Just noticed on Flightradar that UA 79 -EWR to NRT was operated by a 787X - N14001. The route is typicaly flown by a 789. Does anyone know if this was a passenger flight? Load factor? Cargo?

In any case 13:59 flight time for a 787X is impressive. Given how often we hear from Airbus fans on here that it's range is insufficient for long haul. I know UA operate TLV to EWR with a 787X daily which is often a 11:30hr flight. But 13:59 is a whole new level.

I see there was almost 1hr of taxi time in total for both sides, but still 13hrs in the air is impressive given it's specs.

I think there are a number of quite long haul flights that B78X’s do. Just because it doesn’t have the legs of the B772ER, A359 or B789 does, does not relegate the B78X to medium haul flights only!

BAorAB wrote:

Just noticed on Flightradar that UA 79 -EWR to NRT was operated by a 787X - N14001. The route is typicaly flown by a 789. Does anyone know if this was a passenger flight? Load factor? Cargo?

In any case 13:59 flight time for a 787X is impressive. Given how often we hear from Airbus fans on here that it's range is insufficient for long haul. I know UA operate TLV to EWR with a 787X daily which is often a 11:30hr flight. But 13:59 is a whole new level.

I see there was almost 1hr of taxi time in total for both sides, but still 13hrs in the air is impressive given it's specs.

Boeing has so Under-advertised the range of the 787-10 that it was assumed to NOT be as capable as the 787-9 flying westbound. Whether they did it to sandbag Airbus? I don't know but something I STRONGLY suspected. I suspect they're going to push Airbus' Capabilities and their strategy of building weight variant Airplanes in the same model line. It's worked up to now? But Boeing is "sandbagging" them and their strategy with the 787-10, and May do it as well with 777-8 and -9 models as well.

CSA zas flew 11h flight PRG-UCN-PRG with A330-300 230 MTOW variant. So I cannot see why 787-10 do not make 13 or 14h flight.

Cheers

United has subbed in a 78X for a 789 on EWR-JNB-EWR before during the summer. Passenger loads indicated it was able to takeoff with more pax than a 789 could seat. Look back to the United Fleet Thread around August 15hr+ flight, from high pressure altitude airport.

I imagine the 787-10 has more performance than people give it credit.

CriticalPoint wrote:

The 787-10 Carry’s the same amount of fuel as the -9 and -8. Therefore, yes it can roughly fly the same distance.

False. It is heavier frame, both in terms of DOW, and fuel burn (heavier DOW affects burn at the very same payload, so more fuel for same time is required).
And, 788 fuel capacity is NEARLY the same, not identical to 9/10. I know it's as minor difference as it could probably be

I think the range at same payload is somewhere just below 1000nm (assuming we're talking MTOW range, both 254t). On below-MTOW payload-range, the difference will be probably of 100-200nm order.

Still 787X is capable of 13-14hrs flights with full board, so ULR bird, definitely.

Cheers,
Adam

The 781 is capable of 6400nm at full pax according to Boeing, why would it be surprising that it can complete a mission lower than this when it subs for an aircraft with a lower pax load. Why are we not excited when other aircraft perform within their capabilities?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

The 781 is capable of 6400nm at full pax according to Boeing, why would it be surprising that it can complete a mission lower than this when it subs for an aircraft with a lower pax load. Why are we not excited when other aircraft perform within their capabilities?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because so many on this forum labeled it as a medium haul east coast to europe aircraft with a sweet spot pf 6-8hr flight times.

I think you are mixing up your 787s and your 737s. 3 is the new 4,5,6 and in many cases 8;-)

BAorAB wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 781 is capable of 6400nm at full pax according to Boeing, why would it be surprising that it can complete a mission lower than this when it subs for an aircraft with a lower pax load. Why are we not excited when other aircraft perform within their capabilities?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because so many on this forum labeled it as a medium haul east coast to europe aircraft with a sweet spot pf 6-8hr flight times.

Another relevant point


While larger aircraft variants with less range than their smaller counterparts may have to weight restrict
to a similar payload on westbound flights into the wind they still have an advantage in being able to take a full load on the return, tailwind leg



One reason why the 747SP did not do well except for the very longest flights, regular Classic operators accepted weight restrictions on certain sectors with strong headwinds knowing they could carry a full load on the return

BAorAB wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The 781 is capable of 6400nm at full pax according to Boeing, why would it be surprising that it can complete a mission lower than this when it subs for an aircraft with a lower pax load. Why are we not excited when other aircraft perform within their capabilities?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because so many on this forum labeled it as a medium haul east coast to europe aircraft with a sweet spot pf 6-8hr flight times.

It does about 4knm (9-10hrs) at MZFW. Just because its good at those 6-8 hr routes does not mean that's anywhere near its maximum.

Fred

BAorAB wrote:

Because so many on this forum labeled it as a medium haul east coast to europe aircraft with a sweet spot pf 6-8hr flight times.

Because it is where it excels. It maximizes payload at these distances, which is just above typical NB, and is optimized for shorter routes than most current WB.

It doesn't mean it's limited to such missions.

It's quite similar for any widebody. Notice A330s flying in Asia (where they excel, especially older birds). Notice A350 excelling on HEL-LHR route for its payload capabilities (cargo hauler). There are many highlights - for many planes - where specific requirements make ULH plane a great 2hr hauler. Just go to ACAPS, check the range/payload. And imagine the plane isn't going to fly MZFW, or full pax missions only. It's actually able to fly ANY mission (or any point) below the max curve. EVERY SINGLE MISSION.

Just as simple as that. One just needs to think, nothing more.

Cheers,
Adam

flipdewaf wrote:

The 781 is capable of 6400nm at full pax according to Boeing, why would it be surprising that it can complete a mission lower than this when it subs for an aircraft with a lower pax load. Why are we not excited when other aircraft perform within their capabilities?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred, like it or not, many have claimed the 787-10 is not a true long haul aircraft, despite the ACAP numbers and real world daily flights such as SFO-AKL, LAX-NRT, or EWR-TLV.

The stated 6 tonnes of IGW that will be coming should put the 787-10 well within the 77E mission envelope for almost any contingence. No aircraft can be all things but many dubious claims about the 787-10 having poor payload/range performance relative to its competitors
that have been made over the years have probably been overblown.

ElroyJetson wrote:

No aircraft can be all things but many dubious claims about the 787-10 having poor payload/range performance relative to its competitors
that have been made over the years have probably been overblown.

Well, to tell the truth, I have a feeling 787-10 "advantage" is overblown.
There's a plane just next to it on the line. 787-9.
From operational standpoint:
- has a lower DOW
- has same MZFW
- has same MTOW
- as a result it can haul more payload (tons) further

The only drawback is it has less seats (and payload volume, perhaps).

So, actually only advantage that 787-10 has over 787-9 is an edge where you have at least few of those seats occupied, to justify higher fuel burn and higher purchase costs. And where you can reach destination with those extra seats filled.

Doesn't look so good now, right?

I know it's extremely simplified point of view - not including many important considerations airlines do. But a one where false conclusions (how limited is the plane) can be drawn. I'd say "typical a-net".

I remember "you can't win the faith stating facts" Polish saying. It's exactly that. Same for A350 lovers, so get used to

Cheers,
Adam

Jayunited posted this previously in viewtopic.php?t=1437339

"The last 787-10 UA operated on SFO-AKL-SFO route left on December 19th (for the next few days UA917/916 will operate on a 77W because we need to move a lot of cargo). However the 787-10 will return to the route on December 23rd or 24th. Looking at the fuel load for the December 19th flight the gate fuel was 191,200 LBS and the cleared fuel was 190,000.

The 787-10 max tank capacity is 226,900 LBS. Like you correctly pointed out there is plenty of space left in the tanks even on a flight like SFO-AKL but with 304 passengers (final passenger count on the December 19th flight) and 8987 LBS in luggage with no cargo there was only 5542 LBS remaining. MTOG for a 787-10 is 560,000 LBS the December 19 flight weight in at 554,458 LBS if UA were to max out the tanks that would add an additional 35,700 LBS of fuel meaning we would have to cut 35,700 pounds of passengers and their bags.

As you correctly pointed out the fuel tanks are not the issue the MTOG is. If Boeing could address the MTOG then the 787-10 could compete with the A35J. I'm no expert in that field but raising the MTOG by 36,000 pounds would require a lot of work. Can the wings at their current length even support an additional 36,000 pounds?"

Not sure anyone has said the 787-10 has to equal the specs of the A35J. Kind of a straw man argument imho. I believe the point of the thread is the 787-10 is more capable than many originally indicated.

To this point neither the A35J or the 787-10 has sold particularly well relative to their smaller brethren. Is this a reflection on both not being as good, or is it a reflection of where each aircraft is in the replacement cycle of older, less efficient aircraft?

I guess time will tell.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Not sure anyone has said the 787-10 has to equal the specs of the A35J. Kind of a straw man argument imho. I believe the point of the thread is the 787-10 is more capable than many originally indicated.

Indeed, they are in a totally different range spectrum. Even with the additional MTOW the A35K has over 2knm more range at the same payload.

ElroyJetson wrote:

To this point neither the A35J or the 787-10 has sold particularly well relative to their smaller brethren. Is this a reflection on both not being as good, or is it a reflection of where each aircraft is in the replacement cycle of older, less efficient aircraft?

I guess time will tell.

I think it’s none of these things.

This is me thinking out loud so please excuse if it makes not a lot of sense.

A 781/A35K can stand in for a 789/A359 respectively but the other way can only occur if the larger (more expensive) sibling wasn’t needed in the first place…of course there can be efficiencies between siblings (maintenance, pilot pool etc) but the larger more expensive model needs to be able to justify a network (and associated efficiencies) by itself above and beyond what the smaller (cheaper/less risky) sibling brings to that same network.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Not sure anyone has said the 787-10 has to equal the specs of the A35J. Kind of a straw man argument imho. I believe the point of the thread is the 787-10 is more capable than many originally indicated.

Indeed, they are in a totally different range spectrum. Even with the additional MTOW the A35K has over 2knm more range at the same payload.

ElroyJetson wrote:

To this point neither the A35J or the 787-10 has sold particularly well relative to their smaller brethren. Is this a reflection on both not being as good, or is it a reflection of where each aircraft is in the replacement cycle of older, less efficient aircraft?

I guess time will tell.

I think it’s none of these things.

This is me thinking out loud so please excuse if it makes not a lot of sense.

A 781/A35K can stand in for a 789/A359 respectively but the other way can only occur if the larger (more expensive) sibling wasn’t needed in the first place…of course there can be efficiencies between siblings (maintenance, pilot pool etc) but the larger more expensive model needs to be able to justify a network (and associated efficiencies) by itself above and beyond what the smaller (cheaper/less risky) sibling brings to that same network.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A very good point, Also, I have heard some suggest the efficiencies of the 787-10 and A35J are really not all that much better than the A359 and 789, but as you said, the larger aircraft are considerably more expensive from a capex perspective and unless flying at near capacity, more costly to operate.

I would think airlines considering buying the larger model would need to be very certain they can consistently fill the larger aircraft.

MileHFL400 wrote:

I think there are a number of quite long haul flights that B78X’s do. Just because it doesn’t have the legs of the B772ER, A359 or B789 does, does not relegate the B78X to medium haul flights only!

The -10 definitely has the legs of the 77E. What it lacks vs the 77E is that at those ranges, it can't carry cargo, which CO/UA can on say EWR-HKG with 77E.