hr. He stated he'd heard Scott Kirby said in a meeting that "this is possibly the best all around aircraft ever built"

Looks like United have one deployed TLV-EWR and you'll see from the link below it's up to 11:5hr flight, regularly 11+ hrs. They've also sent to LAX to NRT. My friend confirmed there's been no seats blocked or cargo restrictions on UA 84/85, and at least 3 of the flights since May 1 have flown with 100% load factor.

So 787-10 flies 11.5hrs with 100% passenger load and a sufficient amount of cargo.....thoughts?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua85


Yes what your friend at UA has said on the B781 capabilities are indeed true and thats why it will be an excellent trans-atlantic work horse pre-dominantly during the 2020-30 decade. With regards to flying range, it was never going to be 7-8 hours but always in the 11 hour category approximately. Now we see AMS-SFO + TLV-EWR going to be operated by it which has a 11:55 block time.

I think you thought the flying range was less is because Emirates officially stated when they ordered the B781, that it would be used on flights up to 9 hours of flying time ex Dubai only.
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 12:28 am

787-10 seems to be performing extremely well. It can handle most of the long-haul mission UA has. I wonder 787-10 can be ultimate choice for UA's 77E replacement. Given the 78J performance we see so far, the chance of UA take delivery of A350 is ZERO.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 12:38 am

The 777-200ER and A350-900 can fly around 1500nm farther at similar payload weights to the 787-10 (55,000kg), but how many of UA's 777-200ER missions exceed the 787-10's usable range is likely sub-20%.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 2:08 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787-10 is effectively a slightly longer, slightly heavier 787-9 and the 787-9 is an extremely long-legged aircraft. So it is not surprising it too can handle long missions.

Also, I think people often do not realize how capable the 787 and A350 families are. For example, UA807 IAD-PEK was blocked at almost 14 hours flight time and it took off over 30,000kg below it's maximum ZFW and 16,000kg below it's MTOW at 71% passenger load (which I believe is around average) with 3800kg of cargo and 3900kg of passenger bags. So it still had payload and fuel weight to spare.

And both the 787-9 and A350-900 are doing over 17 hours with 25,000kg-plus payloads.

Boeing has of late been understating it's range projections, And it's being found that the airplanes have considerable longer legs than advertised. Under promise and overdeliver? Could be!!
 
BAorAB
Topic Author
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 4:12 am

He stated the A350's are definitely coming because the contract cancellation cost is simply too steep. He stated its common agreement within United leadership that the A350 order was a small mistake that started in 2009 and just kept growing, however given it's solid performance and suitability to replace the 74 -777's in the fleet, the best business decision is to keep the order. Qty 25 A359 was too small as odd ball fleet, was changed to Qty 35 A35X and then back to Qty 45 A359. Still leaves almost 30 777's to be replaced probably by 78X
 
N809FR
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:10 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 4:15 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Boeing has of late been understating it's range projections, And it's being found that the airplanes have considerable longer legs than advertised. Under promise and overdeliver? Could be!!


I doubt Boeing would under promise to the extent that the -10 has so few orders compared to the -9. I think it’s more along the lines of a.net saying it’s only good for so much, without any real world knowledge.

Similar to people claiming the A350 barely has the legs for a 5,500+ nm flight.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 06, 2019 4:54 am

BAorAB wrote:
We've heard so many mixed views about the actual performance and capability of the 78X. One of my friends at United Fleet Operations stated the aircraft performance, capability and economics have far exceed the expectations of everyone at the airline and they continue to look for ways to push the aircraft's limit. I thought i'd check into his comments and found some interesting history below. Many state it's a 8hr aircarft, some say 10hr, some even say 7hr. He stated he'd heard Scott Kirby said in a meeting that "this is possibly the best all around aircraft ever built"

Looks like United have one deployed TLV-EWR and you'll see from the link below it's up to 11:5hr flight, regularly 11+ hrs. They've also sent to LAX to NRT. My friend confirmed there's been no seats blocked or cargo restrictions on UA 84/85, and at least 3 of the flights since May 1 have flown with 100% load factor.

So 787-10 flies 11.5hrs with 100% passenger load and a sufficient amount of cargo.....thoughts?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua85



It is interesting to see these 787-10 threads pop up from time to time. Lightsaber has said the 787-10 can fly 5000nm against winter winds with full pax and bags and meaningful cargo. I have no reason to disbelieve him. Think 35t of payload. Anything TATL is a go and West Coast to Japan, Korea, or Bejing is fine.

The 787-10 is easily an 11-12 hour plane. Beyond that distance their are better choices if you want to carry meaningful payload. The capability of the 787-10 should not surprise anyone at this point. If cannot do everything, but it is a very, very good aircraft.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Fri May 10, 2019 12:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 787-10 is effectively a slightly longer, slightly heavier 787-9 and the 787-9 is an extremely long-legged aircraft. So it is not surprising it too can handle long missions.

Also, I think people often do not realize how capable the 787 and A350 families are. For example, UA807 IAD-PEK was blocked at almost 14 hours flight time and it took off over 30,000kg below it's maximum ZFW and 16,000kg below it's MTOW at 71% passenger load (which I believe is around average) with 3800kg of cargo and 3900kg of passenger bags. So it still had payload and fuel weight to spare.

And both the 787-9 and A350-900 are doing over 17 hours with 25,000kg-plus payloads.


Stitch, if you don't mind me asking, may you please clarify this post.

UA807 you reference was operated by a 787-10 with those figures?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Fri May 10, 2019 2:10 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
UA807 you reference was operated by a 787-10 with those figures?


Yes. Flown on 14 February of this year per the original poster of the data.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Fri May 10, 2019 8:06 pm

Any payload - range chart available for the 787-10?
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Fri May 10, 2019 11:51 pm

BAorAB wrote:
He stated the A350's are definitely coming because the contract cancellation cost is simply too steep. He stated its common agreement within United leadership that the A350 order was a small mistake that started in 2009 and just kept growing, however given it's solid performance and suitability to replace the 74 -777's in the fleet, the best business decision is to keep the order. Qty 25 A359 was too small as odd ball fleet, was changed to Qty 35 A35X and then back to Qty 45 A359. Still leaves almost 30 777's to be replaced probably by 78X


779?... possibly why they dialed back from the A35X to A359.....
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21549
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 12:35 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787-10 is effectively a slightly longer, slightly heavier 787-9 and the 787-9 is an extremely long-legged aircraft. So it is not surprising it too can handle long missions.

Also, I think people often do not realize how capable the 787 and A350 families are.


I also think people don't appreciate just how long something like 5,000nmi is. Most regular people never take a flight that long in their lives. As much as we talk about 7,000+nmi routes and ULH routes, most people will never fly them.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 2:01 am

BAorAB wrote:
He stated the A350's are definitely coming because the contract cancellation cost is simply too steep. He stated its common agreement within United leadership that the A350 order was a small mistake that started in 2009 and just kept growing, however given it's solid performance and suitability to replace the 74 -777's in the fleet, the best business decision is to keep the order. Qty 25 A359 was too small as odd ball fleet, was changed to Qty 35 A35X and then back to Qty 45 A359. Still leaves almost 30 777's to be replaced probably by 78X


Only at a very large airline would you call 25 "too small an oddball fleet". :D That's bigger than many whole airlines.

You need about 400 pilots for 25 A350-size aircraft. Seems like a big enough number to support the number of trainers and managers required.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 4:38 am

DocLightning wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 787-10 is effectively a slightly longer, slightly heavier 787-9 and the 787-9 is an extremely long-legged aircraft. So it is not surprising it too can handle long missions.

Also, I think people often do not realize how capable the 787 and A350 families are.


I also think people don't appreciate just how long something like 5,000nmi is. Most regular people never take a flight that long in their lives. As much as we talk about 7,000+nmi routes and ULH routes, most people will never fly them.



Agreed. My longest flight was JFK-FCO. Roughly 4000nm and 9 hrs. I've had family fly LAX-LHR or CDG-MIA. But again, all under 5000nm.

Not too many folks will ever fly beyond this distance. The 787-10 can fly 95% of long haul flights very efficiently. Why stress about the few outliers.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 10:17 am

9 hrs is not considered as being long haul.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 10:21 am

zeke wrote:
9 hrs is not considered as being long haul.


Depends where... Quoting the classic from BBC “People like us - pilots”, anything longer than LHR-AMS is longhaul ;)
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 10:23 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
Depends where... Quoting the classic from BBC “People like us - pilots”, anything longer than LHR-AMS is longhaul ;)


I hear you :)
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sat May 11, 2019 12:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
UA807 you reference was operated by a 787-10 with those figures?


Yes. Flown on 14 February of this year per the original poster of the data.


Impressive! The 787-10 is more capable than I first thought.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Sun May 12, 2019 7:17 pm

I think the fan club might be getting over excited about what the 78J can do at the outer edge of the envelope. It was designed as a higher capacity/shorter range version of the 789. It is clearly a great airframe for regional routes and for trans-Atlantic or US West Coast to North Asia. But it's not going to work for eg trans-Pacific routes from Oceania or Southeast Asia to Western Europe. NZ, for example, have said they are interested in it for their future fleet – but for Asian routes, not trans-Pacific.

PS What's the story with TLV-EWR? From FlightAware it looks as if the -10 has been replaced by the 77W. Is that just a seasonal thing or a permanent change?
 
gloom
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 13, 2019 6:55 am

a.net experts seem to forget one thing, quite easily.

78J is exactly a larger 789. Longer fuselage, more seats, higher OEW/DOW variant. It was made to move more people over LongHaul rather, as opposed to 789, which was made to carry less people on ULH ranges.

This however would not stop this plane from ULH flights, as it's exactly same tank capacity etc. The difference is less payload over same distance compared to 789 (at ULH means here 5000nm+). So, basically if it's one off, you can probably take full board over 6000nm sector, and it could be cheaper than having another 789 just for the route. It will cost more to fly due to weight, but there's offset you have the plane for main market (may it be TATL, transcon for USA, or intra-Asia flying).

If you're after 5000nm+ sectors and cargo, you're probably off for a different plane, be it a subfleets of 10 and 9 (9 lighter than 10, so more revenue with same TOW), or going to 359 like Finnair did for much more cargo and pax at the same time.

The question is not "is it capable", I guess we all know it is. The question is "is it better positioned than other". It is on all conditions where you can fill the board. If load factors are small enough to take 789, or high enough [cargo] to fill a bigger machine like 359, you're likely to go for split or the other machine (depending on how's the situation across connection network).

Cheers,
Adam
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 13, 2019 2:30 pm

I wonder if SQ looked into using the B787-10 as a ULR - if they installed the current cabin config used on the A359ULR, how far could a 254T B787-10 fly...?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 13, 2019 9:25 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
I wonder if SQ looked into using the B787-10 as a ULR - if they installed the current cabin config used on the A359ULR, how far could a 254T B787-10 fly...?


Using the ACAP, in a Boeing 330-seat OEM configuration with a 20,000kg payload (which I believe is what has been given as the average for SQ's A359ULR flights) range is around 8000nm. Of course, the ACAP is not representative of real-world flight planning so actual range would be less, perhaps countered somewhat by a lower Basic Empty Weight due to the lower seat count.

All that being said, SQ's A350-900ULRs block a bit over 111,000kg of fuel on SIN-EWR and the maximum fuel capacity of the 787-10 is a bit over 101,000kg. Also, just going by OEM OEW plus maximum usable fuel, you're at 246,000kg so usable payload at best would be around 10,000kg. And with the A359ULR's block fuel load, payload is effectively zero.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13967
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Mon May 13, 2019 11:39 pm

Stitch wrote:
Using the ACAP, in a Boeing 330-seat OEM configuration with a 20,000kg payload (which I believe is what has been given as the average for SQ's A359ULR flights) range is around 8000nm. Of course, the ACAP is not representative of real-world flight planning so actual range would be less, perhaps countered somewhat by a lower Basic Empty Weight due to the lower seat count.


A still air distance of 8000 nm is not enough to do JFK-SiN, need a still air range of 8500 nm+.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sciing
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Tue May 14, 2019 6:42 am

CRJ900 wrote:
I wonder if SQ looked into using the B787-10 as a ULR - if they installed the current cabin config used on the A359ULR, how far could a 254T B787-10 fly...?

The 787-10 is quite MTOW limited. The 2nd kink in the payload range chart (start fuel limit) is at quite low payload, as Stich wrote with full tanks you have just 10t left. So larger tanks as for the A359ULR will not help. Less weight always help for range, but better use a frame with lower OEW a 789.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 In service Performance

Wed May 15, 2019 9:00 am

sciing wrote:
The 787-10 is quite MTOW limited. The 2nd kink in the payload range chart (start fuel limit) is at quite low payload, as Stich wrote with full tanks you have just 10t left. So larger tanks as for the A359ULR will not help. Less weight always help for range, but better use a frame with lower OEW a 789.

Reason why the A333 only got the Center Tank enabled with the very recent MTOW markups.
( Apparently not available for the 787 platform.)
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fr8mech, xxD328xx and 26 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