I think we would have heard if there were engine PIP's in active progress. As far as I can tell there isn't any such. Anything that was will have been put on the slow burner during the pandemic to save cash. I am not sure how long that will continue.

More interestingly the engine manufacturers have been talking long term projects much more actively - such at the RR geared ultrafan or the LEAP Rise.

ElroyJetson wrote:

As we have already seen, the narrowbody market is recovering much more quickly than the widebody market, except for perhaps the cargo side of the business.

If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.

This IGW 787 has been talked about for 3 years now on this site with still nothing concrete coming from Boeing.

I doubt this is trivial, I doubt this is something that can be easily retrofitted, new parts may need to be designed. So I don’t see it beneficial to exiting aircraft in service.

For example on the A350-900 for the IGW they had to change the nose gear as the loads exceeded the previous gear, they did this by putting the A350-1000 nose gear on the -900. 787 engineers don’t have that option.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

As we have already seen, the narrowbody market is recovering much more quickly than the widebody market, except for perhaps the cargo side of the business.

If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.

This IGW 787 has been talked about for 3 years now on this site with still nothing concrete coming from Boeing.

I doubt this is trivial, I doubt this is something that can be easily retrofitted, new parts may need to be designed. So I don’t see it beneficial to exiting aircraft in service.

For example on the A350-900 for the IGW they had to change the nose gear as the loads exceeded the previous gear, they did this by putting the A350-1000 nose gear on the -900. 787 engineers don’t have that option.

I think Boeing had plenty on their plate in the last 3 years…

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

As we have already seen, the narrowbody market is recovering much more quickly than the widebody market, except for perhaps the cargo side of the business.

If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.

This IGW 787 has been talked about for 3 years now on this site with still nothing concrete coming from Boeing.

I doubt this is trivial, I doubt this is something that can be easily retrofitted, new parts may need to be designed. So I don’t see it beneficial to exiting aircraft in service.

For example on the A350-900 for the IGW they had to change the nose gear as the loads exceeded the previous gear, they did this by putting the A350-1000 nose gear on the -900. 787 engineers don’t have that option.

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge. BA, UA, and AA all have large 787 fleets. They all also happen to have quite a few aging 77E aircraft that will need to be replaced eventually. An enhanced 787-10 will likely make it more attractive to those airlines looking to replace those 77E's. Particularly if they already have an existing 787's in their fleets.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge. BA, UA, and AA all have large 787 fleets. They all also happen to have quite a few aging 77E aircraft that will need to be replaced eventually. An enhanced 787-10 will likely make it more attractive to those airlines looking to replace those 77E's. Particularly if they already have an existing 787's in their fleets.

The B787-10 was developed in the era of bean counters and was a low cost simple stretch development - the management did not deem it fit to develop a higher gross weight landing gear due to the increased development costs. As such the B787-9 gear was retained. Some orders were lost because of that - SQ and CX have replaced their old B777-200s with the A350-900.

If Boeing now decides that an increased weight B787-10 is now a good business case so that it can compete more effectively with the A350-900, it would make sense to talk to potential customers and determine to market potential of this new variant. Unfortunately Covid-19 has put a damper on wide body demand and this calculation is now further complicated.

flee wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge. BA, UA, and AA all have large 787 fleets. They all also happen to have quite a few aging 77E aircraft that will need to be replaced eventually. An enhanced 787-10 will likely make it more attractive to those airlines looking to replace those 77E's. Particularly if they already have an existing 787's in their fleets.

The B787-10 was developed in the era of bean counters and was a low cost simple stretch development - the management did not deem it fit to develop a higher gross weight landing gear due to the increased development costs. As such the B787-9 gear was retained. Some orders were lost because of that - SQ and CX have replaced their old B777-200s with the A350-900.

If Boeing now decides that an increased weight B787-10 is now a good business case so that it can compete more effectively with the A350-900, it would make sense to talk to potential customers and determine to market potential of this new variant. Unfortunately Covid-19 has put a damper on wide body demand and this calculation is now further complicated.

I agree with your assessment. If I were Boeing I would target BA, UA, and AA in particular for the reasons I stated above.

StTim wrote:

I think we would have heard if there were engine PIP's in active progress. As far as I can tell there isn't any such. Anything that was will have been put on the slow burner during the pandemic to save cash. I am not sure how long that will continue.

More interestingly the engine manufacturers have been talking long term projects much more actively - such at the RR geared ultrafan or the LEAP Rise.

United (UA) and Boeing work together to create an engine PiP for the 787-9. I think the main driving force was EWR - JNB and SFO - BLR. It has already been rolled out to some of the 787-9s and I think will be coming to the rest of the fleet.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge.

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge.

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

Happily, your incorrect assumption was corrected. . As I have already said, not where I was going at all.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I agree with your assessment. If I were Boeing I would target BA, UA, and AA in particular for the reasons I stated above.

And maybe KLM as they also have 772's and 787's. That airlines would have two versions of the 'ten' operating is no problem. They'll assign the high MTOW ones to different routes mostly.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge.

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

Didn’t read it that way at all.

Opus99 wrote:

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge.

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

Sorry, nobody read it that way

I did. A few posts earlier someone is mentioning to implement improvements on existing 77W.

marcelh wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

zeke wrote:

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

Sorry, nobody read it that way

I did. A few posts earlier someone is mentioning to implement improvements on existing 77W.

I am glad it wasn't only me!

Pinto wrote:

StTim wrote:

I think we would have heard if there were engine PIP's in active progress. As far as I can tell there isn't any such. Anything that was will have been put on the slow burner during the pandemic to save cash. I am not sure how long that will continue.

More interestingly the engine manufacturers have been talking long term projects much more actively - such at the RR geared ultrafan or the LEAP Rise.

United (UA) and Boeing work together to create an engine PiP for the 787-9. I think the main driving force was EWR - JNB and SFO - BLR. It has already been rolled out to some of the 787-9s and I think will be coming to the rest of the fleet.

I am not quite sure how United (UA) and Boeing will work together to produce an engine PiP.

Opus99 wrote:

Yes but was it him that mentioned the 77W? He specifically mentioned the 787-10 which AA does not have so why will he be talking about retrofitting

On pages 4&5 of this thread the IGW of the 789 was discussed with the inclusion of charts from Fred.

flee wrote:

As such the B787-9 gear was retained. Some orders were lost because of that - SQ and CX have replaced their old B777-200s with the A350-900.

Uh…you do realize that SQ is one of the largest 787-10 operators right?

Opus99 wrote:

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Your assumption of retrofitting existing aircraft was not where I was going at all, nor has anyone in this thread suggested that but you, to my knowledge.

I think everyone reading your previous comment

“If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”

You are clearly linking the yet to be confirmed improvements to existing “787 fleets”.

Sorry, nobody read it that way

I think you should just speak for yourself, I agree with Zeke and that changes nobody in at least two.

That does not say anything about how that comment was intended.

Opus99 wrote:

But did Elroy say 787 or 787-9? He said 787-10

And I believe it was also pointed out that the 787 fleets that were mentioned some do not include the 787-10 so their intention were to include models like the 787-8 and 787-9.

Unless you disagree and are now saying AA has the 787-10 in their fleet ?

Is the take away from this it is your view that none of the unconfirmed improvements can be implemented on any 787 currently in service ? That would result in decreased lease and resale value for those aircraft.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

But did Elroy say 787 or 787-9? He said 787-10

And I believe it was also pointed out that the 787 fleets that were mentioned some do not include the 787-10 so their intention were to include models like the 787-8 and 787-9.

Unless you disagree and are now saying AA has the 787-10 in their fleet ?

Is the take away from this it is your view that none of the unconfirmed improvements can be implemented on any 787 currently in service ? That would result in decreased lease and resale value for those aircraft.

It’s fairly clear what Elroy meant with his statement, I’m not sure why suddenly people are being obtuse and we are suddenly having this debate. A higher MTOW and PIPed 787-10 would have better payload/range than current. That would make it more attractive to large 787 operators like BA, UA, AA who have a lot of 77Es that need replacing in the coming decade, and give them more options than just the A359 which some members insist is the only suitable replacement for the plane.

Or are we pretending that this higher MTOW/PIPed 787-10 would no longer have any commonality with 788 and 789s?

As for decreased value and lease rates…so what? At this point Boeing has built about a 1000 of these older 787s. Their value won’t suddenly collapse to scrap value if a better version becomes available. The 242t A333 wasn’t available until 2015, yet older A333s seem to be doing fine.

lightsaber wrote:

I have no doubt RR/Airbus will PiP. The difference is it enables 787-10 missions. For the A350, it improves economics and ULH, but not really any new missions.

As already noted, no new engine. There is no business case to destroy the TrentXWB economies of scale and for RR to spend $10+ billion USD equivalent over ten years. Think about that, engines take about 3 years longer to develop than a new aircraft.

Are you talking about TrentXWB 10 billion or ultrafan 10 billion? In case of the former a 2028-2030 EIS would mean a 13-15 year run for the TrentXWB and then continuing for the A350F which would not seem that bad. If you mean the later, how much of that 10 billion has already been spent?

lightsaber wrote:

This isn't Pratt on the A320NEO hungry to prove themselves or GE vs. RR vs. Pratt on the 787 where all bid aggressive as Pratt was going to be kicked (and were) kicked out of the widebody market if they didn't get on the 787.

Now, Pratt did a brilliant plan on the PW1500G/1200G (stillborn)/PW800 to attack a very vulnerable GE and RR in that market (obsolete engines). There is no easy push for Airbus/RR, so they will PiP.

Lightsaber

How about RR being hungry to regain a very significant increase in market share in the widebody market (they don't seem to have options on the NB front) and Airbus in one swoop strengthening their offering against two Boeing programs simultaneously?

As for Airbus this scenario would even more beneficiary, perhaps some assistance in financing would be given to RR.


Rolls-Royce:

- Maintaining lead in WB GTF
- Likely 100% market share in 777x/A350K segment
- Eventual ultrafan variant for 787 could claw RR 787 market share back up from the current 40% (after Airbus exclusivity period, unless exclusivity remains depending on financing conditions).
- Any extra A350 sale over 787 would mean more RR market share in that market
- Higher resale value due to lower SFC will also mean higher margin
- All this market share increase will equally increase their maintenance revenue.
- Lower nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions (very important in some markets).
- Lower noise

Airbus:

- An ultrafan A350-"1050" would probably erase any future 777X sales prospect.
- Ultrafan SFC advantage would help the A350 against the 787 becoming more capable but at lower weight than the A350.
- Ultrafan would help the business case of a ~265T, A350-”850” as a replacement for the A330NEO.

A350-"850"
64.8m
265T

A350-"950"
70.8m
283T

A350-"1050"
77.8m
319-325T

- The “850” would be more capable than the 787-9 (wing, MTOW and SFC) but with no CASM penalty because of the Ulrafan SFC advantage
- The “950” would to the same to the 787-10.
- The “1050” would erase any future 777x sales except for maybe a freighter.


Now this all a lot about Airbus in a 787HGW thread, but I think it is relevant for decisions made on future 787 variants.


On the 787 wing
I think this post explains the situation well:

3 factors lead Boeing to drop the concept for a larger wing on the 789:

1) Budget overruns were already killing the 787 program. They needed to find a way to trim 789 development cost (and risk), and this was one way of doing that.
2) The final 788 wing performance was better than expectations/projections. It would perform "good enough" on the 789 for the majority of missions.
3) The proposed larger wing would have reduced cruise burn and therefore would been advantageous on the longest flights. It also would have competed more equally with today's A359 performance at range. As previously stated, due to how overweight the 787 program was compared to original expectations, the MLG didn't have additional margin to carry this heavier wing by increasing MTOW. Therefore, this heavier but better wing would have reduced available payload (and likely increased fuel burn) on short to mid range flights, which today still makes up a large percentage of the number of flights flown by the type. Boeing's decision to keep the 787 optimized in this middle range is one of the differentiator factors that have helped it against the A359. It's a great jack of all trades.

In short, Boeing determined it was not worth the additional investment (time, risk, and $$$) for improved performance at extreme end of the envelope. It was the right move, IMHO.

I agree it was the right move, but I reckon the time is coming to revisit that decision now that we've got the 787-10 and MTOW increases as well as past and future engine SFC improvements are making the extreme end of the envelope not so extreme any more for the 787.

Polot wrote:

flee wrote:

As such the B787-9 gear was retained. Some orders were lost because of that - SQ and CX have replaced their old B777-200s with the A350-900.

Uh…you do realize that SQ is one of the largest 787-10 operators right?

SQ currently has 58 A350-900s and 15 B787-10s and they are deployed in a similar fashion as their previous fleet - A350s replacing B777s and B787s replacing A330s.

Polot wrote:

It’s fairly clear what Elroy meant with his statement, I’m not sure why suddenly people are being obtuse and we are suddenly having this debate. A higher MTOW and PIPed 787-10 would have better payload/range than current. That would make it more attractive to large 787 operators like BA, UA, AA who have a lot of 77Es that need replacing in the coming decade, and give them more options than just the A359 which some members insist is the only suitable replacement for the plane.

Well written and I think you nailed it exactly. It's not does it make it better than an A350 - which would be tough to do as it is a real hot rod - it's just whether or not an increase in MTOW and a significant PIP makes it a viable option to cover 95% of projected missions. If you need a little extra then the same improvements ported to 789 can cover that.

Given the pushback on here, I think it would make the 781 a viable option in the A359 class.

The A350 may beat it on fuel burn and be more capable on the high end, however I don't think Airbus is anywhere close to being able to sell at a price where the lower(an assumption - but I have yet to see anything disproving this) 787 capital cost becomes a significant factor.

I strongly suspect the member that has told us what tech from Ge9X is portable to GeNX may be trying to tell us something but due to NDA's or not wanting to get friends in trouble may not be able to come right out and say it's going to happen and may be in planning stages.

Will it happen in the next 2-3 years - who knows? I can see an announcement within 24 months with delivery around 2026 - when 12 year leases on a lot of 787's start to end. I think it's pretty naive to believe that GE and possibly Rolls won't put any effort into improving the existing engines before cleansheet engines are available 10+ years from now. GE does have an incentive to make the GeNX better to take more of the market from Rolls on 787. Rolls may not have the resources to do an economical PIP and continue work on Ultrafan given its lack of resources.

Rolls may decide to delay Ultrafan to later in the 2030's and work on PIP's of its existing product. That seems like a wise move for Rolls.

Between the two lines there will probably be something like 1500-2000 frames delivered between 2025 and 2035, once traffic gets back to previous levels.

Even ignoring growth, how many more WB's need to be ordered just to replace what will be retiring later this decade or early next? A330 and 77X will probably not get a lot of that market.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I have no doubt RR/Airbus will PiP. The difference is it enables 787-10 missions. For the A350, it improves economics and ULH, but not really any new missions.

As already noted, no new engine. There is no business case to destroy the TrentXWB economies of scale and for RR to spend $10+ billion USD equivalent over ten years. Think about that, engines take about 3 years longer to develop than a new aircraft.

Are you talking about TrentXWB 10 billion or ultrafan 10 billion? In case of the former a 2028-2030 EIS would mean a 13-15 year run for the TrentXWB and then continuing for the A350F which would not seem that bad. If you mean the later, how much of that 10 billion has already been spent?

lightsaber wrote:

This isn't Pratt on the A320NEO hungry to prove themselves or GE vs. RR vs. Pratt on the 787 where all bid aggressive as Pratt was going to be kicked (and were) kicked out of the widebody market if they didn't get on the 787.

Now, Pratt did a brilliant plan on the PW1500G/1200G (stillborn)/PW800 to attack a very vulnerable GE and RR in that market (obsolete engines). There is no easy push for Airbus/RR, so they will PiP.

Lightsaber

How about RR being hungry to regain a very significant increase in market share in the widebody market (they don't seem to have options on the NB front) and Airbus in one swoop strengthening their offering against two Boeing programs simultaneously?

As for Airbus this scenario would even more beneficiary, perhaps some assistance in financing would be given to RR.


Rolls-Royce:

- Maintaining lead in WB GTF
- Likely 100% market share in 777x/A350K segment
- Eventual ultrafan variant for 787 could claw RR 787 market share back up from the current 40% (after Airbus exclusivity period, unless exclusivity remains depending on financing conditions).
- Any extra A350 sale over 787 would mean more RR market share in that market
- Higher resale value due to lower SFC will also mean higher margin
- All this market share increase will equally increase their maintenance revenue.
- Lower nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions (very important in some markets).
- Lower noise

Airbus:

- An ultrafan A350-"1050" would probably erase any future 777X sales prospect.
- Ultrafan SFC advantage would help the A350 against the 787 becoming more capable but at lower weight than the A350.
- Ultrafan would help the business case of a ~265T, A350-”850” as a replacement for the A330NEO.

A350-"850"
64.8m
265T

A350-"950"
70.8m
283T

A350-"1050"
77.8m
319-325T

- The “850” would be more capable than the 787-9 (wing, MTOW and SFC) but with no CASM penalty because of the Ulrafan SFC advantage
- The “950” would to the same to the 787-10.
- The “1050” would erase any future 777x sales except for maybe a freighter.


Now this all a lot about Airbus in a 787HGW thread, but I think it is relevant for decisions made on future 787 variants.


On the 787 wing
I think this post explains the situation well:

3 factors lead Boeing to drop the concept for a larger wing on the 789:

1) Budget overruns were already killing the 787 program. They needed to find a way to trim 789 development cost (and risk), and this was one way of doing that.
2) The final 788 wing performance was better than expectations/projections. It would perform "good enough" on the 789 for the majority of missions.
3) The proposed larger wing would have reduced cruise burn and therefore would been advantageous on the longest flights. It also would have competed more equally with today's A359 performance at range. As previously stated, due to how overweight the 787 program was compared to original expectations, the MLG didn't have additional margin to carry this heavier wing by increasing MTOW. Therefore, this heavier but better wing would have reduced available payload (and likely increased fuel burn) on short to mid range flights, which today still makes up a large percentage of the number of flights flown by the type. Boeing's decision to keep the 787 optimized in this middle range is one of the differentiator factors that have helped it against the A359. It's a great jack of all trades.

In short, Boeing determined it was not worth the additional investment (time, risk, and $$$) for improved performance at extreme end of the envelope. It was the right move, IMHO.

I agree it was the right move, but I reckon the time is coming to revisit that decision now that we've got the 787-10 and MTOW increases as well as past and future engine SFC improvements are making the extreme end of the envelope not so extreme any more for the 787.

Very simply you are not comparing Apples to Apples.

You are talking about a PIP and increasing the MTOW on 787 which may cost $1B in total and could be delivered in less than 5 years to a $15-20B program (Engine $10B, 3 custom length frames - $5-10B) that you may not be able to deliver in numbers until after 2032 - assuming everything goes well on an Engine that has a ton of new tech.

If Airbus goes to that amount of investment - which they have no real reason to do so - why do you not think Boeing would as well?

flee wrote:

Polot wrote:

flee wrote:

As such the B787-9 gear was retained. Some orders were lost because of that - SQ and CX have replaced their old B777-200s with the A350-900.

Uh…you do realize that SQ is one of the largest 787-10 operators right?

SQ currently has 58 A350-900s and 15 B787-10s and they are deployed in a similar fashion as their previous fleet - A350s replacing B777s and B787s replacing A330s.

Select A350s also replaced A330s and 787s also replaced 772 and 773As…together both are a part of the regional fleet. SQ mixes and matches regional A350s and 787s depending on market need. The 787-10 was never an option to replace long haul 777s at SQ, considering SQ ordered the A359 for that role long before the 787-10 variant was even launched (and SQ was the 787-10 launch customer along with being first operator).

morrisond wrote:

Polot wrote:

It’s fairly clear what Elroy meant with his statement, I’m not sure why suddenly people are being obtuse and we are suddenly having this debate. A higher MTOW and PIPed 787-10 would have better payload/range than current. That would make it more attractive to large 787 operators like BA, UA, AA who have a lot of 77Es that need replacing in the coming decade, and give them more options than just the A359 which some members insist is the only suitable replacement for the plane.

Well written and I think you nailed it exactly. It's not does it make it better than an A350 - which would be tough to do as it is a real hot rod - it's just whether or not an increase in MTOW and a significant PIP makes it a viable option to cover 95% of projected missions. If you need a little extra then the same improvements ported to 789 can cover that.

Given the pushback on here, I think it would make the 781 a viable option in the A359 class.

The A350 may beat it on fuel burn and be more capable on the high end, however I don't think Airbus is anywhere close to being able to sell at a price where the lower(an assumption - but I have yet to see anything disproving this) 787 capital cost becomes a significant factor.

I strongly suspect the member that has told us what tech from Ge9X is portable to GeNX may be trying to tell us something but due to NDA's or not wanting to get friends in trouble may not be able to come right out and say it's going to happen and may be in planning stages.

Will it happen in the next 2-3 years - who knows? I can see an announcement within 24 months with delivery around 2026 - when 12 year leases on a lot of 787's start to end. I think it's pretty naive to believe that GE and possibly Rolls won't put any effort into improving the existing engines before cleansheet engines are available 10+ years from now. GE does have an incentive to make the GeNX better to take more of the market from Rolls on 787. Rolls may not have the resources to do an economical PIP and continue work on Ultrafan given its lack of resources.

Rolls may decide to delay Ultrafan to later in the 2030's and work on PIP's of its existing product. That seems like a wise move for Rolls.

Between the two lines there will probably be something like 1500-2000 frames delivered between 2025 and 2035, once traffic gets back to previous levels.

Even ignoring growth, how many more WB's need to be ordered just to replace what will be retiring later this decade or early next? A330 and 77X will probably not get a lot of that market.

The deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, even after I clarified further, is simply an attempt to change the subject and derail the thread. I certainly never used the phrase " retrofit " nor did I intend it. As I have since clarified it precisely, why the debate?

An upgraded 787-10 should make it a more attractive option to replace aging 77E's, particularly with those airlines who already have large fleets of 787's such as AA, UA, BA, and as someone else mentioned, KLM, and who also have 77E's.

This is not difficult to understand. So since it is now beyond crystal clear, lets move on.

ElroyJetson wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Polot wrote:

It’s fairly clear what Elroy meant with his statement, I’m not sure why suddenly people are being obtuse and we are suddenly having this debate. A higher MTOW and PIPed 787-10 would have better payload/range than current. That would make it more attractive to large 787 operators like BA, UA, AA who have a lot of 77Es that need replacing in the coming decade, and give them more options than just the A359 which some members insist is the only suitable replacement for the plane.

Well written and I think you nailed it exactly. It's not does it make it better than an A350 - which would be tough to do as it is a real hot rod - it's just whether or not an increase in MTOW and a significant PIP makes it a viable option to cover 95% of projected missions. If you need a little extra then the same improvements ported to 789 can cover that.

Given the pushback on here, I think it would make the 781 a viable option in the A359 class.

The A350 may beat it on fuel burn and be more capable on the high end, however I don't think Airbus is anywhere close to being able to sell at a price where the lower(an assumption - but I have yet to see anything disproving this) 787 capital cost becomes a significant factor.

I strongly suspect the member that has told us what tech from Ge9X is portable to GeNX may be trying to tell us something but due to NDA's or not wanting to get friends in trouble may not be able to come right out and say it's going to happen and may be in planning stages.

Will it happen in the next 2-3 years - who knows? I can see an announcement within 24 months with delivery around 2026 - when 12 year leases on a lot of 787's start to end. I think it's pretty naive to believe that GE and possibly Rolls won't put any effort into improving the existing engines before cleansheet engines are available 10+ years from now. GE does have an incentive to make the GeNX better to take more of the market from Rolls on 787. Rolls may not have the resources to do an economical PIP and continue work on Ultrafan given its lack of resources.

Rolls may decide to delay Ultrafan to later in the 2030's and work on PIP's of its existing product. That seems like a wise move for Rolls.

Between the two lines there will probably be something like 1500-2000 frames delivered between 2025 and 2035, once traffic gets back to previous levels.

Even ignoring growth, how many more WB's need to be ordered just to replace what will be retiring later this decade or early next? A330 and 77X will probably not get a lot of that market.

The deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, even after I clarified further, is simply an attempt to change the subject and derail the thread. I certainly never used the phrase " retrofit " nor did I intend it. As I have since clarified it precisely, why the debate?

An upgraded 787-10 should make it a more attractive option to replace aging 77E's, particularly with those airlines who already have large fleets of 787's such as AA, UA, BA, and as someone else mentioned, KLM, and who also have 77E's.

This is not difficult to understand. So since it is now beyond crystal clear, lets move on.

Where did I talk about Retrofit?

StTim wrote:

Pinto wrote:

StTim wrote:

I think we would have heard if there were engine PIP's in active progress. As far as I can tell there isn't any such. Anything that was will have been put on the slow burner during the pandemic to save cash. I am not sure how long that will continue.

More interestingly the engine manufacturers have been talking long term projects much more actively - such at the RR geared ultrafan or the LEAP Rise.

United (UA) and Boeing work together to create an engine PiP for the 787-9. I think the main driving force was EWR - JNB and SFO - BLR. It has already been rolled out to some of the 787-9s and I think will be coming to the rest of the fleet.

I am not quite sure how United (UA) and Boeing will work together to produce an engine PiP.

Might not be Boeing, however it has already started.

viewtopic.php?t=1451747

Pinto wrote:

StTim wrote:

Pinto wrote:

United (UA) and Boeing work together to create an engine PiP for the 787-9. I think the main driving force was EWR - JNB and SFO - BLR. It has already been rolled out to some of the 787-9s and I think will be coming to the rest of the fleet.

I am not quite sure how United (UA) and Boeing will work together to produce an engine PiP.

Might not be Boeing, however it has already started.

viewtopic.php?t=1451747

I read the thread and was very confused if it was a new development or just a plug upgrade UA were taking.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, even after I clarified further, is simply an attempt to change the subject and derail the thread. I certainly never used the phrase " retrofit " nor did I intend it. As I have since clarified it precisely, why the debate?

An upgraded 787-10 should make it a more attractive option to replace aging 77E's, particularly with those airlines who already have large fleets of 787's such as AA, UA, BA, and as someone else mentioned, KLM, and who also have 77E's.

This is not difficult to understand. So since it is now beyond crystal clear, lets move on.

Just before your post, TravelQ stated “This could also be the case with the 787. If some of the PIP's/upgrades are retrofittable, 787 operators will have the option of upgrading existing 787's for their normal day to day operations (where there is no benefit in buying new aircraft) and buying new 787's (with the higher MTOW) for routes where the A350 has an advantage. With over a 1000 787's in service this could be a very attractive option.”

Your post subsequently referenced “If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”. There was no “deliberate misinterpretation” on my part at all, your post did not mention the 77E. That was only mentioned after I had made my post.

Jayunited has given us some real insight into the 787-10 deployment with UA and has said talked about the route to AKL, the 787-10 currently can only make it there with passengers and bags. A “6 ton MTOW bump” (5.4 tonnes) will likely take over a tonne of fuel to carry the additional payload over the distance, so effectively it only adds around 4 tonne increase to the revenue payload.

That is still far from a satisfactory replacement for a 77E where a 77E is being used for passengers and cargo long distance.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, even after I clarified further, is simply an attempt to change the subject and derail the thread. I certainly never used the phrase " retrofit " nor did I intend it. As I have since clarified it precisely, why the debate?

An upgraded 787-10 should make it a more attractive option to replace aging 77E's, particularly with those airlines who already have large fleets of 787's such as AA, UA, BA, and as someone else mentioned, KLM, and who also have 77E's.

This is not difficult to understand. So since it is now beyond crystal clear, lets move on.

Just before your post, TravelQ stated “This could also be the case with the 787. If some of the PIP's/upgrades are retrofittable, 787 operators will have the option of upgrading existing 787's for their normal day to day operations (where there is no benefit in buying new aircraft) and buying new 787's (with the higher MTOW) for routes where the A350 has an advantage. With over a 1000 787's in service this could be a very attractive option.”

Your post subsequently referenced “If the 6 ton MTOW bump occurs with the 787-10 along with some of the PIP's mentioned, it gives more options to various airlines. I am thinking specifically of BA, UA, and AA that already have large 787 fleets.”. There was no “deliberate misinterpretation” on my part at all, your post did not mention the 77E. That was only mentioned after I had made my post.

Jayunited has given us some real insight into the 787-10 deployment with UA and has said talked about the route to AKL, the 787-10 currently can only make it there with passengers and bags. A “6 ton MTOW bump” (5.4 tonnes) will likely take over a tonne of fuel to carry the additional payload over the distance, so effectively it only adds around 4 tonne increase to the revenue payload.

That is still far from a satisfactory replacement for a 77E where a 77E is being used for passengers and cargo long distance.

So the 787-10 is "far from a satisfactory replacement for the 77E? " According to who?
The airlines involved will make that decision, and my guess is the opinions of various a net pundits will not weigh heavily in their decision making process.

flipdewaf wrote:

Apologies for the size of the image but hopefully its useful to get the image across.

As before each of the 8 charts shows relative performance of the jets B789 on the top followed by 781 next then A59 and the A35K on the bottom.
The left row shows the 787s with increased 260t takeoff weights and the right with standard 254t weights. The green areas represent where the particular aircraft has the lowest CASM, the blue where it is within 5% of the lowest CASM and the red where it is over 5% off the lowest CASM. The X axis on each chart is the Range (1-9000nm) and the Y axis shwing the potential payload available to be taken on the mission (demonstating the ability of an aircraft to offset the Pax costs through freight).


As expected the band of green increased for the 781 and the green shifted upwards in range for the 789. Correspondingly the band of green for the A359 reduced in size as the sweet spot for the 789 claimed some of those mission profiles. Th A35k remains the aircraft of choice for long range and high payload mission but below 6000nm has to be taking an awful lot of payload to be useful but isnt influenced by the changes to the 787 (hence its unlikely that the Sunrise routes will suddenly go to the 787 with a 260t MTOW implemented).

The big change that I noticed in the charts was more along the available mission profiles that are within 5% of the minimum CASM. The big opportunity opened up by the weight increases for the 789 is in the higher payload at higher ranges and the huge flexibility of the blue area with the A359 would be basically matched by the 789. The low end of the competitive space for the 787 and A359 appear to be Sub 4knm with less than 10t of cargo, this is the narrowbody territory.

Off topic: As I write this I realise why the 781 hasnt sold as well as one might expect the "CASM King" to do and its that whilst is is clearly better than the volume selling 789 and A359 the latter are "good enough" for much more of the spectrum.

Fred

Fred, if it's not too much of a bother, it would be interesting to see 789 vs 77E and 781 vs 77W as it might help resolve the current squabble.

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Apologies for the size of the image but hopefully its useful to get the image across.

As before each of the 8 charts shows relative performance of the jets B789 on the top followed by 781 next then A59 and the A35K on the bottom.
The left row shows the 787s with increased 260t takeoff weights and the right with standard 254t weights. The green areas represent where the particular aircraft has the lowest CASM, the blue where it is within 5% of the lowest CASM and the red where it is over 5% off the lowest CASM. The X axis on each chart is the Range (1-9000nm) and the Y axis shwing the potential payload available to be taken on the mission (demonstating the ability of an aircraft to offset the Pax costs through freight).


As expected the band of green increased for the 781 and the green shifted upwards in range for the 789. Correspondingly the band of green for the A359 reduced in size as the sweet spot for the 789 claimed some of those mission profiles. Th A35k remains the aircraft of choice for long range and high payload mission but below 6000nm has to be taking an awful lot of payload to be useful but isnt influenced by the changes to the 787 (hence its unlikely that the Sunrise routes will suddenly go to the 787 with a 260t MTOW implemented).

The big change that I noticed in the charts was more along the available mission profiles that are within 5% of the minimum CASM. The big opportunity opened up by the weight increases for the 789 is in the higher payload at higher ranges and the huge flexibility of the blue area with the A359 would be basically matched by the 789. The low end of the competitive space for the 787 and A359 appear to be Sub 4knm with less than 10t of cargo, this is the narrowbody territory.

Off topic: As I write this I realise why the 781 hasnt sold as well as one might expect the "CASM King" to do and its that whilst is is clearly better than the volume selling 789 and A359 the latter are "good enough" for much more of the spectrum.

Fred

Fred, if it's not too much of a bother, it would be interesting to see 789 vs 77E and 781 vs 77W as it might help resolve the current squabble.

Fred's analysis is usually right on the money. I asked him early in the thread based on his analysis if the upgraded 787-10 could fly a 40 ton payload 5000-6000 nmi. He said yes, but folks should go directly to his post to see his precise comments.

To be clear, I am not suggesting an enhanced 787-10 can fly every mission profile of a 77E. I am merely suggesting that the upgrade might present a more attractive option to airlines with existing 787 fleets looking to replace their 77E's such as BA, UA, AA, or KLM.

But I agree with you. If Fred is willing, I think his analysis could be very helpful. No single airplane can be all things to all airlines.

There seems to be consensus about 6T. So my question is, other than the 2019 rumours about the TOW being 6T, is there more relevant and recent evidence that supports this figure?

My further question then follows if there's no recent evidence, even if indirect, of the 6T. The range boost referred to in the Leeham article of around 1,000 nm is significant. Similarly, the 787-9 was also stated to get huge range boost. Even combined with an engine PIP, is 6T likely to deliver 1,000 nm range boost?

The type of verbiage news publications used in their coverage is another factor. It sounds like a more impressive increase than 6T. One article even refers to new variants. Very recently Airbus just increased the MTOW of the A359 by 3T without a much fanfare.

With the above considered, isn't it possible that the TOW increase could be more?

ElroyJetson wrote:

So the 787-10 is "far from a satisfactory replacement for the 77E? " According to who?
The airlines involved will make that decision, and my guess is the opinions of various a net pundits will not weigh heavily in their decision making process.

It would be useful to review jayuniteds posts regarding this. He said when cargo uplift is required they use the 777. When it’s passengers only it’s 787-10.

Opus99 wrote:

For me the fact that ANZ selected this upgraded 787-10 over the A350 tells you that an upgraded 787-10 definitely pulls some weight. The A350 has the advantage on longer routes but 787-10IGW also has its own credits.

ANZ said at the time that the 777-300 replacement cycle had not been considered and the A350/77X were still on the table.

They also said the 787-10 was for delivery 2022-2025 for the Pacific Rim routes, not transpacific like many on here tried to claim.

Source https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... order/amp/

Since covid everything has changed and it was discussed in another thread that NZ will retire all of their 777s, and probably replace them with 787-9s. A very high likelihood that the 787-10 will not make the fleet. In the last results the 787-10 wasn’t in the fleet plan published, just 787-9.

The 787-9s are being used for 777-300 replacement, with only 2 more 787-9s schedule for delivery in the near future in 2024

“Contracted Boeing 787 order initially intended to replace the Boeing 777-200 fleet but will now replace the Boeing 777-300 fleet, given permanent retirement of 8 Boeing 777-200 aircraft in 2020”

From page 18 https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf

majano wrote:

My further question then follows if there's no recent evidence, even if indirect, of the 6T. The range boost referred to in the Leeham article of around 1,000 nm is significant. Similarly, the 787-9 was also stated to get huge range boost. Even combined with an engine PIP, is 6T likely to deliver 1,000 nm range boost?

It’s 6 ton (ie 12000 lb) not 6 tonnes (ie 13200 lb).

12000 lb extra at the start of the flight is less than 10,000 lb at the end of the flight as it costs fuel to carry fuel. More like 400 nm.

zeke wrote:

majano wrote:

My further question then follows if there's no recent evidence, even if indirect, of the 6T. The range boost referred to in the Leeham article of around 1,000 nm is significant. Similarly, the 787-9 was also stated to get huge range boost. Even combined with an engine PIP, is 6T likely to deliver 1,000 nm range boost?

It’s 6 ton (ie 12000 lb) not 6 tonnes (ie 13200 lb).

12000 lb extra at the start of the flight is less than 10,000 lb at the end of the flight as it costs fuel to carry fuel. More like 400 nm.

Thanks for the correction and response Zeke. So in your opinion, what type of MTOW increase would an aircraft like the 787-10 require to gain 1,000 nm range? Others in the know are obviously also welcome to respond.
Also to the house at large, why then is there a fixation around the 12,000lb?

To be clear, the reference to jayunited's comments were specific to the SFO-AKL route which is 5676 nmi. Of course, the route was flown by UA's existing 787-10 aircraft, so any observations about capability are somewhat moot as it does not take into account the proposed increase in MTOW of an enhanced 787-10. Hence why an enhanced 787-10 might be more attractive as a 77E replacement.

zeke wrote:

majano wrote:

My further question then follows if there's no recent evidence, even if indirect, of the 6T. The range boost referred to in the Leeham article of around 1,000 nm is significant. Similarly, the 787-9 was also stated to get huge range boost. Even combined with an engine PIP, is 6T likely to deliver 1,000 nm range boost?

It’s 6 ton (ie 12000 lb) not 6 tonnes (ie 13200 lb).

12000 lb extra at the start of the flight is less than 10,000 lb at the end of the flight as it costs fuel to carry fuel. More like 400 nm.

A PIP worth 3-4% (engine plus aero) plus maybe some weight loss might be what gets you to 1,000nm

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

So the 787-10 is "far from a satisfactory replacement for the 77E? " According to who?
The airlines involved will make that decision, and my guess is the opinions of various a net pundits will not weigh heavily in their decision making process.

It would be useful to review jayuniteds posts regarding this. He said when cargo uplift is required they use the 777. When it’s passengers only it’s 787-10.

Opus99 wrote:

For me the fact that ANZ selected this upgraded 787-10 over the A350 tells you that an upgraded 787-10 definitely pulls some weight. The A350 has the advantage on longer routes but 787-10IGW also has its own credits.

ANZ said at the time that the 777-300 replacement cycle had not been considered and the A350/77X were still on the table.

They also said the 787-10 was for delivery 2022-2025 for the Pacific Rim routes, not transpacific like many on here tried to claim.

Source https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... order/amp/

Since covid everything has changed and it was discussed in another thread that NZ will retire all of their 777s, and probably replace them with 787-9s. A very high likelihood that the 787-10 will not make the fleet. In the last results the 787-10 wasn’t in the fleet plan published, just 787-9.

The 787-9s are being used for 777-300 replacement, with only 2 more 787-9s schedule for delivery in the near future in 2024

“Contracted Boeing 787 order initially intended to replace the Boeing 777-200 fleet but will now replace the Boeing 777-300 fleet, given permanent retirement of 8 Boeing 777-200 aircraft in 2020”

From page 18 https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf

I find reference to the 787-10 on page 19 of the ANZ presentation in the 2027 column. Is this the uncommitted fleet plan in your view or do I misunderstand your point?

majano wrote:

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

So the 787-10 is "far from a satisfactory replacement for the 77E? " According to who?
The airlines involved will make that decision, and my guess is the opinions of various a net pundits will not weigh heavily in their decision making process.

It would be useful to review jayuniteds posts regarding this. He said when cargo uplift is required they use the 777. When it’s passengers only it’s 787-10.

Opus99 wrote:

For me the fact that ANZ selected this upgraded 787-10 over the A350 tells you that an upgraded 787-10 definitely pulls some weight. The A350 has the advantage on longer routes but 787-10IGW also has its own credits.

ANZ said at the time that the 777-300 replacement cycle had not been considered and the A350/77X were still on the table.

They also said the 787-10 was for delivery 2022-2025 for the Pacific Rim routes, not transpacific like many on here tried to claim.

Source https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... order/amp/

Since covid everything has changed and it was discussed in another thread that NZ will retire all of their 777s, and probably replace them with 787-9s. A very high likelihood that the 787-10 will not make the fleet. In the last results the 787-10 wasn’t in the fleet plan published, just 787-9.

The 787-9s are being used for 777-300 replacement, with only 2 more 787-9s schedule for delivery in the near future in 2024

“Contracted Boeing 787 order initially intended to replace the Boeing 777-200 fleet but will now replace the Boeing 777-300 fleet, given permanent retirement of 8 Boeing 777-200 aircraft in 2020”

From page 18 https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/air ... tation.pdf

I find reference to the 787-10 on page 19 of the ANZ presentation in the 2027 column. Is this the uncommitted fleet plan in your view or do I misunderstand your point?

The proposed 6 ton increased in MTOW to my knowledge has not been definitively confirmed by Boeing despite what some have said. If anyone has a link from Boeing with a definitive statement, by all means, please post.

If the 6 ton increase is true that would mean roughly a 400 nmi increase in range or equivalent payload capability.