Emirates places order for 40 787-10's

Buffalomatt1027 · Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:04 pm

How about Emirates is pissed that the A380 might stop production sooner than later ...... so canceling the A350 order was a big middle finger to get airbus' act together and take Emirates more seriously.

But if Emirates was really mad at airbus, they would order the 747-8i.

Revelation · Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:09 pm

Poor Tim. He'll have to live with the 787-10 that he says are “perfect for 7-8.5 hour missions.”.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue

Polot · Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:18 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
How about Emirates is pissed that the A380 might stop production sooner than later ...... so canceling the A350 order was a big middle finger to get airbus' act together and take Emirates more seriously.

EK canceled their A350 order 3.5 years ago...

pabloeing · Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:18 pm

¿With 4500NM at Maximun weight is only 8.5 hours plane?

dtw2hyd · Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
Poor Tim. He'll have to live with the 787-10 that he says are “perfect for 7-8.5 hour missions.”.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue

Does it include Shower and Bar?

IslandRob · Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:56 pm

ap305 wrote:
He most certainly does say it could have "changed the picture completely". There is also no need to mention it being too late if it did not have the potential for a material impact on the final choice. No one is questioning the 787-10's economics or suitability however Clark's statement is certainly not something that can be dismissed in the context of the order.

Then again, his comment could have been just another dig at Airbus, who appear to be on his sh*t list these days, rather than a sincere indication that the A359 really ever had a chance. -ir

tortugamon · Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:25 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Interesting link as Sir Tim notes an 8 hour range. That implies quite a hit in takeoff performance. That implies the 3500nm range circle I posted earlier, is probably about right.

I am just not sure he needs anything more than 8 hours of range. The article I am posting below quotes him saying 8.5 hours. I doubt they will put crew rests on any of these 787-10s and save the weight and the flight crew costs associated with the multiple crews necessary on the longer routes.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue

STC also quotes a 787-10 with a 280-seat 3-class layout which I think is new info but I haven't followed too closely.

lightsaber wrote:
Hence Tim Clark's comment on 8 hour missions (I bet that grows to 10).

I just took a look at their route map and you might be surprised at how few routes they fly in the 8.5-10.5 hour range. Beyond the 8.5 hours I really only see Japan as the only addition by stretching the range. Looking at your map above, adding 1+ hour of flight time just adds more ocean, not really many new destinations. Not sure EK rules on flight crews timing out either.

dtw2hyd wrote:
That doesn't fit with 787-10 suits 83% routes and 787-10's impeccable economics comment. 787:777 ratio should be 80:20, going forward.

It certainly fits. STC has stated multiple times that this aircraft will be used to add frequency to existing routes and add new routes that were not previously economic. Neither of those arguments suggest the 787-10 replaces 77Ws. When the 77X was purchased in 2013 the 787-10 was a known entity; its not like they changed their minds due to new information presenting itself.

77Ws fit ~356 seats in 3-class EK configuration; that is a whopping ~76 seats larger than their plan on the 787-10. Not a 1:1 replacement. The 779 only adds to this differentiation in terms of capacity.

tortugamon

lightsaber · Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:14 pm

tortugamon wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Hence Tim Clark's comment on 8 hour missions (I bet that grows to 10).

I just took a look at their route map and you might be surprised at how few routes they fly in the 8.5-10.5 hour range. Beyond the 8.5 hours I really only see Japan as the only addition by stretching the range. Looking at your map above, adding 1+ hour of flight time just adds more ocean, not really many new destinations. Not sure EK rules on flight crews timing out either.

tortugamon

I agree much more range isn't needed. I take 8 hours as 3500nm or the following image. Not much will be added with range. Korea, Philippines, and more of Indonesia and Malaysia. Only a little bit of Japan... A little more of Africa on the other side of the hub.

If you're saying very few of the routes beyond 8 hours will be flown, I would agree with you. For you are right, it takes far longer flights from DXB to be adding anything other than empty ocean.

pabloeing wrote:
¿With 4500NM at Maximun weight is only 8.5 hours plane?

No. 4500nm is with winds. It is also with cargo in the belly and a MTOW limited by the 114F/600ft barometric pressure with a crosswind. EK expects to fly every day under harsh conditions.

The reason the A359 wasn't picked is that it added weight that only helps EK to fly out to ocean (no real additional destinations versus the 787-10).

Lightsaber

dtw2hyd · Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:28 pm

tortugamon wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
That doesn't fit with 787-10 suits 83% routes and 787-10's impeccable economics comment. 787:777 ratio should be 80:20, going forward.

It certainly fits. STC has stated multiple times that this aircraft will be used to add frequency to existing routes and add new routes that were not previously economic. Neither of those arguments suggest the 787-10 replaces 77Ws. When the 77X was purchased in 2013 the 787-10 was a known entity; its not like they changed their minds due to new information presenting itself.

77Ws fit ~356 seats in 3-class EK configuration; that is a whopping ~76 seats larger than their plan on the 787-10. Not a 1:1 replacement. The 779 only adds to this differentiation in terms of capacity.

tortugamon

Like a member eloquently put it upthread, STC makes right noises for a given audience, basically av blogger and pundit types. Global financiers are totally confused about Emirates strategy.

I hope Boeing management can up their game and write an airtight contract when this commitment come to fruition. Otherwise, Boeing will be underwriting all his fancy talk. Airbus cut their losses and can move on with their life.

Emirates fleet wide load factor is 77%. So it needs to cut capacity at least by 10%. So there is no place for all the widebodies it has and on order.

FrenchPotatoEye · Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:40 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:

Emirates fleet wide load factor is 77%. So it needs to cut capacity at least by 10%. So there is no place for all the widebodies it has and on order.

All these aircraft are not arriving Monday morning - it will take a decade or more to deliver the 777X and 787 fleets. Within which time, is it fair to say that a good number of existing jets may exit the fleet? A resounding "yes".

So there may well some natural capacity attrition, which I do agree with you that needs to happen - and if Emirates dispenses with some of its 777-300ERs and A380s by 2030, then capacity may be even lower than where it is today. :thumbsup:

ElroyJetson · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:01 am

Revelation wrote:
Poor Tim. He'll have to live with the 787-10 that he says are “perfect for 7-8.5 hour missions.”.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue

Yep at MTOW. With full pax and bags the range is at least 6000nm. Sir Tim says the 78J can cover 85-90% of EK's flights. The 77W or A380 can cover the rest.

There is no denying the 78J os an outstanding aircraft. I have no doubt EK made a great decision.

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:26 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
All these aircraft are not arriving Monday morning - it will take a decade or more to deliver the 777X and 787 fleets. Within which time, is it fair to say that a good number of existing jets may exit the fleet? A resounding "yes".

Not long ago STC throws another number out DXB will be limited to 115 until 2025 ie., until EK moves to DWC.

Emirates is not able to SLB like it used to do, so another theory "EK returns planes on 12 years dot" is questionable.

Also replacing smaller 77W with bigger 779 adds unnecessary capacity which it is not able to fill.

Historical delivery pattern.

Year__B777, A380
1998 - 1,0
1999 - 2,0
2001 - 1,0
2002 - 3,0
2003 - 0,0
2004 - 0,0
2005 - 10,0
2006 - 12,0
2007 - 11,0
2008 - 12,4
2009 - 17,3
2010 - 3,8
2011 - 12,5
2012 - 22,11
2013 - 11,13
2014 - 14,13
2015 - 11,15
2016 - 16,20
2017 - 12,6(98)

Forecast
2018 - 12, 12(110)

Forecast to keep 115 number valid.

Year__B777X, A380(net,cumulative)
2019 - 1, 5 (115)
2020 - 1, 4 (115,119)
2021 - 6, 3 (115,122)
2022 - 12, 8 (115,130)
2023 - 12, 5 (115,135)
2024 - 12, 11(115,146)

That puts 777X production rate at 12/year. Throw additional 787-10s into the mix, it goes down even further.

Stitch · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:43 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Also replacing smaller 77W with bigger 779 adds unnecessary capacity which it is not able to fill.

The 777-9 will offer Emirates only marginal capacity increases over the 777-300ER. In the highest-density two-class configuration, for example, the delta is only 13 seats (440 v. 427).

jbs2886 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:50 am

Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Also replacing smaller 77W with bigger 779 adds unnecessary capacity which it is not able to fill.

The 777-9 will offer Emirates only marginal capacity increases over the 777-300ER. In the highest-density two-class configuration, for example, the delta is only 13 seats (440 v. 427).

We also don't know the configuration(s) of the 777-9. For example, the recent business class is the last 2-3-2 design for the 777 - the 777-9 won't have those "middle" seats. This likely reduces the seat count. We also don't know if EK will add amenities (e.g., bars).

The final (faulty) assumption is that EK cannot fill the capacity. Maybe they can, but at lower yields. Or, maybe EK just has a few really low LFs on some routes that a 787-10 will help. There are a lot of factors than asserting EK can't fill (all) flights based solely on LF.

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:11 am

jbs2886 wrote:
The final (faulty) assumption is that EK cannot fill the capacity. Maybe they can, but at lower yields. Or, maybe EK just has a few really low LFs on some routes that a 787-10 will help. There are a lot of factors than asserting EK can't fill (all) flights based solely on LF.

It is not a faulty assumption because premium yields topic left the building long back.

Stitch · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:35 am

jbs2886 wrote:
We also don't know the configuration(s) of the 777-9.

Emirates Fleet Planning have said that the two-class 777-9 will be configured with 440 seats [49J | 391Y].

FrenchPotatoEye · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:37 am

dtw2hyd wrote:

Not long ago STC throws another number out DXB will be limited to 115 until 2025 ie., until EK moves to DWC.
...

That puts 777X production rate at 12/year. Throw additional 787-10s into the mix, it goes down even further.

Nice. However you completely disregard the unknown factor of EK's planned (future) retirements. Further, load factor is not representative of yield. Just because EK has 77% systemwide LF doesnt mean to say on busy legs like JFK/LHR etc its not making money. EK may not need full cabins to ensure flights are full - although it could be argued the 787-10, depending on seating plans, could be easier to fill on routes across Asia/China and be able to haul more freight as well on 5000km+ routes.

Lots of variables in play.

As @Stitch notes, 777-9 will only have a marginal increase over the 777-300ERs - and in any case, EK is probably still at least a year or more away from making known its cabin layout/configs too.

Slash787 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:04 am

Does the A330neo has a better range than the 787-10?

Newbiepilot · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:19 am

Slash787 wrote:
Does the A330neo has a better range than the 787-10?

The A330-900 and 787-10 ranges are pretty close. Within a few hundred miles of each other according to Boeing although that depends on which MTOW is chosen and airplane capacity. Marketing numbers give the A330neo an advantage up to 800 miles or so, but that isn’t necessarily the real world.

cledaybuck · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:26 am

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
How about Emirates is pissed that the A380 might stop production sooner than later ...... so canceling the A350 order was a big middle finger to get airbus' act together and take Emirates more seriously.

But if Emirates was really mad at airbus, they would order the 747-8i.

Canceling 70 A350's and ordering 50 A380's doesn't seem like much of a middle finger.

NeBaNi · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:10 am

I think this order is great for all parties: Emirates, Boeing, and Airbus. Hear me out here.

For Emirates, it gets the best medium-to-long haul workhorse currently in the market, one that is unbeatable in terms of economics for 7-8hr routes. The majority of Emirates's routes fall in this category. While there are airports that are slot-restricted, like LHR, that will always require A380s as long as the demand is there, there are plenty of other airports that could use the extra frequency offered by the smaller 787-10 to feed into all 3 (or is it now 4?) of the connecting banks at DXB. I'm thinking of airports like DUS, HAM, NCE, MXP, BCN, GLA, NCL, CPH, ARN, and so on. Emirates can build up more robust connecting banks with the -10.

For Boeing, the win is obvious. A blue-chip customer buys the biggest (=most profitable) variant of a type where Boeing was looking to sell more of the bigger variants. A great order to support rate 14 going forward.

For Airbus, and here's the part where I think it is a net positive for Airbus. In the past, Emirates has ordered and cancelled three widebody types from Airbus: the A330, the A340, and th A350. I'm not sure some executives at Airbus weren't thinking it might be the case for A380s as well. Emirates demanded a 10-year production guarantee, but what happens when something big happens globally (a financial crisis/ epidemic/ fuel skyrocketing again) and Emirates decides it needs to downsize to meet the reduced demand, or invest in more fuel efficient planes, and cancels its order? Then, Airbus is stuck building white elephants. (And yes, I'm sure Airbus would have some tough cancellation penalties written into the contracts, but they can't really force a carrier to take an A380 - see the case of Skymark. What if Emirates/ Dubai decides it no longer wants to pay? Also keep in mind, writing stiff penalties will make EK more hesitant to sign.)

I agree with all the others who said that the A380, whether it is successful financially or not, has an umbrella effect for Airbus. For the first time, Airbus had a complete family lineup and became an OEM that could fit an airline's needs from 100pax to 600pax. With the A380, Airbus finally became a credible competitor to Boeing. I seem to recall threads where it was argued that Airbus could not go to engine OEMs and demand large/powerful enough engines to power the A340 as a twin, but Boeing could make the same demand for the 777. To me, with the A380, Airbus was in a position to make such demands to engine OEMs. That has not direct financial value, but I think the clout that Airbus acquired from having done the A380 is an important thing.

However, the A380 is not selling, not even to Emirates. I think with a fickle customer like Emirates, it might be better to let the A380 production die out with dignity than be at the mercy of a customer who demanded a 10-year prolongation of the line, and in the future, may suddenly cancel the contract. Hence, a net positive for Airbus.

par13del · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:12 am

So anyone think Sir Tim is just setting the stage for cancelling the 787-10 options and re-ordering the A350?
The 787-10 would become the smallest sub-fleet while the A350 would make up the bulk of the mid-range / lower capacity fleet.

aemoreira1981 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:17 am

Makes sense for EK. This plane is the perfect MTOW for them for regional flying. That said, I would hope for a top-off order for 20 or so B789s...do they need the range of the B77L on a route where the A388 or B77W is too much plane? This also signals that EK is maturing itself into right-sizing its fleet while at the same time finding a place for the A388.

bigjku · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:26 am

par13del wrote:
So anyone think Sir Tim is just setting the stage for cancelling the 787-10 options and re-ordering the A350?
The 787-10 would become the smallest sub-fleet while the A350 would make up the bulk of the mid-range / lower capacity fleet.

Umm...what?

Stitch · Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:53 am

par13del wrote:
So anyone think Sir Tim is just setting the stage for cancelling the 787-10 options and re-ordering the A350?

Tim Clark said he doesn't need the range of the A350-900 with the 777-300ER and 777-9 fleets, so I expect him to take the planes on order and add more. The only place an A350-900 at MZFW can effectively reach where a 787-10 cannot is Western Australia, so that comment makes sense as Australia is a 777-9 or A380-800 destination due to the tie-up with QF.

Eyad89 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:09 am

Stitch wrote:
par13del wrote:
So anyone think Sir Tim is just setting the stage for cancelling the 787-10 options and re-ordering the A350?

Tim Clark said he doesn't need the range of the A350-900 with the 777-300ER and 777-9 fleets, so I expect him to take the planes on order and add more. The only place an A350-900 at MZFW can effectively reach where a 787-10 cannot is Western Australia, so that comment makes sense as Australia is a 777-9 or A380-800 destination due to the tie-up with QF.

What about North/South Americas?

FrenchPotatoEye · Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:39 am

par13del wrote:
So anyone think Sir Tim is just setting the stage for cancelling the 787-10 options and re-ordering the A350?
The 787-10 would become the smallest sub-fleet while the A350 would make up the bulk of the mid-range / lower capacity fleet.

40 widebody jets is no small number. In fact its bigger than some fleets of other international airlines.

In any case, its been reported in a couple of threads on this site and others that Emirates has sixty options (or purchase rights). That'd take them into at least triple digit territory.

Seems difficult for Emirates to now want or even need the A350s which would invariably add cost and complexity to their fleet/structure etc etc etc.

enzo011 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:51 am

lightsaber wrote:
I agree much more range isn't needed. I take 8 hours as 3500nm or the following image. Not much will be added with range. Korea, Philippines, and more of Indonesia and Malaysia. Only a little bit of Japan... A little more of Africa on the other side of the hub.

If you're saying very few of the routes beyond 8 hours will be flown, I would agree with you. For you are right, it takes far longer flights from DXB to be adding anything other than empty ocean.

No. 4500nm is with winds. It is also with cargo in the belly and a MTOW limited by the 114F/600ft barometric pressure with a crosswind. EK expects to fly every day under harsh conditions.

The reason the A359 wasn't picked is that it added weight that only helps EK to fly out to ocean (no real additional destinations versus the 787-10).

Lightsaber

Does the simplified fleet (2 models basically up to now) help or hinder EK? I mean if all they need is a 4000nm frame for 80% of their flights, buying the 77W and flying it to the UK/Europe seems like a waste to me. You could argue the same for the A380, but to airport like LHR how do you replace capacity? Seems to me that while EK has been very successful in the past, they had some wastage and could have been even better with a little bit of fleet planning.

KarelXWB · Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:25 am

lightsaber wrote:
Interesting link as Sir Tim notes an 8 hour range. That implies quite a hit in takeoff performance. That implies the 3500nm range circle I posted earlier, is probably about right.

Slash787 wrote:
Does the A330neo has a better range than the 787-10?

The comments of STC confirm what I have been debating for years: the 787-10 doesn't even match the MZFW range of the latest A333. In my opinion, the 787-10 could have enjoyed another 10t MTOW increase. Not that it matters if an airline does not need the range, but when the A333 replacement cycle comes in, the 787-10 would enjoy even more orders if it could at least replace all A333 routes.

parapente · Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:44 am

Yes I think the 3.500nm chart sums it up perfectly too.It makes it very clear what job this aircraft has to do.Sir Tim also made it doubly clear in his interview regarding 'smaller' cities/destinations.
To me it makes it perfectly clear why the 359 and the beefed up 3510 were of little interest.They are far too much plane particularly when they have committed to NG 777's to replace the 777-300ers .
Well we don't actually know 100% now -some 7810's are -as stated by Emirates, as replacements.That can only refer to 773's as it's all they have.At the mo' the 778/9's are slated as a one for one replacement.So either some 779's are now for growth or...some won't happen.

I always thought that Airbus might put in a cheeky bid with 339neo's and offer to re -engine the 380 with identical T7000's as the sweetener.
But clearly 100% wrong on that!

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:49 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
....Lots of variables in play.....

Sure, but neither STC nor EK-PR ever explains how the entire puzzle fits. Always how magnificent each piece of the puzzle in isolation. That fits Jeff Goldblum's running and screaming theory.

If in five years EK will have 200x787, 60x777X and 40xA380s. That makes sense.

140xA380, 150x777X and 100x787-10s looks random at best.

Most airlines EK competing with ( from QR to AI) are done with belt-tightening and have flexible and efficient fleets. STC is still talking.

bigjku · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:55 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
....Lots of variables in play.....

Sure, but neither STC nor EK-PR ever explains how the entire puzzle fits. Always how magnificent each piece of the puzzle in isolation. That fits Jeff Goldblum's running and screaming theory.

If in five years EK will have 200x787, 60x777X and 40xA380s. That makes sense.

140xA380, 150x777X and 100x787-10s looks random at best.

Most airlines EK competing with ( from QR to AI) are done with belt-tightening and have flexible and efficient fleets. STC is still talking.

My guess is the fleet ends up moving towards this.

40-80 A380
150 77X
60-70 787-10
30-40 787-9

I think the 9’s end up being some of the exercises options for the purpose of route opening for 777 and can be used for the same role for eventual 787-10 routes. That maintains roughly their large aircraft footprint as it exist today. It downsizes some of the current routes to 787-10, uses some of them for growth and let’s you use the 9’s for additional growth.

That’s how I would do it anyway.

ExDubai · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm

787/777 reminds me somehow on the A330/340 mixed fleet. Life on the B fleet will be hell......

Revelation · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:23 pm

ExDubai wrote:
787/777 reminds me somehow on the A330/340 mixed fleet. Life on the B fleet will be hell......

What could be better than having a job featuring a spread of 789/78J/77L/77W/778/779 aircraft to fly, and living in the "worker's paradise" of Dubai?

par13del · Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:35 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
[
In any case, its been reported in a couple of threads on this site and others that Emirates has sixty options (or purchase rights).

....which is where my question arises, Sir Tim says many things in public all with motives that only become clear later on.
We know he wants the A380NEO, some have given numerous reasons why such as making an a/c only they can operate, so far Airbus has not budged, so how does he pressure / convince / etc them to move?
Complaining about a competitor being late to provide details that would have affected his purchase right after the purchase is what, we assume he was drunk, cant be he is looking for a better purchase price, he just signed, so......wheres the beef?

ExDubai · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
ExDubai wrote:
787/777 reminds me somehow on the A330/340 mixed fleet. Life on the B fleet will be hell......

What could be better than having a job featuring a spread of 789/78J/77L/77W/778/779 aircraft to fly, and living in the "worker's paradise" of Dubai?

A job featuring a spread of 789/78J/77L/77W/778/779 aircraft to fly, living in the "worker's paradise" of Dubai, compressed leave and a 100 hour roster.........

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:03 pm

par13del wrote:
... cant be he is looking for a better purchase price, he just signed, so......wheres the beef?

It is just a commitment, can flip anytime without penalties. The burn, Airbus scored a huge order, maybe they now want to speed up pending A380 deliveries and shut the line.

WIederling · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:32 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The reason the A359 wasn't picked is that it added weight that only helps EK to fly out to ocean (no real additional destinations versus the 787-10).

Is there any OEW information available on the 787-10 yet?

727200 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:12 pm

Were these the ONLY wide-bodies ordeted at this years show?

Stitch · Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:15 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
What about North/South Americas?

Those markets will (continue) to be served with the A380 and 777 fleets.

KarelXWB wrote:
The comments of STC confirm what I have been debating for years: the 787-10 doesn't even match the MZFW range of the latest A333.

The 787-10 still looks to have a not-insignificant advantage on the 251t A330-300 with similar payloads (~45,000kg) based on PIANO-X projections I have seen. It sounds like eight hours is a desired endurance (probably to save on crew rest facilities / blocked seats) more than a hard limitation of the airframe.

KarelXWB wrote:
In my opinion, the 787-10 could have enjoyed another 10t MTOW increase.

It is believed that the 787 is currently TOW-limited by the undercarriage, which is at design maximum. I do not know if it is possible for Messier-Dowty to strengthen the gear structure to support higher weights.

WIederling wrote:
Is there any OEW information available on the 787-10 yet?

Only from external sources considered biased/unreliable by a.net in general and Airbus Aficionados in particular.

Polot · Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 787-10 still looks to have a not-insignificant advantage on the 251t A330-300 with similar payloads (~45,000kg) based on PIANO-X projections I have seen. It sounds like eight hours is a desired endurance (probably to save on crew rest facilities / blocked seats) more than a hard limitation of the airframe.

I also imagine it is taking into account DXB's heat. What is the latest A333's performance out of there? Its going to be different than the standard conditions number that is likely mostly used when talking about planes.

Stitch · Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:39 pm

Polot wrote:
I also imagine it is taking into account DXB's heat. What is the latest A333's performance out of there? Its going to be different than the standard conditions number that is likely mostly used when talking about planes.

The 787-10 cannot be that sh**astic in such situations otherwise EK would not have just ordered 40 of them with options for 60. Ditto SQ, who operate out of those "hot and high" Asian airports that keesje argues are prime A350 locales.

Airbus is certainly going to be offering A330-300s and A330-900s for a fair bit less so if they were fairly better than the 787-10 in performance, one would think they would be winning all the RFPs.

fcogafa · Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:48 pm

quote 'It is believed that the 787 is currently TOW-limited by the undercarriage, which is at design maximum. I do not know if it is possible for Messier-Dowty to strengthen the gear structure to support higher weights'

There are posts in the Leeham comments section that say a 787-10ER is in the pipeline, not a great source though

jbs2886 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:12 pm

fcogafa wrote:
quote 'It is believed that the 787 is currently TOW-limited by the undercarriage, which is at design maximum. I do not know if it is possible for Messier-Dowty to strengthen the gear structure to support higher weights'

There are posts in the Leeham comments section that say a 787-10ER is in the pipeline, not a great source though

I've always believe an -ER version of the 10 is likely. The 10 is great for its current mission and wasn't a huge drain on resources; however, a -10ER will really open up the market, but needs more resources to develop than Boeing was going to commit with the 737MAX and 777X programs.

airzona11 · Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:31 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
....Lots of variables in play.....

Sure, but neither STC nor EK-PR ever explains how the entire puzzle fits. Always how magnificent each piece of the puzzle in isolation. That fits Jeff Goldblum's running and screaming theory.

If in five years EK will have 200x787, 60x777X and 40xA380s. That makes sense.

140xA380, 150x777X and 100x787-10s looks random at best.

Most airlines EK competing with ( from QR to AI) are done with belt-tightening and have flexible and efficient fleets. STC is still talking.

You aren’t trying to tell us those airlines are superior to EK are you? You mean the same QR that is losing money? AI is in no way, shape, or form a global competitor to EK.

Fact is EK is the largest long haul international airline. They must, you have to admit, know something about running a long haul operation. EK has just as efficient of fleet, and across the board has CASM advantage and they can leverage a massive hub, to funnel passenger.

On top of this order, EK also can lean on FZ and their large order of 737s.

Great order by EK, excited to see them deploy the 787s.

Breathe · Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:23 pm

Arion640 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
Breathe wrote:
I wonder if this aircraft could be used for potential routes such as EDI, BRS & BFS or would it still be too much plane for these airports?

BFS - Certainly
EDI- Probably
BRS- Not sure, the 789 goes there but the 787-10 is longer and probably requires a longer take off run? It's a push to handle the 789 at BRS. A 767 got bent up at BRS because of the short runway once, I'm not sure EK would risk brand new 78J's.

I'm sure EK would like a crack at EDI to ruffle up QR, EY and T, but a 777 and 380 are just too big for them atm.

Breathe · Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:25 pm

Rolls-Royce optimistic on Emirates’ 787 engine order

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/r ... -1.2123877

Engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce has engaged in talks with Emirates to power its fleet of 40 Boeing 787-10s the carrier announced on Sunday in a deal worth $15.1 billion in list prices.

“Emirates has not yet made an engine selection. We will be working closely with Emirates on that,” John Kelly, Rolls-Royce’s Vice-President, Customers for the Middle East, told Gulf News in an interview on Monday, adding that Rolls-Royce has “engaged” in talks already with the airline on that.

ElroyJetson · Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:50 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Interesting link as Sir Tim notes an 8 hour range. That implies quite a hit in takeoff performance. That implies the 3500nm range circle I posted earlier, is probably about right.

Slash787 wrote:
Does the A330neo has a better range than the 787-10?

The comments of STC confirm what I have been debating for years: the 787-10 doesn't even match the MZFW range of the latest A333. In my opinion, the 787-10 could have enjoyed another 10t MTOW increase. Not that it matters if an airline does not need the range, but when the A333 replacement cycle comes in, the 787-10 would enjoy even more orders if it could at least replace all A333 routes.

According to data I have seen the longest current A330-300 flight is TK's IST-ATL which is about 5100nm. Of course, we don't know if TK routinely flies this route at MTOW. My guess would be no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights

But keep in mind the A330-300 can carry a maximum of 33 LD-3 pallets. The 787-10 can carry 40 LD-3 pallets. That is 23% more capacity.
The 8.5 hour plane Tim Clark references is at MTOW. Data I have seen says the 787-10 has a 6000nm range with full pax and bags but no cargo in the hold. Airlines net says the range of the A330-300 is 5500nm with full pax and bags but no cargo.

Can the 787-10 fly 5100nm with 23% less cargo? My guess would be yes, but of course I do not know for sure. However, my guess is the A330-300 and the 787-10 are very, very close in terms of range. If you have information that suggests otherwise I'd love to see it. However, I think the range limitations of the 787-10 are overstated.

dtw2hyd · Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:18 am

airzona11 wrote:

You aren’t trying to tell us those airlines are superior to EK are you? You mean the same QR that is losing money? AI is in no way, shape, or form a global competitor to EK.

Fact is EK is the largest long haul international airline. They must, you have to admit, know something about running a long haul operation. EK has just as efficient of fleet, and across the board has CASM advantage and they can leverage a massive hub, to funnel passenger.

On top of this order, EK also can lean on FZ and their large order of 737s.

Great order by EK, excited to see them deploy the 787s.

As I said time and again, QR has flexible fleet than EK and AAB wouldn't flinch to cancel orders. Australia/NZ is the only market EK now has an advantage, and QR will bring superior premium product and lower Y fares. QR has better access to own finances, EK depends on neighbors who are in trouble. AI non-stops are eating into ME3 yields.

No country is going to give more bilateral seat allotment to Dubai just because EK and FZ keep buying bigger planes. Without a large domestic market, not having capacity discipline is a recipe for failure.

TheLion · Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:24 am

Slash787 wrote:
TheLion wrote:

Exactly. Just another example of Boeing fanboys getting overexcited after this order.

What this got to do with Boeing fanboys or Airbus fanboys? I really don't get this fight, both of them are amazing companies with great aircrafts, over the years as a Pilot I have flown the A310, B744, B757, A333 and now I currently fly the A346 and all of them have been amazing aircrafts. I even thought to apply on ME3 in thinking if I get a job on the A380 so I could fly another amazing aircraft but sadly there are no DEC for them at the moment, I love the 777, 787-10 and even the A350-1000.

Perhaps it’s because the fanboys have nothing better to do, or have little in their lives to occupy them. I’m personally a little cynical about both companies, especially given the anti-competitive practices they both employ, the arrogant imperialism and the negative impact their “defence” divisions have on our world.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net