User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:07 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:

It is about double the difference between the A350-900 (1670 nm) vs the 787-10 and the A350-1000 vs the 777-9 (873).

Airbus list the A350-1000 with a range of 8400 nm, and Boeing has a range on the 777-9 of 7527 nm, a differance of 873 nm.
Airbus list the A350-900 with a range of 8100 nm and Boeing with a range on the 787-10 of 6430 nm., a difference of 1670 nm.

A 6 tonne increase in MTOW only puts a small dint in the 1670 nm difference (best part of 4 hrs flight time), they need to find more like 20-25 tonnes more TOW to reach that, good luck doing that on the current engines.

It’s a question of how many operators need that 1100 or whatever nm (after a 6 tone increase). Boeing doesn’t actually have to match A359 range to put a dent in A359 sales, just like Airbus didn’t have to match 77E range to beat it with later A333s (although I’m aware differences between A330 and 77E are more dramatic than what we are discussing).

Note I’m just talking general and not suggesting the 787-10ER or whatever will or will not have major effects on the A359.

A359/ 78X vs A35K/779 isn’t the best comparison though.
The 78X has less range than the A359, but is slightly larger to similar size and lighter or similar weight. The 779 may have less still air range than the A359 but it is clearly larger and heavier. Idk how quickly payload will fall off with the 779 va the A35K.


Strangely he does not mention 8700Nm design range of the 777-8X

Why that? :roll:


Because it’s not relevant to the discussion...
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:10 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

Your argument does not seem to reflect the reality because long-haul flights by the 787-9 (especially) have opened thousands point-to-point routes without being made by the A350-900.

My argument is supported by one highlight that the 787-9 single flight in very long routes by Qantas and United.
They have not ordered the A359



Thousands?!?! That is an absurd over-exaggeration. A hundred-odd routes, maybe closer to two hundred, but not thousands of new flights opened by 789s, there are only about 500 789s in operation to begin with, and the vast majority of routes they operate have been operated by other aircraft.

The 789's ability to open new routes is due to its small size and that it flies ULH, but that doesn't mean by default it's more efficient than the A359 on the longest routes.

The 789 has a lot more units in service and so naturally will have more operators and more routes, arbitrarily picking 2 examples is too specific an example to really take seriously, it's not like there's a shortage of ULH A359 flights.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here though? I said that according to one source (the 787 vs A359 range thread in tech ops) the A359 is more efficient at the outer reaches of range. You've made a completely different argument with oddly specific examples.

Checklist787 wrote:
False.
No more than the 787-9 who is also the replacement of the 777-200ER.

The 789 / A359 are substitutes whose first outsold the second. Why do I have the strange feeling that you are using the 789 / 78J combo by comparing them with the A359 by extracting the weak points by putting them in situations facing the A359 and which are not true since unfounded.

The 789 / A359 are 77E proxyes and the A359 is not alone as you seem to make it look.

You have to be more realistic than that. :roll:


Neither plane matches the A359's capability and range at present, the 78X is unlikely to come close without quite significant changes, and that's the A359's main selling point, it has that great capability but is still efficient on shorter sectors (though not the most efficient). That's an undoubted strength vs BOTH.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:12 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

My argument is supported by one highlight that the 787-9 single flight in very long routes by Qantas and United.
They have not ordered the A359

:


United has a whole 45 A350-900s on order....please stop making stuff up just to incite an A be B conflict.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:47 pm

Polot wrote:
It’s a question of how many operators need that 1100 or whatever nm (after a 6 tone increase). Boeing doesn’t actually have to match A359 range to put a dent in A359 sales, just like Airbus didn’t have to match 77E range to beat it with later A333s (although I’m aware differences between A330 and 77E are more dramatic than what we are discussing).


That’s a bit like asking how many operators need the extra range on the 787-9. The A330:sits between the 767 and 772 and can do 200-250 pax plus 20 tonnes cargo comfortably. It lifts the same number of LD3s as the 744 and 772. It was only good up to 9 hrs.

787-10 will also be good up to 9 hrs, beyond that it will not carry as much cargo. The range figures Boeing and Airbus quote are passengers and bags only, no cargo, the 1000 nm difference means about 15 tonnes cargo.

The 78X is about 8% more expensive at list price vs the 359.

Polot wrote:
The 779 may have less still air range than the A359 but it is clearly larger and heavier. Idk how quickly payload will fall off with the 779 va the A35K.


I think you mean 35K ? Yes slightly less range but with a higher design payload around 400 pax vs 360 pax. Back at the 779 design range the 35K will be lifting about 10 tonnes more payload.

The 779 is about 20% more expensive at lust price than the 35K, I know people don’t pay list, the ratio reduction would be similar percentages by each vendor.

clickhappy wrote:
zeke wrote:
Where are these links and quotes from media reports to demonstrate the existence of such news ?


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-secures-order-8-dreamliners-120412947.html

The order needs shareholder approval, due in September.


That report has no mention of the 6 t increase.

ElroyJetson wrote:
However, a 6T increase in MTOW for a 787-10 could probably do AKL-IAH or AKL-YVR as Boeing has a brochure range for the current 787-10 at 6430 nm. AKL-IAH is 6444 nm. A 6T increase should get them there.


Getting there yes as you have 20-30 kts tail, getting back......

Checklist787 wrote:
Strangely he does not mention 8700Nm design range of the 777-8X

Why that?


Boeing’s statements today in the Seattle Times were they are pushing the EIS of the 778 back, and could even be read they may not even build it.

“In addition, demand for the 777X, and, in particular for the smaller 777-8X version, has been soft and recent sales have been sparse.

Boeing will build the 777-9X first and was expected to deliver the -8X model perhaps a year later. Smith said Boeing is “looking at the timing and demand for the -8 to see if that still makes sense and do we want to push that out?”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Strato2
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:53 pm

So with this stunning 6t MTOW increase will the landing gear crumble at the gate and everybody will laugh or at V1?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3894
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:38 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
There have been multiple media reports regarding NZ recent commitment to purchase eight 787-10 aircraft from Boeing. NZ is stating that after intensive discussion with Boeing they feel the 787-10 can fly any existing 77E route In their network. The statement suggests Boeing has made upgrades to both the 789 and 787-10. Keep in mind that NZ has the 77E currently flying AKL-IAH which is 6448 nm, and also flying AKL- YVR at 6181 nm. If the 787-10 can truly fly these missions that would be a siupgrade.
So if Boeing is able to boost payload/range performance for the 787-10 to match the 77E what are the implications for the A359 which has been marketed as a direct 77E replacement?

Do the rumored 787-10 upgrades seriously encroach on the A 359? Is there a place for both frames as a 77E replacement?


What would ANY MGWT improvement on the 787-10 do to the A359? You either like one or the other.
Who makes you the Best Deal for support? What are the Heavy Check periods? What is the Max Range performance? what is the freight upload with full pax bags?
what kind of parts support is available? These would be some of the questions asked. the addition of MGWT of 12,000 LBS is good. However? at what cost does it come? The B747-400 lifted off at 989,000 Lbs. (ONCE) Did that mean much to the operators? Not much. Because it Could do it didn't mean THEY would! or should.
The A350 and the B787 are evenly Matched. Engine performance and Manufacturer performance will tell which will win over whom. I personally? Like them Both and I'm very familiar with both Boeing and Airbus having worked them Both during my Career. The REST of it? Pure Marketing!
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:50 pm

Just like Airbus have withheld A330NEO capability enhancements to protect the A350, Boeing have done the same with the 787 family versus 777X.

The reported 787 enhancements are a sign this model is being unleashed, which is already vastly more profitable than the X family will ever be, especially the 778.

Does this make a 777-10 more likely, and the 778 less?

Will Airbus continue to 'wait' for A350 capability enhancements before announcing A330NEO enhancements? Will A330NEO capability enhancements trigger an A350-1100 to maintain the model separation?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:33 pm

Can somebody please tell me why PR didn’t get the 789. Why CX didn’t get the 789. Both are PHENOMENAL aircraft. The 787’s have opened up routes never thought of before. The A350’s have also showed incredible pax + cargo range. While the 359/35K unequivocally have an edge. This does not diminish the 787. And also no one talks about how the A35K is basically a more capable 77W.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:03 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Lovely way to start another A vs B thread with a loaded question, yet again clearly intended to get some bites/opportunities for gloating.

Yeah, that never happened here before.

Image

Waar is de huisvlieg? :D

Back to the topic as loaded as it is. I think it will be of marginal utility to airlines who already have 787s, but I doubt that it's a campaign-winning tweak against the A359. NZ fits that case. Where I might be worried is with UA's A359 order as they are already a large owner of 787s. I would be very disappointed if they didn't end up with the A359: I saw the new livery IRL for the first time a few weeks ago, and it is actually very nice. On an A359, it would be sweet. But sadly airlines don't make purchases based on my sense of aesthetics.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:48 am

Bricktop wrote:
Back to the topic as loaded as it is. I think it will be of marginal utility to airlines who already have 787s, but I doubt that it's a campaign-winning tweak against the A359. NZ fits that case. Where I might be worried is with UA's A359 order as they are already a large owner of 787s. I would be very disappointed if they didn't end up with the A359: I saw the new livery IRL for the first time a few weeks ago, and it is actually very nice. On an A359, it would be sweet. But sadly airlines don't make purchases based on my sense of aesthetics.


In my view the A350 didn’t make sense for NZ as they were only looking at 8 aircraft. When adding a new fleet it involves additional simulator, cabin trainer, crew training, spares.

Then we look at what NZ have said, they are looking at introducing the 78X in over several years. If you have 13 787s is it much easier to schedule everything more efficiently adding one 78X at a time over several years to a fleet of 13 787s.

No doubt when looking at the total direct and indirect costs, the 78X made more sense, and provided better schedule efficiency.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
LDRA
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:26 am

What A333 233T MTOW did to 77E
 
Antarius
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:26 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why PR didn’t get the 789. Why CX didn’t get the 789. Both are PHENOMENAL aircraft. The 787’s have opened up routes never thought of before. The A350’s have also showed incredible pax + cargo range. While the 359/35K unequivocally have an edge. This does not diminish the 787. And also no one talks about how the A35K is basically a more capable 77W.


Umm... seriously? You think this has not been discussed.

Stop trying to stir things up.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR MAA KTM
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:11 am

Strato2 wrote:
So with this stunning 6t MTOW increase will the landing gear crumble at the gate and everybody will laugh or at V1?

As many have said landing weight would be the same. So the max load on the landing gear would be unchanged.

There is very little load on the landing gear when stationary at the gate. Landing more than doubles the actual weight of the of the plane in term of loading on the landing gear. Landing at 180T would have an equivalent load on the landing gear of probably 400+T while stationary at the gate.

The same applies with takeoff. As the aircraft accelerates, the lift from the wings reduces the weight on the landing gear.

The 787-10 has a higher landing weight than the 787-9. So there is definitely headroom in the 787-9 landing gear.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:19 am

LDRA wrote:
What A333 233T MTOW did to 77E



Pithy and well said. The enhanced A333 effectively killed the 77E in terms of sales. Granted the 77E could carry more payload farther, but that is often needed only in extreme cases.

The A359 can carry more payload farther than any 787, but is that capability always needed? It will be interesting to see the potential upgrades to both aircraft. If the 787-10 gets a 6T MTOW increase that could be a real difference maker, but how much of a difference maker remains to be seen. Upgrades to the A330 in terms of MTOW and enhancements to the 77W were enormously successful. Upgrades to the 767 and 757 in the form of the 764 and 753 not so much.

I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
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
 
Antarius
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:48 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
LDRA wrote:
What A333 233T MTOW did to 77E



Pithy and well said. The enhanced A333 effectively killed the 77E in terms of sales. Granted the 77E could carry more payload farther, but that is often needed only in extreme cases.

The A359 can carry more payload farther than any 787, but is that capability always needed? It will be interesting to see the potential upgrades to both aircraft. If the 787-10 gets a 6T MTOW increase that could be a real difference maker, but how much of a difference maker remains to be seen. Upgrades to the A330 in terms of MTOW and enhancements to the 77W were enormously successful. Upgrades to the 767 and 757 in the form of the 764 and 753 not so much.

I guess we'll all find out soon enough.


I do think a fundamental flaw with a.net and enthusiasts (other than militant brand loyalty) is that technical performance is placed on a pedestal. The 77L can do all kinds of ridiculous things - are they needed by most? Absolutely not.

Will be interesting to see. And also, how the equation changes again with subsequent a350 PIPs
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR MAA KTM
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:00 am

Antarius wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
LDRA wrote:
What A333 233T MTOW did to 77E



Pithy and well said. The enhanced A333 effectively killed the 77E in terms of sales. Granted the 77E could carry more payload farther, but that is often needed only in extreme cases.

The A359 can carry more payload farther than any 787, but is that capability always needed? It will be interesting to see the potential upgrades to both aircraft. If the 787-10 gets a 6T MTOW increase that could be a real difference maker, but how much of a difference maker remains to be seen. Upgrades to the A330 in terms of MTOW and enhancements to the 77W were enormously successful. Upgrades to the 767 and 757 in the form of the 764 and 753 not so much.

I guess we'll all find out soon enough.


I do think a fundamental flaw with a.net and enthusiasts (other than militant brand loyalty) is that technical performance is placed on a pedestal. The 77L can do all kinds of ridiculous things - are they needed by most? Absolutely not.

Will be interesting to see. And also, how the equation changes again with subsequent a350 PIPs

Very very fair point. If an airline is not huge with cargo why do they need a plane that can carry 50T out to 13-14 hours, when they can carry the needed 35 more efficiently. If performance was needed 77L’s would have sold at a ridiculous clip. airlines don’t need to carry MZFW 15.5 hours.
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:00 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why PR didn’t get the 789. Why CX didn’t get the 789. Both are PHENOMENAL aircraft. The 787’s have opened up routes never thought of before. The A350’s have also showed incredible pax + cargo range. While the 359/35K unequivocally have an edge. This does not diminish the 787. And also no one talks about how the A35K is basically a more capable 77W.


Simple really: apart from their 777s, PR has been a loyal Airbus customer. The A350s seemed like a natural replacement for the A340s. If PR will ever order 787s, it probably would be to complement their A330s, but I doubt that is happening anytime soon since their A330s are still pretty young. As for CX, probably for similar reasons, though CX is a bigger Boeing customer lately, when compared to PR.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:02 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why PR didn’t get the 789. Why CX didn’t get the 789. Both are PHENOMENAL aircraft. The 787’s have opened up routes never thought of before. The A350’s have also showed incredible pax + cargo range. While the 359/35K unequivocally have an edge. This does not diminish the 787. And also no one talks about how the A35K is basically a more capable 77W.


Simple really: apart from their 777s, PR has been a loyal Airbus customer. The A350s seemed like a natural replacement for the A340s. If PR will ever order 787s, it probably would be to complement their A330s, but I doubt that is happening anytime soon since their A330s are still pretty young. As for CX, probably for similar reasons, though CX is a bigger Boeing customer lately, when compared to PR.

I know. I was just feeding the troll at the time. If we see PR 787’s it will be A330 replacements in a high density configuration. Way More efficient
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:14 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
So with this stunning 6t MTOW increase will the landing gear crumble at the gate and everybody will laugh or at V1?

As many have said landing weight would be the same. So the max load on the landing gear would be unchanged.

There is very little load on the landing gear when stationary at the gate. Landing more than doubles the actual weight of the of the plane in term of loading on the landing gear. Landing at 180T would have an equivalent load on the landing gear of probably 400+T while stationary at the gate.

The same applies with takeoff. As the aircraft accelerates, the lift from the wings reduces the weight on the landing gear.

The 787-10 has a higher landing weight than the 787-9. So there is definitely headroom in the 787-9 landing gear.

So what about an emergency landing straight after take off? The landing gear has to be able to survive a landing at MTOW
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:57 am

RandWkop wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
So with this stunning 6t MTOW increase will the landing gear crumble at the gate and everybody will laugh or at V1?

As many have said landing weight would be the same. So the max load on the landing gear would be unchanged.

There is very little load on the landing gear when stationary at the gate. Landing more than doubles the actual weight of the of the plane in term of loading on the landing gear. Landing at 180T would have an equivalent load on the landing gear of probably 400+T while stationary at the gate.

The same applies with takeoff. As the aircraft accelerates, the lift from the wings reduces the weight on the landing gear.

The 787-10 has a higher landing weight than the 787-9. So there is definitely headroom in the 787-9 landing gear.

So what about an emergency landing straight after take off? The landing gear has to be able to survive a landing at MTOW



That is often why fuel is dumped prior to an emergency landing. The plane exceeds its MLW.
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
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:48 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
RandWkop wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
As many have said landing weight would be the same. So the max load on the landing gear would be unchanged.

There is very little load on the landing gear when stationary at the gate. Landing more than doubles the actual weight of the of the plane in term of loading on the landing gear. Landing at 180T would have an equivalent load on the landing gear of probably 400+T while stationary at the gate.

The same applies with takeoff. As the aircraft accelerates, the lift from the wings reduces the weight on the landing gear.

The 787-10 has a higher landing weight than the 787-9. So there is definitely headroom in the 787-9 landing gear.

So what about an emergency landing straight after take off? The landing gear has to be able to survive a landing at MTOW



That is often why fuel is dumped prior to an emergency landing. The plane exceeds its MLW.

So there will never be a scenario where the plane needs to get back on the ground without dumping fuel?
 
Eyad89
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:10 am

RandWkop wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
RandWkop wrote:
So what about an emergency landing straight after take off? The landing gear has to be able to survive a landing at MTOW



That is often why fuel is dumped prior to an emergency landing. The plane exceeds its MLW.

So there will never be a scenario where the plane needs to get back on the ground without dumping fuel?


It is certainly possible for planes to land overweight. Let’s say there was fire onboard or any other emergency where time is of the essence, then pilots can decide to land without dumping fuel. That however requires immediate inspection of the plane before next takeoff.
 
VV
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:21 am

The question asked by the poster is,
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?"

Should the question be like the one below?
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A350-900 and A350-1000?"

Today it seems it is still a rumor. Can anyone please confirm whether the MTOW increase is true?

If it is not the reality then the initial question is irrelevant.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:28 am

Eyad89 wrote:
RandWkop wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


That is often why fuel is dumped prior to an emergency landing. The plane exceeds its MLW.

So there will never be a scenario where the plane needs to get back on the ground without dumping fuel?


It is certainly possible for planes to land overweight. Let’s say there was fire onboard or any other emergency where time is of the essence, then pilots can decide to land without dumping fuel. That however requires immediate inspection of the plane before next takeoff.



It’s not only possible it’s part of the certification process to show the aircraft
can be landed at MGTOW


There are occasions where you don’t
have time to dump or burn off fuel and need to get back on the ground immediately


The aircraft will be subject to an overweight landing inspection and, as long as it wasnt an overly hard landing there’s normally no damage done
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
Checklist787
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:32 am

VV wrote:
The question asked by the poster is,
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?"

Should the question be like the one below?
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A350-900 and A350-1000?"

Today it seems it is still a rumor. Can anyone please confirm whether the MTOW increase is true?

If it is not the reality then the initial question is irrelevant.


Yes it's just a rumor. For me,
6t represents 6,000 liters of fuel moreover.
I do not think there's room in the thin wings of the 787 ... :roll:
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17387
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:04 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Your argument does not seem to reflect the reality because long-haul flights by the 787-9 (especially) have opened thousands point-to-point routes


It seems your posts do not reflect reality, either. :shakehead:

Do you have a list of these thousands of new p2p routes being flown by 789s?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:51 am

VV wrote:
The question asked by the poster is,
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?"

Should the question be like the one below?
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A350-900 and A350-1000?"

Today it seems it is still a rumor. Can anyone please confirm whether the MTOW increase is true?

If it is not the reality then the initial question is irrelevant.


The Air Current reported it. No confirmation from Boeing. But isn't speculation always fun?
 
VV
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:10 am

ITSTours wrote:
VV wrote:
The question asked by the poster is,
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?"

Should the question be like the one below?
    "What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A350-900 and A350-1000?"

Today it seems it is still a rumor. Can anyone please confirm whether the MTOW increase is true?

If it is not the reality then the initial question is irrelevant.


The Air Current reported it. No confirmation from Boeing. But isn't speculation always fun?


Let's assume it's true then.

The question should be.
What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A350-900 and A350-1000?
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:02 pm

Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.


My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.
 
musman9853
Posts: 780
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:12 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Quite a lot of assumptions based on a comment from a single airline, but that is par for the course with you.

If we believe the 787 vs A359 range thread in tech ops, then we see that the 789's fuel burn vs the A359 narrows/diminishes at longer ranges. The 78X will burn more fuel than the 789 (overall, not per passenger), so it's entirely possible that the A359 will still hold an edge on the very longest flights.


that's all well and good, but the vast majority of routes aren't ULH monsters than need the a350/777x.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:10 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.


Nice to see you back Chris
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21234
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:36 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.

My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.

Welcome back, Chris!

I like to keep in mind that the RR UltraFan will need a popular airframe to make its debut on.

If what I think will happen does happen, I think A350 will make a great (ehm) leap over the competition.

Given RR has the de-facto exclusive on A350 and that Airbus has made statements about partnering with RR on future developments, I think A350 is a natural place for the first UltraFan to appear on.

I know RR has its troubles, but then again GE is also having its troubles too, and we have no evidence of GE developing a gear for the market space we're talking about.

One would really have to wonder what kind of response GE could make to an A350neo with UltraFan in the early-mid 2020s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:51 pm

Revelation wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.

My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.

Welcome back, Chris!

I like to keep in mind that the RR UltraFan will need a popular airframe to make its debut on.

If what I think will happen does happen, I think A350 will make a great (ehm) leap over the competition.

Given RR has the de-facto exclusive on A350 and that Airbus has made statements about partnering with RR on future developments, I think A350 is a natural place for the first UltraFan to appear on.

I know RR has its troubles, but then again GE is also having its troubles too, and we have no evidence of GE developing a gear for the market space we're talking about.

One would really have to wonder what kind of response GE could make to an A350neo with UltraFan in the early-mid 2020s.


Besides ultrafaning the A350, I think that Airbus could consider a simple stretch of the A359. By trading some (excess of) range for more seats, it would be a good answer to a PIPed/HGW 787-10.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:02 pm

tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.

My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.

Welcome back, Chris!

I like to keep in mind that the RR UltraFan will need a popular airframe to make its debut on.

If what I think will happen does happen, I think A350 will make a great (ehm) leap over the competition.

Given RR has the de-facto exclusive on A350 and that Airbus has made statements about partnering with RR on future developments, I think A350 is a natural place for the first UltraFan to appear on.

I know RR has its troubles, but then again GE is also having its troubles too, and we have no evidence of GE developing a gear for the market space we're talking about.

One would really have to wonder what kind of response GE could make to an A350neo with UltraFan in the early-mid 2020s.


Besides ultrafaning the A350, I think that Airbus could consider a simple stretch of the A359. By trading some (excess of) range for more seats, it would be a good answer to a PIPed/HGW 787-10.


Wouldn't that be too much of an overlap with A350-1000? I don't think Airbus would do that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:12 pm

LDRA wrote:
What A333 233T MTOW did to 77E

ElroyJetson wrote:
Pithy and well said. The enhanced A333 effectively killed the 77E in terms of sales. Granted the 77E could carry more payload farther, but that is often needed only in extreme cases. The A359 can carry more payload farther than any 787, but is that capability always needed?


The A330-300 burned upwards of 15% less fuel per hour than the 777-200ER. The difference between the 787-9 and A350-900 is around one-tenth that.


CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.


Well-missed and well-met, sir.


tomcat wrote:
Besides ultrafaning the A350, I think that Airbus could consider a simple stretch of the A359. By trading some (excess of) range for more seats, it would be a good answer to a PIPed/HGW 787-10.


No real need to. The structural weight difference between the two is not so much as to really hurt the A350-1000 and Airbus offers a comparable Weight Variant (WV007 at 260,000kg TOW / 223,000 ZFW) to compete on airport and navigation fees and that WV must have a corresponding de-rate of the XWB-97 to reduce maintenance costs.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:39 pm

ITSTours wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Besides ultrafaning the A350, I think that Airbus could consider a simple stretch of the A359. By trading some (excess of) range for more seats, it would be a good answer to a PIPed/HGW 787-10.


Wouldn't that be too much of an overlap with A350-1000? I don't think Airbus would do that.

Yes too much overlap. There is also technical reasons why the A350-900 stretched to 1000 length wouldn't happen.

To be a simple stretch would require both the MTOW and max landing weight to be the same. If the extra fuselage length added 6,000kg then that weight must come off the max payload to keep the same landing weight. Landing weight = empty weight + max payload + minimum fuel. So the payload for a simple stretch would probably not work for most airlines.

Secondly it would need more thrust than a normal 900. If you look the 787-10 has more thrust than the 787-9 despite having the same MTOW. This is because the longer fuselage produces more drag. So the simple stretch A350 would probably require engines with thrust half way between current two models.

Thirdly it would result in no improvement in long range fuel burn. The A350-1000's larger wing helps improve fuel burn. So what would happen is the lightweight 1000 would have better fuel burn and trip costs up to say 4000nm due to the slightly lower empty weight. The current 1000 would then have better trip cost on flights longer than 4000nm.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:53 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.


My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.



Welcome back. I think you bring up a number of excellent points. One, Airbus will likely increase the capability of the A350 if they feel there is a business case to do so. The 778 appears to be vulnerable right now. Can Airbus increase the capability of the A359 to effectively kill the 778?

And yes, no one should assume either Airbus or Boeing will rest on their laurels.
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
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Besides ultrafaning the A350, I think that Airbus could consider a simple stretch of the A359. By trading some (excess of) range for more seats, it would be a good answer to a PIPed/HGW 787-10.


No real need to. The structural weight difference between the two is not so much as to really hurt the A350-1000 and Airbus offers a comparable Weight Variant (WV007 at 260,000kg TOW / 223,000 ZFW) to compete on airport and navigation fees and that WV must have a corresponding de-rate of the XWB-97 to reduce maintenance costs.


This low MTOW WV of the A350-1000 is probably interesting for airlines having also a need for the 308t or 316t MTOW. The A350-1000 is otherwise too much of an aircraft to be used exclusively with a 260t MTOW. If an airline can be satisfied with the 787-10 payload/range, how could Airbus ever make a competitive proposal with an aircraft 20t heavier and probably much more expensive? An A359.5 (70 to 71 m long) would boast a similar range as the potential 787-10HGW while offering a slightly greater passenger capacity and being closer in weight and price than the A35K is.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:20 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
Hi all - member FKA CHRISBA777ER here, decided to join back up.

My take on this thread is that we all knew the incremental PIPs would push the 787 and A350 onwards in the lifespan of both programmes just as today's A330 or 777 is a lot more capable than one from 20 years ago. A six tonne bump to the 78X MTOW would be the largest PIP I can think of and would certainly improve the frame's appeal to anyone kicking the tyres on an A359.

Ball is now in Airbus' court to add PIPs for the A350 - there is a tendency on here to assume Boeing can do things but that Airbus cannot or wont, which is very much redolent of my time here in the early/mid 00s as a very regular poster and contributor. There are efficiency gains for the 359 to grab and these will surely be targeted at adding more range/payload to further erode the 778X and taking a percentage point here or there off fuel burn by reducing weight etc.


My first reaction on reading the NZ news was that EK will be absolutely delighted as their seven/eight hour powerhouse just became an nine/ten hour (plus) powerhouse. It will be a hugely compelling beast for them and will be able to dominate on a much larger cross section of their route network now. The timing of the PIP and NZ's business at a time when there was a lot of speculation that EK might be reconsidering their 78Xs, cannot just be a coincidence in my view.



Welcome back. I think you bring up a number of excellent points. One, Airbus will likely increase the capability of the A350 if they feel there is a business case to do so. The 778 appears to be vulnerable right now. Can Airbus increase the capability of the A359 to effectively kill the 778?

And yes, no one should assume either Airbus or Boeing will rest on their laurels.


I did not know that the A350-900 is a competitor of the 777-8X .. :roll:
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:58 am

I wonder if stretches to both the A350 -900 and -1000 are pencilled in for the ultrafan versions. The downside from additional weight and drag would be mitigated by lower fuel burn and the current lengths could still be built for ULR and F needs.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:23 am

ITSTours wrote:
Wouldn't that be too much of an overlap with A350-1000? I don't think Airbus would do that.


If the competition is between 350-900 and 350-1000, where is the problem for Airbus? It is an Airbus plane and the final price is so dependent of the overall package....
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:49 am

Olddog wrote:

If the competition is between 350-900 and 350-1000, where is the problem for Airbus? It is an Airbus plane and the final price is so dependent of the overall package....


It’s a convoluted, contrived argument

They say that Airbus should PIP the A350, have been several already including weight, aero, and engine improvements (Trent EWB EP)
They say the 787-10 is impacting on the A350 range and payload, when it is pointed out is not even close they say that’s okay you don’t need that range all the time (which I agree)
Range increases from the 787-10 are going to impact the 787-9, swept under the carpet
787 sees competition from the A330 on medium haul (787-10 list price 338.4 million vs 296.4 for the A330-900)

This arguments are being presented in such a contrived form to give the illusion that there is a real gap in the market. There is lots of overlap and options, what is good for one airline may have no, impact on another.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:06 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Welcome back. I think you bring up a number of excellent points. One, Airbus will likely increase the capability of the A350 if they feel there is a business case to do so. The 778 appears to be vulnerable right now. Can Airbus increase the capability of the A359 to effectively kill the 778?

And yes, no one should assume either Airbus or Boeing will rest on their laurels.



If anything Boeing increasing the capability of the 78X hurts the 778 more than Airbus doing anything with either of the A350's.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:35 pm

enzo011 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Welcome back. I think you bring up a number of excellent points. One, Airbus will likely increase the capability of the A350 if they feel there is a business case to do so. The 778 appears to be vulnerable right now. Can Airbus increase the capability of the A359 to effectively kill the 778?

And yes, no one should assume either Airbus or Boeing will rest on their laurels.



If anything Boeing increasing the capability of the 78X hurts the 778 more than Airbus doing anything with either of the A350's.


Not as much as the A330 / neo on the A350-800. Except that the 777-8X will have the chance to become the 777-X Freighter futures :roll:

Everyone understood that the 777-X Freighter would be based on the 777-8X.

The 777-10X concept, there is No need!
Last edited by Checklist787 on Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
planecane
Posts: 1085
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:42 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Welcome back. I think you bring up a number of excellent points. One, Airbus will likely increase the capability of the A350 if they feel there is a business case to do so. The 778 appears to be vulnerable right now. Can Airbus increase the capability of the A359 to effectively kill the 778?

And yes, no one should assume either Airbus or Boeing will rest on their laurels.



If anything Boeing increasing the capability of the 78X hurts the 778 more than Airbus doing anything with either of the A350's.


Not as much as the A330 / neo on the A350-800. Except that the 777-8X will have the chance to become the 777-X Freighter futures :roll:


Even if they didn't build the -8X (which could also mean that they do build the rumored -10X), why couldn't they build a freighter version based on the -8X design?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:09 pm

musman9853 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Quite a lot of assumptions based on a comment from a single airline, but that is par for the course with you.

If we believe the 787 vs A359 range thread in tech ops, then we see that the 789's fuel burn vs the A359 narrows/diminishes at longer ranges. The 78X will burn more fuel than the 789 (overall, not per passenger), so it's entirely possible that the A359 will still hold an edge on the very longest flights.


that's all well and good, but the vast majority of routes aren't ULH monsters than need the a350/777x.


No, but the A350 can carry a full payload pretty far, and that will be useful for a lot of airlines flying it/planning to fly it. The A350 is used on quite a few shorter routes and airlines are very happy with it.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13911
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:40 pm

Any chance you guys to keep to the topic please.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:55 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Not as much as the A330 / neo on the A350-800. Except that the 777-8X will have the chance to become the 777-X Freighter futures :roll:

Everyone understood that the 777-X Freighter would be based on the 777-8X.

The 777-10X concept, there is No need!



Nice whataboutery there. The poster asked about the A350 impact on the 778, I made a point and you have done nothing other than bring in the A330neo and the A358 and the hypothetical 777-10X to distract it seems. Well done.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:04 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Not as much as the A330 / neo on the A350-800. Except that the 777-8X will have the chance to become the 777-X Freighter futures :roll:

Everyone understood that the 777-X Freighter would be based on the 777-8X.

The 777-10X concept, there is No need!



Nice whataboutery there. The poster asked about the A350 impact on the 778, I made a point and you have done nothing other than bring in the A330neo and the A358 and the hypothetical 777-10X to distract it seems. Well done.


I do not understand or do you want to come.

I said that I do not believe in 777-10X precisely. On the other hand, what I'm saying up there is problematic about the fate of the 777-8X and A350-800.

The -8X will become a Freighter everyone knows it. In addition, I only repeat your argument.

But thank you very much! :thumbsup:
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: What does the Rumored 6T MTOW Increase for the 787-10 Mean for the A359?

Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:53 pm

I find it interesting that a year or two ago on a.net some folks were saying the 787-10 could barely fly 4000 nm. How times have changed once the facts come out.

And before folks talk about range at MTOW, the reality is very few flights leave at MTOW.

I think a safe rule of thumb is 35T payload. Maybe 40T. At those payloads the 787-10 is a very capable frame.

And btw....I love the A 350, it is a great plane. But as always there is the balance between fuel efficiency and brute ability to fly a heavy payload a long way. This debate is happening in the Project Sunrise discussion. There is the lighter more fuel efficient A351 versus the heavier but more capable 778. This is the same dynamic. Each type has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
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

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